Park Acreage & Our Max Buildout Population...is there an error?

**Update** I have received an email from the Mayor that was forwarded on to me from city engineer Brandon Jones:

"Mayor, I read Hayley’s email.  I have already mentioned to David that I think we need to review and revise the population projection section.  It sounds like we also need to verify that we have the correct numbers showing up for parks and trails.  In general, I think the Staff needs to go through in detail everything in the General Plan that has numbers to verify that any projection has good supporting documentation and analysis.

Thanks,
Brandon Jones "

I will keep you updated.  


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


As I mentioned in this Meeting Recap post for City Council last week, I commented about the possible errors to our park acreage and max buildout population.  I have sent the following email to our mayor, city council and planning commission but wanted to share it here for any who would also like to look into this.  I will post any responses I get when they come. 

Hello Mayor, Planning Commissioners and City Council,

Per my comments in the city council meeting last week, I was asked to send more information about my findings so it can be further looked into.  Let me know what your thoughts are and if I got this correct.  

To begin, the 2019 proposed general plan (line 820) states that we have 61 acres of developed parks in several locations.  On line 74, it states that it has 5 parks.  5 parks are also designated on our land use map for 2019.   

Our 2014 general plan land use maps has the same 5 parks.  They are listed as Central Park, Veteran's Memorial, Cherry Farms, Cedar Cove and Canyon Meadows.   However that plan states we have 31.38 acres of parks. It says that it has recently acquired 30 acres in two different parcels for use as a park - however it doesn't notate what parcels those are (pg 21).  It has It is my understanding that retention basins are not developed parks.   I am wondering if someone can clarify where the additional 29 acres of parks from 2014 to 2019 came from? The 2019 plan still lists the exact same parks and I don't see the additional 30 acres the 2014 plan is alluding too in our 2019 plans.   

I understand that some of it could be considered the Pea Vinery Trailhead that is owned by the Davis County Waste Management.  I have heard that this is leased by the city, but I have also heard that this lease never did finalize.  If anyone can clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.  Even still, that proposed section of land according to county records is just under 12 acres.  So the question of the 30 acres couldn't necessarily be that alone.  Furthermore, that acreage currently is not a park and it is not city property.  I think it is unwise to base our acreage off of the speculation that one day it could be.  Until it is an actual developed park, I don't think we should be adding it as park acreage to our general plan.    

The reason I feel this is important is that both our 2014 and 2019 plans states that 10 acres of each 25 acres per 1,000 people should be *developed* recreation areas (not retention basins).  This goes into factoring our total population based on buildable acreage available.  Based on this, we should have a little over 70 acres of parks, yet we have only 31 -- or maybe 61?  We are still short.  

Additionally, according to SB 34, US Census data should be used when determining population buildout.  However, our 2019 plan is basing it off of the 2017 Gardner Policy (4.24).  The census number for 2017 for South Weber is 3.69.  

Coming to the final point, if our acreage for developed parks is not correct then our buildable acreage is also incorrect.  And if our number per household is incorrect as well, then our maximum buildout population is also incorrect.  This in turn will affect they way we choose to develop our lands.  In short, ensuring our max population is correct is **CRUCIAL** to our general plan.  Another thing I would like to have checked is that our buildable acreage excluded any easements that would not allow building.  Since the acreage of developable land is not detailed in our general plan, we can not know if it is factoring in those acres or not.   

Please let me know of your findings or if I need to clarify anything.  I hope that we can have a verified conclusion to these questions before moving forward with adopting our general plan with the max buildout where it currently is.  I also hope we can soon discuss how to bring our developed park acreage up to standards of the National Recreation and Parks Association (10 acres per 1000 people) as it suggests per our own general plan. 

Thank you for your time and, as aways, for all your service to our city,

Hayley Alberts

#SWmorethan20