Item 69 motion sheet

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Greg Casar
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:20 pm

Item 69 motion sheet

Post by Greg Casar » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:28 am

Colleagues, below are my edits to the Parks Plan, as discussed yesterday during work session. ... 112606.pdf

Gregorio "Greg" Casar
Council Member District 4

Jimmy Flannigan
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:44 am

Re: Item 69 motion sheet

Post by Jimmy Flannigan » Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:14 pm

Thanks for posting, Greg... I support the changes you've included in your post.

Attached is a tweaked version of what I handed out on Tuesday. I made changes to some of the phrases noted during work session to better clarify the relationship between the parks plan and other long term plans related to growth and population. PARD staff made some recommendations but did not speak to my main concerns.

I still feel strongly that, as a metric, acres per 1000 residents is an incorrect metric for a fast growing city that can no longer annex the way we used to. It sets up a difficult relationship between PARD and our housing goals that any new residents, even if by existing parks, cause a negative impact to their key metric. That's why % of residents walking distance from a park feels like a much better metric (as well as being more equitable). Even a metric of "% of total acreage as parkland", regardless of population, would be more compatible with our other goals as a city.

I'm interested to hear other feedback from other council members... or I'd be willing to entertain postponing the item so we can have a more detailed conversation on this key element of the plan. ... 141318.pdf
Jimmy Flannigan
Council Member, District 6

Post Reply