CCMIN022195 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift explained how staff arrived at the facilities needed. The survey measured park use by non-resident employees. The survey also disclosed the intensity of use and types of facilities used. From that information, from data available on non-resident employee use of all of the existing park facilities, and from information from other communities with significant in- commuting employees, the Director of Parks and Community Services determined what facilities could be needed to accommodate the business user. Once the uses were established, the number of acres needed for the facilities was determined. Staff then looked at the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and applied a five-acre per thousand standard for residential development to the business employees needs. There are difficulties in using that method because there are no children who will use the parks and the intensity of use is different. The standard was simply used just to check the conclusions of the Director of Parks to determine if they were reasonable. Ms. Michelotti asked if the 22 acres of park land is conceptual only and equates back to the cost per employee. Mr. Swift indicated that was correct. For example, a new tennis complex will not be built for the businesses, but once the existing tennis complex is completed it will be able to serve resident and business uses. The City will decide if the required 22 acres is part of a new community park or consists of sunall additions to existing parks. Ms. Michelotti further clarified that the non-resident employees will be able to use all facilities in Pleasanton and there will not be a "business park's park" and a "residents' park." Mr. Swift agreed and stated that business park employees will have the same priority for City programs as residents because they will have contributed in an equal amount to meet the park needs. Mr. Swift went on to explain the procedures for formation of assessment districts. Mr. Tarver referred to the percentage figures used to calculate users of the parks. He questioned the calculations. He understood that it is necessary to work with the business community to get cooperation in an assessment district to meet its needs. He indicated the amount of money charged per acre is different and higher than what is charged to residential users for an acre of park. He wants to be certain the City is equitable in terms of what an acre of land costs the City. Mr. Swift indicated the Director of Parks and Community Services could better discuss the measures that resulted in the estimate of acreage needed. It is correct that while 29% of all non-resident employees use the park, only 9 % of the employees (who use it at least 2-3 times per month) was used in applying five acres per thousand standard to determine the number of acres needed. Staff relied on that analysis as a method of comparison to the conclusions of the Director of Parks for the total number of users. All park users were considered, not just the 9%, when the 21-23 acres was calculated. Some people only use the park a little, but they still use it. There are only so many weekends in a year and if an office wants a picnic facility there is a potential for conflict. With respect to the amount of money for parkland, the study uses 02/21/95 -6-