Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates priorities for development agreements: parks, orchards and cemetery options
Summary
Commissioners discussed drafting a development‑agreement policy that would list prioritized public benefits (park improvements, orchard preservation, cemetery land/funds), include a concept‑review step, and consider per‑door or baseline tradeoffs; staff will draft a rough policy and map for future meetings.
Commissioners spent the bulk of one agenda item discussing what the city should seek in development agreements — the private‑public contracts used to secure off‑site amenities or community benefits tied to specific development proposals.
Bob, a city planning staffer, outlined options the commission could ask for in negotiations: capital improvements or park amenities (restrooms or courts), preservation of orchards through conservation easements or purchase of development rights, contributions to a cemetery fund or a city land purchase, and off‑site improvements such as trails, crosswalks and benches. "We could say we would love to have a restroom facility at this park or pickleball courts at this park," Bob said, offering a $85,000 estimate for pickleball courts as an example of the type of specific request that would make tradeoffs easier to negotiate.
Commissioners discussed process improvements to make negotiations more transparent: a formal concept‑review phase where applicants must submit both a baseline "by‑right" plan (what the site would look like developed under code) and the proposed agreement plan so commissioners and the public can compare tradeoffs before legislative action. Commissioners also discussed possible per‑door cash formulas to compensate for off‑site needs; staff cited a previous local example of about $2,200 per door as a negotiation reference and noted the city also charges a $6,500 park impact fee per unit.
Bob volunteered to draft a rough development‑agreement policy and a map showing priority areas for parks or orchard preservation; commissioners asked staff to return with the draft for further discussion and potential adoption of guidelines the commission can use when negotiating future agreements. No formal action or vote was taken on policy during the meeting.
