Port seeks 10‑year Vista Field extension; city staff propose technical clarifications on fire access and cost shares

The Port of Kennewick has asked Kennewick to extend the Vista Field Development Agreement by 10 years, and city staff presented a set of largely technical amendments intended to clarify cost sharing, fire access and fee application rather than reopen broad renegotiation.

Anthony (planning staff) told the council the 2017 agreement included cost‑sharing and development standards tied to the Vista Field master plan, and that the Port requested an extension to preserve predictability for prospective developers. Staff proposed amendments focused on clarifying how the port's percentage shares would be calculated (using actual construction costs when built), tightening street and alley design to ensure emergency apparatus access, and specifying that fire impact fees would apply only to the Southridge area unless the council establishes a broader fee zone.

Why it matters: The development agreement contains vesting and predictable standards that both the city and Port rely on to attract projects; letting the agreement lapse, staff said, would revert development to current code and could disrupt planned partnerships, including an interlocal parking agreement that council recently passed and that staff said depends on the extension.

Technical clarifications offered by staff included: - A Public Works edit stating percentage cost shares (section 5.2/exhibit F) must be calculated against actual construction costs at the time of construction rather than against Exhibit F estimates, to avoid future confusion. - Fire Department changes based on AutoTurn simulations so the city's largest apparatus (the Station 5 aerial ladder truck) can navigate alleys and tight blocks; language was added to reduce the risk of redesign delays and to clarify signage/enforcement for no‑parking in non‑city alleys. - Clarifying that fire impact fees would apply only if the city establishes a fee zone in Vista Field; otherwise the port and successors would not be required to pay such fees.

Port planning director Larry Peterson told the council that Vista Field's slower‑than‑anticipated buildout resulted from pandemic disruptions, a PFOS (PFAS) environmental discovery that required testing across multiple locations, and normal market cycles. He said some projects are now ready to proceed pending final ecology clearances and that the Port's request is primarily an extension rather than wholesale rewrites of the agreement.

Questions and process: Councilmembers asked whether the posted amendments were the only changes and whether the council could add items before the planning commission hearing; staff said additional amendments could be submitted and that the planning commission will hold a public hearing April 6, with a council date set for April 21. Staff emphasized the council can still modify the agreement after the commission's recommendation.

Next steps: The planning commission will hear the item on April 6 and make a recommendation for council consideration on April 21. Staff asked council members to forward any suggested adjustments prior to the hearing so they can be considered in the record.

Ending: Council thanked Port and staff presenters and said they remain open to future amendments that might accelerate development, while acknowledging the currently proposed changes are intended to address implementation issues identified during construction and early buildout.