Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fife staff outlines how development agreements could speed big projects and secure housing, open space
Summary
City staff described development agreements as contracts (not permits), reviewed legal limits and local examples, and asked the Planning Commission for policy priorities. Commissioners signaled general support for a code update, stressing affordable housing, environmental restoration and public notice safeguards.
Director Larson told the Fife Planning Commission on Jan. 5 that a development agreement "is a contract between the city and a property owner." He framed development agreements as a tool to negotiate longer-term public benefits for large or complex projects, but cautioned they are contracts governed by contract law rather than ordinary permit rules.
Larson said state law authorizes development agreements and listed three high-level requirements staff highlighted in the presentation: the agreement must be consistent with zoning and development regulations, the city must hold a public hearing prior to approval, and the agreement must be recorded with the Pierce County assessor. "It's an exercise of the city's police power and contract authority. So it is a contract, not a permit," he said.
Why it matters: development agreements can secure public benefits developers might not otherwise provide, including affordable housing, public infrastructure and superior design, and they can provide project certainty that encourages investment and complex, transit-oriented development. The city has used development agreements in the past for specific, site-related allowances (Larson cited the Praxair air separation column, Portside infrastructure obligations and the Emish Market example), and staff said some DA provisions were removed during the 2024 periodic code update.
Commissioner priorities and process: Commissioners pressed staff on process and risks. Commissioner Dominique said she supported updating the code but emphasized public-process clarity and prioritized public benefits: "My number one is affordable housing. Environmental restoration number two, and open space and community space number three." Larson said the city typically processes a development agreement as a Type 4 application with a 300-foot mailing list, newspaper notice, site posting, a 14-day comment period, a planning commission recommendation and an open-record hearing before the council.
Risks and drafting cautions: Larson warned about vesting and dispute-resolution provisions. He recommended codifying clear criteria for approvals, distinguishing minor and major modifications, requiring readable exhibits and milestone enforcement, and ensuring the city recovers legal and administrative costs. He urged avoiding binding arbitration clauses, noting an example where such a clause produced an unfavorable outcome for another city.
Next steps: Commissioners gave staff general support to move forward with drafting code language and to return with examples of how other jurisdictions have used development agreements in transit-oriented-development contexts. Larson said staff will bring back model code language and case examples for further discussion.
Ending: The commission did not take action; the item was informational and staff will return with draft code language and examples for future meetings.
