Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.170

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 6309-S.SL) ***

(1) A local government may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. A city may enter into a development agreement for real property outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. A development agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW.

(2) RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.190 and section 501, chapter 347, Laws of 1995 do not affect the validity of a contract rezone, concomitant agreement, annexation agreement, or other agreement in existence on July 23, 1995, or adopted under separate authority, that includes some or all of the development standards provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "development standards" includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes;

(b) The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;

(d) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, and other development features;

(e) Affordable housing;

(f) Parks and open space preservation;

(g) Phasing;

(h) Review procedures and standards for implementing decisions;

(i) A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards; and

(j) Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure.

(4) The execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of county and city police power and contract authority. A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety.

[ 1995 c 347 s 502.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—1995 c 347 ss 502-506: "The legislature finds that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of public and private resources, escalate housing costs for consumers and discourage the commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the least economic cost to the public. Assurance to a development project applicant that upon government approval the project may proceed in accordance with existing policies and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, all as set forth in a development agreement, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation and comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development. Further, the lack of public facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and local governments may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities. It is the intent of the legislature by RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and owners and developers of real property to enter into development agreements." [ 1995 c 347 s 501.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County (2013) wash · cites it 7× “The settlement agreement also specifically stated that “the parties intend to enter into a development agreement governing the processing of permits for the construction of the Brightwater wastewater treatment plant” under RCW 36.70B.170, a statute that specifically authorizes…”

Nolte v. City of Olympia (1999) washctapp · cites it 6× “The City “considered] utility extension agreements as development agreements for purposes of RCW 36.70B.170,” 11 so it convened a public hearing before the City Council.”

City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) washctapp · cites it 2× “of Appellant at 36 (quoting RCW 36.70B.170(1)). But this argument confuses development regulations with development agreements.”

BELLEAU WOODS II, LLC v. City of Bellingham (2009) washctapp · cites it 3× “¶ 23 Belleau Woods does attempt to achieve a vested right by characterizing the planned development contract as a "development agreement" of the type allowed by RCW 36.70B.170(1). [1] Under this statute, a development agreement controls all development standards during the term…”

Belleau Woods II, LLC v. City of Bellingham (2009) washctapp · cites it 3× “¶23 Belleau Woods does attempt to achieve a vested right by characterizing the planned development contract as a “development agreement” of the type allowed by RCW 36.70B.170(1). 2 Under this statute, a development agreement controls all development standards during the term of…”

City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2002) washctapp · cites it 2× “of Appellant at 36 (quoting RCW 36.70B.170(1)). But this argument confuses development regulations with development agreements.”

City Of Issaquah, V. Westridge-issaquah Ii Lp (2021) washctapp “” Significantly, the development standards contained within a development agreement govern only during the term or build-out period specified in the agreement: Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement.”

City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC (2018) washctapp · cites it 3× “The two entities, along with Clary Properties, LLC, an owner of land to the west of Longfibre Road, reached a development agreement, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170, to 8 No. 34740-1-III City of Union Gap v.”

Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County (2013) wash · cites it 5× “The settlement agreement also specifically stated that "the parties intend to enter into a development agreement governing the processing of permits for the construction of the Brightwater wastewater treatment plant" under RCW 36.70B.170, a statute that specifically authorizes…”

Midtown Properties, Llc, V. The City Of Bonney Lake (2023) washctapp “RCW 36.70B.170(1). The agreement “must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and 10 No.”

Friends Of North Kelsey v. City Of Monroe (2013) washctapp “Around the same time, the City and North Kelsey LLC negotiated a development agreement under RCW 36.70B.170 to establish development terms and site vesting.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.170(1) — 9 cases

City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) washctapp “of Appellant at 36 (quoting RCW 36.70B.170(1)). But this argument confuses development regulations with development agreements.”

BELLEAU WOODS II, LLC v. City of Bellingham (2009) washctapp “¶ 23 Belleau Woods does attempt to achieve a vested right by characterizing the planned development contract as a "development agreement" of the type allowed by RCW 36.70B.170(1). [1] Under this statute, a development agreement controls all development standards during the term…”

Belleau Woods II, LLC v. City of Bellingham (2009) washctapp “¶23 Belleau Woods does attempt to achieve a vested right by characterizing the planned development contract as a “development agreement” of the type allowed by RCW 36.70B.170(1). 2 Under this statute, a development agreement controls all development standards during the term of…”

City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2002) washctapp “of Appellant at 36 (quoting RCW 36.70B.170(1)). But this argument confuses development regulations with development agreements.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.170(3)(a) — 3 cases

Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County (2013) wash “The settlement agreement also specifically stated that “the parties intend to enter into a development agreement governing the processing of permits for the construction of the Brightwater wastewater treatment plant” under RCW 36.70B.170, a statute that specifically authorizes…”

Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County (2013) wash “The settlement agreement also specifically stated that "the parties intend to enter into a development agreement governing the processing of permits for the construction of the Brightwater wastewater treatment plant" under RCW 36.70B.170, a statute that specifically authorizes…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.170(3)(b) — 1 case

Nolte v. City of Olympia (1999) washctapp “The City “considered] utility extension agreements as development agreements for purposes of RCW 36.70B.170,” 11 so it convened a public hearing before the City Council.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.170(3)(c) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.170(4) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.