Planning 2025-01-23 Public Comment Letter Dated 1/21/25: Phased Binding Site Improvement Plans

Browse Search

• The "amount of housing that gets built — even if it's Middle Housing or ADUs" is a different issue than "whether the housing is rentals or ownership units." • For a builder to create an "home ownership opportunity," the builder must be able to divide legal title to the property in a way that allows a buyer to "own" a unit, not just "rent" it. This is the case regardless what kind of dwelling unit gets built (single family, duplex, triplex, 4-plex, townhome, etc.). • The two major ways for a developer to divide legal title to the land (in a way that has the potential to create homeownership opportunities, rather than just rentals) are: 1. Platting of subdivisions (or short -subdivisions, aka short -plats), or 2. Creation of a condominium, including a preparing and recording a Declaration of Condominium and Plan, state -mandated Public Offering Statements, etc. Most folks tend to think of condominiums as a "product type." However, a condominium is really a "form of ownership" not a type of housing unit - which is why slips at marinas, aviation hangars, storage units, etc. can all be condominiums, even though they do not involve any housing. Both platting and condominiums are expensive, time-consuming processes that make it difficult to increase home ownership opportunities in the city. We believe that Binding Site Improvement Plans/Agreements can serve two important purposes: First, we believe they have the potential to evolve into an especially important alternative to traditional platting and condominiums. Second, we believe they hold the promise of achieving more timely reviews, and at less cost, then platting or condominiums - importantly, without sacrificing substantive environmental, health and safety concerns. But the potential and promise of Binding Site Improvement Plans/Agreements remains compromised if we unduly -burden the BSIP process with a requirement for an additional, duplicative, "Development Agreement." In our view, Tukwila city staff have correctly discerned that the additional requirement for a duplicative "Development Agreement" results in: • several months of delay (for review, analysis, processing time, scheduling and completing a public hearing before the City Council, seeking and issuing required permits, etc.) • unnecessary added costs to a project (for additional permit fees, legal consultants, interest "carrying costs" on project operating/construction debt, etc.) • a lack of predictability for the applicant, which can translate into higher financing costs (especially if lenders charge a "risk premium" due to lack of certainty regarding when/if the lender will be repaid). In the worst case, it may result in a desirable project not getting 3