HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2025-01-23 Public Comment Letter Dated 1/21/25: Phased Binding Site Improvement PlansKIRK; 1 :;: V.J II",,j Y
REALTORS
DATE: January 21, 2025
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
c/o Nora Gierloff, Director of Community Development
Neil Tabor, AICP, Senior Planner
DELIVERY: email only to: Norra„Giieirllof(' TukwiillaWA.gov
Ned:Tabor@TukwilllaWA.gov
Pllanniing@ ITukwiillaWA.gov
FROM:
RE:
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist
Seattle King County REALTORS®
SamSamPace„corn
(253) 569-2663
Planning Commission Public Hearing re: File Numbers: L25-0001 & E25-0002;
Proposal to Amend Regulations for Phased Binding Site Improvement Plans
Dear Commissioners, Director Gierloff and Senior Planner Tabor,
I am writing to you on behalf of our 6,000+ members of Seattle King County REALTORS® to provide
public hearing comments (of record) in connection with the Planning Commission's Public
Hearing scheduled for January 23th regarding the City of Tukwila staff proposal to amend
regulations for Phased Binding Site Improvement Plans.
It is our understanding that:
• Tukwila's city code currently provides:
o Applicants proposing to develop a project as a Binding Site Improvement Plan, or
BSIP, are required by section 17.16.030(C) of Tukwila's Municipal Code to:
(a) enter into a Development Agreement, and
(b) also complete the Binding Site Improvement Plan
City staff have identified (in our view, correctly) that these requirements are
duplicative, and there are numerous reasons that correcting the situation would
be well-advised.
• The proposal before the Planning Commission for public hearing on January 23rd:
o Would remove the sole provision in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) requiring
the execution of a Development Agreement when there is a BSIP,
1
o Would not compromise, or dilute, existing development standards - because the
substantive requirements of development agreements are already present, both
in Chapter 17.16, and elsewhere in city code,
o Would require that a Binding Site Improvement Plan be consistent with any City -
approved master plans and development agreements; and
o Would be applied city-wide if approved by the City Council.
• No Environmental Determination has yet been issued, but one is anticipated prior to City
Council action on the proposal, if the Planning Commission supports moving forward.
We believe Neil Tabor has done a capable job of explaining that BSIPs can provide flexibility to
accommodate a sale of property. We would add to his observation by noting that sometimes
such sales are necessary to facilitate obtaining the financing that is required to make it possible
to finish building -out a development.
As Mr. Tabor notes,
"...these developments often rely on shared features within the larger site, such as parking,
access points, landscaping, utilities, refuse collection areas, etc. As an alternative to the
traditional subdivision process, these plans are typically used for commercial or industrial
sites, however, they can also be used for residential and mixed use developments, which
may desire to sell individual portions of land for building sites, while retaining shared
common areas. BSIPs can also provide flexibility when combined with creating
condominium ownership or phased development."
(Bold emphasis was added by the REALTORSm)
We want to focus -in on the fact that (even though the BSIPs are typically used for large
commercial and industrial projects), the issue before the Planning Commission in this public
hearing is also important for housing.
Over time, housing legislation passed in 2023 - including HB 1110 (Middle Housing) and HB 1337
(Accessory Dwelling Units) - will result in more dwelling units within cities. But most of that
housing will be rentals, and will not likely provide many homeownership opportunities, absent
additional changes to state law.
More homeownership opportunities not only benefit would-be homebuyers, they also help
renters by reducing the competition for rental units (by getting would-be homebuyers out of the
rental market), and they create additional opportunities for historically disadvantaged
households to access the single most important opportunity to create inter -generational wealth,
which is ownership of residential real estate.
One of the reasons those Middle Housing and Accessory Dwelling Units are likely to be mostly
rentals is straightforward:
2
• 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
built because of concerns about whether the project can be completed in time for it "to
pencil" for the developer, and the developer's lender.
In our view, Mr. Tabor is correct that a major reason for concern about the lack of
predictability results from the fact that the BSIP process involves an administrative review
of complex topics based on municipal code standards. The application of those objective
standards in a technical administrative review helps to provide predictability.
However, when the Development Agreement process is added to the mix, it changes the
review from being entirely administrative, to a process before the City Council.
The costs and operational impacts of a duplicative and unnecessary Development Agreement
requirement do not fall solely on project applicants. They also impact city staff (at a time when
obtaining/retaining qualified planning, development and public works professionals is a
significant challenge for cities). Stated simply: Having an additional requirement for a
Development Agreement also impacts the time of staff and City Council, with little benefit, if any,
for the city, or its stakeholders.
For these reasons:
• We support the staff recommendation to a eliminate the duplicative and unnecessary
requirement for a Development Agreement when there is a Binding Site Improvement
Plan, and
• We want to express our appreciation for the City taking the initiative to bring this
recommendation forward to the Planning Commission. There is no magic wand for
wringing unnecessary and unproductive costs out of the development -review process.
It is a long series of sometimes tedious small steps. But, cumulatively, over time, they can
reform our permitting processes in ways that improve the likelihood cities will not only
"accommodate" housing consistent with RCW 36.70A.020(4), but do so in a way that
makes housing affordable for "all economic segments" of the population.
Thank you for the opportunity provide these public hearing comments of record.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Sincerely,
SEATTLE KING COUNTY REALTORS®
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist
Sam@SaimPace.coim • (253) 569-2663
cc: Taylor Shanaman, Director of Governmental & Public Affairs
4