THE AFFORDABILITY EFFECT
Protect affordability
Costs imposed on a two-to-four-lot short plat can be carried by property owners or homebuyers and can make small housing projects less feasible.
A NEIGHBOR-LED PETITION • TUKWILA, WA
Fair Rules for Tukwila Neighbors
Support a 90-day public review and keep the prior short-plat standard available to both pending and new applications while the City works toward clear, proportional rules for small projects.
Your address is not displayed publicly on this website.
Tukwila supporters are joining
≤ 4
Small short plats
Two-to-four-lot projects need a clear, proportional improvement standard.
Fair-share costs
Subdivision-scale infrastructure costs can stop small housing projects or raise home prices.
Keep homes movingTHE ISSUE
Small projects should meet proportional standards—not carry subdivision-scale costs.
Ordinance No. 2764 removed the former Title 17 provision that expressly distinguished perimeter-street treatment for subdivisions of four or fewer lots from subdivisions of five or more lots.
The public request is straightforward: repeal Ordinance No. 2764, expressly restore the intended pre-ordinance Title 17 framework, and make the conforming amendments needed for that restoration to work as written.
Proportional rulesAffordable homesFair-share costsMore housing
WHY REPEAL AND RESTORE
Return Tukwila to the rules that existed before Ordinance No. 2764.
Former Title 17 provided an express pathway for subdivisions of four or fewer lots. Ordinance No. 2764 repealed and replaced Chapter 17.20 without carrying that provision forward. This petition asks Council to reverse that policy choice through clear legislation.
A distinct ≤4-lot pathway
Former TMC 17.20.030.J.6.e(3) called for an L.I.D. no-protest agreement for streets abutting subdivisions of four lots or fewer when at least 20 feet of paving existed. Subsection e(1) generally required half-street improvements for subdivisions of five or more lots, subject to its stated conditions.
Broader standards, no four-lot pathway
Current TMC 17.20.040.H and J use general component and perimeter-improvement standards and do not repeat the former four-lot provision. Although the chapter allows consideration of alternative designs, the prior express pathway is gone.
Supporting code context: other TMC chapters that remain in play
These provisions matter to implementation, but they do not replace the petition's central request to repeal Ordinance No. 2764 and restore the prior Title 17 framework.
TMC 11.12, 17.12, 17.20, 17.24, 18.50, and 18.104
These provisions govern right-of-way and frontage improvements, short-plat review, street standards, improvement agreements, separate building-development frontage thresholds, permit procedures, and appeals. RCW 58.17.033 and TMC 18.104.180 address vesting.
TMC 9.50 and 14.28–14.30
Chapter 9.50 includes short plats in the City's concurrency system for roads, water, sewer, and surface water. Chapters 14.28 and 14.30 govern storm and surface-water infrastructure and review.
TMC 16.16, 16.34, 16.36, and 16.54
Fire and life-safety requirements, road and bridge specifications, infrastructure design standards, and grading rules can affect the design and construction of subdivision improvements.
TMC 16.52; 18.44–18.46; 18.54; and 21.04
Floodplain, shoreline, critical-area, planned residential development, tree, and SEPA requirements apply when a site or proposal triggers them. They remain separate safeguards after any repeal.
Two drafting items still need conforming correction: TMC 17.12.070 points to a subsection absent from the replacement Chapter 17.20, and TMC 17.12.050.C.4 points to TMC 17.24.030 even though improvement agreements and financial guarantees are addressed in TMC 17.24.040.
Scope: Not every chapter applies to every short plat. Site location, project design, permit type, utility service, environmental conditions, and vesting determine which provisions govern a specific application.
Read the former Title 17Read the current Chapter 17.20Read TMC 17.12Read TMC 17.24Read TMC 11.12Read TMC 9.50 concurrencyRead TMC Title 14 utilitiesRead TMC Title 16 constructionRead TMC 18.50 frontage thresholdsRead Tukwila's vesting ruleRead TMC 18.44 shorelineRead TMC 18.54 treesRead TMC 21.04 SEPARead Washington's vesting ruleRead the Ordinance No. 2764 recordRead the June 16, 2025 Council record
Official code and legislative sources last checked July 17, 2026.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR
Repeal. Restore. Make it complete.
The public is asking for formal legislative action: repeal Ordinance No. 2764, expressly restore the intended pre-ordinance Title 17 framework, and keep that prior standard available to pending and new applications throughout the 90-day review.
Repeal and expressly restore
Enact legislation repealing Ordinance No. 2764 in full, expressly reenacting the intended pre-Ordinance Title 17 provisions, and making every necessary conforming amendment and cross-reference correction.
Keep the prior standard open for 90 days
While the repeal-and-restoration legislation is prepared, adopt a lawful interim ordinance making the pre-Ordinance No. 2764 Title 17 standard available for short subdivisions of four or fewer lots throughout the full 90-day review.
Cover pending and new applications
Direct staff to accept and process both pending and new applications under that interim pre-Ordinance standard for the entire 90-day review period, to the fullest extent legally permitted.
Make restoration complete and workable
Use a transparent public process to make every necessary conforming amendment across related TMC provisions so the pre-ordinance framework is restored clearly and consistently.
THE PETITION
To the Tukwila Mayor and City Council
We, the undersigned residents, property owners, business operators, and community members connected to Tukwila, respectfully request that the City Council enact legislation repealing Ordinance No. 2764 in its entirety and expressly reenacting the intended pre-Ordinance Title 17 provisions. This is a request for full repeal and express restoration—not merely an informal non-enforcement policy or a single-section amendment.
While repeal-and-restoration legislation is prepared, we ask the Council to place the Ordinance No. 2764 provisions affecting short subdivisions of four or fewer lots under an immediate 90-day public review and adopt a lawful interim ordinance making the pre-Ordinance No. 2764 Title 17 standard available throughout that review.
For the entire 90-day period, we ask the City to accept and process both pending and new applications under that interim pre-Ordinance standard, to the fullest extent legally permitted.
We further ask the City to make every conforming amendment needed so the repeal and restoration are complete, clear, and workable, using a transparent public process with meaningful neighborhood input.
ADD YOUR SUPPORT
Sign electronically
Your typed name serves as your electronic signature. Individual names and addresses are not published on this website; only the total supporter count is shown.
Submission notice: The organizer will compile petition submissions and share them with the Tukwila Mayor and City Council. Once submitted to the City, those records may be subject to Washington public-records laws.
What this petition does—and does not do
Does this oppose public improvements?
No. It supports safe, necessary improvements that are proportionate to a project's actual impacts. It opposes loading subdivision-scale costs onto small short plats without a fair, evidence-based review.
Is this an official City petition?
No. This is an independent community policy petition. It is not affiliated with the City of Tukwila and is not a ballot initiative or court filing.
Why include an address?
An address documents the signer's connection to the community and helps Council evaluate local support. Addresses are not displayed publicly on this site.
Can I sign on paper?
Yes. Use any “Print petition” button for a clean petition and blank signature sheet that can be delivered to the organizer.
Does Ordinance No. 2764 control every frontage requirement?
No. TMC 11.12 and TMC 18.50.050 contain separate frontage provisions, including building-development thresholds enacted through Ordinance No. 2765. This petition targets Ordinance No. 2764 and also asks Council to reconcile the related provisions.
Would repeal alone automatically restore every former section?
The petition does not rely on automatic revival. It asks Council to enact a new ordinance that expressly reenacts the intended prior provisions and makes all necessary conforming amendments.