HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebus Req for Recon - City & Quadrant ltr Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
January 17, 2019
Jeremy Febus
KPFF
1601 5th Avenue, 1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Quadrant Corporations's Response to City's Motion for Reconsideration
and the City's Response to Reconsideration
RE: Solera Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use and Street
Modification (LUA-18-000490)
Dear Mr. Febus:
Enclosed please find Quadrant Corporation's Response to City's Motion for
Reconsideration and the City's Response to Reconsideration both dated January 16, 2019.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Jason S. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Matthew Herrera,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Kyle Wunderlin, Planning Technician
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Parties of Record(8)
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
9 FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11 In the Matter of: LUA-18-000490, SA-M, PP, CU-H, MOD
12 SOLERA MASTER PLAN, QUADRANT CORPORATION'S
RESPONSE TO CITY'S MOTION FOR
13 A Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, Conditional RECONSIDERATION
14 Use and Street Modification Decision
15
16
I. INTRODUCTION
17
The Quadrant Corporation ("Quadrant") and the City of Renton filed separate motions
18
19 seeking reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's December 11, 2018 Decision ("Decision")
20 approving Quadrant's applications for a proposed mixed-use development at 2902 NE Sunset
21 Blvd. ("Project").
22
Quadrant has no objection to the City's proposed revisions to Condition#12,which
23
addresses open space requirements. The City's proposed Conditions#33 and#34,which relate to
24
25 phased final plat recording, are also acceptable. Unfortunately, however,the parties have been
26 unable to reach agreement on acceptable revisions to Condition#18,which relates to Project
27 phasing. In both its original form and with the revisions proposed in the City's Motion,
28
McCullough Hill Leary. PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION— 1 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
•
1 Condition#18 lacks a nexus to any identified Project impact, and it exceeds the mitigation
2 authority established under City Code and state law. Accordingly, Condition#18 is unlawful and
must be modified or stricken.
4
II. ARGUMENT
5
As noted in Quadrant's Motion for Reconsideration,the Project is required to be phased,
6
with the mixed-use building and all public infrastructure included in the first phase.See
8 Quadrant's Phasing Plan, Exhibit 12 to the Decision. The Phasing Plan is acceptable, and
9 Quadrant will comply with it.
10
However, in an effort to guarantee a higher level of assurance regarding the certainty and
11
timing of construction of the mixed-use portion of the Project,the City is essentially seeking to
12
13 hold the residential portion of the Project hostage: under the proposed Condition#18,
14 construction activities on a townhome phase that follows a mixed-use building phase cannot
15 begin until the mixed-use building's concrete podium is completed and passes inspection(which
16
will be outside Quadrant's direct control). This condition is unnecessary, excessive, and
17
unlawful.
18
19 First,the City has failed to identify a Project impact that would warrant this condition
20 (i.e.,there is no nexus). Second,the City has failed to identify any City Code or legal authority
21 for this condition. Finally, even if the City had identified an impact or legal authority,the
22 requirements imposed by Condition#18 are excessively burdensome and onerous (i.e.,they lack
23
proportionality to the Project). Condition#18 is based on an error of law and judgment and must
24
be modified or stricken.
25
26 If the City Council wants to impose stringent phasing requirements in certain zones to
27 achieve its Comprehensive Plan goals, it can do so legislatively. But it has no authority to impose
28
McCullough Hill Leary.PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—2 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1 project-specific conditions that will delay and impede construction of approved residential
2 projects until certain arbitrary, onerous mixed-use milestones are achieved—especially when it
3 has not first identified a specific impact that warrants mitigation.
4
The City cannot attempt to force a Comprehensive Plan "vision"on a project-specific
5
basis through a development condition. The law requires that project conditions bear a
6
7 relationship to project impacts and a rough proportionality to the scope of those impacts, both of
8 which are lacking here.
9 A. The City has failed to identify a Project impact that warrants the imposition of
10 Condition #18.
1 t The City's proposed Condition#18, as modified in the City's Motion for
12 Reconsideration, would provide as follows:
13
18. The applicant shall follow the Phasing Plan as provided in Exhibit 12 in order of
14 phasing numbers. Construction activities on the townhome components of the Master
Plan that follow a mixed-use building phase shall not be permitted until the mixed-use
15 building concrete podium is completed and passed inspection. The following options may
16 be considered by the City in lieu of a concrete podium: townhome construction may
follow a mixed-use building phase when shoring walls and foundation excavation are
17 completed for the mixed-use building along with a receipt of either cash set aside, a letter
of credit, or an assignment of funds approved by the city for the entire cost of the mixed-
18 use building; or an option that is approved by the City that assures the initiation and
19 completion of the project's mixed use components are consistent with the expectations of
the phasing plan. Any requested modifications of the phasing plan shall be reviewed and
20 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall continue to result in the
initial phase of construction to include one of the two mixed use buildings and public
21 infrastructure improvements identified in orange on the phasing plan.
22 City's Motion for Reconsideration, at 2.
23
The City has offered a few rationales for this proposed phasing condition, none of which
24
appear in City Code or are justified by identified impacts of the Project. Rather,the City's
25
26 rationale is that the City's legislative priorities and Growth Management Act("GMA")
27 Comprehensive Plan compel Condition#18.
28
McCullough Hill Leary. PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—3 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
At the hearing, Senior Planner Matt Herrera cited"the large amount of public investment
2 the City and the Renton Housing Authority has put into this neighborhood to transform lots
3 formerly comprised of temporary duplexes into a compact,urban-style, mixed-use
4
development."Decision,pg. 3. A related rationale was offered in the City's Motion for
5
Reconsideration, which stated that the City's "recommendation [for Condition#18] is due to the
6
7 Comprehensive Plan vision for the Center Village (CV)zone in this area, which identifies
8 compact urban development with a pedestrian mixed-use center." City's Motion for
9 Reconsideration, pg. 2.Neither of these rationales provide legal authority for the City to impose
10
the unnecessary, excessive, arbitrary and onerous requirements in Condition#18.
11
When recommending or imposing project-specific conditions of development approval,
12
13 the City bears the burden of establishing that development conditions are tied to a specific,
14 identified development impact.Isla Verde Int'l Holdings v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 759,
15 49 P.3d 867 2002 • Citizens'Alliancefor Prop. Rights v. Sims, 145 Wn. App. 649, 665, 187
( ), P g
16
P.3d 786 (2008). Here,the City has not, and cannot, point to a specific development impact that
17
justifies the imposition of Condition#18. The City's investment in its mixed-use vision for this
18
19 area is laudable (and Quadrant shares it), but the City cannot force an extreme version of that
20 vision on property owners in the absence of code authority.
21 State law is clear the City's Comprehensive Plan cannot form the basis for project-
22
specific development conditions. In Woods v. Kittitas County,the Washington Supreme Court
23
held:
24
25 A proposed land use decision must only generally conform, rather than strictly conform,
to the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan does not directly regulate site-specific
26 land use decisions. Instead, local development regulations, including zoning regulations,
directly constrain individual land use decisions. Such regulations must be consistent with
27 the comprehensive plan and be sufficient in scope to carry out the goals set forth in the
28 comprehensive plan.
McCullough Hill Leary.PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—4 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
162 Wn.2d 597, 613, 174 P.3d 25 (2007). Here,the City's proposed Condition#18 turns this
2
3 well-settled GMA law on its head by attempting to impose a site-specific development condition
4 based not on adopted development regulations, but rather on general Comprehensive Plan
5 policies. There is no legal authority for the City's attempt to impose legislative priorities through
6 project-specific development conditions.
7
The City's true justification for Condition#18 is a fear that Quadrant will construct the
8
townhome portion of the Project and abandon the mixed-use concept. This fear is unfounded.
9
10 Quadrant has accepted a Phasing Plan for the Project,which is binding on Quadrant and its
11 development partners. Ironically, Condition #18 will actually jeopardize the entire Project by
12 making it less efficient, more expensive, and less desirable for a mixed-use development
13
partner—thereby jeopardizing the goals the City is trying to achieve in its Comprehensive Plan.
14
In sum, Condition#18 is not based on an identified Project impact or code authority, so it
15
16 lacks a nexus to the Project impacts. This fact renders it unlawful. Benchmark Land Company V.
17 City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 49 P.3d 860 (2002) (Washington Supreme Court held
18 that project conditions cannot be imposed without a showing that they are reasonably related to a
19
development's impacts). Again,the burden is on the municipality to establish that development
20
conditions are tied to a specific, identified development impact. See also Isla Verde Intl
21
22 Holdings v. City of Camas, 146 Wn. 2d 740, 759, 49 P.3d 867 (2002); Citizens'Alliance for
23 Prop. Rights v. Sims, 145 Wn. App. 649, 665, 187 P.3d 786 (2008). The City has made no such
24 showing here.
25
26
27
28
McCullough Hill Leary.PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—5 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1 B. Even if the City had identified a Project impact that warrants the imposition of
Condition #18 (and it cannot),the requirements in Condition #18 would be
2 excessively burdensome and disproportionate to that impact.
3 Again,the Project is required to be phased. Specifically,the Phasing Plan requires that a
4
mixed use building and all public infrastructure be constructed in the first phase of the Project.
5
See Decision,Exhibit 12. But in order to provide additional (unnecessary) assurances, Condition
6
7 #18 requires that: "construction activities on the townhome components of the Master Plan that
8 follow a mixed-use building phase shall not be permitted until the mixed use building concrete
9 podium is completed and passed inspection."Decision, pg. 32. An alternative provision, offered
10
by staff at hearing, allows the mixed-use developer to provide a"cash set aside, letter of credit or
11
an assignment of funds approved by the city for the entire cost of the mixed-use building."
12
13 Decision,pg. 32 (emphasis added). The additional requirements in this section—the requirement
14 to construct the mixed-use podium, or alternatively, attempt to provide a letter of credit for the
15 $70 - $80 million cost of the entire mixed-use building—are excessive and extraordinarily
16
burdensome.' A third alternative offered in the City's Motion is an as-yet-to-be-determined
17
option to be approved by the City"that assures the initiation and completion of the project's
18
19 mixed-use components are consistent with the expectations of the phasing plan." City's Motion,
20 pg. 2. Similar to the financial security concept,this is not a viable "option." It is completely
21 arbitrary and hypothetical,with no guarantee that the City would accept reasonable assurances.
22
23
24
25 'The"alternative"requirement,which allows the mixed-use developer to complete shoring walls and excavation
along with a letter of credit for the entire cost of the mixed-use building(an estimated$70-$80 million dollars)is
26 exponentially more burdensome and arbitrary than the original condition.Since receiving the Decision,Quadrant
has reached out to several mixed-use developers who have expressed interest in partnering on this Project.All have
27 confirmed that they would be unable to secure a letter of credit for the full amount of the mixed-use building,and all
have questioned why such a condition would ever be imposed.
28
McCullough Hill Leary, PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—6 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
A mixed-use building podium is a complex and lengthy phase of construction, which
2 will likely take 6—8 months to complete. If Quadrant is required to wait to initiate construction
3 of the townhomes until podium construction is complete and passed inspection (neither of which
4
will be subject to Quadrant's direct control),this will have a significant impact on construction
5
timing, and it could render the Project infeasible. Further,this requirement will force
6
7 construction activities to occur consecutively as opposed to concurrently, which will prevent
8 Quadrant and its mixed-use partner from coordinating construction activities to increase
9 efficiencies, reduce costs, and reduce impacts on neighboring properties.
10
The City's Hearing Examiner has broad authority to impose mitigation conditions, but
it
that authority is not unlimited. RMC 4-8-100.G.3.c. Conditions must be based on identified
12
13 impacts, and they must be proportionate to those impacts in order to be lawful. Agency action is
14 arbitrary and capricious if it is"willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending
15 facts and circumstances." Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n,
16
148 Wn.2d 887, 905-06, 64 P.3d 606 (2003) (citations omitted). Condition#18 does not meet
17
these tests. This requirement lacks proportionality to the hypothetical "impact"the City is trying
18
19 to address.
20 C. Condition #18 is based on an error of fact, law and judgment.
21 The RMC authorizes motions for reconsideration if a Hearing Examiner decision evinces
22 an error of fact, law or judgment. Each are present here. Condition#18 exceeds lawful mitigation
23
authority and is based on a lack of understanding of construction timelines, costs, and the
24
feasibility of various security mechanisms. It is patently infeasible. Condition#18 will: (1)
25
26 unreasonably delay townhome construction, significantly impacting the pro forma on which this
27 Project is premised; (2) prevent Quadrant and its mixed-use development partner from
28
McCullough Hill Leary. PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—7 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1 coordinating construction activities,which will decrease overall construction impacts and
2 timeline; (3) scare off mixed-use development partners,who will be unable to secure a $70 - $80
3 million dollar letter of credit(and who will question why the City would impose such an
4
unreasonable requirement); and(4)jeopardize the feasibility of the Project. Moreover, it fails to
5
meet the well-settled standards for development conditions in Washington state: it lacks nexus
6
7 and proportionality to identified Project impacts. Condition#18 cannot be imposed as proposed
8 by the City.
9 D. Requested relief.
to
Quadrant agrees to the revision of Condition#12 and the addition of Conditions#33 and#34.
1t
Quadrant objects to the imposition of Condition#18. Quadrant's Motion for Reconsideration
12
13 asked the Examiner to strike the second and third sentences of the proposed Condition.
14 Alternatively, Quadrant would accept a revised condition requiring a building permit to be
15 issued, and all impact fees to be paid, for the mixed-use building before townhome construction
16
can begin. A building permit represents a significant financial commitment to a project,and an
17
applicant must make continued, good faith progress on the permit in order to keep it alive. This
18
19 modified Condition#18 could read as follows:
20 Condition 18. The applicant shall follow the Phasing Plan as provided in Exhibit 12 in
order of phasing such that the first townhome phase shall not begin building construction
21 until the building permit for one of the two mixed use buildings has been paid for by the
22 developer and issued by the City. Further,the second townhome phase may not begin
building construction until the building permit for the second mixed-use building has
23 been paid for by the developer and issued by the City. Certificates of occupancy for the
second townhome phase will not be issued until the podium and framing for the first
24 mixed use building have passed inspection.
25
Such a condition would provide the assurances the City needs without jeopardizing the viability
26
of the Project. It would allow Quadrant and its mixed-use development partner to coordinate and
27
28
McCullough Hill Leary. PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—8 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
t sequence construction in a way that will reduce costs, increase efficiencies, and allow the Project
2 to be successful.
3
III. CONCLUSION
4
The City has identified no legal authority for Condition#18, which lacks nexus and
5
proportionality to any identified Project impact. If City leadership wants to impose rigorous
6
7 phasing requirements in order to achieve its Comprehensive Plan goals, it must do so in its
8 development regulations, which would put Project applicants on notice that they need to develop
9 their pro formas consistent with adopted regulations. In the absence of code authority, the City's
to
attempts to impose excessively burdensome and onerous project-specific phasing conditions to
It
address purely hypothetical "impacts" must be rejected.
12
13 Quadrant respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner grant the City's Motion with
14 respect to Conditions#12, #33, and#34, but deny its proposed revisions to Condition#18.
15 Quadrant asks the Examiner to strike the second and third sentences of the original Condition
16
#18, or alternatively,to impose the language proposed in Section II.D, above.
17
DATED this 16th day of January, 2019.
18
19 s/Courtney E. Flora, WSBA#29847
Attorneys for Quadrant Homes
20 McCULLOUGH HILL LEARY PS
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6600
21 Seattle, WA 98104
22 Tel: 206-812-3388
Fax: 206-812-3389
23 Email: cflora Zi mhseattle.com
24
25
26
27
28
McCullough Hill Leary. PS
701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S Seattle,Washington 98104
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—9 of 9 206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
9 FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Io In the Matter of: LUA-18-000490, SA-M, PP, CU-H, MOD
I1
SOLERA MASTER PLAN,
12
A Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use DECLARATION OF SERVICE
13 and Street Modification Decision
14
15
16
17 I, Lauren A. Verbanik, declare as follows:
18 I am employed with McCullough Hill Lear P.S., which represents The g y, p Quadrant
19
Corporation, applicant. I electronically filed with the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton
20
and served a copy of QUADRANT CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO CITY'S MOTION
21
22 FOR RECONSIDERATION and this DECLARATION OF SERVICE via electronic mail on the
23 following parties:
24 Cynthia Moya Phil Olbrechts
25 Renton City Clerk's Office Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton
Email: cmoya@rentonwa.gov Email: olbrechtslaw(c�gmail.com
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF SERVICE McCullough Hill Leary. PS
Page 1 of 2 701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
Seattle,Washington 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
1 Matt Herrera, AICP
Senior Planner
2 City of Renton
3 Email: mherrera@rentonwa.gov
4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
5 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
6 DATED this 16th day of January, 2019.
7
8
s/Lauren A. Verbanik
9 Lauren A. Verbanik
Paralegal
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF SERVICE McCullough Hill Leary.PS
-Page 2 of 2 701 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6600
Seattle,Washington 98104
206.812.3388
206.812.3389 fax
Denis Law Mayor ,
140
Community&Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator
January 16,2019
Mr. Phil Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
SUBJECT: Response to Reconsideration
Solera Master Plan,2902 NE Sunset Blvd,LUA18-000490,SA-M,PP,CU-H,MOD
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Please accept the following response to the Solera Master Plan Applicant Request for Reconsideration submitted
to the Renton City Clerk December 21,2018.The Applicant has requested the Examiner reconsider Condition
#18 of the Master Plan decision issued December 11,2018.The condition states:
The Applicant shall follow the Phasing Plan as provided in Exhibit 12 in order of phasing number.
Construction activities on the townhome components of the Master Plan that follow a mixed-
use building phase shall not be permitted until the mixed use building concrete podium is
completed and passed inspection. In lieu of a concrete podium,construction may follow a
mixed-use building phase when shoring walls and foundation excavation are completed for the
mixed use building along with a receipt of either cash set aside,a letter of credit,or an
assignment of funds approved by the city for the entire cost of the mixed use building.Any
requested modifications of the phasing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and shall continue to result in the initial phase of construction to
include one of the two mixed use buildings and public infrastructure improvements identified in
orange on the phasing plan.
On December 21,2018,the City filed a Request for Reconsideration that included three(3)alterations to the
decision's conditions of approval related to townhome private open space (Condition#12), phased recording of
final plat(Condition#33 and Condition#34),and the project's phasing plan (Condition#18).All three (3)
reconsideration items brought forward by the City benefit the project.The City's response will be limited to
Condition#18 as the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration is similarly limited in scope.
The City's Request for Reconsideration to Condition#18, if approved by the Hearing Examiner,would provide an
additional future option to the above referenced phasing plan that could be negotiated between the City and
the Applicant at a later date.This would enable the Applicant to secure a mixed use development partner that
could assist in crafting a potential alternative proposal that suits their needs while meeting the City's
expectations of the phasing plan.The City has been in discussions with the Applicant during the Request for
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov
Reconsideration period and hereby requests that the Hearing Examiner grant the December 21,2018 City filed
Request for Reconsideration in its entirety. For reasons identified below,the City disagrees with the Applicant's
assertion that Condition#18 is based on an error of fact, law, and judgement and rebuts the Applicant's findings
that the Condition is unnecessary, infeasible,arbitrary,and capricious. Further,the City finds the Applicant's
proposed revised Condition#18 language does not provide assurance that the key features of the project,the
two(2) mixed use buildings, would be completed as identified in the order noted on the proposed phasing plan,
should the Applicant fail to find a mixed use development partner.
From the initial discussions between the City and the Applicant,which began approximately 18-months ago,the
scale and scope of this project has been a mixed use plan located in the epicenter of the Sunset Highlands
commercial area that would complement the$120 million+City capital investment to the immediate
neighborhood.The multiple iterations of the plan that were reviewed prior to the City accepting the land use
application for review was to ensure that any townhome element of the plan would be ancillary and subordinate
to the overall commercial high density residential component and the new street grid would provide aligned
connections to the existing neighborhood.This was based, in part,on clear Renton Comprehensive Plan policy
language for the subject property's Commercial Mixed Use land use designation. Policy U-17 states:
Commercial Mixed Use—Place areas with established commercial and office areas near
principle arterials within the Commercial and Mixed Use(CMU) land use designation.Allow
residential uses as part of mixed-use developments, and support new office and commercial
development that is more intensive than what exists to create a vibrant district and increase
employment opportunities.The intention of this designation is to transform strip commercial
development into business districts through the intensification of uses and with cohesive site
planning, landscaping,signage,circulation, parking, and the provision of public amenity
features.
The Center Village(CV) zoning language provides further vision clarity and intent for the property as it
Policy U-17 further states in part:"CV zoned lands are suitable for redevelopment into compact urban
development with a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use center, and community focal point.The zone is
intended to revitalize an area,creating a vibrant, urban center where surface parking is discouraged."
Should Condition#18 be revised as proposed by the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, no reasonable
assurance can be made that a townhome block could be constructed and ready to be occupied prior to breaking
ground on the initial mixed use building.The costs associated with design and permit issuance of the mixed use
building does not provide the same level of financial investment to see the project through as constructing the
concrete podium.The City must consider the risk that the applicant may not find a mixed use development
partner in the time that they are ready to construct the townhomes.This could result in a block of townhomes
completed with no work initiated on the mixed use block.The Applicant could then decide to walk away from
the project,allow the mixed use building permit to expire, and recoup those lost costs with the completed
townhome block leaving the project unfinished and without the key mixed use component.Condition#18 is
necessary to ensure this project meets the above referenced comprehensive policy for the area of a mixed use
and urban center with commercial development.Additionally, RMC 4-2-060 allows residential development in
the CV zone along NE Sunset Blvd east of Harrington Ave NE on the condition that ground floor commercial is
provided along the frontage of the building on parcels abutting NE Sunset Blvd.The condition ensures this code
requirement can be met with the master plan.The phasing plan,without the performance measure(s), is simply
a graphic representation of the project.
The City disagrees with the applicant's assertion that posting a financial guarantee for the mixed use building in
lieu of the podium completion is burdensome and arbitrary.This remedy would maintain consistency with the
intent of the project phasing should the Applicant want to better align the construction schedule for their
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov
benefit of first townhome block with the mixed use building.Completion guarantee instruments are a common
surety available in the real estate marketplace.The Applicant has stated that the mixed use developers they
have spoken to are unable to secure such a surety,which may speak more to their individual capacity to
leverage additional financing than the common nature of the instrument.Again,security for the completion of
the mixed use building in-lieu of a completed podium is a reasonable alternative as it provides surety that the
mixed use building can be completed thereby meeting the goals, policies,and vision of the neighborhood and
removing the risk of non-compliant standalone low density residential development along the NE Sunset Blvd
corridor should the Applicant be unable to partner with a mixed use developer.The City's Request for
Reconsideration provides three (3)options for compliance that are reasonable to ensure compliance with the
phasing plan.
Finally, RMC 4-11-190,Subdivision, Phased,states"preliminary plat approval shall be conditioned upon
completion of the proposed phases in a particular sequence and may specify a completion date for each phase."
The provided phasing plan identifies the phased sequencing, however it does not clearly identify a completion
date for each phase. City staff originally recommended Condition#18 to allow for coordinated construction for
each phase and to ensure the phases were constructed and completed in the order identified. Furthermore,this
code section identifies that phased subdivisions shall be conditioned upon completion of the proposed phases.
It has been the City's experience that permit issuance, including fee payment, is not sufficient to ensure
construction and completion of a project. Permits have been issued in the past that have expired without
performance. City staff has not overtly required completion of Phase I prior to Phase II, but instead built in
flexibility to allow for construction sequencing and coordination that may not be considered in the code. This
flexibility is expanded in the City reconsideration request that adds a third option for that could be negotiated at
a later date. The addition of this third option allows for the applicant and the City to work out specific phasing
details that would provide the City assurance that the proposed phasing plan would be met and allow the
applicant to advance a proposal once a mixed use developer has been identified for the construction of phase I
and III.
The requested revisions to Condition#18 proposed by the applicant in their reconsideration leaves open the
opportunity for completion of any phase of a project before another and would put the burden on the City to
withhold occupancy permits for a constructed project if a previous phase is not completed. It is the City's belief
that this is not the goal of the applicant nor the City and staff recommends that the requested revisions to
Conditions#18 be denied.
To conclude,the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration to Condition #18 does not provide a reasonable level
of assurance that should the Applicant not find partners for the mixed use portion (key component) of the
project,construction of the subject property could result in townhomes only with no pledge that the remaining
master plan would ever be constructed as approved.The City recognizes that the Applicant is not a mixed use
developer and their interests lie with the townhome component of the project. However,this does not justify
weakening the performance measures of the phasing plan as stated by the Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration by"[scaring] off mixed use development partners,who will be unable to secure a$70-$80
million dollar letter of credit.." It is the City's duty to ensure that the master plan is constructed with a
reasonable guarantee that the mixed use portion is constructed and completed as Phase I and if there are
financial constraints on the project it is the ancillary and subordinate components(townhome blocks)that
would be sacrificed.
The City and Applicant have had numerous conversations regarding Condition#18 and the City has twice
recommended accommodations to the Hearing Examiner to provide flexibility while retaining the integrity of the
phasing plan.The first recommendation added the option for financial completion security and the second as
added in the City's Request for Reconsideration would consider a future"[..]option that is approved by the City
that assures the initiation and completion of the project's mixed use components are consistent with the
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov
srm.
expectations of the phasing plan."The City recommends the Hearing Examiner affirm and incorporate the City's
December 21,2018 Request for Reconsideration into the Solera Master Plan land use decision.
Sincerely,
./ 7;;;$77-7
/ - (—
Matt Herrera,AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Jennifer Henning,Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannworth,Development Engineering Manager
Leslie Clark,Senior Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia Moya,City Clerk Specialist
Ann Fowler,Civil Engineer II
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov