Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Applicant Response to City Reconsideration Request_Solera Master Plan_190117.pdfDenis 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 motions18 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 a6 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's25 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 the6 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 Motionfor 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, 187Pg 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 this2 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 it15 16 lacks a nexus to the Project impacts. This fact renders it unlawful. Benchmark Land Company V. 17 City ofBattle 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 ofCamas, 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 cityfor 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 force6 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 identified12 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 trying18 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 rigorous6 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 Thegy, 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