all
right good evening and welcome to the
September 17th meeting of the isqua
development commission uh this evening
uh we're going to have a uh a meeting to
address the Costco development agreement
and the master site plan Amendment to
the Pickering Place uh the meeting will
this is not a Community Conference per
se but we will nonetheless follow the
general guidelines uh that we have in
the community conference uh I have as
some of you know that have not uh that
have been to the preceding two meetings
I have not been here uh but I understand
that we among other things have what we
call a parking lot over here of issues
that uh remain to be addressed uh that
have been brought up in the past so the
way I proposed uh to do this is again as
I said to follow the general guidelines
of the uh policies of the uh Community
Conference which means we will hear from
staff uh first uh then we will hear from
the applicants and then we will hear
from any members of the public that
would like to uh comment or seek
clarification and if there there are
members of the public that would like to
do that I'd ask that you come up here
and sign uh the uh clipboard that's
there when you speak go to the
microphone and please Begin by giving
your name and your address for the
record okay and then after the public
section uh the members of the
development commission will be able to
individually seek uh clarification or
ask questions of any of the previous
presenters and then uh when that's
concluded the uh members of the
commission will discuss and vote okay we
hope that's the objective I would ask
that uh people members of the public uh
we don't have a big crowd here tonight
but uh try try to uh keep your comments
to between 5 to 10 minutes okay all
right with that
Lucy I'm sorry I'm sorry you have the
minutes we got
minutes we have minutes we have the
approval of the minutes approval of
minutes from the September thir meeting
are there any changes that need to be
made changes that need to be made or
that want to be made if not Mr chair I
move we approve the minutes of the
September 3rd 2014 meeting second second
is there any discussion any further
discussion and and then all in favor I I
opposed okay motion carries the minutes
are approved
Lucy good evening
Commissioners so my screen here looks
like Vaseline got rubbed all over it um
I'm hoping yours is clear but if I look
a little squinty you'll know why um I'm
Lucy slowman land development manager
for um development services department
and I just wanted to um explain the two
sheets that were sitting at your place
um the original staff report for the
mspa the master site plan Amendment and
for the land plan um had conditions and
then those conditions have been edited
through several briefing response memos
and I thought it might be easier if you
had that sort of Consolidated set of
edits to look at um when we get to the
recommendation later on um I'll be
covering some of these edits tonight so
the two-sided sheet is the development
agreement and the shorter one is the
master site plan Amendment conditions
and the M Master site plan conditions
are also conditions 67 and eight of the
development agreements so I think we've
got belt and
suspenders
um So the plan for tonight as the
chairperson laid out I'm going to go
through um some of the sort of more
complex answers um or uh edits to
conditions in the briefing second
briefing response memo um and then we'll
um have a
um question and answer you know uh
comments from the public um Costco
doesn't have a formal presentation
tonight they're happy to answer
questions or uh participate in any way
but um The Briefing response memo was
mainly information from the city and so
they don't have a separate presentation
and then our goal tonight obviously is
um to hopefully have a recommendation
for
Council um so the first um two pieces of
the briefing response memo had to do
with two of the conditions that came out
of the master site plan amendment that
um uh were deemed
confusing hey Keith could you do me a
favor I just realized none of their name
plates got up they're right on the
counter I think
think oh right there sorry I'll do that
thank
you we we've got you nicely bracketed
between Rick and Randy but nobody in the
middle
um
um so um there were there was some
concern that these uh condition seven
and condition eight were were not um
were not very clear and so they've been
been Rewritten um I won't read through
them they were in your memo um but you
know I think the point is not only to
clarify the intent but to um clarify
that Costco has a limited role in both
of these they don't own tract day and
therefore the handling of it is not at
their sole discretion they don't even
maintain that tract and the ccnr they
are just one of many parties to the
cc&rs um so um they would help
facilitate certain things to as much as
they can as any owner can um but these
were um important the staff felt that
these were important conditions to be um
at least noted in kind of a carryover
way from the uh original Master site
plan any
questions the the fertilizer one was the
question I had because
it talked about limited use and I wasn't
sure what that meant of course and this
is at
least more expansive but again I'm not
I'm not sure what it means when you say
consal to use hazardous toxic substances
pesticides or certain fertilizers or
herbicides is this we had talked
about accepted scientific principles or
is this is this good language that is
used somewhere else so the intent was
that the however phrase desined what
certain fertilizers or or herbicides
could be used so the fertilizers would
be limited to organic slow release and
the herbicides would be those approved
for use near aquatic environments for um
invasive plant removal or elimination or
eradication Okay so was our in in our
critical area
um I I I would leave
out certain fertilizers or herbicides
altogether and just say shall not use
hazardous toxic substances or
pesticides however organic slow release
fertilizers and herbicides approved are
okay okay I think that makes it at least
in my mind somewhat
clear okay
got
it
okay um another concern that was raised
uh at our last meeting was um Pickering
Place Owners Association and were they
aware of the opportunity to participate
in certain actions that were taking
place um with these various permits and
um whether there was enough
collaboration that had been going on
between the city and the Popa members
um since our last meeting a letter has
gone to each of the Popa members
identifying that um there are certain
actions that are happening with the
development agreement and if they um
apply or if they write us a letter they
can participate in joining in on those
actions we also met with um all the um
Popa members who chose to attend on
Monday um and uh I think had a very
productive conversation that identified
several
things that we're going to keep pursuing
over the next couple of
weeks okay Lucy yep my my recollection
was that uh people could opt out of
people could opt out of the master site
plan if they submitted a letter prior to
the approval of the development
agreement is that correct yes and so did
did if it the the plan is for that to be
appr we're I guess we're going to make a
recommendation and then the city council
will make that approval when when is
that expected to happen if if we if we
were to move ahead the next meeting of
the city council is October 6th
okay and and even and if I can add
something because I think it's an
important point that you've raised um so
the the development agreement is for
Costco the way we've Reed the major
Amendment to the master site plan is is
is it would allow for the removal of
properties from Pickering place it's not
specific to Costco so we know that
Costco wants to be removed from
Pickering Place Master site plan but
we've the way we've written it it would
allow for other property owners to be
added into that group that gets kind of
bundled together if you will when when
Costco is removed and Keith are you
referring to the resolution that's the
way the resolution for the action that
Council will take has been
worded but uh you say you had a great
meeting I
curious you say great how many people
actually showed up I mean what percent
do you I I don't know how many owners
there are maybe there's six owners and
two of them showed up maybe there's 100
owners and 75 showed up I think there
were four or five owners out of 13 so
Costco obviously didn't show up uh and
one of those owners represents a number
of other owners um he's uh the board
representative um some owners don't live
in town um so they didn't attend oh and
the other the um man the management
company thank you I couldn't think of
the term the management company was
there so um I'm hoping that's part of um
maintaining good Communications thank
you
okay um uh so another issue that we
talked about um some was um the concern
about are the buildings just related to
the streets and what's the relationship
to the creeks and um making sure that
we're consistent with Central isqua and
so in going back and studying it some
more um and I'm just summarizing it here
there's more detail in the briefing
response memo um the central isqua
standards have um Community spaces on
the street side of buildings where the
main pedestrian accesses but they the
standards also um identify that the
buildings need to recognize that the
creek is present and that there are
spaces or decks or other kinds of
elements that are oriented to the creek
um the land plan uh has the sort of
pedestrian entry plazas on the street
side um but they also show
semi-private
um uh areas on on the backside now uh
you know semi-private is not a defined
term um but they have um those um
existing kinds of spaces uh associated
with their buildings I've got some
photos as which you may have seen in the
memo uh and also the existing buildings
establish a sort of um expectation of
how the buildings will relate to um
those kinds of open
spaces so uh the first building building
one which was built in 1990 and is
located here um and this is the front of
the building and this is the pond side
of the building um although it had
windows and a door and a s sort of small
Terrace here the ground floor was um you
know fairly walled off this was a good
way to screen equipment but not
necessarily a good way to build a
relationship with the backside and the
trail um that building was not built for
Costco I think that's an important thing
to say the second building that was
built in 1998 which I understand was
built for Costco um this is again the
front on the left and the pwn side on
the right um You can see kind of faintly
in the plan here that there are two very
sizable Terraces on you know basically
along each of the Wings and in the
central area where this um kind of door
is there's a rather grand staircase that
comes down from a from the table us uh
down to the
trail and then the third building um
which is right here um this is the front
um this was built in 2001 and then this
is the back so you can see here how much
larger the teras has gotten the
architecture is much more Dynamic and
kind of responsive and um uh responding
to the kind of uses that are there and
and we think that this really has
established a trend about you know both
in terms of how their architecture has
evolved but their understanding of the
need to have a four-sided building that
is both uh has a strong presence on the
street and has a um response to the pond
or the creek or whatever is located on
the back because it could be either
one so I think from our perspective we
feel that um that the existing situation
and the imagery that they've provided
establishes a sufficient expectation
of uh the requirements to have both a
front and a back they may not be the
same but they both have a strong
relationship with both the street and
the um more natural feature in the
back um I know that this phrase is not
solely used by the city of isqua but uh
I I just I don't really understand how
some something can be semi-private or
semi-public uh and and I it's frankly it
surprises me that that's still around
because I would have imagined that some
lawyer sometime would have taken it to
the courts and said no it's either
public or private so what is the
objective of having something described
as
semi-private so I believe it's actually
sem no you're right semi-private um
there as I understand it Lucy there are
some areas that have been in in this
copious amount of mat material that I've
looked at that are designated as
semi-public and others that are
designated as semi-private and I I
personally don't know the
difference um I was just trying to read
on my crazy little screen here um in
terms of for me um I I have not done a
search through centralistic I'm fairly
certain it's not a defined term in the
chapter um so for me it's about the um
the way they're designed are they
inviting other people are they inviting
other people to come in are they just
open um I don't know whether you can see
but there is a um kind of low wall that
raises the Terrace here and here above
say the trail on that is adjacent so
there's a certain amount of visibility
there's um a certain relationship but
it's um
vertically uh separate so that it
doesn't just invite to the whole public
in the way that say the amphitheater
elsewhere that might be an element that
you're familiar with the amphitheater is
just it's on the same level as the trail
it's very open and it um is
available yeah I I understand that that
is again this is a a general term we had
the same the commission I asked the same
question at uh I think I'm sorry sorry
it's Atlas now not uh I asked the
question there too because it's the same
concept but I I don't know well I we
don't need to hammer this but uh it it
to me it raises a question of uh
enforceability or or actual you know if
it begins to be a problem uh with
homeless or whatever else I don't know
how how you legally address access or or
presence in something like that well I I
think the piece that I would say from
the city's
perspective is that the space that is
required um as part of the um that is is
established as a specific square footage
is the one on the street s side okay now
both of these are located on private
property um so I think that if if um a
homeless person decided to camp on
either of these spaces they would be
asked to believe M um so I I don't think
um I think it's more of a design aspect
than a um ownership aspect because they
are both located on private property but
members of the public just walking along
with something that they bought to Sunny
Day can go up there and sit down in that
nice area there if if they choose to
well so you you might want to ask Costco
that question I will say I took these
pictures no one said anything to me I
mean I mean I've I've wandered all
through their campus I think that they
um have generally been open to the
public um for people who are behaving
respectfully um again this is this is
not just for me it's not just Costco
it's it's a as I said I brought it up
with the other one and I I just I just
don't quite understand what the
objective is unless it is to give the
property owner the ability to go out and
say you got to leave or you know I'm
police are going to be called
up well I don't I think if this so um
let me try it this way Randy if those
teres on the back um had no label on
them did not say
semi-private I would look at them and
say okay this is the way they're
responding to the standards that require
a relationship to the
creek and these are on private property
and they other than have having some
kind of relationship on that side there
isn't a requirement that that be public
that that be open um and so if it if it
didn't have
um a big wide pathway for instance
connecting the public trail to the
Terrace I I don't know that that would
be a problem I'm looking you know I'm
looking more at the elements relative to
the standards than the label
semi-private I think I think in our
early work it was to try and help
provide clarification during your review
it obviously didn't achieve that um so I
mean but I understand why you're asking
it's like what but what is it supposed
to mean what is it supposed to help us
understand I don't we that's that's
sufficient thank
you
okay uh skyp Bridges there were uh we
had a lot of discussion about Sky
Bridges um one uh had to do with
precedent um there'll be a little bit
more uh We've captured some of this
discussion and some of the points from
the memo in the development agreement um
but I think that uh in terms of
precedent I think the important thing is
balancing The Pedestrian connections
with a secure campus especially one that
is a series of buildings located on both
sides of the road so in terms of
precedent I'm not sure how many times
this will happen but the precedent is
that we are still finding ways to
provide frequent pedestrian connections
and maintain a secure campus um which
could be at odds but which we feel has
been um appropriately
balanced um question Mr chairman um we
talked quite a bit about the sky Bridges
and it was a big concern about the view
Corridor how many bridges are we talking
about here and at what level is it going
to be at it's going to be second third
fourth I mean or is it just one level
going through has there been any
thoughts about
that um so the view was the uh next
piece I was going to touch on but the
map um on the right here does show um
both the existing Sky Bridges one's here
and one is here um as well as the
proposed ones so over the RightWay um
there are two shown but in response to
the commission's comments at the first
meeting um Costco has um reduced it from
one skybridge uh or to one skybridge
from two they were originally we had
sent it forward with a recommendation
for two Sky Bridges being allowed
outright and now there's just one and
they can come back and um request
further analysis to see if another
skybridge is
appropriate um in terms of um views uh
in looking at you know in walking along
the whole uh Lake Corridor and really uh
and there's more discussion of this
which will happen in a few minutes but
in looking at it there are not a lot of
views um of this is a wetland so it's
rather heavily um forested and so at
this point uh here um there aren't uh
really very many views and uh most of
them are over parking lots which we'll
talk about um I the article that I
linked to in the memo part of the reason
that I linked that is I thought that um
Mark Henshaw who's Urban Design director
for LMN architects in downtown Seattle I
thought made a good point which is that
um unlike some things in which you're
standing still and trying to look at The
View when you're a street is generally
uh the kind of thing that you're moving
along you're walking you're biking
you're driving and so a skybridge
especially with some of the parameters
that we've put around the skybridge
about in terms of how wide and 70%
transparent Etc um that it would have a
momentary and relatively limited impact
for whatever views were available at
that point um in terms of your question
Rey about
how high it is there is a certain
required minimum clearance I'm I'm going
to say with not utmost confidence it's
probably at least 14 feet above the road
um in terms of how many stories um I I
to date they have built singl
story um Sky Bridges uh we have not um
discussed or proposed limitations on it
having multiple
um stories in height although there is
one of the examples and I'll show you
these in just a second well let's see um
for instance this one from um Fred Hutch
is two
stories yeah I guess U the question I
was asking was is it connecting on the
second floor or is it connecting on the
third floor or is it connecting on the
fourth floor or is it connecting two
floors and then we're talking about 10
story high building Pro possibly so are
we going to have a set of
Crossing uh second and third and then
eighth and Ninth maybe so you know um so
that's the question that I'm asking
right now the way it's written there is
not other than the clearances that would
be required for the roadway there are
not specific limitations on how
many stories that would be MH now I
think my interpretation would be that
we've allowed one that could be two
stories uh I don't think that if they
put stacked ones at distinctly separate
floors that would count as one Ray let
me I think Lucy I think what Ray's
asking is are they going to connect
second floor to second floor third or
third floor to third floor or fourth
floor to fourth floor is is that yeah
yeah no and and I do understand that I
just there's there's nothing right now
in the land plan or the development
agreement that would that answers that
qu that would restrict them that it had
to be at the second floor or that it had
to be at the eighth floor correct um
correct and that that's just the state
is in and that was my question is it
just one floor because all the pictures
that we've seen and all indication are
the it's it's a one floor one bridge but
if we go to 10 floor and they said well
we want to connect 10th to 10th so you
got two now yet we're looking at just
one skybridge and not two and you know
it could be double stacked and you know
the argument could be made that we're
approve for one skybridge and two level
that's one sky bridge too so I was just
wanting to get a clarification on
that thank you
yep um so there was also a question
about design I put the criteria that are
in the development agreement currently
in the memo but just to summarize them
uh the skybridge would be
architecturally integrated taking
external um uh design impacts into
consideration it would have a pleasant
interior with uh which is described um
there are specific width and height
requirements of the interior uh it needs
to be relatively level and Square to the
buildings meaning perpendicular across
and have transparent walls um not going
to make you read all of that on the
screen so those are just the sort of key
points of the
criteria and finally there were some
design questions there was a concern
that the images that we had um shown
were two kind of glass too much glass
boxes these are the four images that
were originally included in in the staff
report um so we um did some additional
uh research and had some additional
discussions and we added two pairs of
images uh in the briefing response memo
um these two images were added um to uh
give a sense of what architectural
integration might mean uh the image on
the left is Western Washington
University and the image on the right is
Costco's existing skybridge between
building one and building three this is
the second one they built and we thought
these um demonstrated
um a relationship of materials of scale
of kind of openness and um just
architectural character that uh
Illustrated were kind of illustrative
guidelines of what architectural
integration would be
another question uh Mr chairman um so on
the skybridge and maybe we're getting
into the details with I guess which I
guess I'd like to maybe get an answer or
response from you was there any
indication on whether the bridge the sky
bridge is um not kind of levered but
there's no column in between or is there
any limitation on the on the
structure um the way it is now and the
the existing Sky Bridges um so you can
see here there's a pair of columns here
and I believe there's another pair here
so that it kind of frames the walkway
that goes underneath um and over
um and that's the way the their other
sky bridg is also built uh in the
examples we've shown sometimes like the
one with Western Washington you know
this is essentially a clear span
um but you do see some of them this this
is also from Western Washington where
they've used uh columns to create a sort
of series of portals yeah and likewise
at um uh Fred Hutchinson uh using the
columns to create a portal uhuh
obviously when you're dealing with the
rideway it is much less common and
likely that there would be any
supporting
structure um uh between the buildings uh
or certainly with in around the street
because it interferes with the sidewalk
and the travel Lanes so I I think it's
somewhat um the answer depends on
whether we're talking about ones
crossing the rideway or ones that are
over private property between the
buildings uh but the way it's drawn out
now is that you're connecting two
buildings over public right way there
are some that do um so so uh this
one um or this one whichever one they
choose to build first uh those are over
right of way uhhuh um so there's no this
one this one this one this one and this
one are over private property uhuh and
since there's not vehicular traffic um
moving under those well there would be
maybe here the rest of them are um over
pedestrian and Plaza type areas and so
they might architecturally choose to use
some kind of column structure as part of
the
design yeah well I guess economics wise
would probably be cheaper to have
columns in there but if we're trying to
maintain the view corridor you know by
putting more columns you're just kind of
limiting your your view and you know we
so I have some images that were also in
the briefing response memo that um show
one of the existing corridors so let's
can we hold and look at that in a moment
when we get to that part of the
presentation because I think that may
answer your question okay
okay put that down so um the last pair
of photos that we added to the um
briefing response memo were um two
images of
um possibilities or illustrative
guidelines for uh Sky Bridges crossing
the RightWay the one on the left is open
air meaning that although it has weather
protection in the sense it's got a roof
and uh side panels uh it is not climate
controlled and then the uh image on the
right um is illustrative of a kind of
how a skybridge might be used to create
a Gateway into um Costco campus or the
pi or Pickering place for instance
so um the proposed edits to uh condition
number three um essentially because
we've now added some additional
information in the memo are uh add that
briefing response memo into the
condition as one of the
um touch points for understanding uh how
the skybridge would be uh what those
illustrative
guidelines
okay another uh topic uh in which there
was a lot of discussion was the
development commission's role with
future permits the review of future
permits um in thinking about responding
to this uh you know we put some
information in the memo
um the uh
last week um one of the council people
at a committee meeting uh had asked that
before the next committee meeting we lay
out what the differences would be uh
between a site development permit and
the process that we were um describing
and in thinking about this um these are
the kinds of points that we were going
through so I thought that might be
useful in our discussion with
you um the things that would be similar
between a standard development permit
like Atlas and uh a future Costco land
use permit is that you would see a full
uh submitt uh with a similar level of
detail and information uh we would use
the same types and methods of notice uh
you would receive a staff report um the
purpose of the meeting would be the same
um talk about issues uh opportunities
inconsistencies um concerns questions
and that the staff just like we have
with this process where we do the
briefing response memo we would prepare
a um response to each of the issues and
inconsistencies that were raised um
differences it seemed uh like there were
three differences the first is that um
that this um meeting with the
development commission and the public
would happen earlier in the process
rather than at the end of the review
process um which is kind of like the way
Community conferences it it happens U
earlier it would be a public meeting and
not a public hearing and um although the
commission would be um reviewing and
inputting uh they would not have a
decision point it would be a a
recommendation to the
council uh no because it's a staff
decision on those future land use okay
so input is to you not to the council
which is the difference with the
community uh a a a difference well a
Community Conference as I understand it
is really input to both the staff and
the applicant yes uh for their future
full sittle so this would be input to
the um staff and applicant um and I
think the important thing that we walked
away
from um last uh meeting with the
development commission was a concern if
we've identified inconsistencies what
are going to happen to them so um we
have revised the um development
agreement text um you can see the
underlined
part uh that us identifies that staff
will um shall prepare a response
confirming or not the identified
inconsistency the basis for the response
and if an inconsistency exists how it
will be addressed in the decision so it
seemed like um we wanted to be very
clear that
that input was not just for show um that
that input was to be taken seriously and
if there is an inconsistency that we
need to address um exactly how that
would be reflected in the decision that
staff would be making Lucy can you go
back to the last slide sure please would
you on the record I really think this
would be helpful if we get this would
you def the difference between a public
meeting and a public
hearing well I'm not sure that the
experience is any different um it's uh
we're having to provide notice uh we're
taking testimony people are signing up
um there's a certain formality that
comes with a public hearing uh the
record is the
same
um I I I guess if
what I think especially members of the
public need to understand is what you
know what are what is the distinction
between a hearing and a meeting and if
if there isn't
one uh there's a level well I'll tell
one of the differences be whether it's
quasi judicial or not yes yes it that's
why a public hearing is required is
because it's quasi judicial and you
would have to publish it in the
newspaper and and we wouldn't be
publishing this in the newspaper but
we're publish we're posting we're
thinking that we would use the same
level of notice which is uh you know
posting the site putting it on our
website mailing out to adjacent Property
Owners uh so there's not an intent to
have less notice but the but the point
is that the public hearing is a quasi
judicial yes hearing that requires a a
bit more recordkeeping and a slight
difference in process but the point is
it's a quasi judicial which meetings
that are not can be addressed with a
public meeting for input yes
okay proposed
edits any
questions
okay
views
um it would be a lot easier if we all
went out and walked the site together
it's very hard to uh try and capture
this in pictures
um uh one of the things you know that
was apparent was um that there are many
spots along Lake Drive where you can um
see mountains and hillsides but they're
peek-aboo there's not uh really long
great
Vistas um many of those views are over
parking lots uh over what are currently
parking
lots um in terms of street views there's
not much um there uh for instance I
included this one simply because I think
it's um quite typical of the views down
a street where it ends in um a verdant
area uh landscape uh where and one of
the places where you do have some view
is uh at the very end of Lake Drive
where you can see to the mountain ACR
cross I90 um and I just included this
picture of 12th Avenue Northwest because
it's it's always one of the things I
think about when we talk about you know
mountains or Hills at the end of uh
streets that when you have a very
straight Street like 12th Avenue
Northwest um you really do see how the
axial view Works um and that with the
curbal linear street it's more of a
challenge um so views um very important
part of central isqua along with several
other goals um increasing density using
land efficiently being more pedestrian
oriented um and significantly reducing
reducing surface parking and in light of
those goals as well as the emphasis that
the city makes on preserving and um
increasing the number of trees um in
combination with the curv existing
curval linear Street system it makes it
pretty challenging to have very many
views um in there so that as we achieve
the
priorities of Central isqua in Pickering
place a lot of the views are going to
disappear because we're using those
parking lots where we're currently
getting views that's those are the
building pads of these future buildings
some of views will remain um one of
those is the one that I just mentioned
that's at the end of Lake Drive um which
is this one um however one of the things
I noticed um in looking out over these
um parking lots to the east and west is
that you um that where we are requiring
those pedestrian connections between
Lake Drive and either the pond Trail or
Pickering trail that there will be
opportunities to orient and site those
trails to take advantage of um the views
that are existing right
now and I zo tight uh and then to get to
um Ray's question uh one of the things
that I um was looking at more closely
was uh the existing skybridge between
buildings uh one and two I wasn't really
looking at it for the skybridge I was
looking at it more uh for uh views and
how they were framed in thinking about
these pedestrian routs and what you see
is um so this is the same map I was
using for all the rest of them this is
the orientation of the view and these
dots kind of represent each of these
five um pictures that as you start out
here um which is you know maybe 50 feet
away from the
skybridge um you can see under the
skybridge this um but you don't really
have a sense of the view but even um as
close as here um you're already getting
a sense of the treed hillside um then
when you're almost under the skybridge
it opens up again and then obviously
once you're under the skybridge and
moving towards the pond it really opens
up now um so that one thing that
indicates is how valuable the pond is in
terms of um maybe preserving access to
views um but one thing we do have to
keep in mind is that as Pickering place
redevelops and taller buildings are
built those views um may be hopefully
framed um for instance uh there are
certain corridors uh over here that um
are in between buildings and so those
May maintain certain view corridors
across the
pond on the third photograph there uh
Lucy yes um what percentage of glass is
that skybridge do you
know I don't I I my guess is that that
pedestrian bridge probably isn't 70% but
I I haven't really studied it very
closely okay yeah all right thank you
and and I would just note with a little
irony that uh that we had an excellent
class this year on the law for all
members of all the commissions in the
boards and one of the things that struck
me in that was that we were advised not
to visit properties before meetings
which I found and continue to find a
little strange but that was the advice
that we
got right and you know I um just to
touch on that um I think the concern is
that with uh it begins to tread on the
line of are you doing your own research
separate from staff um if there W just
to uh let the commission know if there
was a situation in which we felt that
visiting the site would be really
important and successful we could do
that as a group um and that would be and
it would be a public meeting and
everyone could come along and everyone
could see the same things and hear the
conversation and all of that so it's not
that those visits are um out of bounds
it's just uh not on your own but yes
it's hard when we're dealing with things
like
this
um would you like me to go to the next
slide Mel
well um oh so right now
um uh there is a through we we've added
a condition to recognize that um these
through block passages that we had um
conditioned under um con the land plan
condition number one uh had this um sort
of opportunity to um take advantage of
the views and Vistas that exist and so
the last sentence that's underlined
there
has been added to capture
that
um which says through block passages
will be cited and oriented to take
advantage of views and vistas of treed
hillsides and mountains as envisioned by
um CDs acknowledging proposed building
placement and size as shown in the land
plan so the intent of that is that the
buildings um as shown um are being
recommended by staff as meeting the
requirements of central issaqua um but
that these Pathways these East West
Pathways that um are being required
would be the opportunity to um maintain
access to views um as much as we
can and East West is where we're seeing
most of the opportunities right
now do you want to you want me to do it
yeah well um would you like to start I'm
happy to start it's really up to
you your choice okay why don't you go
first I think I think you should be able
to say it in your own words not happy um
well this this is U something I put
together because U the photos I wasn't
there was one view that I didn't think
was captured well enough um and I
thought the staff did a great job
providing lots of of viewpoints for us
to look at but in the upper left corner
is
um the the arrow looking down is where
the view is Down Below on the left
side so that's a view of squawk Mountain
looking South at about where the corner
of the Trade building is right now um
and I think about the location where
that skybridge would be so uh so you
were um you were standing about here is
that what you're correct okay correct
although I think if you were are were
you at the South end or the North End of
the Trade building South End okay yeah
that would be about right about where
that crosswalk is so the
um just as background again I I served
on the central oqua plan task force and
through all the meetings we had one of
the most important things was not losing
views of the isqua Alps a big change we
made in the cids or in the the plan was
to allow much taller buildings one of
the concerns people had was will this
block views part of the idea was we'll
do whatever we can to preserve views and
I felt as I mentioned last meeting a
concern about the East End of or the the
south west end of building four
extending into the view quor to squawk
Mountain where Lucy
showing what was there what I would like
to see it over here is
that remove that Southeast corner of
building
4 southwest corner of building 4 to
preserve that view cord or open up and
in exchange expand the east side of
building five to make it curval linear
with the street to make up for space
this would we would lose a pedestrian
Plaza at building five but we would gain
a larger pedestrian Plaza at building
four and maintain the views of squawk
Mountain one of the few places where we
would I think be able to maintain a good
view of one of isquat isqua's
treasures um so so Mel was kind enough
to send this to me this afternoon so I
had an opportunity to speak with him and
to um put this slide together and and
think about some of the points that he
was Raising
um uh one of the points uh one of the
challenges we've faced in having this
discussion is that the central isqua
standards um say that you shall provide
um building 60 ft back from an
intersection so uh part of the reason
that we had highlighted this corner was
uh or this little box Edition here was
that you
know the standards would say 60 feet
back from this point we should be
providing Street wall um in thinking
about the um
well so that's a shall and one of the uh
other realizations was that as I
provided the um primary standard around
views and Vistas it's a should um so um
there's this um sort of
uh potentially different prioritization
that the code has um and in talking with
Mel U that was inconsistent with his
memory and is the way the code was
written um but in thinking about that it
seemed that um one of the things that
the photo in the lower left Illustrated
was you know these trees are probably 30
or 35 feet tall and that um in terms of
providing Street wall if this uh
addition was say one or two stories tall
it might be 24t tall and would be no
higher than the trees and that you know
trees keep growing so even at 24 ft it's
not that much so you could potentially
imagine this uh little box here um you
know potentially extending out like this
and you're still seeing over it um to
the mountain Beyond and you get a sense
of that the reason the lower right hand
photo is here is um that uh this was one
of the photos I took as I walked along
Lake Drive and you can see that this is
a three-story building with a hipped
roof and above that is you can still see
the mountains so that if it was only a
two-story building you get a sense of
how much you still might see over that
building and so you would meet both the
priority to access the views and um the
priority the requirement to have
buildings right at the street
corner just a initial reaction to Mel's
proposal I I think that's a pretty good
idea you know as you're driving South on
Lake Drive you pass the sky bridge if
there's a sky
bridge and which I'm hoping that the
glass area would would be increased
rather than just 70% you know would
increase it to 80 or 90% And you drive
through South past the sky bridge and
then you open up yourself into this
intersection
um with no buildings in there and you
see squawk
Mountain I I I think that's a good
idea um and then in return you have that
we're losing that um the building five
expanding to the
street um well I think the challenge
with that is that there is a requirement
that the community space be located
along the
street and so along the street
yeah let let me uh let me see if we can
if with the commission's approval uh
we're going to have the opportunity to
make recommendations later this this
section is probably more productively
used if we just get
clarifications and hold our
recommendations until until later so if
that's is that our all right I mean this
is this is this this is a presentation I
don't view that as a recommendation but
this is a this is different from this
needs to be uh we need to be aware of
this now but we'll have the opportunity
later uh collectively to make our
recommendations and and you bet findings
and one thing I will add that that one
thing that that came up was the idea
that part of the issue here is where
where the street curves to the
Southwest you lose that opportunity if
Lake Drive continu straight
South and connected in and teed in at a
90° angle to the
street um and so that your roundabout
was at a 90 Dee angle on both sides you
would preserve that view of squawk
mountain and could still bring the
buildings up to the street corner and
still have the view of squawk Mountain
so that may be another possibility to
address
it Mel is that and maybe this is General
is the roundabout going to be moved
there is no roundabout there now is okay
so this uh roundabout that's shown here
I know it's grade back which generally
on everything else means that it's
existing but this isn't part I think the
reason that um it was shown that way is
it's not part of Costco's construction
plan it's a part of the mtfa oh so the
city would be building that okay um so
it doesn't exist now
um and um you know uh it's it's an
intriguing idea that um Mel brings up uh
there are some challenges uh with that
and you know we can talk about those
later when we get into discussing um
recommendations or um
considerations I think that's the end of
my presentation unless there's anything
else on the uh in the handout there was
a seven traffic mitigation cost future
trips that you didn't talk about some of
those seemed really straightforward to
me so if it doesn't seem straightforward
to you I'm happy to talk my way through
it the only question I had was and I
read it I didn't know if it it it was a
little confusing to me it's a recent
change the project limits and Costco's
commitment to increase the cap on their
participation to $51
million yep
so um then it says Costco is committing
to pay 48% of the $51
million and it their share of the 51
million so um
yeah first thing say was going to
increase their participation to $51
million sounded like they were
GNA their amount of
money uh let me and and and we would be
happy with
that so um
it may just be the way it's worded in
this comment no it it's it's not um and
you know you're paying a lot of
attention
Carl so that's good um originally the
mtfa um not only provided this Crossing
um to the roundabout um and then it
covered about to here and you can see
that in that sort of uh the way the
roads are shown that's shown a little um
darker um in discussing uh with Costco
as uh you know how it would work and how
the improvements would be phased in and
what happens where you have existing
buildings and there no changes being
built how do the bike lanes and the all
the other different street uh elements
of the street section that aren't
currently present how would they be
built um it was uh in in those
discussions it was determined that the m
TFA will actually go all the way up here
to
10th uh and all of this would be built
at one time so obviously there's an
increased cost to that so the project
scope the length and the total amount
increased the percentages didn't change
but the amounts that both the city and
um Costco are putting into it went up
because the project scope went up
I'm GNA let it go because I'm
confused Lucy I think what he's
referring to is that the text actually
says Costco's commitment to increase the
cap on their participation to $51
million but they're not committing to 51
million correct
yes right thank you
um actually I had uh I have some other
questions on things that have not been
brought up in the parking lot but what
I'd like to do is wait until the public
uh if there are any members of the
public that wish to speak give them the
opportunity to do so and then if my
questions are are not uh addressed we'll
bring it up in the in the individual
rounds so if there are any further I do
I do have one request Mel would you go
over once more what you're suggesting
just so I get a better understanding of
it I'm still trying to catch up here so
could I ask you to do that please sure
so I think two options one would be in
the upper leftand
corner would be pulling back the
Southwest I wrote Southeast there but
it's southwest corner a building
four and in exchange expanding the east
side of building five
to make it curval linear as building six
is is shown in the center to make it
bring that street wall up to the
sidewalk and in essence create a larger
pedestrian Plaza at the corner building
four now if they wanted to take that
building for area and move it over to
there that would make sense as well but
the main purpose being to open open up
the view of squawk Mountain another
possibility is if Lake Drive could be
made north south there at that point
instead of
curving uh then you could bring the
buildings up and still maintain that
same view of squawk
Mountain okay thank you you're
welcome are there any other uh
clarifications to sought at this point
by members of the commission if not uh
we will open the meeting to any member
of the public and
again uh the applicant has no desire to
address anything at this point all right
fine are there members of the public
that wish to
speak good evening David kapler 255
Southeast Andrea Street um almost all
the all the pictures basically of uh
views have been uh with deciduous trees
in Full full Leaf so uh there are some
different views that potential um this
summer I led um kind of joined in with
some PE teachers that were offering
summer classes for high school students
because of the jam schedules a lot of
high school kids have and we were up on
squawk and we went across the whole we
did 11 and a half miles on on squawk but
uh I said you know when you're at Costco
next time you're at Costco look up at
squawk and you'll see where we went
Central Peak West Peak and all of that
and you'll should remember this 11 and a
half mile Adventure so um that view of
squawk is pretty special and U we'll
become more special as that mountain is
discovered when we went through the
central isqua plan process there were a
few things to to buy to buy off the
public and sell the the whole concept
because people were very skeptical about
H adding this much
of population this much retail this much
office the whole bit um how is it going
to work well there was going to be work
people were going to work they were
going to play they were going to shop
they were going to live in central isqua
plan and we're diverting off this that
quite a bit with this Costco proposal in
terms of the uh the the live part yes
there was some shopping um the play
aspect really really gets to me is that
the Costco site is a major Corridor
especially over time to the state park
if you're in downtown isqua here yeah if
you want to go to the boat launch you'll
take the East Lake suami Trail and be a
noisy Trail along major roads the whole
way
practically um if you're interested in
going to the rest of the Park yeah you
can go around the um West End at 9900 or
you this Corridor the Pickering trail
part of the East Lake Mami Trail where
it's quieter than the Pickering Trail
and then you get to underneath the
bridge which hopefully will deal with
the odors and you can be right there at
the state park and so that's a major
Corridor through the Costco area for
people going there especially when we
get lifeguards at the state park and
some of those other improvements we will
see more movement of people hopefully by
foot and by bike to the state park and
we need to make sure that that that
works through the Costco
area um I guess those are the the main
aspects of where I'm going on this but
uh um we're doing a lot we got to just
look at that site as how it fits into
the whole Central isqua area and it's an
important part of that thank
you thank you sir is there anyone
else hi again y'all my name is Connie
Marsh I have a store at 1175 Northwest
Gilman Boulevard and also live in town
on squawk which looks great from a
distance doesn't it
so it's fun to listen to development
Comm commission have suggestions it's
not so fun to listen to
staff push back all the time and so you
guys have put in a lot of comments and
you've gotten a lot of Nos and one of
the few things development commission
has is the ability to approve and not
approve and that's actually a huge thing
when you're looking at uh a staff
wanting to make changes for you because
if they don't have to and it makes life
easier it's much harder to make changes
because they've always put a lot of time
and energy into it sort of the natural
human state so I would be really
reluctant to give up the teeny tiny
review process that you have left in the
Central isqua Area because you you had
so much and then the central isqua plan
area gave you only enormous buildings to
review and this is even taking that away
even while Costco doesn't have to adhere
to the central isqua plan in many ways
and it just seems
incautious to let them have this for 30
years with so little review when it is a
plan that we have never even used before
and I just think it's if I think you
need to say no I realize they're trying
to make you feel like they will listen
and they will change things I just don't
think it's within human nature to have
it be the same I also know having gone
to community conferences that it's never
a complete thing there's always things
left out and I don't really understand
how it can be early yet the same full
submitt without the staff already being
invested in what they're proposing so
that's probably enough
about that um lack of connection to the
state park did you get my video
okay I made a video and asked for it to
be sent to you before tonight's
meeting guess you didn't get
it
um the it
is unclear how the common spaces are
going to continue into the future from
the Pickering Master site
plan
uh because those are things like the
amphitheater I think they discussed
track day and I think they discussed the
stormw waterer on but there's other
little common space areas in there that
actually create some of the amenities
that Costco will use and we've discussed
and they've shown pictures of but
there's no real understanding or
criteria that those must remain um when
and if they dissolve the ccnr or change
the ccnr and so I'm a little reluctant
to to say that the ccnr can be changed
without some idea of what must remain
and the city has just said they need to
approve they don't say what they need to
agree with I think that needs
criteria um I already went through that
okay the PED connections I went and
walked and my understanding is this
isn't quasi judicial so you could go and
walk because this is a legislative
action but maybe I'm wrong uh ped
Connections in the CIP actually say 250
ft and um nowhere does it say that the
250 ft can be met by going through a
private
building because all of these P
connections are part of the green
necklace which is a very public grid
that was overlaid on the central isqua
plan to ensure that this is a public
benefit even with the growth so having
looked for shells and shs and looked
through the entire construct of that I
don't see where going through their
private buildings is uh actually
allowed and B should be allowed because
they do get some flexibility to do what
you want them to no matter what the tier
structure
is um now it also says that the
pedestrian grid is supposed to be
friendly and so in all of this I never
saw how we were getting across the
street because it's not easy to get from
the Costco store over to the other side
of the road
um as we all know if you've ever been to
Pickering barn and tried to go to Costco
it's really hard to get off across
Southeast 56 which is supposed to be a
pedestrian linkage across that's
supposed to be part of the central isqua
plan I don't understand
how P pedestrians are going to be using
that I am not clear how they're going to
be getting across from dar Park ducking
under the roundabout and going north on
the Pickering Trail in a way that feels
safe and friendly because they seem to
be having go underneath um the roadway
which is again a dark bridy type of an
area so I don't feel again the joy of
The Pedestrian connections need short
beautiful grid system and you do need
the views and one thing they haven't
talked about is uh part of the view
corridor from my understanding is that
when you in the buildings even four
floors up you you should be trying to
protect the best possible views for all
of the buildings which make your
buildings uh better for the people who
are in the buildings and their resale
value blah blah blah just to pay
attention to to it
um okay one last thing
about uh administrative adjustments in
the central isqua plan there's a lot of
ways to do that in the CIP but the staff
does need to go through
an argument of how this is in keeping or
better than the central isquat
plan guidelines that's really loose but
when you see shs and shoulds and then
you look at the vision statements and
they're all little contradictory there
are tools in there to change all of
those things so I would hesitate in
letting uh anyone tell you that one is
strictly above another because there is
a shall if the VIS language guides it
you can probably make the argument that
it is
possible um you guys should have gotten
two different very long excruciating
emails from me and a video so one last
thing I know I'm going on endlessly um
you don't have the last draft of the
development agreement and so they're
asking you to make a vote as if this is
a near final draft or something like
that they are expecting a next draft
have to come out after this vote is
already taken saying that you uh have
have reviewed and are pushing this
forward uh but you haven't even seen
what they know to be is going to be the
next draft which is unlikely to even be
the final draft so I would also hesitate
in saying that you approve of anything
that you haven't read yet thanks
good evening my name is Jim sers and I'm
the owner of Pickering Square I
represent 13
retailers out of the 24 including Costco
and all of Popa Pickering Place Owners
Association myself and Lowe's represent
two permanent board seats on the Popa
and the other board seat other than
Costco is
represented by what is known as the
lower retail which is all the other 50%
of the
retail other than being lows is all the
guys down by the theater Big Lots you're
all familiar with that area so that
group is the lower retail and they're
represented by Greg who is
here now let me give you a couple little
facts there are
24 retail operations in Pickering place
including Costco's retail
store Costco has uh in that 13 of them
half of them over half are little and
small big tenants in my
center and the office part of this whole
thing of Popa is actually a rather small
part but is going to be the greatest
impact of all with millions of square
feet possibly going up Pickering place
was designed to be a friendly
environmentally well-conceived it's one
of the most iconic shopping areas in the
state of Washington find me a better
place that looks as nice with trees
waterways Public Access you won't find
it now I represent myself and my 13
owners who I've talked or rent tenants
and I've talked to all of them and we're
very much in agreement all the way from
PCC to our smallest
restaurant we have the most biggest
concern and I think it was expressed at
the staff's invitation which we
appreciate very much Lucy and I think it
was a productive meeting there's
potential of 12 people that could have
showed up we had
five and I
think it came away Lucy didn't really
tell you what I think the real and you
can correct me if I'm wrong but the
biggest thing was about parking parking
and parking park where you shop park
where you work stay off of your neighbor
parking because there is no public
parking
and designed responsibly where you can
keep those employees where they're not
tempted to walk across the street and go
onto the Red Robin near or Lowe's Lowe's
this week has brand new signs up and
I've talked to Lowe's this week they got
brand new signs up and it specifically
says no Costco corporate
parking the Steins are still over in the
other areas even with the new parking
garage now we all agreed all of us
agreed to have that critical Wetland
area removed because it was going to
create Costco more parking which they
needed because they were all over us
most of us were not aware that they plan
to build a remote parking garage further
away than our parking lots with people
still parking we've got security cameras
up showing Costco people and Costco's
tried very hard we got a written
agreement that they would Patrol
employees parking on other people's
property because that was not their
policy and only about three or four
weeks ago according to them they changed
their policy where you were allowed to
park on site because you were forbidden
before but is this convenience of the
approval we don't know but they have
tried to Monitor and run people
off but you know it's like holding water
Upstream you either contain it at the
dam at the source
because once it gets down the river
you're not going to control it and
people will park where it's most
convenient
Costco has
the approval I believe of me and most of
the other owners in there and I'm not
speaking for them that we would like
them to build their corporate
headquarters we love
it we also really appreciate what you
guys have done and staff in developing a
future plan for the city
we think I think and I've got years of
experience in development I think your
vision for the city is quite good it's
going to be a lot of work to implement
it and you guys have got a big job
watching all the details and not taking
too big of a hurry and keeping your
Authority all the way
through I think the problem with Costco
is they're trying to get it done cheap
and at a discount they're trying to
build build a parking garage and if any
of you seen it the one they did and if
we'd ever run it through our
architectural control committee which
doesn't really exist on paper it exists
with three Costco people on it but it
had to be appointed by the board board
hasn't meet met in 12 years because
normally we do everything in an annual
meeting approve the grass cutting and
all that stuff and I know because I'm a
board member and the other two board
members Lowe's and Greg who runs the
lower retail
because we have never been to a board
meeting so we don't think there's an
Architectural Review even inside of our
own deal so that garage they got right
now never pass
mustard it would have never passed it
looks like Costco shelving inside one of
their
warehouses fortunately it's surrounded
by a lot of
trees now if this is their plan to
remote park farther away than where
people are working and shopping and my
parking lots across the street it's
never going to work we believe that with
a good architect and good design working
with staff they can generate that
parking like structural parking not down
the way but at their retail store like
they do in other locations anywhere from
Iowa to San Francisco to other
places and Costco's had a notorious
problem because they generate wonderful
traffic and customers people spend a
long time in the store because that's
how I spend a fortune at that store
every year you know I mean it's I love
the store but the problem is it can
cause
problems and it can be solved if they
generate that parking on site for the
retail and they responsibly put their
parking at the office
locations there are three
things that still have to happen for
Costco to get their dream one is your
city approval which you're going through
and I think staff has been thorough
Costco's been vague and you guys have
asked a lot of good questions that you
really haven't got all the answers and
you're being asked to leave your
Authority off in the wind and really not
be able to have the last detail on
everything but that's only one part of
the
process the city in
Costco and we have legal opinions
now cannot make an agreement just with
Costco the city made a contract with
Popa which Costco is only half
of and you can't cut a deal with them
and cut us out you have to make a deal
where we decide inside of PPA that we
agree and I think if we are made part of
the process we can make that happen but
we will stop the cities signing an
agreement with Costco on the basis of
unless you receive an agreement with our
Corporation
Popa that's just one thing inside of our
CC andrs there are many different
Provisions one of them for the kind of
thing they're doing almost any single
owner can cause a
veto then there's other
Provisions with a with a more less
stringent vote more strict vote rather
they can stop top Costco in height and
other
uses so it's kind of okay they run you
through the process and they've got a
general deal with you and the council
but now they got to get started with
us they only showed us stuff just a few
weeks ago with a meeting they invite us
to they've been having meetings and
detail meetings with the city well maybe
that's all right so they know where you
stand now they got to come talk to us
and Lucy heard it at the staff meeting
they called and again we do appreciate
that because we've never been asked to
talk to staff I mean we've never had our
own little
meeting and I think the biggest thing
you heard was parking parking parking
and do not violate your neighbor if you
go parking your car when you get home on
your neighbor's property I guess you get
upset or if he Parks his RV or his
trailer or his excess things or all of
his guests over in your lot you're going
to be
upset my retailers if they don't have
good parking and we've always had great
abundance of parking they don't have a
business you shop there at PCC or a Home
Depot Office Depot sorry and also the
restaurants because you can always get a
parking space but if you can't because
it's full of Costco employees not even
customers their business is
dead it's just common
logic so they're going to have to
convince the rest of us at Popa that
they can solve it and we want to see
specific architecture which we've never
seen we're just getting little glimpses
a very broad picture some of you have
even suggested well gee this is kind of
what does it really mean where are the
garages where do how many people are you
going to play how many people are you
going to stack in here that hasn't been
answered they're asking for a broad
brush and then they want to control a
development agreement and the other
thing that happened at the meeting and
Lucy can tell me if I'm wrong everybody
want to know what the rush was we're
just kind of really being informed of
this and we need to study it hard we
want to understand now there are also
some counterproposals going out here
that can make this happen very fast I on
my property would love to De Annex out
of the
PPA with Costco me and Lowe's we can
leave like that i' just be part of the
city I'm next to the holiday in tules
and you guys at City
Hall we could take our common area by
the way half of the common area is in
track a which is the most iconic
important area in the whole thing of
isqua because it borders the creek goes
from the highway up to the park that's
half of the common area well if all of
us in the in the lower retail Lowe's and
me said hey go you just do your own
thing you can have your common area
around your pond and you and the city
fight it out go to all public streets
and the rest of us will give you the
parkway or even put up a trust fund to
help clear the path
up because we also don't get to use that
our own common area around Costco like
we would and our
customers we regular retailers love the
public crawling all over us we don't
have membership cards to get into
PCC or into Office Depot or restaurants
and we like people flowing around we
want the public to flow over the whole
thing in fact we've even proposed some
of us to getting rid of our Popa all
together dedicate the main streets
already built all the common area around
the pond and all of that track to city
public property then you don't have to
worry about circulation because the city
owns it now maybe the city doesn't want
some of the burden of the pond
maintenance but it's a retention Pond
district and we could contribute
something every year and do a park fund
or put a taxation on us to do it the
isqua creek trail track a there's no
maintenance set you're not even supposed
to go off the brush it's a clean Trail
and it ought to belong to the public
right now because the way it's set up
technically it is private land
they could restrict the hours or
whatever and it shouldn't be that way
it's the most important connection as
some of you pointed out to the park back
to
downtown now I can understand why Costco
wants absolute control around that pond
because what they give you or tell you
is part of their neat open space for
their campus is really semi-public
semi-private that discussion came up
earlier well it ought to be just open to
the public period well that's kind of up
next to their office and maybe with
their kind of security they need that
well maybe they can keep their part of
the common area around that cut a deal
with the city but for the rest of us
what's wrong with track a just going to
the city that should not be restricted
at all and the roads that cross the last
connectors because the city already has
some down should just go to the public
too
we don't really need an architectural
review at
Popa we've got the city because what
Costco didn't do with their parking
garage because if we didn't like it we
only needed 75% vote of the remaining
half to defeat them starting
construction on it it got put up we
didn't notice it it's not going to
happen
again we don't want to do that we let
you decide on my property if if I over
time build Apartments which are
restricted in our ccnr there's no
housing allowed on this site so you talk
about your plan having balance of
housing retail and jobs Costco in most
cities be required to be putting lowcost
housing or some housing element with all
that and if you think you're going to
rely on the other side doing it which a
lot of owners over there would like to
do as Lucy and the planning staff knows
we've already
investigated as my leases come up we've
already talked to tenants how we could
rebuild do Residential then our retail
that we've got on the bottom but we've
got to contain all the parking in that
building you know we're not shifting it
off to remote site it's very expensive
to do that to make it look
good and Costco is getting by on the
cheap you can just put up a regular
stack Park you know like a park and ride
lot and not have any
housing or offices above it because that
requires a very expensive structure Life
Safety fire if you just have cars it's
easy and then you make your people walk
but they'll walk on to our Lots not go
to that so in just in kind of
recapping I can assure you that the
development agreement that we have with
the city we think Popa has lived up to
the commitment made years ago to the
city and build a pretty damn goodlook
project better than anything that you
can find anywhere it can be improved and
it can be densified we applaud Costco
for want to stay in isqua but you know
what they're not going to destroy the
other businesses in there and they've
got to come to us which they haven't
they thought it was easy because when we
did the Wetland we thought they were
solving a problem they didn't they put
the parking garage and they'd still
people come off it so now too many times
burned we if we have to stay as a Popa
with our
ccnr we're going to hold the city to the
fire on the development agreement we've
got they can always be amending it you
know with certain things like allowing
Costco to put their next building in but
there's certain things in that agreement
we like some of my tenants signed up for
40 years of leasing well before the 12
years I've owned it all right go you're
nice you let me more go more than 5
minutes that guy was tough on me so I'll
quit I think you've got the idea right
thank you sir thank
you I think at this point we will um go
back to the
commission and uh if there are further
clarifications that are desired by
individual Commissioners we can
certainly seek them if not then I think
we can go
uh understanding that if you have a
remaining uh uh request for
clarification you can do it but if not
let's just uh go right straight to the
observations uh before
we um get to the last
step Mr chair I've got one question sure
um when the
buildings so when the buildings is going
to be built 400,000 ft
building uh do fees still go to the city
for Parks police those kind of
things I and partly this comes from
thinking about extending
Trails where money might come from for
doing that down the road yes there would
be impact
fees yes impact fees would be paid okay
and those kind of fees could be used for
something like extending Trails yeah
yeah okay thank you
um I actually would like uh to get a as
succinct as you could make it but I'd
like to because the uh all obviously all
through this material that that I've
reviewed on my return there have been
frequent questions about the timeline
and about the compressed what is
perceived by many people including the
gentleman who just spoke as being a
compressed timeline and not
understanding why it has to be done that
way so if you can address that uh I I
think it would be
helpful
sure good evening development commission
Keith nian your economic development
director um so with all deference to Mr
sers he knows why the rush because we
talked about it very specifically at our
our meeting uh the city is guilty uh
guilty uh we are pushing the timeline um
the reason for that is um and if our
Public Works director was here he'd be
the one telling you why this is so
important um so the the Crux of this
development agreement we've we've gotten
into a lot of conversation about land
use and and that's all good and fine but
the real Pinnacle of this development
agreement is a partnership for building
roads and Costco as you've heard um they
are putting forward I'm just going to
use gross numbers so don't count me down
to the penny um so they're putting in
roughly $25 million and in in return for
that they want to make sure they can
build out 1.5 million square feet um the
city has committed itself to pay the
other half of that road project cost and
the way that we want to do that is we
want to do that in as smart a way as we
can which means uses somebody else's
money um and so really what's happening
is uh the city's already received some
money we received $5 million from the
Department of Commerce uh last year that
will be put towards the city's portion
of the cost of this project uh we
received another $3 million which is
being put towards the cost of the East
Lake samamish portion of the project and
the Public Works director has already
made an application to the
transportation Improvement board to um
get another approximately $10 million so
all of those things are in process proc
and the reason why the timing is so
important um is because um The Tib has
asked the city to basically prove that
this project is
real Transportation Improvement board
which I just said um so um you know the
way that the best way that we can prove
that this project is real is to have the
development agreement done um because
that shows The Tib that the council is
on board and has agreed to this
partnership for roads it shows that
Costco is on board and is signed and is
is ready to go and The Tib applications
were due in September so we've already
submitted ours uh they start making
their review in October and so part of
the reason why we're on this timeline is
because we wanted to make an application
this year this year The Tib has money uh
next year um you you've all probably
heard of McClary uh The Tib may not have
money and so part of if we didn't make
this funding cycle what we were
concerned about is that the money may
not be there next year or it may be
there in a smaller dose and if that were
to happen then the city would be forced
to pay more of the share of its share
out of its own pocket and so we believe
there's a public good to move this
project through at this speed and we
know that it's causing you guys to have
to kind of uh take a lot in really
quickly and we apologize for that but
this is kind of where we are so
hopefully that was
clear
this back to our first meeting this was
an issue back then is that the speed of
it because it it
almost you're betting you're going to
get this
money if we would slow this down
you might not get it you still might not
get it and then what happens again the
city's on the hook right so the city is
um so this question came up at the
council infrastructure committee meeting
and it was raised by um another nearby
property owner who's worried that the
city is going to at the end of the day
uh form a local improvement district and
ask the property owners to basically pay
the city's share of this Transportation
Improvement um the city at this point is
saying that uh and and I have not seen
the document but it's coming from our
finance director uh the city is saying
that it can back stop its obligation
under this mtfa so we have the either
and whether it's Council Matic bonds or
using some other tool the city has the
ability to raise its share of this mtfa
and part of the reason is and again this
isn't just uh a project that benefits
Costco this is on the city's
TI um this is part of the overall Street
Improvement projects that we've
identified Citywide that we need to
build you know along with 12th Avenue
overcrossing and reconfigure the Front
Street interchange and we have all these
this $300 million Suite of road projects
that you know what we just we need to
build at some point this is a way for us
to kind of take 50 million of that and
get it off and and going so so you're
right I mean there's a lot of there's
risk here but this is what the city
should be doing the city should be
figuring out a way to build its
Transportation projects and this is a
great way for us to do it in partnership
with our one of with our biggest city
employer um and not having to burden the
individual property owners for the
benefit go
ahead so this is uh mostly just a maybe
for Lucy a question to help me
understand exactly what is now the form
of what's in front of us for
recommendation because we got lots of
documents here we've got a number of
amendments so when we get to the point
of making a motion if we go get there
tonight I'm trying to understand
what are the documents that would make
up the recommendation that would be
transmitted to the council so
um I Lucy I would just add to to uh
commissioner Brennan's question on page
8 of 8 of the document that is dated o
August 28th there is a proposed motion
that was an initial one it's been
revised because we've had subsequent
documents right um
and and the reason we didn't include it
in your packet was we didn't want to be
presumptuous um but we do have a draft
recommendation um which I can put up on
the screen uh and so that we can edit it
but we are looking for recommendation on
the master site plan Amendment with the
three conditions that you have in front
of you and uh the eight uh conditions
with the develop agreement so those are
two separate
recommendations okay and then um just
the other the other piece there are
certain things that well I've got the
microphone that are kind of outside the
scope of generally what the development
commission um Authority is gener what on
on those things that we're acting on uh
for example how we're dealing with the
legal agreements with the um neighboring
property owners and and um dealing with
uh how do we maintain preserve and
maintain those amenities that are
already existing as part of the master
site plan that exists today as that
moves forward those are all important
things that need to be worked through um
that are still at least for me I'm still
not clear about how that all plays
forward and how that how they're
preserved um and how the obligations are
defined for future maintenance and care
but so that my thought there is there
will be things that we would like the
council to focus their attention on
these are concerns that can continue to
exist that require council's additional
consideration and we would identify what
those would be as part of the
recommendation that we would carry
forward right and that's part of why it
seemed um important to be able to write
it on screen that uh you may uh instead
of us presuming that we knew if if there
so when we've worked with the Urban
Village Development Commission on
previous um uh development agreements
for instance
a commission often is not um
technically uh prepared to review the
mtfa for instance and they may say we
recommend the development agreement but
we have not reviewed the following
sections um we are not making a
recommendation on the
mtfa um or we're making a recommendation
with certain considerations um and so
we're prepared to draft those with you
tonight um as you need them to be
drafted okay good thank
you okay Mr chair um for
um um the issue about the U proportion
from Costco and the City of isqua we're
talking about 51 million uh 48 versus
52% if the um dollar amount doesn't come
through should have could have you know
doesn't come through as the fif um um
the amount I don't know how much we're
looking for from the from the feds is
that correct or the
transportation board yeah if the dollar
amount doesn't come through the whole
dollar amount that you're looking for
It's A reduced
dollar
not um you know A reduced dollar amount
that comes through um is Costco still
obligated to come up with 27 million
if 27 is the
48% so so think about it this way so the
partnership percentages are the same and
the road project is the road project and
the road project is made up of three
pieces that's going to stay the same so
we're not talking about changing the
project and we're not CH talking about
changing the partnership so if the city
cannot get all of its funding it it
would have to figure out a different
tool to to pay for its share so and
there and the city we have a we have a
number of tools so grant money is the
best one because that comes from the
state and and doesn't come out of the
local coffers some of some of the grant
monies come with a match but here we get
to actually use the private dollars for
the match so this is a really great deal
for the city and this is why we put this
together this way but at the end of the
day if you know let's say that there's
$10 million left over that the city has
to pay for well we'll sit down with the
Council talk that through we'll figure
it out with the finance director on
what's the best way for us to raise the
$10 million that we need to finish this
obligation that we're making with Costco
we would do that that's that's not an
issue for us so there's no way out this
is a deal once we're signed up Costco
says we will pay the 48% 24 million and
the rest is acquired you're going to
have to come up with it and right now
part of it is coming from the from the
trans Transportation board if the the
transportation board reduces their
obligation then the city of isqua needs
to cough up the money there's no way
that the city can back off on this deal
then um there is the way that we've
drafted the agreement is the
city the city if the city let's assume
let's let's say that that mount rineer
blows and all of a sudden you know our
reservoirs are all gone and our streets
are all gone we're not building their
Road um we're doing a lot of other stuff
so so there are Provisions in there if
just everything is is chaos that we got
to take care of all of our Essentials
first but other than that we can't
choose to say um gee we really want to
go build a new city hall and not build
your road that that we can't do so we
can't we can't arbitrarily decide not to
fulfill the contract that we've executed
or we are proposing to execute with them
through the development agreement it's a
contract yeah well it's not arbitrarily
if the trans Transportation board
doesn't come up with the money we just
don't have it it's not predicated on
that so us so we have the money um it
just is it can come in a number of
different manners that we get it either
through grants or through passing bonds
or some other tool we can get our
portion if the council adopts this
development agreement what they're
saying is they're backstopping their
obligation for the $27 million that
we're making towards this road project
period and whether and if we can if we
if we're if we're if we're lucky enough
to get some of that offset with grants
then we're doing a good
job okay thank
you thank you Mr chairman sure is there
any other any other clarifications
questions all right I yes I do oh go
ahead uh still still confused on uh Mr
siver's comments when um if I understood
what he said bottom line is we can do
what we want but if if the po p PPA
decides they don't want to move ahead
with this they can stop it is that kind
of what I heard they're he said they're
going to have to deal with
us so I'm not I'm really confused on
where the leverages or what what happens
so I'm going to give you um so I'm not a
lawyer um there are lawyers in this room
but I'm not a lawyer um what I
understand is that so Pickering Place
unlike a lot of other properties like
your property my property unless you're
in happen to be in a development that
has binding ccnr you know most people
don't have to
necessarily um you know work with their
neighbors they don't have to um in the
case of of Pickering there are covenants
on the property that limit the amount of
development and as Mr sver said uh you
couldn't do Residential even if he
wanted to build uh housing in Pickering
today he can't do it without amending
the ccnr so Costco does need to amend
the cc&rs um they do need to get a
master site plan amendment to be removed
from the master site plan because it's a
limit and they do need to get a
development agreement to get some shity
for kind the commitments they're making
on the roads so all three of those
things need to happen and you know you
really I I don't think you can just
focus on one at a time they do need to
to work and there is a group at Costco
working with their neighbors on amending
the cc&rs um but that does need to
happen that's my
understanding but that's separate from
the cities right all of these things
need to be
done so what let let me just kind of go
to the let's say we say oh boy this is
the greatest thing we ever saw we want
to recomend the council that they go
ahead what what happens in relation to
the to Pickering
Place uh so if if so I if the ccrs
aren't amended is that what you were
asking
or I guess I'm I'm really confused
on we're in a rush we want to we want to
get this done for all the reasons that
have been been said and so we decide to
go ahead and this yeah this is really
great deal and a bargain for the city
because it'll save us all this money uh
we make the recommendation to the city
council but there's still this cloud of
the Pickering Place
organizational constraints CC andrs that
that may or may not let that may or may
not get approved by that board or that
group where where does that leave us
so so if we were so the meeting we had
on Monday and and I think I'm going to
say the same thing Jim did so if if it
sounds different let me know the meeting
we had on Monday if if you know if our
walk away from that meeting was that we
had a bunch of property owners that were
like you know oh my gosh no we we we do
not want Costco to build this this these
new buildings we don't want this new
road you know we don't want a change we
like status quo we hate the central a
quat plan I'd be worried because I'd be
thinking well gez this is is a huge
mountain to get over and I don't know
that they' they've got the patience to
do that what I heard was the same thing
Mr sers heard was we got issues with
them parking on our property and if we
just you know if we're if we sign off on
the ccnr amendment well now they're
going to have three times as much
building as they have now which means
yeah I'm going to do the math there's
three times as many people parking on my
property that I don't want so they need
to figure out their parking issue with
their neighbors and and frankly I don't
think that's that hard I mean I think if
there's if everybody's poting in the
same direction you just need to sit down
in a room and and figure it out and so
what I heard the commitment from the
people in the room is that they are
willing to have meetings basically you
know their next scheduled meeting the
way I understand it is January but as Mr
sters mentioned you know they usually
talk about cutting grass and budget and
other things so they were talking about
having special meetings to talk about
this and get it figured out what I heard
from them is if they can have a little
bit of a longer leash and you know what
we talked about was maybe the first
quarter of next year so maybe let's just
for lack of anything else say March um
they could probably have this figured
out that's the that's the impression I
got from them so what what we're talking
about here with this with these
documents that the city controls is we
can go ahead and get these done you know
and we can have the Public Works
director make his get his documents to
tib um and then basically the window
stays open for so Costco is not going to
sign the development agreement I don't
believe this is my belief they they
might say differently but my belief is
they won't sign the development
agreement if they don't get the ccnr
amended because basically they're kind
of stuck so so we're we're going through
this with an expectation that they can
work with their neighbors and get their
parking issue worked out and I just I
just have to believe that that's the
case because we're talking about a lot
of money and a lot of development Keith
let me let me follow up on that and let
me try to make this a little bit more
focused Lucy would you go over the
parking
space part of this and what Costco is
proposing to do with regard to parking
to accomp ate this growth and then if we
can get a I personally I don't speak for
the other commissioners of this I would
like to get a better understanding of
how what Costco is proposing for
parking Compares with the headcount that
are going to be in these new buildings
because that seems to me to be the
fundamental issue and if Costco comes
back and says we got a parking place and
a half for every fourth employee and we
expected number of employees then you
know maybe the issue this is a
nonissue the flip side of that or the
follow-up question is in a worst case
scenario that this organization and I
don't want to conjecture here about
whether not they're going to do it or
not but if there is
a
serious attempt on their part successful
or not to block it at what point does it
come back if at all if Costco continues
to pursue this does it come back to
review of whether it's the DC or
whatever in terms of what is being
proposed so if first place how many
parking places for how many people in
the current plan so parking standards
aren't based on people they're based on
square footage um the um standards in
central isqua are for a range of two to
thou two per th to four per thousand um
their parking is in uh
there's a existing parking lot with the
warehouse there is a five-story parking
garage which has been built they have
built that five-story parking garage so
that it can accommodate two more floors
um it's or the columns and everything
were designed for that so they would add
those two floors and then the Office
Buildings um are shown having one to two
floors of parking
underneath
um and off the top of my head I don't
remember exactly uh what that
is in terms of the number of parking
stalls per thousand
um there was some pretty specific
numbers in there but frankly right it's
on the very of the very first staff
report you received and I'm sure you all
brought every document with you um it's
the very last
page I want to make sure I'm reading
this I'm sure have a lot of finger
pointing
here it
is um I was just confirming um so the at
ultimate buildout that would be 2 per
thousand at interim stages it may be
more I think their thought is that as it
builds out over 30 years with the
multimodal
split that would be
sufficient um 2 per thousand meets the
minimum
requirement the second question was
um no I I I'll withhold it it's too it's
too theoretical so I don't want to I
don't want to waste time you were asking
if something happened and they had to
come back I I think you're probably
right about that it would have to
probably be a substantial change before
it would come back to the DC
okay um Mr chair um just point of
clarification um The Proposal that uh
commissioner Morgan made about chopping
I don't want to say chop but opening up
the view as we're driving South um where
do we go with that um is that what will
be put on the
recommendation
yeah I think it would come up as a
condition condition okay recommendation
okay um and that being the case uh I I
would say I would second that also I
would like to
add um you know the uh we talk about the
sky bridge and you said there's a u
we're down to one sky Bridge am I
correct when you say that one sky Bridge
Crossing the RightWay there is another
there are sky Bridges connecting every
pair of buildings uhhuh but
um so would that be the one connects B
uh 4B and building five
oh they
get oh I
do okay that'll show thank you um so
there are two Sky Bridges shown M uh
over ride of way they H they are allowed
to pick one of those and build one of
those um they would need to come back
for additional approval to build a
second skybridge over the rideway M all
the other skybridge that are shown
connecting
buildings um are currently allowed MH
because it's not on public right of
weight well um because we're supportive
of it in in terms of the things that it
balances and because the commission has
not raised that had has not been a
concern that the commission has raised
um the main commission concern that
we've heard is over the right of way so
that's the piece that we've focused on
okay okay
um I I don't know if uh if it's um I
guess my thought is um keeping it open
span between buildings and no
intermediate columns is what I'm looking
for and I don't know where you would put
that in your recommendation to the
council well I I think the first thing
that we would have to discuss Ry is
whether there's a basis in the Central
isqua
standards um for doing that
um okay okay and I think I think when we
get to our individual uh recommendations
all right uh and observations we can we
can certainly on an individual basis uh
address the sky Bridges as well as the
other issues okay okay okay thank you
opportunities opportunities for
collaboration with the state park system
and or connection to that I mean I think
that uh personally I'd like to
understand where where that issue is
right now uh and and the
specific impact that we can identify of
this development on the the the
CIP Trail connection which obviously one
of the major parts of that is eventually
is the state park
sure um when we went
to
oops so
um I
can so when and not sure how well this
shows up uh that had been a question
that one of the um Council people had
asked and so I went through uh the
central isqua plan and the central isqua
standards looking for the references and
um
description uh and relationship between
the um districts the central isquad
districts that are around it so to start
with um so these are little excerpts and
um this was a handout so I apologize I
hadn't planned to show it on screen so
it's a little uh little difficult to see
um this is the park in this area um
there are three districts samamish Park
Pickering and East Lake that are located
around it um this sort of central um
chart on this sheet shows um the vision
for each of these districts the uses um
the environmental features and the
mobility
connections
um all of these districts anticipate
resid uh office and some of them
anticipate residential as well
um they all uh want to integrate with
the park and um you know complement it
with corridors and shared use routs and
so part of what we looked at was was uh
how are those shown in the mapping that
identifies the um facilities that would
be built so in the central isqua plan
which is the policy document um let's
see I'm
sorry so it showed um
sorry so it showed uh this map which had
um
bike lanes and uh shared use routes
connecting into the park and the dashed
ones are the proposed ones um in the
central isqua
Plan central isqua standards it showed
essentially the same Roots um and so our
expectation is that as those
properties um either more fully develop
we're not sure how much open Land There
is or they redevelop that that would be
the opportunity at which um those
additional Roots would be
added I I think what um our citizens
were asking for was that because we were
adding additional density that those um
Roots would be
Associated um with the approval of this
development
agreement okay
CH thank you
Lucy all right um I think we've if there
are not more requests for clarification
I think we've come to the point where we
can start with our individual uh
assessment
uh of all the material and all the
testimony that we've or the hearings
that we've conducted that you have
conducted one of which I have
participated in so as usual we'll start
with
uh Mr SOA the chair at the far end and
end up with uh with me
chair well I uh I appreciate I
appreciate the efforts of of the city
staff uh I think I think uh you did a
good job of explaining I it finally got
into my head especially when when you
made the comment uh that uh the cc&rs
are still binding I mean that we can
change the master site plan but the
bottom line is the ccnr are still going
to have an over overarching effect on
what Costco can or can't do and uh that
that CLI finally you know sorry sorry to
be so dense uh I think obviously the uh
effort sounds like it's a a positive
change uh there's there's a fundamental
sense of of a need for trust
and I think as as we continue to work in
this new environment that that that will
start to prove to be good or bad and uh
so the concern right now is we don't
know you know it sounds good yeah but
I've been sold a lot of stuff that
sounded good that I necessarily didn't
turn out to be my teeth aren't any
brighter than they
were so anyway I don't really have any
subsi of comments I I appreciate the
effort and I appreciate the public and
their comments uh that was really
helpful
um
yeah thanks for the effort Lucy and
Keith uh that was very U detailed work
that you've done and very prom in
getting to us so that we could wait till
the last minute to review it but thank
you um um I think this project it's a
good opportunity for the city to get
together with um a big employer um
Costco here in SE here in isqua if we
could work things out if we can take up
the opportunity I I would surely um
support that but again it goes back to
you know we need to be careful as we
move along here and goes back to the
trust that um um Costco um has to um
give you know they're asking for just
give us the project and we'll move along
here I guess U that's the reason why we
have our jobs here is to kind look over
the the uh benefit of
isaa um so we just it you can call it
the bureaucracy but basically it's uh
looking after the interests of the city
of isa's population
community
um uh on the skybridge I guess I
would um I would ask Lucy if you could
look into that if it's in the CIP then
that's fine if not perhaps we should
say put a condition or um on the
recommendation to say um uh if Sky
bridge is um is decided if the
applicants decide to have a a sky Bridge
uh the sky Bridge shall be
um with an an open
span uh between buildings no
intermediate
columns um
and uh um limited
to I'm thinking 80 to 90%
glass
um and as far as
connecting uh right now I guess I'm
envisioning maybe one sky Bridge one
level of Sky bridge and if it goes up to
10 floor then the um Costco probably
wants to add another skybridge and if
that becomes the case then
um either come back to the city for
approval or some sort of approving
agency that would look into that if
that's what the applicants wants to do
but um I have um a lot of good fith uh
in Costco in their design and same thing
with
maini um so they've done a good job so
far but it's just a something that I
think would be um uh check and balance
that it comes back here
thank
you so uh this has been uh a confusing a
bit confusing as we're kind of Blazing
new ground here with this uh development
agreement
and um amending a master site plan and
dealing with the transportation funding
agreement and Etc so there's a lot of
pieces to this one uh which has made it
confusing a bit for us um for me anyway
um
but I'm I'm starting to get a grasp of a
grasp enough of a grasp of this to try
to get a sense for kind of where to go
um first of all the reality that we're
in is we need to get this to the council
so they have time to consider it before
this deadline to submit for a grant
consideration so sitting on it really
isn't an option and there's still a lot
of unanswered questions and so some of
those are issues that need to be further
explored I think at the council level so
I want to um suggest uh some of those um
I think first of all and we've already
heard about that the this the issue
regarding the legal agreements that um
are in place related to the current
Pickering Place Master development plan
or Master site plan um are with legal
staff need to be clarified I I think for
the benefit of the council and I think
for the the community Etc I think the
um Trail connections to the park we've
heard about that and the importance of
the integration of the work that's
happening with this part of the central
isqua plan and how that going to really
accentuate the trail system that's there
and build upon that and particularly to
the state park because the future plans
for the state park really are um much
more than what exists there today uh and
so I think we want to make sure that
we're really taking advantage of that
and whatever can happen as part of this
development and be inputed in as part of
or conditions as part of this
development should happen but otherwise
you know the funds that become available
as the as the city continues to grow and
densify um to actually make those
connections happen I think it's another
thing that the council really needs to
be thinking about how that part of the
the the broader Central isqua plan is
implemented and how what place does this
agreement have in accomplishing that
versus kind of the broader strategies
that the city has in place so I think
that's another area the council needs to
think think about um I think there's the
this risk uh for city funding we've
heard about that and I think the issue
regarding the uh transportation funding
agreement is really out of scope for the
development commission but it is
something that the council really needs
to weigh in on it's very much a policy
question for at a council at the council
level in the level of risk the city
wants to take and entering in this
agreement before there's a
funding um there's funding that's being
relied on coming from another source
that really isn't in place yet so that's
a risk factor the council needs to wait
so I think that's one that needs
additional Council
consideration um there's another piece
in here and I um it's it's kind of
legislative but it's not and it has to
do with the role of the development
commission into the future related to
this project and as this um uh moves
forward uh I understand Costco's uh
desire to have as much certainty as they
can get they're putting in a significant
amount of money for this um they're
looking for um longterm commitment from
the city and certainty in how this how
they can develop their property meet
their corporate needs uh and staff uh uh
and employee needs into the future and
and I understand that but at the same
time I'm wondering why do why does the
city give up the kind of level of
oversight and quality of design um in
this particular agreement that we hold
all of the other larger projects too as
we move ahead so I'm I'm still a little
bit um and I raised that at previous
meetings about why are we changing the
oversight level of oversight for these
projects um as they go through the the
development permit process um here um uh
I I I don't I don't understand I I think
there's that's something that a lot of
the issues that you've heard us talk
about get addressed as part of the
development process as we go through
those and ensuring that the standards
are being satisfied and the interests of
the city are being addressed and the
design is of high quality now I will say
that the work that you did um kind of
showing the progression of the design
and development of their projects on
their campus really showed a movement to
great a really great quality project and
I I have great confidence in Costco and
their design team to to accomplish that
but at the same time um I think there
are certain nuances and and um interests
that the city has that it wants to carry
out not just on this campus but
throughout the city that we want to hold
consistent to uh the rest of development
that happens in the city so on that
overe explaining myself there but I I
guess my point is I'm I'm I'm not sure
that we should give up on the level of
design quality oversight um in this
agreement and and exclude that from that
process that is um that rest of
development in this in the central isqu
area is going to be subject to so that
that is uh one of my con concerns uh and
in fact I know that's talked about in
the development agreement and I dug
around tried to find it and I I couldn't
find it but U find that section but it's
it's talked about in one of the
Amendments um
the
parking just want to comment on the
parking challenges um Mr siver's
comments um he's been pretty consistent
um through the his public comments and I
appreciate you being here again this
evening I know it's a commitment of your
time parking challenges between
properties is pretty common occurrence
in urban areas and um we try to deal
with that through development standards
and making sure there was adequate
parking for whatever the uses are um and
we try to designed parking so that it is
in a proximity that is you know serves
the use well but there are lots of other
factors that come into how parking gets
laid out and part really it boils down
to it's a property owner to property
owner parking management challenge that
you just need to figure out how to solve
and it sounds like you're you've got the
door open now which is awesome um and to
have that conversation and sounds like
Costco's done some work already to try
to put some controls in place but that's
not really something we're going to be
able to deal with here and so kind of
out of the range of what we can get at
in in the development agreement um but I
do think it's an important friction
point that needs to be you know continue
to be pursued I think it's going to be
an important thing so um uh I guess
those are my comments at this point I I
guess um willing I'm interested in
hearing other commission
members um you know feedback on on some
of these points that we want to push
forward to the council and and also the
question about the process change that's
been integrated here here
so um first of all thanks very much to
the staff for the great work they've
done Lucy and Keith you've really done
um a lot of work and I very much
appreciate the fact that all the
questions that have come up you've
responded to you've done a good job of
encapsulating the questions that have
been raised by both the Commissioners
and by the public and trying to address
those um when you've come back to us
that's been an excellent and I
appreciate very much the work that
Costco's done working with the city and
coming in front of us answering
questions as we've got them especially
appreciate the public coming in to
provide us input um and in general
Costco is a great Corporation to have in
the city of isqua I think we all
recognize that an excellent employer uh
there are good jobs to have it is
exactly what we want to see within
Central isqua when we talk about live
work play work as a huge part of that
and to the extent that we have more jobs
in downtown NOA it's always better for
us and I think uh as commissioner bernon
pointed out the design of the Costco
buildings I think has shown us that they
can do an excellent job and they have
done an excellent job in designing
buildings that are uh really a great fit
for what we want to see downtown and
Lucy I very much appreciated the
progression you showed us of how those
building designs changed and I think
improved greatly
um there are I think some some issues
that this has been uh has been sort of a
confusing process I think for all of us
a learning process some issues that I
still think are outside of our purview
which would be the like the Owners
Association issues that I don't I keep
thinking I don't think those are things
that we can address here I do think they
need to be worked out especially with
the parking but I don't think that can
really be part of our decision process
the I think would be true of the off the
some of the offsite traffic issues that
we heard in our last meeting about
design of some of the traffic uh to the
east of here I just don't think that's
for us to to get involved in um one of
the questions that comes up that that
I've um pondered a lot is the
development commission role as
commissioner Brenan pointed out the
reduction in our role going forward for
the buildings over 150,000 Square ft and
it really is it it's the elimination I
think of the
decision the process can stay the same
in terms of the Community Conference and
the input we provide to the
administration to staff it's just that
we don't get to make the decisions on
those as we would now um in a way I
don't feel that we're the appropriate
body to make that decision whether we
should do that because we'd be deciding
our own fate and I think our fate lies
in the hands of the mayor and the the
council and we shouldn't be here to tell
them what we can and can't do as as a
commission I so that part I almost
ignore somewhat and leave it to the
council to decide how much power they
want to give our commission to do so but
I do appreciate the fact that by having
Community conferences and providing
input to staff when buildings do come up
that hopefully our voice would be heard
and the public would have a chance to
app on things
um and General I think removing uh
Costco from the master site plan
amendment makes sense given how long the
MSP was put in how long ago it was put
into place and how much things have
changed including the central isqua plan
since then as to the land use plan um I
think we're trying to fit a square peg
truly into a round hole the land use
standards
for uh the central isqu plan and I was
the chair of the subcommittee that wrote
the standard so I got pretty close to
them we really designed for the idea of
a uh Square rectangular Street type
design you would see in a typical City
bringing buildings to the front parking
behind and so forth um it didn't
Envision really how do you fit that into
an existing corporate campus curval
linear streets that was designed in the
80s perhaps so so trying to do that I
think creates a lot of problems um
however I think big picture Central OAC
crop PL is better off with more jobs
Downtown and less straight uh if it's as
the sacrifice of fewer straight streets
and Corners um I do still feel like uh
the view issue is something that I'll of
squawk Mountain that I'll bring up an
amendment about so thank you
the nice thing about being near the end
is all we can say is we agree with
everybody in front of
us
um I would like to compliment the staff
again on on answering the questions and
presenting it know clear answers to what
we've asked the prior meetings similarly
like to uh compliment the members of the
public that have attended these and in
the past maybe put up with a more
stringent sh in regards to how long
people were left to
talk
um I'd Echo what commissioner Brennan
and Morgan both
said my problem has been along all along
has been the speed of which we are doing
this in regards to the
funding and now tonight all of a sudden
we we were at least new to me we we were
told that there's one little other
aspect of this called the
cc&rs and I I'm concerned about what
we're doing to try to get this money
we're rushing this through and I
understand I agree that we we can't wait
another two weeks and and beat this
horse again it's got to go the
commission or this Council and let them
decide but I'm concerned that we're
going to the
uh
Tib and that's why we want to go to them
because we want to have this develop
agreement to prove that this is a real
thing now I don't think they exist in a
vacuum and they might be looking at this
saying what about those CC
andrs it may be a real thing with the
development agreement that's only if we
can get over that ccnr hurdle and I
don't think that that's necessarily
something that can't be
accomplished but it's one more of those
variables um you know would have could
have should have that that bothers me a
little bit it bothers me a
lot I'm also a little concerned well I'm
I'm pleased that the city finally got
together and I don't know if it's
finally or based on encouragement from
the
commission um that you've had a meeting
but I'm a little concerned that you had
that
meeting
Monday and we had to get the meeting in
and get some response because we're
having a development commission meeting
Wednesday
and I would have preferred to have the
city been more proactive with the
members of the Popa particularly with
this now overriding ccnr issue U again
it may be beyond our scope
and the council will have to deal with
it as to the development agreement and
the land
plan I personally think that Costco's
design is it looks fine to me I mean
some of this is going to vary as to
where the building is going to be
aligned I think commissioner Morgan's
plan to straighten out Lake Avenue to
get the
view might or might not work with what
you guys have got already invested in
your design plan but it's something
certainly to
consider I would just hope that we
can not we the council can figure out
whether they want to take the
risk which is what it is at some point
this is a valuable
agreement with Costco to get roads that
we want and
need and the the city has to decide
whether they want to accept that risk
going
forward thank you
I'd like to start by making an
observation um and I I think anybody
that knows has been in these meetings
knows that I put great stock in not only
the staff consistently excellent work
but we always have applicants that do
very good
work uh and then we have the members of
the public which I believe are crucial
and I say at every meeting are
absolutely crucial to this
process that
said um there was an observation or a
statement made earlier this evening that
the
DC
um rubber stamps I think is an accurate
phrase uh
for issues programs whatever that come
before us for review uh I would take
issue and I'd like to do it on the
record because I believe that as far as
I can recall there has not been a single
presentation to this commission since
I've been on it where in when it came to
the final decisions the the commission
has not made
recommendations very specific
recommendations that in some cases were
uh it required significant
changes sometimes they didn't but there
as again the point is that the commi
members of this commission spend a great
deal of their private time
reviewing documents and plans and uh
attending these meetings and it is uh
always with a view toward balancing the
interests of the taxpayers of the city
and the applicant in question whether
it's a private citizen or a business
that's that's our
job and we do
it with due consideration for all the
factors involved as far as we can and we
have and will continue to make
recommendations that would will result
in changes by by the applicant so we're
not a rubber stamp I want to make that
really
clear
um when it comes to the time
frame I too was concerned about that for
those of you who don't know I this is
the first I've missed the previous
meetings because I was out of the
country uh and I was a little taken
aback by the time frame we've already
talked about this and I understand why
um what I and I I don't have a problem
with the time frame now but what I do
have uh A continuing con concern about
is that this seems to me
to require us to trust where that word
has come up Costco is going to do the
right thing when it comes to the facades
of the buildings uh the Landscaping plan
and things like that that we normally
see and I don't see us getting the
opportunity to do that going forward
with this project and if it were anybody
else Frank but Costco a company that has
the history here that has the the
demonstrated progression of their uh
their design I would be very concerned
but the development commission exists in
my opinion it exists to uh
represent the continuity of the plans
that have been put in place by the
elected
members and the staff and I don't see us
getting the opportunity to do that when
it comes to what the buildings are going
to look
like so again if it's if it's Costco
trust would verify right that's if it's
good enough for strategic arms
limitation basis trust but
verify that's what that's what uh I
would like to see us get the opportunity
to
do
um
quickly the skybridge
uh one of the things that I noted when I
was in Europe was the buildings uh the
Palaces and so on that had Sky Bridges
as a matter of fact I I find myself
taking pictures of of Sky Bridges
because as I was walking down the street
I they they caused me to look at the
vista under the skybridge so I I ab and
I absolutely understand this is the
Pacific Northwest we usually get you
know 12 months of
winter sometimes we get lucky so moving
people back and forth between buildings
I mean it hasn't even been mentioned but
it's an environmental uh issue as far as
I'm concerned as well as the other
things that have been been mentioned uh
the applicant as I understand has
already agreed to reduce the number of
Sky bridges over over right rights of
way and there is also a security issue I
my concern though and it's not really a
concern I would hope that the skybridge
cannot be completely functional but it
will also have an aesthetic
value in the design but again we're
we're we haven't seen we haven't seen
the design yet but I would urge that in
addition to um uh not blocking the Vista
but offering the Gateway aspect of it
that the that some real attention be
given to the actual aesthetic value of
the skybridge itself okay
um the last thing that I'd like to say
is that I think the council when it
comes to the role of the development
commission which is changing I
personally think the council needs the
recommendations of the development
commission council members have a lot on
their plate uh and when it comes to
things like this I believe that the
demonstrated history that we all know is
as with any executive position you rely
on staff reports and you rely on the
educated uh expressions of opinions on
relevant issues provided by commissions
and boards and things like that so I
personally I don't quite know if if we
stop producing the kinds of
recommendations and observations and
conditions recommended conditions and
amendments if we if we either stop doing
that or significantly reduce that I
don't know where the commission or the
council is going to get that information
other than from staff which is and I'm
not questioning the value or the
validity or whatever but the DC does
provide a separate set of
recommendations and observations that
can be accepted or Deni or ignored by
the council members as they see fit but
I I don't quite understand who's going
to provide the product that we now and
have traditionally provided if we don't
do it anymore so that to me is kind of a
going forward what is the role uh of the
development commission and I understand
we all do that that the city's looking
at all the boards and commissions as it
as it should in my opinion but I think
that has to be if not the primary
consideration for what we do it has to
be a major
consideration where do they get it if
they don't get it from us
okay commissioner I'd just had like to
add one more comment to we've had three
meetings in four weeks we approved three
sets of minutes and none of those
minutes had any edits to them at all and
I just wanted to add accolades to Susan
L our recording secretary for the
excellent work that she does and I know
in my case making me sound far more
cogent than I truly am thank you Susan
yeah thank you for mentioning that
because she does do amazing and the the
last you know the last thing is that
that uh this this is a function that
that is uh in my opinion I I I can't
stress this enough this is a trust issue
not just internally but it it's a trust
that that there is an entity that
doesn't represent the city that the
staff that doesn't represent the
applicant but that represents
all of the above and the
residents uh and the information that we
get and the the decisions that we make
based on that information uh are just a
fundamental positive aspect of how this
system is supposed to work and I and I
just got dunked in a Eastern European
bureaucratic I mean I asked people about
that we don't appreciate how good this
system is individually and we should and
it's tough and it's messy and there are
loose ends and everything that I hope
we're going to get a chance to address
but um that said it's good work by
everybody
okay
commissioner and looking over my notes I
skipped over something that I wanted to
bring up that concerned me a little bit
Connie Marsh made the comment that there
was additional information that should
provided that we didn't get and I don't
know if if that I don't know if that was
fact I don't know if if there was I
don't know
if there was enough time to be able to
provide that as an opportunity for us
but it it really seems it in in the
messiness of this process the the value
of making sure that we have the
opportunity to see as much in advance as
we can the public input you've done a
great job I at one point I was thinking
holy smokes if they send me one more
letter I'm never going to get this read
but it was really it's really valuable
and and I think we all I know we all
take input from the public as real
serious and we really pay atten
attention to that so uh if if there was
I just encourage the the staff to make
sure that you do as good a job as you've
been doing to get us information as soon
as
possible and just to since that probably
came to me um I'm going to go ahead and
give you my excuse if if there is one
needed so uh Mr kapler and misss Marsh
both forwarded documents to me this
morning um and asked that we get those
to the development Commission the item
that Miss Marsh referenced that she
wondered if you got was a video that she
took walking through the Costco campus
and she did it
for uh the council committee and if she
asked me to forward that to you guys I
did not get that message so you know I
apologize to her on TV for that but that
was not something done purposely so we
do try to get stuff to you it's
difficult when it comes in the day of
the commission meeting given the fact
that we're in meetings for much of the
day
I wasn't I wasn't being I wasn't looking
for an apology as much as I was just
you've done a great job of getting us
ination like I said at one point I was
thinking holy smokes if you give me any
more stuff I'm going to die but uh just
just maybe most importantly they let the
the public know how how serious we take
that information and and that feedback
from it and and I'll just say that uh I
had plans for this morning but when I
received the uh I don't know how many
pages 18 I believe 18 pages that
required review and consideration the
plans went out the window which is
another thing that I get to about the
the work that the DC does I mean I I
just can't I was so impressed with what
I looked at in
aggregate it's you know it's good work
okay enough patting ourselves in the
back um we need or me uh all right so
gentlemen the next uh issue I believe is
to consider our
um Collective position on the um the
Motions if uh there are so any is there
any further staff had a motion to kind
of set the foundation for a
recommendation maybe that's a good place
to start yes I agree well and also I
think that the mtfa yeah no mspa too
many initials the master site plan
Amendment needs to come first and that
may be a simpler one to get through the
recommendation and then um craft the
conditions that come uh with the
recommendation on the development
agreement and I my understanding and
again I'm going to get this on the
record my understanding is that if the
mspa is not approved then the da is mov
the the master site plan um because it
limits the amount of square footage in
Pickering it basically if you guys
decided that that was the most important
thing and we need to keep that sacred um
then the development agreement is moot
because they can't grow so it it seems
like tackling that issue first and then
maybe the second thing Lucy just as a
suggestion as you guys talked I wrote
down I've got nine things that I think
you guys identified I think what we need
to do is figure F out if there's
majority on these nine things or if
there's a majority on only five of them
or three of them and then we could start
working on language if you want to
forward language to the Council on these
things that you guys have identified as
you went around I mean it may be because
nobody objected maybe it means that yall
agree with it but it just seemed like
yall kind of talked about what you found
important I wrote down nine things so
maybe that's you know if we can get past
the
mspa so many letters um especially at
night um then maybe we talk about these
and we go through this list and see if
you guys feel as a majority whether
these things are as amendments to the MS
to the the the to the so as part of the
recommendation to the council you know
and just to give you examples things
like Trail connections to the park
talking about the CIP and Costco and how
it all fits together in a big Vision I
wrote down kind of the the topics that
you guys brought up not the exact words
and if you guys feel like yes a majority
of you feel like you want to address a
recommendation related to the trail
connection then we can start crafting
words on what that would mean let me
does that make sense yeah it makes sense
Keith but but um what I would suggest is
that we see if the commission can come
up with the with the S the proposed
wording uh on both of the issues the
mspa and the da they're two separate uh
votes if you will that that we're going
to take uh with appropriate amendments
that are going to so let let's see if we
can come up with them and then uh at at
the point where the proposal or the
motion is made uh we
can determine if there are any further
amendments that are necessary I think
so I
believe that the mspa so I'm just going
to summarize what I've
heard that if you are recommending to
council approval and I I haven't heard
which way the count the commission's
Leaning the only topic I've heard are
Carl's edits to condition number
two which I can drop into the motion as
you know including edits to the
following edit to condition number two
otherwise if if if it is a
recommendation to approve there is
language here that could be used okay so
I can drop that language the edit in and
then you can read the motion and see if
you would want to change it in any way
so Lucy if I can offer a friendly
amendment to your suggestion because I
think one of the things that the
commission wanted addressed at least
what I heard from a couple commission
members is to send forth um a
recommendation to the council to
consider this issue about the
cc&rs and the Popa and just to make sure
that they're tracking on the
complexities of that Arrangement and
that may want to go with the mspa and
not with the da and so just as a point
of order if you were going to do that
that might want to go there as opposed
to in the other
Camp commissioners
um so how about the timing how's that
going to go are you going to craft it in
and then for us to review or go straight
to the council we're going to try and do
that work tonight yeah so I hope you
have coffee in that um thermos of yours
so so our our all right our objective
tonight is to make a decision on the two
issues approval or
disapproval and to forward our
recommendations to the council with the
attendant amendments uh that are already
have we some of them have already been
given to us a number of times and if we
have any additional additional
amendments that we want to make then we
should do that now
tonight in order to have a complete as
complete with the time frame as complete
a set of recommendations to the council
as we can deliver from the commission
so let me try to make sure I'm clear
here maybe maybe provide some
clarification so for me the way I think
about this is that the Motions the
formal motions that we make are going to
be specific recommendations that are we
want to see included in the agreements
they're going to be modifications to the
agreements and they're going to be
binding
eventually um if the council if it goes
through and the council agrees to
whatever we suggest here or whatever we
recommend there are the other categories
and maybe the the nine things you have
on on your your list Keith and that's
these are other areas that we think the
council needs to direct some attention
but we don't have to get overly formal
about that um it it's really identifying
those those kind of key areas that the
council needs to be thinking about um
aware of that there's we had some
concerns or we had robust conversation
around these things and want them to um
because they're either out of the scope
of the commission or is for example the
issue of the role of the commission into
the future those are really things that
are Council policy choices so we can
just identify those with some fairly
General language and we can let staff
kind of craft that because you've been
here you've listened to the conversation
and I'm confident that that that would
be effectively communicated but I think
we need to make sure that the language
in the Motions is exactly what we want
to include in the what would transpire
as formal agreements eventually so
that's my understanding of the path
we're on here anybody else I personally
agree yeah I I think I get I'm I'm real
interested in the Motions but I'm also
interested in those recommendations
because there were a few that were
fairly specific that I didn't agree with
at least one so I just I I want to hear
them you know I'd like to be able to
have that dialogue go through those
before we walk away from here I trust
his staff but I'd still like to hear
what what we're recommending in those re
Rec areas of concern you know I think
it's what what
uh he wrote down
right my understanding Rules of Order
are that we will there will be a motion
made uh there will be a
discussion the motion if there are
proposals to amend it if there are
proposals to amend it those proposals
will be made at that time we will vote
on up or down on each
additional
Amendment come up with the final wording
including the amendments that have been
approved and vote on
that did I say something funny no I'm
reading what he wrote and I'm Tak me to
task on uh on on trying to inject a
little humor into the evening here thank
you thank you okay so and Mr chair just
to clarify too the extent that we make
recommendations with conditions I
presume the council can take or refute
yeah they do whatever they want they
could change any one of those
specifically it's not a yay or or IGN
right yep
absolutely okay so just to just so I'm
clear are we writing into the agreement
now or ident identifying it as an
amendment so that the council can say
yes for Amendment one no for Amendment
two that kind of thing we're we're going
to we're having we're going to have
ultimately two different votes one is on
the mspa MH and one is on the
development
agreement both the wording of those two
is uh different and there will be
amendments there already are uh
amendments to both of them that have
been discussed in the past that are
included up
here what I was saying earlier Ry is if
if there are additional
amendments that as a result of tonight's
meeting that the commission wants to
make they should be proposed disc
discussed voted on up or down and then
included in this and then we vote on the
total package of the two total packages
okay is that all right does that sound
right to everybody I know we're all this
is a new process I mean the process is
changing folks all right okay
okay so um what I've done is um edited
the uh draft based on tonight
discussion and
suggestions um and uh Carl's edits to uh
condition number
two so I I would suggest maybe reviewing
this and see if this is
appropriate okay so these are the second
one
all right this is all what we're looking
at here is all the mspa right this this
is the first one just the mspa
good Mr chair at this point can I
recommend just one small addition to
this absolutely just Lucy in the first
paragraph says subject to the conditions
ident as identified in the staff report
can we say subject to the three
conditions identified just so we know
that it's sure
is
Brandy our author is reading very very
carefully should conditions on the
bottom paragraph too
then
question is your
um configuration of the building is that
in your that would come up in the
that's that's the da the da yeah got you
I'll just dve tail into that then on the
sky
bridge is there any more changes you for
a do we have a motion to approve I'd
make a motion that we approve the draft
as presented I'm
sorry I'd make a motion that we approve
the draft as
written
second is there any discussion further
discussion int and then all in favor
indicate by saying I I
I carries unanimously Mr chair I move
that
we approve the oops oh sorry do we have
to approve the motion for the second
window well yeah the da yes no not the
da but the oh I'm sorry to direct staff
to oh right
yeah Mr chair move we approve the draft
motion for preparation memo of
recommendation second
discussion all those in
favor I carries unanimously sorry I went
to save but I was a little too
quick okay
just as a administrative thing Lucy I'm
sorry let me go ahead uh when when do
you think I can I've got some other
travel and but I want to be available
when this is presented is for me to sign
would that be like within a week I think
we're hoping to do it in the next couple
of days oh great
okay you don't have to unpack your
suitcase true
I need to
up and Lucy can you add to that the
eight
conditions
um yes but I don't know that you've got
eight conditions
you may have more condition why don't we
look at those while you do that can we
multitask so can I go to the um
sweet all right good idea no I'm sorry
not those conditions I meant no the
recommendations her those a conditions
you want to look at those now no no I
just wanted the add those in add no he
just want just say to the number eights
I got that yeah okay m
okay yeah great um so I've added eight
down here and then uh eight up there yep
great I know you go from finding fact
recommendation just like that you lost
that bunch
okay I did the
button
so so we have the a conditions right and
Keith is working on a list for um the
recommend no we're still working the
mspa now we're not we're not on the da
no we're on the da MPA done right okay
so what these these eight conditions are
going to be on the at the end of or
included in the in the recommendation on
the da yes yes all right those if so
that sheet if we agree to them right um
hypothetically speaking uh there a
there's that double-sided sheet that you
received tonight that has eight
conditions those are the eight
conditions that Mel was asking me to
reference in the um two motions
oneus is
ased oh
right okay I'm going to right I'll fix
that
is there a date on
that September
1 I was just going to ask if you're
going to add that because it's the same
paragraph as the other one
okay I love to cut and paste stuff Mr
chair move we approve the development
agreement for Costco Wholesale
Corporation ation as drafted
second discuss Mr chair I'd like
to make a motion to amend condition
number
four to remove the last bullet the in
the last bullet point remove the last
phrase beginning with and at building 4
a taking into account opportunities
preserv and or highlight views and
Vistas and add an additional bullet
point that would read at the south end
of Lake Drive maintain the southerly
view of squawk Mountain by either one
pulling back the Southwest section of
building 4 to approximately the line
showing the location of the underground
parking
garage or two revising the south end of
Lake Drive to be oriented in a north
south direction from approximately the
location of the sky bridge between
buildings four and five to its
intersection with the proposed
roundabout if building fours are revised
As Above in one Costco shall be allowed
to expand the footprint of building five
to have the Eastern facade match the
curval linear shape of Lake Drive or
expand building Forest footprint within
the bounds of the underground parking
garage line
discussion
second I'm sorry
second my my brain's not getting late so
it's um I'm not thinking as clearly as
possible but it it it seemed like we
limited Costco to building one skybridge
and it wasn't obvious to me it it would
seem like that recommendation would be
contingent upon them building the
southernmost skybridge as opposed to the
one on the North and so it would it
would see seem like we ought
to we ought not constrain them if if
they if they choose not to build that
southernmost skybridge then doesn't make
any I I still think a 90 degree
intersection is better than a you know
cute one but that's the engineering me I
think you were yeah so uh Mr chair I'd
like to amend my motion because I I was
thinking of that when I was drafting it
almost add this verbiage but I didn't to
say from approximately the location of
the skybridge shown on the plans between
buildings four and five to its
intersection with the roundabout in
other words this is just for the council
what's shown on the plans right now
whether they build that or not doesn't
really matter just so they reference an
area yeah so thanks for the question so
do we need to
reread okay yeah so I've got it written
and I need a second for my I did okay
you got a second all right so no I mean
on on the this amendment oh on the
change is there we have a do we have a
first do we have a okay so you're all
right I did the main motion second he
made it he made an amendment I seconded
both okay so any further
discussion yeah so the the one issue
that's not addressed there is the
required open space that's there's a
certain square footage of public space
that's required in the plan and part of
that was um on the that that would be
taken up by the expansion of the bill
building to align with the road so I
guess my concern is they still have to
accomplish that someplace so I'm
guessing in your proposal they would do
that now down at the corner near the
roundabout intersection correct okay so
okay and the idea Lucy I don't know if
you can pull that up again easily enough
there so in the upper leftand corner
start talking about building five on the
left side not having that public
pedestrian area in essence that would be
replaced by the area that's been taken
out by building
four uh that that's creating more open
pedestrian Plaza then okay so that
because there was conversation about
well we could have a two-story building
there potentially Etc so in this
particular proposal you would you would
flip the open space or the public space
over to uh the cornite building for
correct okay so that would require
adjustments of standards and things that
are not we we we are not there's some
process that goes with that so that's a
concern I have by the kind of clear
cutness of this that some of the process
as well as um feasibility of moving the
road isn't really taken into account so
I I I I'm I'm wondering how we can
factor in that there has been no study
of either of those uh proposals in terms
of the impacts I guess my thought is
since it is just since the council wants
us to move quickly and since it's only a
recommendation to council they'll have
this in front of them and they can
between now and when they meet it would
give them time to do their own research
staff time y okay
yeah
um so you have you you feel confident
that you have the condition because I
know I don't I've got it oh okay all
right I know she would have a perfect
anyway
I okay um I'm just GNA say um
put okay that's what you
put all right um Mr chairman would this
be a good place to put the uh um issue
on the skybridge following your bullet
we still need to vote on this amendment
I think right we need to vote on this
you want do one at a time then yeah okay
so we have a second is there any further
discussion all in favor signify by
saying I I I I all right it's
unanimous next Mr chairman um I'd like
to add another bullet to paragraph four
um in reference to um the
skybridge and um the language would read
something along the line
of um
if if the applicants decide to install a
skybridge um it shall be of one
level so I believe you're actually
editing condition number three am I
correct uh it it yeah it could be number
three I'm not sure whether we
could do number three because number
three basically says you know it's a uh
same thing as the staff report uh in the
imagery and since we're doing number
four with the um expanding
view it could go either way okay sky is
under three
though so would you re read that again
please um if the applicants decide to
install a
skybridge um it shall be of one
level and it shall not
have it shall be of open span with no
intermediate structural
columns and
with
80 I don't know what 80% of glass means
but well Ray I have a question about
that sure so you're saying that you want
an you want the cost code to be required
to build a skybridge that doesn't have
any supporting columns if they decide to
put a sky Bridge the sky Bridge shall
not shall not shall be an open span with
no intermediate columns yes including
columns that are structural that are say
4 feet from the building but don't don't
have any no columns at all just open
span I
okay is that a that's a proposal that's
yeah it's a motion a motion rather it's
a motion do we have a
second I I'll second it for discussion
all right the second is for discussion
discussion is the I I guess one the
questions Lucy I'm make sure I
understand this
um section is it section 26 of the
agreement addresses sky
Bridge it is currently the whole section
is being moved into an exhibit but
that's why it says um you see in
condition uh three the edit that says
exhibit J exhibit and okay that's where
all the interpretations and adjustments
are going into that exhibit some things
like the there's already the the walls
of the sky bre shall be transparent or
open approximately 70% so that's already
addressed in there yeah yes that is a
part of the development agreement okay
the the eight criteria that were in the
memo that you the briefing response memo
those are taken directly from the
development
agreement is there any further
discussion um I guess
the so the the the the one thing I
thought uh I guess so we have a limits
on the width
but we don't it's when you say one level
they think well what if you have one
level but it's 30 feet tall just a very
high roof but we don't have a limit on
how tall it could be right no it it has
to be a minimum of 8 feet high on the
inside um but it doesn't on the outside
or inside or outside yeah I guess what I
was looking for was rather than having
two floors connecting to two floors or
three floors
connecting the three floors so I I guess
what I would suggest is if the
commission wants to propose this that it
it would be that it would be one level
consistent with the floor levels of the
buildings to which it attaches instead
of trying to pick a number that we won't
really have any
basis for yeah I'm I'm just for the sake
of discussion I'm really concerned about
limiting you I I understand the notion
of limiting height but I think
it's really would really be a mistake at
this stage to take away discretion of an
architect to create a really great
wonderful I mean know the examples of
the sky Bridges he showed us were all
different and they all fit where they at
least to me they fit where they were so
uh I I could support maybe a a a limit
on height but I I I'm not even I
wouldn't support a no intermediate
columns that I think that can really
create some wonderful frame frame views
so uh
just not going to go there so just for
um discussion so you have some images
around those those two issues um and and
I know I said this before but just now
that you're thinking more about it uh
the these two over the RightWay use um
suspension from above um these uh
between buildings do have intermediate
um intermediary column
um and this one is more than one level
um the one thing that I noted here was
um again this didn't have columns
although the building does extend out a
bit um Costco does use intermediary
columns uh one thing that struck me is
uh what you said uh Rick was that uh
this one is uh somewhat more than the
level they've almost added a Clara story
I think for light and maybe experience a
As you move through it so let let me
just kind of defend on on the column um
I guess I was trying to get away from
having it column and second just second
level and before you know it it's a
tunnel uh that's why there's the
limitation the maximum limitation on
glass is to kind of open it up uh you
start putting columns in there and
you're squeezing yourself in there and
I'm I'm sure I'm looking at the worst
scenario and and that's why I kind of
like to open it up um so without the
column question are you suggesting
columns internal to the actual skybridge
or columns underneath the skybridge
column underneath okay we're trying to
eliminate column underneath it so in
glass so that you have the sun coming
through it's it's you can make it a very
nice feature with color panels uh
colored glass so opening that up and I
didn't want to have
again U three three story height uh
Bridges coming through you could make a
mezzanine out of that you could make a
cafe um serving coffee there and before
you know it it's a mesine and then uh
below you have the bridge going through
and so that's the reason why it's one
level instead of three so Li it to one
level no column opening it up glass the
sun is on the south side coming in very
nice well as the I guess r as the person
that seconded I would only vote for for
amend it to just one level because I
would agree with Richard about I
wouldn't want to limit the architect on
columns if there could be something done
there and I think we've addressed the
clarity in the report but I would vote
for the one one level only but I
wouldn't vote for
all three factors I would uh I would
also I agree with that I don't want to
limit the uh architectural uh
possibilities of this but this gets into
the trust but verify I mean we're at
this stage we're uh we're we're not
going to the the DC is not going to see
what the actual proposal looks like the
architectural design uh you would but at
what point when they when they are ready
to make an actual uh uh land use permit
submittal for a building of at least
150,000 square feet right if it was
shown on the land plan so buildings 4 a
4B five or six which are it when they
make their full site development permit
submitt it will come to you okay right
well and that's fine that's fine uh yeah
so I don't I agree that uh we don't I I
don't want personally I don't want to
address the columns issue um and even on
the uh one level I I think it should be
one
level uh or one
one not connect more than one level of
one building to another but I have a
little bit of a reservation about trying
to get into how high or whether it can
have a clear story on it or not so I I'm
I'm not real comfortable at this point
in the game dictating architectural uh
requirements to to the uh
so the the language then might be that
it
connects um the same level between two
buildings two two buildings right with
with uh and I'll I'll amend my motion to
delete the open span
then so it would read uh if the
applicants decide to um install a
skybridge um it shall be of one
level um so my only concern about saying
it shall be one level is that if you
wanted to add that clar story that that
some of the members seemed interested in
that might not be the
interpretation in implementing that um
one okay well one story would be one
story clear story is this is clear story
this room is a one-story room with clear
St clear story what you're asking is if
the applicant decides to install a
skybridge it may be one story in
height yeah what yeah one story in
height yeah I thought what he was saying
is it's going to connect the same level
building to building so if you're
connecting the second floor on one
building you connect the second floor on
another building so just so you know
that there the currently the skybridge
criteria does not allow significant
grade right but across so you you would
not be able I mean
unless this building was significantly
lower it it would have to connect level
two to level two and nor do as I
understand it nor does does it allow for
angles to be in for it to start lower
and have an arch or anything like that
and it has to be it has from what I
understand about it has to be level I'm
not sure I would interpret that it
couldn't have an arch Randy but I would
agree that connecting level two to level
three would not be possible okay so
let's m
so you what we want here or what I think
you're saying is you want to make sure
that we don't have multiple level Sky
Bridges so we're talking about
connecting one floor of one building to
another floor of another building well
maybe what you want to say is what you
don't want is that you don't want
multi-level skyb again how's that that's
fine okay no multi- level clear story
yeah
there we go
okay okay thank you agree so we need is
that okay so I agree with the change as
second so we have a second is there any
further
discussion all those in favor as draft I
carries unanimously all
right
okay so are there any
further there any of any on your list of
stuff that we want to list of eight that
you wanted to consider Mr chair no no I
thought well I thought the list of eight
were going to be recommendation or just
kind of recommendations we've asked the
council to to look at that you wanted to
add a condition and that and that's true
you could make a recommend it could be
part of your recommendation it
conditions probably these conditions
really relate to the land plan right so
if you had a recommend if you wanted to
give them um additional information
perspective opinion recommendations on
the development agreement that would
probably be a recommendation
Okay so one so so we covered um
commission commissioner Morgan Southern
Vista one I had that as one of my age so
if you cross that one off the others I
think are more development agreement
Orient oh I'm
sorry yes so um so of the eight um one
of them was already addressed by
commissioner Morgan so the southern
Vista the rest are um were I think
bigger uh development commission or
development agreement
um conditions or recommendations and not
necessarily tied to the land plan
okay so are there any
further is this a development agreement
yes this is the development agre this is
the da right this is the development
agreement we've already you've done the
M done the mdaa right so if you wanted
to add recommend um cont ENT to the
recommendation the probably the place
would be to put it down in that motion
that the memo to of recommendation would
include the following points
yeah yeah yeah does that make sense
here's what here's what we're really
thinking okay so again are there any
further uh amendments or conditions that
the commission wants to consider with
regard to the
DA Okay no Okay do I have a motion we've
got a motion we have a motion on the
floor was amended now we're back to the
main motion right as amended okay so
it's already been well it's already been
moved in
seconded so we're into yeah we're into
discussion on the back to the main
motion so there no there being no
further uh amendments or conditions
suggest suggested by the commission and
there being a first and a second Mo
motion we are now ready to
vote all those in favor of the da the
development agreement as worded with the
appropriate uh wording for the
conditions desired by the commission
signify by saying I I opposed
okay Mr chair I move we prepare a draft
motion for preparation of a
I'm sorry Mr chair move we the staff
prepare a memo of recommendation as
shown second second
discussion the things you might want to
add yes right so can we put the list up
so we can remind ourselves of what we
thought was important now what again
what we're doing here are these are
things that we want to call to the
attention of the city council and say by
the way we think you also ought to
really look at the following issues uh
which we believe are related to this
generally but not specifically so we'd
like you to give serious consideration
to these these points going forward
okay I didn't do that I wouldn't have I
know you were still reading no no that's
right I I can't find the on switch on my
computer so that's that I do that okay
so the first one um let me know if you
can't hear me uh the first one you may
or may not still want to keep as a
bigger topic but this was what uh
commissioner Leong brought up and and
and you know you guys work through an
amended condition but whether or not you
want a bigger more
overarching um recommendation related to
consideration of Sky Bridges and views
you know that would be number one number
two clarify the limitations to the ccrs
and the Popa for Pickering you know that
came up um number three I think this was
from commissioner Brennan was you know
talk about CI you know CIP Central qual
plan and the
Costco um kind of development agreement
and you know thinking about the bigger
picture and how those two pieces relay
and I think specifically since there's
no residential in Costco and and I'm
kind of adding my own lens is does this
mean that the city should be thinking
maybe a little bit differently about the
rest of Pickering and the Redevelopment
of that neighborhood and the inclusion
of Housing and should that be a
conversation that somebody should have
at this point uh number four and also
the other point was the kind of
integration of this development into the
trail system and and the enhancement of
that trail system to the
to absolutely um and and okay yes um uh
mtfa uh the funding risk you know that
was clearly something that the
commission had some concerns over uh the
role of DC I put trust and verify with
question mark I think the the issue that
was brought up by the commission is the
evolving or de evolving role of the
commission and the importance of that
and I think you know putting forward
that message to the council is important
and Keith I would suggest again the
issue to me for the council to consider
is do they want do they continue to want
the information that traditionally the
council or the commission the
development commission provides or not
so as a point of
clarification with a site development
permit the commission is the decision
maker and that there is no
recommendation or
additional action at the council okay so
can can I narrow this one down even a
little bit more it really is
about the the the role because this
these permits don't go site development
permits don't go back to council so they
are either at staff level or commission
depends on mostly the threshold is
150,000 Square fet so the question is
whether we want to exempt or we want to
change the process within the
development agreement to for Costco
projects that are in excess of 150,000
sare ft and remove the decision-making
role of development commission that's
the issue one point of clarification
that's only for the four buildings that
are shown on the land plan any other
buildings right that are not shown on
the land plan would go through the
standard process understood okay thank
you okay uh number six is parking um and
I think you know the parking issue was
brought up uh and then uh number will be
now seven is the speed of the process
and you know that was a concern for the
I think that gets cranked in with the
MTF funding risk
that that I can I can definitely link
those two yeah yeah all right
so my feeling on this frankly and I'll
go first so uh is that I personally
don't believe we need to address Sky
Bridges and
Views okay yeah so Keith you can scratch
through that uh I I think that uh number
my personal opinion is two we we should
ask them to think about clarification
there I'm not sure what the wording
would be at this juncture but but to me
two and three and then
uh the speed of the process the MTF
eliminate Park yeah and I think that's
right I think parking is also
uh something that you know that's that
that issue comes up with everything that
we do uh so so I'm not I'm looking at
things that are different than what we
always look at and always areas that we
always recommend that are unique to this
da okay that's that's kind of my what
I'm looking at here so clarification CIP
and Costco think about the big picture
absolutely in my opinion uh the speed of
the process driven by the mtfa and the
the concurrent funding risk if it isn't
moved that and what are the
ramifications of that and then uh the
role of the DC going forward so parking
comes off I I am I here is there a
consensus y okay all right and with five
things okay and and I in my mind the the
ccrs of Popa still in my mind become a
private issue but it becomes important
to the extent that the ccnr May limit
residential development which I hadn't
heard before tonight and so
I think that I think the city really
would like to have some residential
development take place within picking
place I would hate to see the ccnr or
Popa prevent that prevent that from
happening so just on that I agree with
that and just on that point the the ccnr
is essentially well the the the master
uh plan for Pickering Place actually
doesn't um allow for development
consistent with the central isqua plan
and so the idea here is in my mind is
how do we encourage those properties to
move forward into the kind of the
current plan and that's a strategy the
council should think about and I think
we can add that um because that's that's
a great policy direction for the council
to understand because you guys I mean if
you remember the first time we talked
about this there was some serious kind
of recoiling about well I don't know
about removing the MSP from Pickering
and that that might be a big problem and
and kind of we work through that and as
you guys learn more about what that
meant and how it limits development and
really enactment of the vision for the
CIP I think you guys came to the
conclusion yes that's 27 years old it's
from a past time we need to get rid of
it and if we can encourage other
property owners within Pickering to also
be removed from that Master site plan
that that would be good for the council
as well that's the message I heard if
you guys want to add that in here I
think that would be a great message to
send forward to the council yes that
that's I mean that's why we have this
this meeting is to address the
limitations on a member of that
organization to do what they want to do
and this is to try to address it from
the consideration of the city the plan
and the parties involved
okay and I think this we should also
include in the memo that this was really
a lot of hard work by the commission and
that we would like them to double our
salaries
we support that in an annual Z time two
is what you think the 51 million would
cover that yeah all right one other
thing uh just a thought role of the DC
um again I I think we're here because of
the council and the mayor but I think I
would not have if this had been a new
entity coming into town saying we want
the ability to do this
unproven I wouldn't have voted to
approve the idea of buildings over
150,000 going to staff with only
Community Conference but I think Costco
has proven over the years to be a good
developer good Steward of property
within the city I think they've shown
they can provide something that we'd all
like so yeah I I agree with uh
commissioner Morgan on that I think what
we what I would like to see is that we
get across to the to the we don't think
I mean it's a precedent obviously
obviously it's a precedent but I'd be
real careful about giving the impression
that this can be followed by somebody
that doesn't have a track record a
demonstrated track record that we can
look at and and mitigate to a
significant degree our discomfort with
approving things that normally we would
have to see first so I'm having to write
interpretations for all of this so I
love this
conversation um and uh
I I think two two things I think that's
a great piece and I don't know if that's
in there so I'll I'll go back and look
at that um I think the other piece is uh
that we've spent a lot of time uh on the
land plan as part of this and that we
have these existing buildings that
create this sort of style manual this
level of
expectation um that that we're not we're
not just looking at I mean the land plan
without the existing campus I think
would not be reviewable right well and I
I heard the word trust out of at least
four of you so I think you know clearly
whatever words Lucy and I picked to you
know immortalize this or memorialize
this trust will definitely be listed in
there trust and Costco as a long-term
you know city employer will be part of
that discussion so that it's clear
procedural question Keith when when does
the the commission get to see the
proposed the draft wording of these well
so that that's up to you right now the
way the motion is drafted it would be up
to you yes to now now the commission can
decide how they want that memo to be
prepared are you going to be in the
country anytime soon the next unless my
bail bondsman fails
me uh yeah all right so what I don't
want to do uh I mean obviously we've
spent enough time on this to sign
signify that it's important to us but I
don't want to get into an unnecessary
delay uh so of of of the process I mean
I I don't think this is I'm comfortable
with your
review like well I I think we'll double
your triple his salary triple uh you
know uh you also have the option of
emailing it out to other Commissioners
if you feel that you need additional
eyes on it all right so so
I'm sorry it's late for all of us so we
can vote on the da we did we
did and not have to hold anything up
with regard to these conditions so the
das's we voted on it now we're asking
the staff to draft these
conditions these points of information
points of information I'm sorry they're
not conditions they're points of
information which will be forward to the
council from the commission
and when I get
that I'll forward it to you say here's
what are the drafts I've made let me
know in what 48 Hours think we did two
other meetings wor the work don't we
isn't he catching up
still so um so just so you know the
commitment I made um in terms that
affect you guys because I commit you
guys to do all sorts of stuff um so the
commitment I made was I want to get your
recommendation out to the public public
by no later than Wednesday of next week
oh so that you know if you guys wanted
if you guys even want to keep it over
the weekend you know I'm good with all
that but by Wednesday of next week um
I'd like to get it out to the public so
the council can look at it and start to
chew on it and have some time to think
about it
okay to work okay that's
good all
right Lissa I guess just one question
the question about the trail that I
think commissioner Bren and brought up
would that also include the trail
connection within L mam State Park that
was brought up in the letter from Mr
kapler or hopefully that will include
reference to that too
so yeah thank
you I was
thinking is in in the in your opinion as
City staff
that that we it would be redundant for
us to for the DC to as one of these
recommendations or points of points of
interest uh
to ID to identify the fact that the two
things the two projects that have come
up since the CIP was put in
place uh do not on the surface appear to
be in the spirit as in residential
retail office space together but that
this this is this is in my opinion this
is the way it it's just going to it's
going to roll out I mean the fact that
there's no residential in Atlas And this
is you know the plan calls for it as Des
highly desirable but not required and if
they are concerned about the direction
that it seems to be going then they
might want to think about
it okay Mr chair we still need to vote
on the oh yeah the last we do okay
so um oh sorry I've been I
didn't yes no I
went so we have we have a motion we have
a second uh and we I'm sorry so I took
the bottom motion and I did the edits
that we did for the mspa but then I
added sort of the four consolidating the
points as I heard them this is not the
way they will appear in the memo we will
unpack these based on your discussion
between the minutes and the videotape
but just to capture that these are the
four topics with which you want expanded
within the recommendation okay
yeah all right so so again we have uh we
have a motion we have a second we have a
discussion is there any further
discussion and
then I stand retail I stand corrected I
meant retail those r words get me every
time I lived in the back off got it
right so yeah all right so again we have
H we have a first and a second and we
have discussion is there any further
discussion all right we'll then go to a
vote all those in favor of the uh motion
as drafted please signify by saying I I
I oppos ain't unanimous okay thank
you all right let's go home is there any
further
business and then the meeting is
adjourned thank you all right woohoo
good work guys good job hey seriously
after