Development Commission · Wednesday, August 20, 2014 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Contacts About Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land use actions Staff Liaison requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an Christopher Wright, Project advisory board to the City Council on land use actions requiring Oversight Manager council approval (Level 5 review). Email

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 7, 2014

packet pp.4–14

▶ Watch from 0:31 Open packet at p.4 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Costco Development Agreement Presenter: Costco Applicant

Staff Report

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, Development Services Department · packet pp.15–78

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Development Services th 1775 – 12 Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100 issaquahwa.gov

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Election of Commission chair and co- chair

Topics: Elections

4001 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ good evening we're on the

0:20 ↗ air it's

0:23 ↗ August 20th tonight's meeting is the

0:26 ↗ development commission first item of

0:29 ↗ business tonight is a review and

0:31 ↗ approval of minutes from May

0:34 ↗ 7th are there any additions or

0:37 ↗ corrections to the

0:41 ↗ minutes chair I'll entertain a motion to

0:44 ↗ accept the

0:45 ↗ minutes approved moved and seconded all

0:48 ↗ in favor I

0:51 ↗ opposed minutes are

0:54 ↗ approved tonight we're having a public

0:58 ↗ meeting it's not a public public hearing

1:00 ↗ a public meeting tonight and then on the

1:02 ↗ 3rd of September it'll be continued and

1:05 ↗ it's an effort to get

1:07 ↗ information and understanding and to ask

1:10 ↗ questions about the proposed cost code

1:13 ↗ development

1:16 ↗ plan

1:17 ↗ um if you would like to comment or ask

1:21 ↗ questions I ask you to sign up on the

1:23 ↗ sign up

1:24 ↗ sheet and depending on how many we have

1:27 ↗ signed up we'll try to somewhat

1:30 ↗ potentially curtail lengthy comments or

1:33 ↗ discussions just get your points across

1:35 ↗ ideally like maybe five

1:37 ↗ minutes of questions or comments and

1:40 ↗ then we'll move

1:42 ↗ on

1:44 ↗ so the staff will start the project Lucy

1:48 ↗ good evening um I first would like I'm

1:51 ↗ Lucy slowman land development manager

1:53 ↗ from DSD and I'd like to introduce um

1:56 ↗ two other uh City staff people who may

1:59 ↗ be um helping answer questions this

2:01 ↗ evening Keith nien economic development

2:03 ↗ director and Sheldon Lynn um Public

2:06 ↗ Works director they may have some

2:08 ↗ opening introductory

2:13 ↗ comments

2:21 ↗ okay thank you Lucy

2:26 ↗ uh as stated my name is Sheldon Lyn I'm

2:29 ↗ the Public Works director for the city

2:31 ↗ of isqua and before you is a meeting to

2:37 ↗ discuss and be presented the Costco

2:39 ↗ development agreement land use uh land

2:41 ↗ plan and the like and as a piece of

2:45 ↗ information the the schedule of this uh

2:49 ↗ agreement and land plan is driven in

2:51 ↗ part for reasons of financial aspects of

2:56 ↗ trying to get some grant money from the

2:59 ↗ state of Washington in which the

3:01 ↗ timelines and deadlines for those

3:03 ↗ applications and information associated

3:05 ↗ with it are the end of September so just

3:09 ↗ wanted you guys to be aware that the

3:12 ↗ deadlines that are uh or I should say

3:15 ↗ the process schedule that's laid in

3:17 ↗ front of you is a resultant of the

3:19 ↗ city's need to acquire money from the

3:22 ↗ state to help fund the major road

3:24 ↗ improvements associated with the

3:25 ↗ agreement and so if there's other

3:28 ↗ questions you know about that I'm happy

3:30 ↗ to answer

3:32 ↗ them um and I'm going to reserve I talk

3:34 ↗ a lot so I'm going to try not to um and

3:37 ↗ I'll Reserve most of my five minutes for

3:40 ↗ later Mr chair um what I would like to

3:43 ↗ do is because I and I haven't seen luc's

3:46 ↗ presentation so I don't want to kind of

3:48 ↗ repeat anything that she's going to

3:49 ↗ present to you guys but one of the

3:51 ↗ things that I think is of importance is

3:55 ↗ that this development

3:56 ↗ agreement the um property owner chose to

4:00 ↗ work within the central isqua plan um

4:04 ↗ recently adopted standards as opposed to

4:06 ↗ reone to Urban Village like many of our

4:08 ↗ other um development agreements have

4:10 ↗ done so that's I think a very key point

4:13 ↗ and I want you guys to kind of keep that

4:15 ↗ in the back of your mind as the

4:16 ↗ presentation goes through because that

4:18 ↗ affects a lot of not only the content

4:21 ↗ here but how we looked at it as

4:27 ↗ well for the people people in attendance

4:30 ↗ and those glued to their television at

4:34 ↗ home um again it's it's a a public

4:37 ↗ meeting we're here to get information we

4:39 ↗ are not taking a vote

4:42 ↗ tonight uh on the September 3rd meeting

4:46 ↗ uh we are being asked to make a

4:48 ↗ recommendation to

4:50 ↗ councel and we won't do anything more

4:53 ↗ till then so you'll have a chance to

4:55 ↗ speak tonight and in two weeks and also

4:58 ↗ to make written statements to the city

5:00 ↗ as well thanks Lucy go ahead thank you

5:04 ↗ so um as we've repeated numerous times

5:07 ↗ tonight we're here to talk about the

5:08 ↗ land plan and the master site plan

5:10 ↗ Amendment for

5:12 ↗ Costco um as um the chairperson

5:16 ↗ identified um next meeting you will be

5:19 ↗ asked to make a recommendation to

5:21 ↗ Council on three pieces one is the land

5:24 ↗ plan as part of the development

5:26 ↗ agreement second is um Master site plan

5:29 ↗ amendment to remove the master site plan

5:32 ↗ from the Costco

5:33 ↗ property and third by implication the

5:36 ↗ relevant elements of the development

5:38 ↗ agreement so I'm going to tonight that's

5:41 ↗ really what my focus is is to kind of

5:44 ↗ review and frame the land plan and the

5:47 ↗ staff report to talk about um the

5:50 ↗ development agreement and the relevant

5:52 ↗ elements and to talk about um the

5:54 ↗ amendment to the master site

5:56 ↗ plan and I want to let you know that

5:59 ↗ that um this is uh relatively informal

6:03 ↗ and um my presentation is relatively

6:05 ↗ long because this is a lot of material

6:07 ↗ so please feel free to interrupt and ask

6:10 ↗ questions as we go

6:13 ↗ along so I'm going to give you a little

6:15 ↗ context I think most of us know it but

6:17 ↗ um it's always good to have sort of an

6:19 ↗ introduction um this is the general area

6:22 ↗ of um the Pickering place in which

6:25 ↗ Costco's um property is located uh the

6:28 ↗ yellow box highlight

6:29 ↗ um that Pickering place in specific

6:32 ↗ although this is not the exact boundary

6:35 ↗ to the east is isqua Creek um major

6:37 ↗ environmental element to the north um uh

6:41 ↗ we have significant roads to the north

6:44 ↗ uh as well as Lake samamish State Park

6:46 ↗ um East Lake samamish Parkway is another

6:49 ↗ significant roadway connecting to I90 um

6:52 ↗ a more minor street is 221st Place of

6:55 ↗ course I90 to the South sr900 to the the

6:59 ↗ west and I also want to point out that

7:02 ↗ um although it it is no longer a part of

7:04 ↗ Pickering place um Pickering Barn is um

7:08 ↗ adjacent to all of this and is

7:10 ↗ approximately in the location of the

7:12 ↗ sort of smaller dotted

7:15 ↗ box um the map on the left uh the blue

7:19 ↗ outline shows the actual boundary of

7:21 ↗ Pickering place with um Costco's

7:25 ↗ property in Orange and salmon um just to

7:28 ↗ give you a couple of uh highlights of

7:30 ↗ that the um numbered buildings here are

7:33 ↗ the three existing Office Buildings um

7:36 ↗ one two and three in the order in which

7:38 ↗ they were occupied and built uh the

7:41 ↗ retail Warehouse is up here I put a

7:44 ↗ giant X through this because since this

7:46 ↗ aerial photo was taken the Wetland was

7:49 ↗ um removed and mitigated uh on adjacent

7:53 ↗ property um

7:55 ↗ and in the south east area is the the

7:59 ↗ trading building as well as uh since

8:02 ↗ again since this photo was taken a uh

8:04 ↗ five-story parking garage that um is

8:07 ↗ either just completed or just about to

8:09 ↗ be

8:12 ↗ completed so I'm just going to give you

8:14 ↗ a few quick images um many of these

8:16 ↗ buildings are familiar but just in case

8:19 ↗ I think it's uh good to know uh the

8:21 ↗ buildings that are part of the Costco

8:23 ↗ property of course there's the warehouse

8:25 ↗ um which I think many of us visit uh

8:28 ↗ across the street is is building number

8:30 ↗ two um which is one of their Office

8:32 ↗ Buildings then um building number one

8:35 ↗ which is the first one they

8:37 ↗ occupied um number four is this new

8:40 ↗ parking garage you can see on kind of

8:43 ↗ the right side the Wetland here and

8:46 ↗ located here that screens it from the

8:49 ↗ road um building three is the furthest

8:52 ↗ to the south of Long Lake Drive and the

8:54 ↗ newest building and then the Trade

8:58 ↗ building um as Sheldon mentioned one of

9:01 ↗ the drivers for the development

9:03 ↗ agreement is the master Transportation

9:05 ↗ financing agreement or

9:07 ↗ mtfa so I I just have two kind of

9:10 ↗ introductory slides on the vehicular

9:12 ↗ circulation um because that is a big

9:14 ↗ part of the development agreement um

9:17 ↗ there are certain roads that are

9:19 ↗ currently in place some are publicly

9:20 ↗ owned some are privately owned um for

9:24 ↗ most of our purposes that um isn't

9:27 ↗ really an important distinction um

9:29 ↗ probably of more interest are the New

9:31 ↗ Roads shown in green that will be added

9:34 ↗ um there are other places but this is

9:36 ↗ the most significant one uh that will

9:38 ↗ connect across isqua Creek to East Lake

9:41 ↗ samamish and provide a more direct

9:43 ↗ connection to

9:46 ↗ I90 so now I'm going to get sort of to

9:49 ↗ the meat of the land plan um the

9:52 ↗ structure of the presentation is around

9:55 ↗ the chapters of the central isqua um

9:58 ↗ development and design standards which

10:01 ↗ is abbreviated as

10:03 ↗ cidds um in contrast to CIP which is the

10:07 ↗ more policy type

10:09 ↗ document so um the first chapter uh is

10:13 ↗ the zoning uses and standards and the

10:16 ↗ current campus is located within the

10:18 ↗ urban core Zone um the development

10:21 ↗ agreement would entitle Costco to an

10:24 ↗ additional

10:26 ↗ 1,500,000 square feet on top of the

10:29 ↗ um uh square footage they already have

10:33 ↗ this would predominantly be office uses

10:36 ↗ but up to

10:37 ↗ 250,000 Square fet could be used for um

10:42 ↗ retail or other employment generating uh

10:45 ↗ land uses the new buildings not the um

10:50 ↗ those in association association with

10:52 ↗ the werehouse but primarily The Office

10:55 ↗ Buildings could be between three and 10

10:57 ↗ stories tall which which is consistent

11:00 ↗ with um The Heights Allowed by Central

11:02 ↗ isqua and this would meet the minimum F

11:06 ↗ of

11:08 ↗ 055 did you have a

11:10 ↗ question I had a question you said

11:13 ↗ employment generating so it couldn't be

11:16 ↗ residential right so that's an important

11:19 ↗ um point about the development agreement

11:21 ↗ residential is allowed in the urban core

11:23 ↗ Zone um Costco could do Residential if

11:26 ↗ they chose to but at this point the

11:28 ↗ traffic analysis has all been around

11:30 ↗ retail and office so there would need to

11:33 ↗ be um a bit of additional analysis

11:36 ↗ associated with residential we're

11:38 ↗ completely supportive of them providing

11:40 ↗ residential it's just not quite all the

11:43 ↗ analysis has been done to accommodate

11:45 ↗ that great

11:47 ↗ thanks um setbacks and build to lines

11:50 ↗ are also covered in chapter 4 but be

11:53 ↗ they're also regulated by chapter 11 I'm

11:55 ↗ going to wait and talk about it in that

11:57 ↗ section

12:00 ↗ um density bonus is in chapter five The

12:03 ↗ Proposal um potentially could exceed the

12:06 ↗ base height of 48 ft and so the proposal

12:10 ↗ um provides a combination of land

12:12 ↗ dedication tdrs and payment to address

12:16 ↗ density bonus

12:20 ↗ requirements chapter six um as I said

12:23 ↗ roads are a big part of this and so

12:25 ↗ there are several points I'd like to

12:26 ↗ make around um circulation facilities

12:30 ↗ associated with this proposal one is

12:33 ↗ that in the central isqua standards um

12:36 ↗ it shows the streets uh within Pickering

12:39 ↗ place as being core streets um the

12:42 ↗ development agreement uh incorporates a

12:45 ↗ modification or adjustment um in the

12:48 ↗ lingo of um the central isqua standards

12:51 ↗ to the core Street standard and there

12:53 ↗ are three aspects of it that are being

12:55 ↗ proposed to be modified and um I've

12:57 ↗ listed them but you can also kind of see

12:59 ↗ them in this table down

13:01 ↗ here one is that sidewalks are proposed

13:04 ↗ to be reduced by 2 feet from 8 ft to 6

13:07 ↗ feet on street parking is eliminated and

13:10 ↗ a center turn lane is added um so here

13:14 ↗ are some of the uh thinking behind that

13:18 ↗ um when you read the description of core

13:21 ↗ streets uh it assumes that the buildings

13:24 ↗ will set be set at the back of sidewalk

13:26 ↗ and that's part and between the location

13:28 ↗ of the buildings and the types of uses

13:31 ↗ that are um anticipated in the urban

13:33 ↗ core the streets were wider um however

13:38 ↗ Central issaqua also acknowledges that

13:40 ↗ for office uses it may be necessary for

13:43 ↗ security and private privacy reasons

13:46 ↗ that buildings be set back from the

13:48 ↗ sidewalk and um Costco has um proposed

13:52 ↗ to do that and so um we feel that the uh

13:56 ↗ 8 feet is not as unnecessary in that

14:00 ↗ circumstance um in terms of the on

14:03 ↗ street parking that was um long

14:06 ↗ discussion um we really value on street

14:09 ↗ parking um at the same time we're trying

14:11 ↗ to um fit uh an adopted standard into a

14:16 ↗ site with existing buildings and

14:18 ↗ facilities and also keep the streets

14:20 ↗ narrow and we were um Costco's uh

14:24 ↗ traffic consultant identified that uh

14:27 ↗ given the traffic patterns the use of

14:29 ↗ underbuilding parking that it would be

14:31 ↗ necessary to have a center turn lane and

14:34 ↗ in doing so uh in addition to the on

14:37 ↗ street parking the streets began to get

14:39 ↗ quite

14:40 ↗ wide so um that was the that was the

14:44 ↗ suite of um adjustments that are

14:47 ↗ proposed within the development

14:48 ↗ agreement for streets um and I just want

14:51 ↗ to note that um 6 feet is fairly

14:54 ↗ standard sidewalk width for other

14:56 ↗ streets within Central isqua so it's not

14:58 ↗ narrower than um streets elsewhere in

15:01 ↗ the circulation facility

15:03 ↗ standards and the um bicycle Lanes will

15:06 ↗ help make a more complete bicycle

15:08 ↗ circulation system within Pickering

15:11 ↗ place in terms of how these improvements

15:13 ↗ will be um constructed um they will

15:17 ↗ happen incrementally in phases as

15:19 ↗ various buildings are completed um that

15:22 ↗ is being worked out um still being

15:24 ↗ negotiated with Costco and will be

15:26 ↗ located in the master trans

15:28 ↗ Transportation financing

15:33 ↗ agreement

15:36 ↗ okay so um there's a condition number

15:39 ↗ two in the staff report um relates to

15:42 ↗ the uh incremental

15:44 ↗ construction the incremental

15:46 ↗ implementation of the entitlement will

15:48 ↗ include completing The Pedestrian

15:49 ↗ circulation system including sidewalks

15:52 ↗ on both sides of the roads consistent

15:54 ↗ with the improvements shown in the

15:56 ↗ mtfa um development agreement exhibit H

16:00 ↗ however during future land use Andor

16:02 ↗ construction permit review the applicant

16:05 ↗ May request an administrative adjustment

16:07 ↗ of Standards consistent with the

16:09 ↗ provisions and procedures of the

16:19 ↗ cids did you have a

16:23 ↗ question yeah so I'm going to make sure

16:26 ↗ I understood the last go to the next

16:28 ↗ next slide this so the incremental or

16:31 ↗ the phased implementation is what this

16:33 ↗ is referring to of the project and so

16:35 ↗ it's talking specifically about you know

16:38 ↗ the kind of the the improvements related

16:39 ↗ to the roads and sidewalks Etc and I was

16:42 ↗ thinking about are there other public

16:44 ↗ amenities that the timing is going to be

16:46 ↗ important depending upon how the project

16:47 ↗ phases and and should those amenities be

16:52 ↗ identified and implementation timing be

16:56 ↗ um prescriptive and maybe a little less

17:00 ↗ so and I again since this is very high

17:03 ↗ level conceptual design at this point

17:06 ↗ but it seems that that's going to be an

17:08 ↗ important factor I think in how phase

17:10 ↗ development happens so that it makes

17:12 ↗ sense and so that some of those

17:13 ↗ amenities are brought online as the

17:16 ↗ project moves ahead when it comes to the

17:19 ↗ uh public

17:21 ↗ amenities okay and you're thinking of

17:23 ↗ the public men amenities not necessarily

17:26 ↗ the public amenities in association with

17:28 ↗ the streets yes okay great I

17:31 ↗ just things like that okay and I'll

17:34 ↗ touch on that when I get to community

17:36 ↗ space I hadn't thought about that that's

17:37 ↗ a great question

17:41 ↗ thank um the second piece of the uh

17:45 ↗ chapter six um circulation facilities I

17:48 ↗ wanted to touch on was block length um a

17:50 ↗ big part of central isqua is to try and

17:53 ↗ create a very pedestrian friendly fine

17:56 ↗ grain pedestrian Network

18:00 ↗ um and that's somewhat of a challenge in

18:02 ↗ this area um for the office area we have

18:07 ↗ existing shared use routes which include

18:10 ↗ um the Pickering Trail between isqua

18:13 ↗ Creek and the buildings which exist now

18:16 ↗ and the um Pickering Pond Trail both of

18:19 ↗ which are show shown as shared use

18:21 ↗ routes in central isaga um plan and

18:24 ↗ standards there will also um there

18:27 ↗ either are or will will be these

18:29 ↗ sidewalks along streets um as part of

18:32 ↗ that standard so in a sort of north

18:34 ↗ south section um or north south

18:37 ↗ orientation we have our pedestrian and

18:40 ↗ bike facilities at about the frequency

18:43 ↗ that's anticipated by Central

18:46 ↗ isqua but um as we look at East West

18:50 ↗ connections you can see that there's not

18:52 ↗ going to be a lot of through streets

18:55 ↗ because between the pond and the creek

18:57 ↗ it's just relatively difficult and maybe

19:00 ↗ not even appropriate to make um the kind

19:02 ↗ of frequency of connections that the

19:05 ↗ plan anticipates and so um part of our

19:08 ↗ discussion was to look at well how can

19:11 ↗ we provide regular connections between

19:14 ↗ uh the street Lake Drive and these two

19:17 ↗ Trail systems shared use routes that

19:19 ↗ already

19:21 ↗ exist so

19:23 ↗ um obviously we can connect between

19:26 ↗ buildings such as shown in these kind of

19:28 ↗ longer um dashed lines um and along here

19:32 ↗ as

19:33 ↗ well however those um connections are

19:36 ↗ not quite at the frequency that was

19:38 ↗ anticipated in central isqua so part of

19:41 ↗ our discussion with Costco was around

19:44 ↗ how to get um a frequency that's

19:46 ↗ consisted with consistent with the

19:49 ↗ standards and

19:52 ↗ um one of the solutions that we came up

19:55 ↗ with was to provide connections through

19:58 ↗ through the

19:59 ↗ building now those could be arcades and

20:01 ↗ arcades might be um if you think of that

20:03 ↗ as like a you know open ground floor

20:06 ↗ passageway um those those could be open

20:09 ↗ to the public um but they could just as

20:13 ↗ much be an Atrium or some other uh kind

20:17 ↗ of facility that wasn't open to the

20:19 ↗ public um Costco does maintain a secure

20:22 ↗ campus um and their buildings would not

20:24 ↗ be generally open for the public so um

20:27 ↗ we had to discuss uh the implications of

20:30 ↗ that one of the things I think there

20:32 ↗ were a couple of factors that made us

20:34 ↗ comfortable with using this tool in this

20:36 ↗ circumstance I don't think it would work

20:39 ↗ um in many other if any other places of

20:42 ↗ Central isqua and that is um allowing

20:45 ↗ the through building connections to

20:48 ↗ stand in for um more open publicly

20:51 ↗ accessible routs part of that is because

20:55 ↗ um even though even with the street

20:57 ↗ system connect Ed out to East Lake

20:59 ↗ samamish with the new road

21:02 ↗ um down here um we still think that the

21:05 ↗ majority of people that will be in this

21:08 ↗ area and that would be connecting

21:09 ↗ between the road and the trail will be

21:12 ↗ isqua I mean isqua Costco employees and

21:16 ↗ their visitors and they have passes that

21:18 ↗ would allow them to use the building and

21:21 ↗ we're also as I said not going to have a

21:23 ↗ street um grid that connects in the same

21:26 ↗ way that it does in the rest of central

21:28 ↗ isqua so we feel that the frequency and

21:31 ↗ ability for the majority of people to

21:33 ↗ make these regular connections meets the

21:35 ↗ intent of central

21:38 ↗ isqua uh in the warehouse block um it's

21:42 ↗ it's really a super block um it's about

21:45 ↗ 600 by a th000 feet which is um

21:47 ↗ significantly larger than is anticipated

21:50 ↗ in central isqua but the reality is that

21:53 ↗ as long as the warehouse and the um

21:56 ↗ surface parking occup that block it

21:59 ↗ really isn't possible to break it down

22:02 ↗ into the kind of fine grain grid that

22:04 ↗ Central isqua uh envisioned when that

22:07 ↗ block when and if that block is

22:09 ↗ redeveloped so at the at this time the

22:12 ↗ um circulation pedestrian circulation

22:14 ↗ through that block is really um I think

22:17 ↗ a almost complete or complete um system

22:21 ↗ of there's a roote along the front of

22:23 ↗ the store that connects from samamish um

22:27 ↗ down to like drive and then there's also

22:29 ↗ another route that connects between 10th

22:32 ↗ and 11th along

22:36 ↗ here any questions before I go

22:39 ↗ on so there's a really long condition

22:42 ↗ associated with

22:43 ↗ this

22:46 ↗ incrementally sure since we're yeah yeah

22:49 ↗ kind of do this an informal approach so

22:53 ↗ what you just described as far as trying

22:55 ↗ to you know the the cross block

22:57 ↗ connection or mid block connections and

22:59 ↗ connections to the trails Etc and the

23:02 ↗ point that you said well most of the

23:03 ↗ people here will be is Costco employees

23:07 ↗ and so that should be fine and so I

23:10 ↗ guess a little bit of concern about that

23:12 ↗ because what it starts to feel like is

23:14 ↗ if you're not a Costco employee you're

23:16 ↗ not welcome here and this is a part of

23:18 ↗ the city that we want to invite people

23:21 ↗ to and so my thinking is what are the

23:25 ↗ things that we're doing with this

23:26 ↗ project or with this

23:28 ↗ development agreement that would

23:30 ↗ actually bring other people to this part

23:32 ↗ of the city to enjoy the features that

23:34 ↗ the city provides there's a trail city

23:36 ↗ is going to have roads sidewalks it's

23:39 ↗ going to be Landscaping there's a pond

23:40 ↗ there's there's a number of things that

23:43 ↗ that people could come to enjoy but if

23:45 ↗ it starts to feel like well this is

23:47 ↗ Costco's space don't come here and I

23:49 ↗ don't think that's what the corporation

23:51 ↗ wants to have happen either but it it

23:53 ↗ seems like some thought needs to be

23:55 ↗ given

23:56 ↗ to um make making it inviting for all

23:59 ↗ not just for people that work in those

24:04 ↗ buildings so let me just remind you um

24:07 ↗ because um it's been a while since we've

24:09 ↗ done this and it is something of a new

24:11 ↗ process as we um go through this evening

24:15 ↗ and we receive questions and comments

24:16 ↗ and concerns from the commission and the

24:19 ↗ public we will um prepare we're that

24:23 ↗ we're writing these down and we prepare

24:25 ↗ a briefing response memo so sometimes we

24:27 ↗ have answers this evening and sometimes

24:29 ↗ it's best to you know sort of um think

24:32 ↗ it through and give you a more concise

24:34 ↗ um answer so I made some notes and we'll

24:37 ↗ include that in the briefing response

24:41 ↗ memo so just I he's kind of spurred me

24:44 ↗ on to thinking I just want to make sure

24:46 ↗ I understand the the through block

24:48 ↗ passages are are lit are really public

24:51 ↗ accesses but the through building things

24:53 ↗ the expectation would be that those are

24:56 ↗ probably not open to the public that

24:57 ↗ they are secure for the Costco employees

25:00 ↗ is that correct so these ones that like

25:02 ↗ this one right and this one those are

25:05 ↗ outside right okay so it's these sort of

25:08 ↗ um lighter or shorter Dash lines that

25:11 ↗ would go through the building so it's

25:13 ↗ kind of every other now this is a

25:15 ↗ concept we're not saying it's going to

25:17 ↗ be built exactly like this but this is

25:18 ↗ the kind of framework that we reviewed

25:21 ↗ um this assuming we could achieve

25:26 ↗ this

25:29 ↗ so um here's the

25:31 ↗ condition incrementally build a

25:33 ↗ connected pedestrian system between Lake

25:36 ↗ Drive and the shared use routes behind

25:38 ↗ the buildings Pickering Trail and

25:40 ↗ Pickering Pond Trail consistent with the

25:42 ↗ intent of section 6.2 pointa if the

25:46 ↗ buildings are longer than 300 ft open a

25:49 ↗ arcades enclosed through building

25:51 ↗ atriums or elements that serve a similar

25:53 ↗ purpose will be provided to implement

25:55 ↗ the block length requirements of SE

25:57 ↗ section

25:59 ↗ 6.2.8 the land plan was evaluated and

26:02 ↗ approved with the following level of

26:04 ↗ connectivity being determined to be

26:06 ↗ consistent with the intent of section

26:09 ↗ 6.2.8 at approximately the frequency

26:11 ↗ shown in the staff report

26:13 ↗ illustration one outside through block

26:16 ↗ passages between buildings and two

26:20 ↗ internal building passageways via main

26:22 ↗ entrances from Street side plazas and

26:24 ↗ Trailside plazas which will have access

26:27 ↗ Limited to Costco employees and invited

26:29 ↗ guests however the staff report

26:31 ↗ illustration is a concept and will

26:33 ↗ likely not be constructed exactly as

26:35 ↗ shown entries into and exits from the

26:38 ↗ buildings to the plazas may not be

26:40 ↗ internally connected via a straight line

26:43 ↗ though the route through the building

26:44 ↗ should be direct and comprehensible for

26:46 ↗ Costco

26:52 ↗ employees so the third element um

26:55 ↗ associated with the circulation

26:56 ↗ facilities chapter are sky Bridges which

26:59 ↗ we've um placed under additional

27:01 ↗ facilities which is a section in that

27:04 ↗ chapter um however Sky bridges are not

27:06 ↗ listed under additional facilities um

27:09 ↗ that's a new element um to Central isqua

27:12 ↗ um Costco currently has two um one is

27:16 ↗ located here and one is located here um

27:20 ↗ in considering uh the use of Sky Bridges

27:25 ↗ and continuing those um

27:28 ↗ staff's uh thought was that um we need

27:32 ↗ we need to be respectful of the secure

27:34 ↗ campus complex that Costco has and yet

27:37 ↗ we want a frequent pedestrian um

27:41 ↗ external system that connects between

27:43 ↗ the trails and the street if we didn't

27:46 ↗ allow Sky Bridges then we would likely

27:48 ↗ have more monolithic buildings that

27:50 ↗ would not allow that frequency of

27:51 ↗ connection and the sky so the sky

27:53 ↗ Bridges seem like a good balance between

27:56 ↗ acknowledging their need for a secure

27:58 ↗ campus and providing these um between

28:01 ↗ building connections at ground

28:04 ↗ level

28:06 ↗ um if you read the transmitt along with

28:09 ↗ all the other many many pages we sent

28:12 ↗ you um you may be aware that there's

28:15 ↗ there was a draft development agreement

28:17 ↗ um online um it was from July 7th uh

28:22 ↗ next week there will be an updated

28:24 ↗ version of the development agreement um

28:27 ↗ that will be available and I assume

28:30 ↗ you'll be sent a link to that um that

28:32 ↗ contains you know ever since that draft

28:35 ↗ from July 7th came out we've been

28:37 ↗ continuing to negotiate and work through

28:39 ↗ issues and one of them um one of the

28:41 ↗ things that we've talked a lot about are

28:43 ↗ sky Bridges I'm not going to list all

28:46 ↗ the different criteria that are in there

28:48 ↗ but there were a couple of pieces I just

28:49 ↗ wanted to provide to you um one was that

28:53 ↗ um there could be one sky bridge between

28:56 ↗ each pair of buildings which is what is

28:58 ↗ shown on the land plan to the right and

29:00 ↗ kind of circled with little um yellow

29:03 ↗ ovals and that there could be two uh Sky

29:06 ↗ Bridges crossing the wideway and the

29:09 ↗ rest of the criteria really around

29:10 ↗ design and I won't read those to you you

29:12 ↗ can see them in the development

29:14 ↗ agreement um next

29:19 ↗ week um and there was a condition

29:21 ↗ associated with Sky Bridges as well in

29:24 ↗ addition to the review criteria and

29:26 ↗ standards in development agreement

29:28 ↗ section 12 the design and review of Sky

29:31 ↗ Bridges will use the images and captions

29:33 ↗ provided under chapter six of the staff

29:35 ↗ report and in the imagery staff report

29:38 ↗ attachment 4 as illustrative

29:45 ↗ guidelines so um chapter seven is

29:48 ↗ community spaces there are um four

29:51 ↗ Community spaces um Associated um as

29:55 ↗ shown on the plan and there's one

29:57 ↗ associated with each building um what

30:00 ↗ the land plan really identifies is the

30:02 ↗ location of the community space um that

30:05 ↗ would be provided with each building it

30:08 ↗ indicates that it meets the minimum size

30:11 ↗ um and uh in thinking about your

30:14 ↗ question Mike um it would be th those

30:18 ↗ are required in association with those

30:20 ↗ buildings so the timing would be

30:22 ↗ associated with the construction of the

30:25 ↗ building um but there may be other

30:27 ↗ amenities that come up over the course

30:28 ↗ of the evening so please identify

30:31 ↗ those um the other thing that the land

30:34 ↗ plan shows about Community spaces is

30:36 ↗ that a lot of the or all of the existing

30:38 ↗ spaces such as the amphitheater and such

30:41 ↗ are being maintained as part of the plan

30:43 ↗ going

30:49 ↗ forward parking um I'm going to look at

30:53 ↗ this kind of ass in association with

30:55 ↗ each uh use for the office parking um

30:59 ↗ the garage which has already been

31:01 ↗ constructed and has five floors U

31:03 ↗ located over here is one of the primary

31:07 ↗ ways that they're parking the project uh

31:09 ↗ the plan also includes the addition of

31:12 ↗ two more floors for a total of seven

31:14 ↗ floors in the parking structure uh which

31:18 ↗ has been designed to accommodate that

31:20 ↗ each of the new buildings 4 a 4B 5 and

31:23 ↗ six um each have underbuilding parking

31:26 ↗ sh one to two levels um the parking in

31:30 ↗ front of buildings one and two remain um

31:34 ↗ since these buildings aren't being

31:35 ↗ changed uh they aren't being required to

31:39 ↗ um modify those there is a small surface

31:43 ↗ lot um a new small surface lot being

31:46 ↗ proposed over here um overall um the

31:50 ↗ parking associated with the office Falls

31:52 ↗ between the minimum and maximum range um

31:56 ↗ and really uh implements a big part of

31:58 ↗ the vision of central isqua by

32:00 ↗ eliminating the use of surface parking

32:03 ↗ and moving towards structured parking as

32:05 ↗ the way to um address parking needs

32:08 ↗ with uses going

32:12 ↗ forward uh the warehouse uh is um

32:15 ↗ because it isn't really being

32:16 ↗ significantly changed it may have some

32:19 ↗ expansions uh it is um continuing to

32:22 ↗ rely on Surface parking um if and when

32:25 ↗ it's redeveloped that might change um

32:29 ↗ there is one adjustment in the

32:31 ↗ development agreement that I want to

32:33 ↗ point out to you and it's um a size of

32:36 ↗ parking stalls versus a maximum

32:39 ↗ ratio uh in the development well in

32:42 ↗ central isqua standards the standard

32:45 ↗ parking stall is 185 by 9 ft Costco is

32:49 ↗ asked to be able to have a parking stall

32:51 ↗ 10 by 20 ft and we were willing to do

32:54 ↗ that because we recognized that loading

32:57 ↗ the amount and size of material that

32:59 ↗ often comes out of the store um

33:01 ↗ necessitates being able to get between

33:03 ↗ cars and um we understand that need um

33:08 ↗ Cusco also asks to be able to um exceed

33:12 ↗ the maximum and um continue to use five

33:15 ↗ stalls per thousand square feet um in

33:18 ↗ thinking about this we said if you want

33:20 ↗ to do the 5 for thousand stalls you'll

33:23 ↗ need to use the standard Central isqua

33:26 ↗ stall St size if you want to have four

33:30 ↗ per thousand stalls you can use the 10x

33:32 ↗ 20t stall size and what this is is um

33:37 ↗ basically is a wash in terms of

33:40 ↗ impervious surface so our we'd have a

33:43 ↗ little more parking stalls or a little

33:45 ↗ larger parking stalls the amount of

33:48 ↗ impervious uh surface associated with

33:50 ↗ each of them would be um fairly

33:55 ↗ consistent

33:57 ↗ um does that change anything required

34:01 ↗ the number of stalls per business that

34:03 ↗ we talk about

34:05 ↗ routinely well this only for the

34:07 ↗ warehouse so um for the Costco warehouse

34:10 ↗ I understood but I mean

34:12 ↗ that with the size of that building

34:15 ↗ they're supposed to have X number of

34:18 ↗ stalls yes does this change

34:21 ↗ that do not it does not change the

34:23 ↗ minimum it could potentially change the

34:25 ↗ maximum for a building of that size the

34:29 ↗ maximum ratio would be four stalls per

34:32 ↗ thousand square ft of

34:33 ↗ store and so they can decide if they

34:36 ↗ want to go up to five per thousand which

34:40 ↗ is not normally allowed for a store this

34:42 ↗ size they would have to use the smaller

34:44 ↗ stall size

34:46 ↗ okay thank you

34:50 ↗ yep um landscape um when I was writing

34:55 ↗ the staff report I kind of focused on

35:00 ↗ um you know that there's not a lot of

35:03 ↗ detail at this kind of high conceptual

35:05 ↗ level about

35:06 ↗ landscape um but when I was working on

35:09 ↗ uh this presentation I I began to kind

35:12 ↗ of rethink that a little bit there there

35:14 ↗ are four topics that are covered in this

35:16 ↗ chapter um landscaping for streets

35:19 ↗ landscaping for parking lots landscaping

35:21 ↗ for Community spaces and tree retention

35:24 ↗ and

35:25 ↗ protection um I realized that the on the

35:29 ↗ street trees and um planting strip

35:34 ↗ parking um there's already a lot of that

35:36 ↗ there some of it may change as streets

35:39 ↗ are incre incrementally rebuilt but

35:41 ↗ that's a relatively prescriptive

35:43 ↗ standard I mean there's certain kinds of

35:45 ↗ trees provided every 30 feet and so uh

35:48 ↗ without knowing EXA uh having pictures

35:51 ↗ or specific drawings we still have a

35:52 ↗ pretty good sense of what that might

35:54 ↗ look like and feel like and uh same with

35:57 ↗ parking lots there's you know you have

35:59 ↗ to have 10% landscaping and one tree per

36:01 ↗ six stalls etc etc and that's a

36:04 ↗ relatively um prescriptive standard uh

36:07 ↗ that would be um used for any changes or

36:10 ↗ additions to the uh Warehouse parking

36:14 ↗ lot since there aren't any really

36:15 ↗ parking lots with the Office

36:18 ↗ Buildings so the two that we have a

36:20 ↗ little bit less information about one is

36:22 ↗ the community spaces however um if

36:24 ↗ you've looked at the imagery and I'm

36:26 ↗ sure um Steve bulock from mulany G2 will

36:29 ↗ speak to this tonight um there are

36:32 ↗ images included in the um packet that

36:36 ↗ you received uh kind of uh indicating

36:39 ↗ the sort of character and um feel of the

36:42 ↗ plazas that they um imagine doing as

36:45 ↗ well as the plazas that they already

36:47 ↗ have um and tree retention again is a

36:50 ↗ relatively prescriptive process um they

36:53 ↗ will either meet the tree retention

36:56 ↗ requirements um for the parking lots

36:58 ↗ because that's what they're

36:59 ↗ predominantly taking out they're not

37:00 ↗ taking out big fields of grass and trees

37:03 ↗ or um they can um apply for an

37:07 ↗ adjustment of Standards using the

37:08 ↗ criteria that are um set up in the

37:10 ↗ central isqua standards so there's no

37:12 ↗ change associated with

37:19 ↗ that so here's here's a mey one um

37:23 ↗ chapter 11 is site design um you may

37:26 ↗ remember when we were looking at chapter

37:28 ↗ 4 I mentioned that setbacks and um build

37:32 ↗ two lines that we were going to talk

37:34 ↗ about it later um in chapter 11 are many

37:37 ↗ of the requirements for setbacks Street

37:40 ↗ walls um build two lines um there are

37:43 ↗ very uh Central isqua establishes um

37:46 ↗ some very specific requirements um you

37:49 ↗ can go up right behind the sidewalk or

37:51 ↗ right up to the property line uh the

37:54 ↗ most you can set back is 10 ft um you

37:57 ↗ have to have 75% of a parcel or block

38:01 ↗ with a street wall

38:03 ↗ Etc um in looking you know one of the

38:06 ↗ advantages of looking at a piece of

38:09 ↗ property um with the standards is really

38:12 ↗ understanding how do those two things

38:15 ↗ work together and we recognized um in

38:18 ↗ looking at the Costco property that

38:20 ↗ there were several challenges uh one is

38:23 ↗ that Central isqua uh either as it is

38:27 ↗ built now or is is it as it is intended

38:30 ↗ to build out will have a relatively

38:32 ↗ rectilinear or geometric Street grid

38:35 ↗ that um is not the nature of the streets

38:38 ↗ that um were built with Pickering place

38:41 ↗ also um we don't really see uh

38:44 ↗ relocating the streets to try and force

38:46 ↗ a street grid onto this given the number

38:49 ↗ of buildings and Facilities that have

38:51 ↗ already been built um the street Network

38:55 ↗ um can't really be connected as I

38:57 ↗ mentioned with the creek and the pond so

38:59 ↗ you don't end up with blocks that make

39:01 ↗ it easy to apply these sort of

39:03 ↗ prescriptive standards um about Street

39:05 ↗ walls and um we also discovered that um

39:09 ↗ there really aren't Parcels for instance

39:11 ↗ all the buildings uh through or all the

39:14 ↗ property through here is on one big

39:16 ↗ parcel so it it became difficult to kind

39:19 ↗ of imagine how this would uh how we

39:22 ↗ would meet those requirements without

39:23 ↗ having um kind of continuous curval

39:26 ↗ linear buildings which although they

39:28 ↗ proposed one curval linear building uh

39:31 ↗ it did seem like a lot to assume that

39:33 ↗ every single building would be built

39:34 ↗ that

39:35 ↗ way so instead what um we are proposing

39:40 ↗ is to meet the intent of these as

39:43 ↗ opposed to so meet them more as a

39:45 ↗ performance standard than a prescriptive

39:47 ↗ standard um and that would be by

39:50 ↗ creating Street walls to the extent that

39:52 ↗ it's practical and feasible to provide

39:55 ↗ frequent consistent strong edges to the

39:58 ↗ public realm and that Community spaces

40:01 ↗ and buildings be built to complement

40:03 ↗ each other and to reinforce um the

40:09 ↗ street I thought before I went on to the

40:11 ↗ condition I'd give you a chance if you

40:13 ↗ had any

40:14 ↗ questions or

40:17 ↗ thoughts

40:19 ↗ okay so um the image on the right uh is

40:24 ↗ the red indicates some of the places uh

40:26 ↗ this is in the staff report and

40:28 ↗ indicates some of the uh refinements to

40:31 ↗ the land plan that we would anticipate

40:33 ↗ to um comply with the that kind of

40:36 ↗ intent um staff report condition number

40:39 ↗ four is really long so I don't think I'm

40:40 ↗ going to read it to you um but the

40:44 ↗ intent is to really establish uh is to

40:47 ↗ capture that intent so it's um

40:49 ↗ predictable for both Costco and City

40:51 ↗ staff and the commission going

40:55 ↗ forward

41:00 ↗ buildings um I know with uh the last

41:03 ↗ permit that came before you you know a

41:05 ↗ big part of your review and interest and

41:08 ↗ concern is the character of the

41:09 ↗ buildings we don't have specific

41:11 ↗ building designs however we have six

41:15 ↗ existing buildings and we also have uh

41:18 ↗ the imagery that's been provided to you

41:21 ↗ that begins to capture the kind of

41:22 ↗ materials detailing design um that

41:25 ↗ Costco has used in the past and intends

41:28 ↗ to use going forward um so uh From

41:33 ↗ staff's perspective that um we thought

41:35 ↗ set a good um sort of threshold for

41:38 ↗ moving forward and having a clear

41:40 ↗ understanding shared understanding of

41:42 ↗ what buildings would be like um there

41:44 ↗ was uh one element in the

41:48 ↗ um uh land plan that we did want to

41:51 ↗ clarify and that was around entries um

41:54 ↗ the uh red ovals indicate uh where the

41:58 ↗ land plan shows that entries might be um

42:01 ↗ and we're agreeing that um entries in

42:04 ↗ those General locations would meet the

42:06 ↗ intent of central isqua along with

42:09 ↗ either um potentially an arcade which is

42:12 ↗ what those Dash lines indicate or um a

42:16 ↗ employee only entrance um off of Lake

42:19 ↗ Drive so that there's kind of this axial

42:22 ↗ um Terminus at building six would um

42:26 ↗ have a door or something kind of

42:27 ↗ welcoming even if it was not available

42:30 ↗ to the general

42:32 ↗ public so the condition associated with

42:35 ↗ that um number five reads each new

42:38 ↗ building shall provide a primary entry

42:40 ↗ in into the building from the street

42:42 ↗ through though security May limit who

42:44 ↗ enters the building building six may

42:47 ↗ have its public entry from the pondside

42:49 ↗ plaza consistent with the

42:52 ↗ cidds however a staffon entry shall be

42:55 ↗ placed on Lake Drive drive and

42:56 ↗ positioned and designed to reinforce the

42:59 ↗ Vista and communicate that it is a

43:00 ↗ primary building entry unless an arcade

43:03 ↗ is provided approximately as suggested

43:05 ↗ in the land Plan Building one's entry

43:08 ↗ route from the street to the door shall

43:10 ↗ be reasonably redesigned during the

43:12 ↗ future land use and construction

43:13 ↗ permitting process for building six to

43:16 ↗ make the sequence consistent with the

43:18 ↗ central isqua design and development

43:20 ↗ standards as practical and reasonable

43:23 ↗ let me just touch on that last one I I

43:25 ↗ didn't mention that

43:27 ↗ this is building one and uh currently

43:30 ↗ and its entrance is over here and so you

43:33 ↗ can see that this area uh is being

43:35 ↗ changed which would potentially impact

43:38 ↗ the entry into building one and we're

43:41 ↗ just indicating that um additional

43:44 ↗ design and review would be necessary to

43:46 ↗ to make sure that that um the entry

43:49 ↗ sequence complies with the central isqua

43:55 ↗ standards

44:00 ↗ so that's the land

44:06 ↗ plan absolutely the condition or

44:10 ↗ the

44:25 ↗ okay

44:43 ↗ so I'm looking at understand

44:48 ↗ chall I

44:54 ↗ know 30-year

44:57 ↗ plan um but just a couple of elements

45:00 ↗ that jump out at me a little bit here is

45:03 ↗ we have I like the idea of connecting

45:05 ↗ those public spaces the lower the two

45:08 ↗ red dots at the lower part but as you

45:10 ↗ move up we've got a parking lot now

45:11 ↗ that's right up on the street that's

45:14 ↗ kind of not exactly what we're looking

45:16 ↗ for and as there's some way that we can

45:19 ↗ uh create a different experience along

45:21 ↗ that edge um that's maybe not parking

45:24 ↗ try to do something that moves out a way

45:25 ↗ or does something along that Frontage

45:28 ↗ because right across from that it's a a

45:30 ↗ plaza so you have this or or an entry

45:32 ↗ Plaza but right across you've got what

45:34 ↗ is a p or a Suburban surface parking lot

45:38 ↗ and that's not what we're looking for so

45:40 ↗ just these are some just observations

45:42 ↗ and trying to understand the intent and

45:43 ↗ how you're trying to meet that with the

45:46 ↗ challenges you're facing also The

45:48 ↗ Pedestrian Bridges and I think we're

45:49 ↗ probably going to talk more about this

45:51 ↗ that's a lot of pedestrian pulling the

45:54 ↗ pedestrians up off this off the ground

45:56 ↗ and running them across uh at Second

45:59 ↗ Story level it pulls all of that

46:01 ↗ activity up off the street

46:04 ↗ so um particularly those that cross the

46:08 ↗ public road so I I wonder if that's the

46:11 ↗ right solution at that level of

46:13 ↗ connectivity through pedestrian Bridges

46:17 ↗ um through all of the buildings

46:18 ↗ essentially you could enter one of these

46:20 ↗ buildings and not leave campus uh or

46:24 ↗ walk across all over campus here without

46:26 ↗ leaving a building and I I'm not quite

46:28 ↗ sure that's an outcome that's going

46:31 ↗ to

46:33 ↗ um be what we're looking for so just a

46:36 ↗ concern based on the the the use the ex

46:40 ↗ extensive use of pedestrian bridges on

46:42 ↗ this plan

46:54 ↗ great so the second piece I wanted to

46:57 ↗ touch on was the development agreement

47:02 ↗ um uh this is a new thing to the

47:05 ↗ development commission most of the ones

47:07 ↗ have gone through the Urban Village

47:09 ↗ Development commission so I want to

47:10 ↗ provide a little bit of introduction and

47:12 ↗ then walk you through some of the

47:14 ↗ components of the development agreement

47:16 ↗ um so the purpose of this development

47:20 ↗ agreement is you know reduced probably

47:23 ↗ overly reductionist is to um identify

47:27 ↗ this entitlement and the requirements um

47:30 ↗ that come along with making that work

47:32 ↗ and two of the big ones I wouldn't say

47:34 ↗ they're the only ones but two of the big

47:35 ↗ ones are the master Transportation

47:37 ↗ financing agreement so all the roads

47:40 ↗ that are necessary to um be able to

47:44 ↗ build the 1.5 million square feet um and

47:47 ↗ you'll hear me talk a lot about the mtfa

47:49 ↗ in a minute um and then the land plan

47:52 ↗ which is the piece that you're looking

47:53 ↗ at so um let me talk a little a little

47:55 ↗ bit more about those what is your role

47:59 ↗ in looking then at the development

48:01 ↗ agreement so we are not asking you to do

48:04 ↗ the kind of technical review that would

48:06 ↗ be necessary to look at the

48:08 ↗ mtfa um that is primarily a a council

48:13 ↗ financing Public Works financing and

48:15 ↗ transportation analysis document you're

48:18 ↗ of course welcome to give us comments on

48:20 ↗ it but that isn't an expectation that

48:22 ↗ you um have the um expertise and

48:27 ↗ understanding to uh dig into the

48:30 ↗ mtfa um and unlike many of the Urban

48:33 ↗ Village Development agreements isqua

48:35 ↗ Highlands Talis rally

48:37 ↗ Etc um this development agreement really

48:41 ↗ relies on Central isqua plan and Central

48:44 ↗ isqua standards so those documents are

48:47 ↗ enormous because they are creating their

48:49 ↗ own goals guidelines and standards for

48:52 ↗ going

48:53 ↗ forward this document this um

48:56 ↗ development and this entitlement is is

48:59 ↗ implementing the central isqua plan and

49:02 ↗ standards um so then what are we asking

49:05 ↗ you to do one thing is to do the kind of

49:08 ↗ planning review that the development

49:10 ↗ commission does you look at the land

49:12 ↗ plan and you provide us comments based

49:14 ↗ on the central isqua plan and standards

49:18 ↗ um just like any other land use permit

49:21 ↗ you review um also as part of a land use

49:25 ↗ permit

49:26 ↗ um you are often looking at the kind of

49:28 ↗ adjustments and interpretations that

49:30 ↗ staff apply when they're looking at an

49:33 ↗ actual piece of property with the

49:35 ↗ standards applied to it um in addition

49:39 ↗ uh Central isqua anticipated that a

49:42 ↗ certain level of flexibility would need

49:44 ↗ to be um used in the methods but not in

49:48 ↗ the objectives so part of what we're

49:51 ↗ asking is that you look at the

49:53 ↗ adjustments and interpretations that we

49:55 ↗ provided and give us feedback on whether

49:57 ↗ you think those are appropriate ones

50:01 ↗ um and you're then of course welcome to

50:03 ↗ comment on anything else that's in the

50:05 ↗ development agreement but those are

50:06 ↗ really the pieces um that are of

50:08 ↗ particular interest and importance to us

50:10 ↗ to hear from you

50:12 ↗ on so now what I'm going to do is run

50:16 ↗ through some of the adjustments and

50:18 ↗ interpretations that we've done you've

50:20 ↗ heard most of them through the staff

50:22 ↗ report but I just want to really call

50:24 ↗ these out so that they're clear to you

50:25 ↗ you um the first one is the floor area

50:29 ↗ ratio or f um how it was applied to this

50:33 ↗ project um one of the challenges that

50:37 ↗ comes with a PL does everyone know what

50:40 ↗ an F

50:43 ↗ is okay um so uh floor area

50:48 ↗ ratio there's a certain minimum and a

50:51 ↗ maximum floor area ratio that the

50:53 ↗ central isoa standards esta

50:57 ↗ establish and um we're looking at a

51:00 ↗ project that's going to be phased in

51:01 ↗ over a number of years on a single piece

51:04 ↗ of property so how do you know when do

51:06 ↗ you get to that minimum how do you know

51:08 ↗ if you getting enough um so what we

51:11 ↗ wanted was to create a level of

51:13 ↗ predictability upfront and so what we've

51:15 ↗ looked at is the property that they're

51:17 ↗ proposing to develop and the total

51:20 ↗ buildout the 1.5 million square fet as

51:22 ↗ well as the existing buildings that

51:25 ↗ exist on that property and whether they

51:27 ↗ meet um it at buildout we we are not

51:31 ↗ proposing to look at it at an

51:33 ↗ incremental level throughout the

51:35 ↗ buildout period so that's the first um

51:39 ↗ interpretation the second is density

51:41 ↗ bonus um it's a relatively similar issue

51:44 ↗ they are exceeding the um base height

51:48 ↗ which would trigger the need to provide

51:51 ↗ um density bonus um we have run a number

51:54 ↗ of scenarios for how they might build

51:56 ↗ out the property and um might phase it

52:00 ↗ and have uh arrived at um a certain

52:04 ↗ amount of square footage that would um

52:08 ↗ in as an average between these various

52:11 ↗ scenarios um be above the base height

52:14 ↗ and have used that as the basis for

52:15 ↗ calculating density bonus um and that's

52:19 ↗ they're providing land and money um as

52:22 ↗ part of that consistent with chapter

52:24 ↗ five

52:28 ↗ um setbacks and build to line there

52:30 ↗ isn't an interpretation that's included

52:33 ↗ in the development agreement it's in the

52:35 ↗ staff report it's the one I've already

52:37 ↗ um talked to you about but it's

52:39 ↗ referenced in the development agreement

52:40 ↗ so I just wanted to identify that since

52:43 ↗ it is in the document the document

52:45 ↗ references the staff

52:48 ↗ report sorry Lucy if I can back up just

52:50 ↗ one second absolutely so that that

52:52 ↗ calculation of the if I understand

52:55 ↗ understand it correctly it was 1.25

52:58 ↗ million in cash this

53:02 ↗ is back to the density bonus

53:06 ↗ plus I just want to make sure I had this

53:08 ↗ right is it

53:09 ↗ plus

53:11 ↗ 167,000 square feet of open space I'm

53:14 ↗ gonna let Keith is that right that's

53:17 ↗ right okay it's those two things that

53:19 ↗ they

53:21 ↗ provide so um so we actually the the

53:25 ↗ version that's the second version 2.0 um

53:29 ↗ you know after we wrote that up I we

53:30 ↗ think that's the way that it's going to

53:31 ↗ get accomplished but basically what the

53:35 ↗ what what the CIP allows for is

53:38 ↗ basically the first third of the area

53:43 ↗ above four stories needs to be paid for

53:45 ↗ by cash the second 2third or the other

53:48 ↗ two3 the remaining 2/3 can be either

53:50 ↗ satisfied with an additional cash

53:52 ↗ payment or the provision of open space

53:55 ↗ or the provision of affordable housing

53:57 ↗ or tdrs and the only thing that's not

54:02 ↗ kind of under consideration right now by

54:04 ↗ Costco is affordable housing because

54:06 ↗ they're really not anticipating housing

54:08 ↗ at this point as part of the development

54:10 ↗ agreement so what it's going to say is

54:13 ↗ that they will provide some

54:15 ↗ combination of either money open space

54:19 ↗ or tdrs to satisfy that second 2/3 but

54:24 ↗ at the end of the day they will

54:26 ↗ basically compensate for 250,000 square

54:30 ↗ fet of office space above four stories

54:33 ↗ that's kind of where we landed thank

54:38 ↗ you so setbacks in Bill two were in the

54:41 ↗ staff report we already covered those um

54:44 ↗ another one was the adjustment to the

54:47 ↗ core Street standard which again we

54:48 ↗ covered in the staff report but the

54:50 ↗ actual standard is captured in the

54:52 ↗ development agreement so I just wanted

54:54 ↗ to identify that

54:56 ↗ that corporate ID signs um there aren't

55:00 ↗ any signs in the land plan so this

55:02 ↗ didn't come up but I just want to

55:04 ↗ identify um it as uh an adjustment which

55:08 ↗ is included in the development

55:10 ↗ agreement right now um a

55:13 ↗ building uh of whatever height can have

55:16 ↗ a wall sign up to 65 ft in height a

55:21 ↗ corporate ID sign is for significant

55:24 ↗ employ employer um motel or hotel or

55:28 ↗ hospital um and for a significant

55:32 ↗ employer you would have to have a

55:33 ↗ 10-story building to have a corporate ID

55:37 ↗ sign Costco is asked to have one

55:40 ↗ corporate ID sign that they could have

55:44 ↗ on one of their buildings but that was

55:47 ↗ between the 65 and the 10 stories which

55:50 ↗ is essentially the maximum height um so

55:54 ↗ it would um that the adjustment is that

55:57 ↗ you wouldn't have to be 10 stories tall

56:00 ↗ but you would only get one um if it was

56:03 ↗ less than 10

56:09 ↗ stories uh another interpretation had to

56:12 ↗ do with the warehouse parking lot lights

56:15 ↗ um their lights are taller than are

56:17 ↗ allowed by Central isqua and standards

56:21 ↗ and so the question was at what point do

56:23 ↗ they have to bring them into to

56:25 ↗ compliance with the shorter pole Heights

56:27 ↗ um The Challenge isn't the shorter poles

56:31 ↗ it's having to rewire and relocate

56:33 ↗ everything in the parking lot to reach

56:35 ↗ the lighting levels and so there's

56:39 ↗ um you'll see it in the new development

56:42 ↗ agreement um a they can continue to use

56:45 ↗ a certain number of these lights until

56:47 ↗ 50% of the parking lot is changed and

56:50 ↗ then they will bring that into

56:52 ↗ compliance Lucy can I um just add one

56:55 ↗ clarification so so as Lucy is putting

56:58 ↗ up this list and it's saying adjustment

57:00 ↗ or interpretation I just want to be

57:02 ↗ clear with you folks that right now

57:04 ↗ they're the development agreement is not

57:05 ↗ done obviously so these are proposed so

57:08 ↗ this is you know what we're doing is

57:09 ↗ we're inviting a conversation with you

57:11 ↗ guys on these things so if you feel like

57:14 ↗ we drew the line in the wrong spot you

57:16 ↗ know let's talk about that and see you

57:18 ↗ know if it needs some additional

57:20 ↗ thinking on our

57:23 ↗ part

57:26 ↗ I guess a question do you want all our

57:27 ↗ comments now or or if we have some ideas

57:29 ↗ on that at the end you can you can

57:32 ↗ certainly do it now so you if you don't

57:34 ↗ have to remember it but if you want to

57:35 ↗ wait till the end I'm fine too I I I'll

57:37 ↗ take them whenever you want to give them

57:40 ↗ great no I can I'll

57:45 ↗ remember I

57:47 ↗ bet um there's the re uh retail

57:50 ↗ Warehouse stall sizes versus the maximum

57:52 ↗ parking ratio which we already talked

57:54 ↗ about

57:55 ↗ uh and then this the ability to use Sky

57:58 ↗ Bridges um which is we consider an

58:02 ↗ interpretation so um the other piece of

58:05 ↗ the development agreement just to kind

58:07 ↗ of give you um a well-rounded

58:09 ↗ understanding hopefully um there were

58:11 ↗ certain elements in the uh development

58:14 ↗ agreement that we thought might be of

58:16 ↗ interest to you they don't directly bear

58:18 ↗ on your review but we thought that they

58:20 ↗ sort of relate to some of the things

58:22 ↗ that you think about um the entitle

58:25 ↗ piece we already covered that that

58:26 ↗ residential would uh require some

58:28 ↗ additional review to be

58:30 ↗ allowed um second is expansion areas um

58:34 ↗ I have a map on the next slide but I

58:36 ↗ just want to note that the expansion

58:38 ↗ areas are not all in the urban core some

58:40 ↗ of them are in the mixed use

58:43 ↗ Zone um I'm sorry to interrupt again no

58:46 ↗ that's no because I again back to the

58:48 ↗ employment

58:49 ↗ 250,000 of employment oriented uses

58:53 ↗ because when I look at at the

58:54 ↗ development agreement it just says

58:56 ↗ 250,000 may be utilized for non-office

58:59 ↗ uses and I don't remember reading

59:01 ↗ employment oriented in the development

59:03 ↗ agreement itself is that we're very

59:05 ↗ annoying that way that we keep writing

59:07 ↗ um so um that's that's the language that

59:10 ↗ we settled on because the non-office

59:12 ↗ uses would have allowed residential um

59:15 ↗ and we hadn't done the traffic analysis

59:18 ↗ that would be necessary so that was a

59:20 ↗ clarification that will it's yes great

59:23 ↗ that's a 2.0 thank

59:26 ↗ you so expansion areas um maybe before

59:31 ↗ you go through that I'm I'm back to the

59:34 ↗ far if you can drop back to that

59:37 ↗ included in the package you sent us was

59:40 ↗ this far calculation sheet and and I got

59:46 ↗ confused with the outline of the

59:47 ↗ property I didn't understand what that

59:50 ↗ was why that particular picture because

59:53 ↗ it includes an awful lot lot of stuff

59:56 ↗ that isn't Costco

1:00:03 ↗ property yeah that's the one right there

1:00:05 ↗ you just passed

1:00:06 ↗ it that it's a similar map but I think

1:00:10 ↗ that's it right there yeah and I I got

1:00:13 ↗ confused as what you were trying to tell

1:00:15 ↗ us with

1:00:17 ↗ this picture in regards to far

1:00:20 ↗ calculations

1:00:23 ↗ right

1:00:26 ↗ so um the uh Costco property is this

1:00:30 ↗ Peach and orange right um so the um I

1:00:35 ↗ didn't know why the rest of it was there

1:00:37 ↗ I don't know why you had that BL maybe

1:00:39 ↗ it's just me but I didn't know why you

1:00:41 ↗ had to have that stuff the whole

1:00:42 ↗ boundary in place I got confused so I'll

1:00:47 ↗ tell you I didn't draw this but I um uh

1:00:50 ↗ I'm not picking on the person who did I

1:00:53 ↗ think they were using um standard

1:00:55 ↗ graphic that they had used elsewhere

1:00:57 ↗ that just showed uh Costco's property

1:00:59 ↗ relative to other properties in the area

1:01:02 ↗ but okay but so all you're talking about

1:01:03 ↗ with this graph is just the the brown or

1:01:07 ↗ the orange or whatever the color that's

1:01:09 ↗ Pro okay thank you

1:01:20 ↗ yep

1:01:22 ↗ so expansion areas

1:01:25 ↗ the um white are the expansion areas

1:01:29 ↗ that Costco has proposed uh the red does

1:01:33 ↗ yeah shows up so the red is their

1:01:35 ↗ existing boundary and the white are the

1:01:39 ↗ areas that they have proposed as um a

1:01:42 ↗ potential expansion areas um but in and

1:01:46 ↗ this again is in version 2.0 that we

1:01:50 ↗ realized um that if they brought in all

1:01:54 ↗ 200

1:01:55 ↗ 48 Acres they would not meet the minimum

1:01:58 ↗ F so they are restricted to 45 Acres of

1:02:03 ↗ additional land that could be brought in

1:02:06 ↗ without um additional review to ensure

1:02:08 ↗ that we would meet the minimum

1:02:23 ↗ fa

1:02:29 ↗ I think we'll wait on a public until

1:02:32 ↗ after you're done okay um vested rights

1:02:37 ↗ um by this I mean um that the central

1:02:40 ↗ isqua plan and standards that are in

1:02:42 ↗ place at this time will be the plan and

1:02:46 ↗ standards used for the term of the

1:02:48 ↗ development agreement um this is

1:02:50 ↗ something that's allowed by the state

1:02:52 ↗ regulations and has been very commonly

1:02:55 ↗ done in the other development agreements

1:02:57 ↗ but it is one of the questions that um

1:02:59 ↗ Connie raised in her

1:03:03 ↗ letter permit

1:03:05 ↗ processing um I don't think this is in

1:03:08 ↗ I'm not sure which version was in 1.0

1:03:11 ↗ but I know in

1:03:12 ↗ 2.0 um most of the permit processing is

1:03:15 ↗ the same as uh was adopted in central

1:03:19 ↗ isqua the one difference is that as they

1:03:23 ↗ bring in the building since you've

1:03:25 ↗ reviewed the land plan and made a

1:03:27 ↗ recommendation on it as they bring in

1:03:29 ↗ the actual buildings they will do a land

1:03:32 ↗ use permit if the building is over

1:03:35 ↗ 150,000 Square ft it will come back to

1:03:38 ↗ the development commission but it'll be

1:03:41 ↗ more like a Community Conference rather

1:03:43 ↗ than a

1:03:44 ↗ decision so that's the proposal right

1:03:51 ↗ now is it also true then that a building

1:03:54 ↗ shown on here 10 stories tall there

1:03:57 ↗ would be no public hearing on it either

1:04:00 ↗ Community Conference or just open

1:04:01 ↗ hearing no if they brought in one of

1:04:04 ↗ these Office Buildings whether as if it

1:04:06 ↗ was over 150,000 sare F feet because you

1:04:09 ↗ may remember under 150,000 is

1:04:11 ↗ automatically administrative in central

1:04:13 ↗ isqua so if it's over 150,000 Square F

1:04:16 ↗ feet sorry turn it

1:04:18 ↗ off

1:04:21 ↗ um on the top button that's fine

1:04:26 ↗ sorry um if it's over 150,000 Square F

1:04:31 ↗ feet it would um come back to the

1:04:34 ↗ commission to you guys for input from

1:04:38 ↗ you and the public but the decision

1:04:41 ↗ would be made administratively so we're

1:04:43 ↗ we're getting the input but it's not a

1:04:45 ↗ commission decision is that for any

1:04:47 ↗ building or just ones not shown on the

1:04:49 ↗ land plan only for the ones shown on the

1:04:51 ↗ land plan because you have already had a

1:04:53 ↗ chance to comment on them if building

1:04:56 ↗ and thank you for asking that for

1:04:57 ↗ buildings over 150,000 Square ft that

1:05:00 ↗ are not shown on the land plant they

1:05:02 ↗ would go through the standard

1:05:04 ↗ process so it's only the ones that you

1:05:06 ↗ have had a chance to look at through

1:05:08 ↗ this process but they both get a public

1:05:10 ↗ hearing some you would get a more like a

1:05:13 ↗ public meeting or Community Conference a

1:05:15 ↗ chance for public input yes but you

1:05:17 ↗ would actually have a public hearing for

1:05:19 ↗ if it wasn't shown on the land plan it

1:05:21 ↗ would go through the standard process

1:05:22 ↗ which would include a public hearing

1:05:24 ↗ great okay

1:05:30 ↗ thank um the term of the development

1:05:33 ↗ agreement is 30 years um so the

1:05:37 ↗ components they would have an

1:05:38 ↗ opportunity to build out um their

1:05:41 ↗ buildings and use the regulations for

1:05:44 ↗ that period of

1:05:45 ↗ time um I also just wanted to point this

1:05:48 ↗ out because this is something that's

1:05:49 ↗ common in other development agreements

1:05:51 ↗ but um which you U may not have run

1:05:54 ↗ across before um which is that along

1:05:57 ↗ with the administrative adjustment of

1:06:00 ↗ Standards um if there is a request by

1:06:03 ↗ cost code to change certain things it

1:06:07 ↗ has to go back to council so there's a

1:06:10 ↗ list of sort of um I don't I can't the

1:06:12 ↗ name keeps changing major modifications

1:06:16 ↗ Council amendments something like that

1:06:17 ↗ but it's in the development agreement

1:06:19 ↗ and it's a list of things that if those

1:06:21 ↗ would are being changed like if they

1:06:23 ↗ want to use a use that's not listed in

1:06:25 ↗ urban core if they want to change the

1:06:28 ↗ mtfa if they want to um uh change things

1:06:33 ↗ associated with the F they would have to

1:06:35 ↗ actually go to council to be able to do

1:06:42 ↗ those so that's um sort of an overview

1:06:46 ↗ of the development

1:06:48 ↗ agreement another piece that you're

1:06:50 ↗ asked being asked to um comment or make

1:06:53 ↗ a recomend recommendation on is the

1:06:54 ↗ master site plan

1:06:56 ↗ Amendment so um why is Costco asking for

1:07:00 ↗ this amendment um when the council

1:07:02 ↗ passed Central isqua um plan and Central

1:07:06 ↗ isqua

1:07:07 ↗ standards

1:07:09 ↗ um uh to be able to use those Costco um

1:07:14 ↗ or anyone in Pickering Place cannot

1:07:16 ↗ develop really under the master site

1:07:19 ↗ plan because um there's kind of two

1:07:23 ↗ different approaches the height height

1:07:26 ↗ limits are significantly lower the

1:07:27 ↗ impervious surface is significantly

1:07:30 ↗ lower the parking is significantly

1:07:32 ↗ higher is three examples so to be able

1:07:34 ↗ to take advantage of the central isqua

1:07:37 ↗ approach um they are asking to

1:07:41 ↗ um uh eliminate the master site plan on

1:07:44 ↗ their

1:07:45 ↗ properties um one of Connie's questions

1:07:48 ↗ was um what is the city city giving up

1:07:51 ↗ um through

1:07:52 ↗ that generally speaking

1:07:56 ↗ um since the city uh in 2012 and 2013

1:08:00 ↗ adopted the two pieces of central isob

1:08:03 ↗ we feel like that was a decision that

1:08:05 ↗ was already made there was zoning and

1:08:08 ↗ all kinds of things that existed in this

1:08:10 ↗ area and the council has already made a

1:08:12 ↗ decision to move in this direction and

1:08:14 ↗ to apply that zoning and those standards

1:08:17 ↗ to this property and so we have not

1:08:19 ↗ really focused on what the elements of

1:08:22 ↗ the master site plan are because of the

1:08:24 ↗ change in

1:08:26 ↗ zoning there are uh another piece of

1:08:28 ↗ some of Yeah question

1:08:33 ↗ sure um so the the other properties that

1:08:36 ↗ are covered by and I don't know if it's

1:08:38 ↗ on a map here miss if it is for the

1:08:40 ↗ master site

1:08:42 ↗ plan um if other properties that are

1:08:45 ↗ covered by that plan asked to have the

1:08:48 ↗ plan eliminated from their properties to

1:08:50 ↗ apply the central isqua plan which is

1:08:52 ↗ the more contemporary planning of the

1:08:53 ↗ the city would that be I know you can't

1:08:56 ↗ you're not the decision maker on it but

1:08:57 ↗ would would that be something the city

1:08:59 ↗ would

1:09:01 ↗ promote because essentially the master

1:09:03 ↗ site plan for this particular area was

1:09:05 ↗ essentially done years ago under a

1:09:08 ↗ different set of standards and and

1:09:10 ↗ guidance by the council and their policy

1:09:12 ↗ right I mean for the same reason so that

1:09:15 ↗ that Master site plan is from

1:09:17 ↗ 1987 and and so we generally consider

1:09:22 ↗ removing the master site plan from any

1:09:24 ↗ of the properties in Pickering place to

1:09:26 ↗ be kind of a housekeeping matter uh uh

1:09:30 ↗ because that zoning and those standards

1:09:32 ↗ have been applied there is a certain

1:09:34 ↗ process that they would have to go

1:09:36 ↗ through right um but uh it's not like

1:09:39 ↗ you would have to do a development

1:09:40 ↗ agreement to be able to have that and

1:09:42 ↗ we're talking about whether the

1:09:44 ↗ development agreement can um simplify

1:09:46 ↗ the process since this um to remove the

1:09:50 ↗ master site plan from from the for the

1:09:52 ↗ city's purposes now there's all kinds of

1:09:54 ↗ ccnr and private property agreements

1:09:57 ↗ which the city is not a party to but

1:09:59 ↗ relative to the master site plan permit

1:10:02 ↗ which was um approved by the city in

1:10:05 ↗ 1987 we um view this just as a

1:10:09 ↗ housekeeping matter to eliminate that to

1:10:11 ↗ um uh allow Central isqua to move

1:10:14 ↗ forward right and that would be true for

1:10:16 ↗ any of the property okay and and just to

1:10:18 ↗ be clear since the council hasn't acted

1:10:20 ↗ on that yet we're assuming that's the

1:10:22 ↗ way that's going to go down but right

1:10:23 ↗ that that's part of the decision that is

1:10:27 ↗ going to run hand inand with this

1:10:29 ↗ development agreement is asking the

1:10:30 ↗ council to remove Costco from the master

1:10:34 ↗ site plan provisions of Pickering right

1:10:37 ↗ so when I say these things I'm just

1:10:39 ↗ describing staff's position okay I got a

1:10:42 ↗ question um so so we have this master

1:10:45 ↗ plan that's set in place and I guess uh

1:10:48 ↗ I'm kind of baffled why U this project

1:10:51 ↗ is coming up to the development

1:10:53 ↗ Commission for this amendment uh it

1:10:56 ↗ would seem to me that you probably want

1:10:57 ↗ to go to whoever approved the master

1:11:00 ↗ plan to make this adjustment and not

1:11:03 ↗ come to the development commission and I

1:11:04 ↗ don't want to sound real bureaucratic

1:11:06 ↗ about this because it's going to take a

1:11:08 ↗ long time to go through this but a lot

1:11:10 ↗ of effort was was put in to have this

1:11:12 ↗ master plan approved everybody agreed to

1:11:16 ↗ it all the folks were and I presume you

1:11:18 ↗ know went through a lot of hearing and

1:11:20 ↗ stuff like that to have it approved so

1:11:22 ↗ now you're making an exception and all a

1:11:25 ↗ sudden development commission is asked

1:11:27 ↗ to come up with a yay or no and some

1:11:32 ↗ amendments so I guess I'm I'm kind of

1:11:35 ↗ questioning why are we going through

1:11:36 ↗ this route this way and you know there's

1:11:39 ↗ a lot of things that you know we make

1:11:42 ↗ we're kind of agreeing to narrow the

1:11:45 ↗ sidewalk and you know the street or this

1:11:48 ↗ and that and parking lot you know

1:11:49 ↗ there's a lot of thoughts that went into

1:11:51 ↗ it and I have to give them credit for

1:11:53 ↗ coming up with that and to make the

1:11:55 ↗ change

1:11:56 ↗ now it just you know I just feel

1:12:00 ↗ uncomfortable about you know what I'm

1:12:02 ↗ seeing so far and again the point that

1:12:06 ↗ Mr Baron made was you know I don't see

1:12:09 ↗ any isqua folks being incorporated into

1:12:12 ↗ this master plan so it raises a flag to

1:12:15 ↗ me okay so

1:12:19 ↗ um the council was the body that

1:12:22 ↗ approved the master site plan in

1:12:25 ↗ 1987 and the council would be the body

1:12:28 ↗ to eliminate

1:12:29 ↗ it um I'm not sure I I know I wasn't

1:12:34 ↗ around in 1987 working on this and I

1:12:36 ↗ don't know whether any of you were

1:12:38 ↗ around

1:12:40 ↗ um the

1:12:43 ↗ uh I I I want to kind of make a

1:12:46 ↗ distinction between two pieces there

1:12:49 ↗ there's how um Pickering Place developed

1:12:51 ↗ under the master site plan

1:12:54 ↗ um and then there is the approach um

1:12:58 ↗ that was applied to all of central isqua

1:13:01 ↗ with the new Central isqua plan and

1:13:04 ↗ standards

1:13:08 ↗ um this proposal is looking at how to

1:13:12 ↗ work with the existing pieces to bring

1:13:15 ↗ them more fully into compliance with the

1:13:17 ↗ new Central isqua

1:13:20 ↗ standards um when for instance I

1:13:22 ↗ mentioned that the sidewalk would be

1:13:25 ↗ narrower that's not the compared to the

1:13:28 ↗ it would at the sidewalk that is in

1:13:30 ↗ existence is I'm going to guess 5 feet

1:13:33 ↗ wide which is narrower than the reduced

1:13:37 ↗ standard that we're

1:13:39 ↗ proposing so there's what's actually on

1:13:42 ↗ the ground because the the street

1:13:44 ↗ standard that was used to build

1:13:45 ↗ Pickering place is different than the

1:13:49 ↗ street standard that's in um Central

1:13:52 ↗ isqua can I try yeah so um so the master

1:13:57 ↗ site plan um was kind of the um it was

1:14:02 ↗ the ancestor of development agreements

1:14:04 ↗ so basically State legislation um the

1:14:08 ↗ state legislature created the

1:14:10 ↗ development agreement to basically

1:14:13 ↗ standardize what localities were using

1:14:15 ↗ to do these kind of contract rezones and

1:14:18 ↗ so the problem the issue we have with

1:14:19 ↗ the Pickering Master site plan is it has

1:14:22 ↗ no termination point and so you know

1:14:26 ↗ these development agreements we talk

1:14:27 ↗ about years like you know let's do this

1:14:29 ↗ for 30 years but at the end of that time

1:14:33 ↗ basically the rights that are conveyed

1:14:35 ↗ through that agreement um don't have

1:14:38 ↗ quite the same standing as the rights in

1:14:40 ↗ Pickering so the City attorney has said

1:14:43 ↗ that basically you know you can think

1:14:46 ↗ about it almost as a land use right the

1:14:48 ↗ master site plan is if you owned land

1:14:50 ↗ within the Pickering place um Master

1:14:53 ↗ site plan area and so the city can't

1:14:57 ↗ relinquish those rights um well we could

1:15:01 ↗ but we don't want to necessarily get rid

1:15:03 ↗ of any rights that might have been

1:15:05 ↗ conveyed through the master site plan

1:15:07 ↗ approval so what we're doing is we're

1:15:09 ↗ allowing the property owners within

1:15:11 ↗ Pickering to elect to redevelop their

1:15:16 ↗ property and be kind of managed under

1:15:18 ↗ the new CIP standards but it takes their

1:15:21 ↗ asking to do that that's at least the

1:15:24 ↗ opinion at this point of the City

1:15:26 ↗ attorney and so so the difference is I

1:15:29 ↗ guess what I'm saying is if you were

1:15:31 ↗ anywhere else in the city and and you

1:15:34 ↗ developed your property and the city

1:15:36 ↗ council put new zoning on your property

1:15:38 ↗ those standards would apply to your

1:15:41 ↗ property the reason why this is a little

1:15:43 ↗ bit different is because there was no

1:15:46 ↗ termination date on the master site plan

1:15:48 ↗ it lives forever so if if the city

1:15:51 ↗ doesn't remove property from the master

1:15:54 ↗ site plan it basically can't redevelop

1:15:58 ↗ under the central liqua plan standards

1:16:00 ↗ they they can stay under the standards

1:16:03 ↗ by which they were approved in 1987 in

1:16:06 ↗ perpetuity if they want to right so it's

1:16:09 ↗ each property owner's decision if they

1:16:12 ↗ stay with the master site plan or if

1:16:15 ↗ they choose to go with Central isqua

1:16:19 ↗ right and so one of the things that

1:16:20 ↗ Costco is asking for as part of this

1:16:23 ↗ process is to be allowed to be removed

1:16:27 ↗ from the master site

1:16:29 ↗ plan so I don't know if that that helps

1:16:31 ↗ or makes it worse but that's what we

1:16:34 ↗ understand yeah thank you and it does

1:16:35 ↗ clear it up now the question the second

1:16:38 ↗ part of the question why is it coming

1:16:39 ↗ through the design uh the development

1:16:41 ↗ commission and not

1:16:44 ↗ PPC or some other Comm because it's not

1:16:46 ↗ a

1:16:49 ↗ rezone okay we're we're asked to approve

1:16:53 ↗ actually let let me set this aside for

1:16:55 ↗ just a minute I am going to talk about

1:16:57 ↗ process in a minute so let let me show

1:16:59 ↗ you something when I get there I'm

1:17:01 ↗ almost there and then if you then at if

1:17:03 ↗ you could ask me that question again if

1:17:05 ↗ it still doesn't make sense okay let me

1:17:08 ↗ just make one point and I'll probably

1:17:10 ↗ ask that question again okay but you

1:17:11 ↗ know we're asked to um give comments or

1:17:15 ↗ approval to the amendment for one two

1:17:18 ↗ about three buildings and the roadways

1:17:21 ↗ and the walkway and and the connectivity

1:17:24 ↗ and all

1:17:26 ↗ that that's that's a big task you know

1:17:30 ↗ um granted that um uh moan or Costco you

1:17:34 ↗ know they've done a great job in trying

1:17:35 ↗ to incorporate the buildings with the

1:17:37 ↗ surrounding and all that but you know

1:17:39 ↗ we're asked to make comments for these

1:17:43 ↗ three major buildings 10 story you know

1:17:46 ↗ we you look around there's no 10 story

1:17:48 ↗ buildings around here so um that's a big

1:17:51 ↗ task to be

1:17:53 ↗ turn around and make comments on and

1:17:55 ↗ make approval and and maybe later on

1:17:58 ↗ Shelton can talk about the federal

1:18:00 ↗ funding I don't quite understand

1:18:02 ↗ September you know we're in August

1:18:04 ↗ already all of a sudden September is the

1:18:06 ↗ deadline we need to say yay or nay on on

1:18:09 ↗ this issue so that's the point I just

1:18:11 ↗ want to make okay yeah great thank you

1:18:13 ↗ thank

1:18:16 ↗ you so I'm sorry before I changed were

1:18:19 ↗ there any more questions around the

1:18:20 ↗ master site plan Amendment

1:18:26 ↗ okay so

1:18:28 ↗ process um one of the questions that

1:18:32 ↗ Connie brought up in her letter that you

1:18:33 ↗ received was around development

1:18:35 ↗ agreements um the city code um

1:18:38 ↗ identifies several different kinds of

1:18:40 ↗ development agreements Urban Villages

1:18:42 ↗ cluster housing

1:18:43 ↗ tdrs

1:18:45 ↗ um there isn't one that specifically

1:18:48 ↗ fits the circumstance and we've talked

1:18:50 ↗ several times with the city attorney who

1:18:52 ↗ beli that the um state law that enables

1:18:57 ↗ development agreements can be used to um

1:19:00 ↗ as the basis for this permit so we have

1:19:04 ↗ taken that question to um the City

1:19:07 ↗ attorney um many months ago um as we

1:19:10 ↗ began this um review

1:19:14 ↗ process um there were also some

1:19:16 ↗ questions about who was making the

1:19:18 ↗ decision and what kind of process it was

1:19:20 ↗ going through so you know there's the

1:19:23 ↗ development agreement um there's the

1:19:25 ↗ land plan which is also part of the

1:19:27 ↗ development agreement and the master

1:19:29 ↗ site plan Amendment which is part of the

1:19:31 ↗ development agreement um if it was a

1:19:34 ↗ freestanding land plan it might be

1:19:37 ↗ reviewed at a level three if it was a

1:19:39 ↗ freestanding Master site plan Amendment

1:19:41 ↗ it could be reviewed at a level five um

1:19:45 ↗ each of those have um different

1:19:47 ↗ processes and different decision makers

1:19:50 ↗ um and the public hearing may even be

1:19:52 ↗ held at a different different level um

1:19:54 ↗ as a Consolidated permit um there's one

1:19:58 ↗ hearing and the um highest level permit

1:20:03 ↗ is the process that it follows and the

1:20:06 ↗ development agreement um coming from

1:20:08 ↗ state law is the highest level permit

1:20:11 ↗ and so it follows the process um

1:20:14 ↗ established for that permit Connie has

1:20:16 ↗ asked whether um it is we've gotten a

1:20:19 ↗ reading from the city attorney about uh

1:20:22 ↗ cons consolidating these permits he had

1:20:24 ↗ a death in the family so we haven't been

1:20:26 ↗ able to contact him since we received

1:20:28 ↗ that question and um we'll have

1:20:31 ↗ something for the uh next meeting in our

1:20:33 ↗ briefing response

1:20:40 ↗ memo um so there were many letter um

1:20:43 ↗ questions in Connie's letter and U some

1:20:46 ↗ of them I uh we've tried to address

1:20:48 ↗ tonight and some of them uh we will

1:20:51 ↗ address in the memo but there was one

1:20:53 ↗ that we wanted to just touch on as part

1:20:54 ↗ of our conversation with you this

1:20:56 ↗ evening um and that was the question

1:20:59 ↗ about all the properties that surround

1:21:02 ↗ um Lake samamish State Park being in the

1:21:06 ↗ expansion areas and does that um thwart

1:21:09 ↗ the ability of achieving the vision of

1:21:12 ↗ central isqua um and the connectivity uh

1:21:16 ↗ around the

1:21:18 ↗ park you know most of the properties are

1:21:21 ↗ already developed or we think are likely

1:21:23 ↗ critical areas um for instance uh up

1:21:26 ↗ here to the north of Seamans and near

1:21:29 ↗ the Vulcan property um we think those

1:21:32 ↗ are critical areas they were developed

1:21:34 ↗ under King County so we have less

1:21:36 ↗ complete records of that

1:21:38 ↗ area

1:21:40 ↗ um However if those properties were

1:21:43 ↗ developed uh redeveloped uh we believe

1:21:47 ↗ that we know that Central isqua requires

1:21:50 ↗ certain level of connectivity and that

1:21:52 ↗ would apply whether those were offices

1:21:54 ↗ or residential would it be nice to have

1:21:57 ↗ residential around it yes um but

1:21:59 ↗ residential isn't a required use um in

1:22:02 ↗ these zones um it is an optional use and

1:22:05 ↗ there might um happen over time um but

1:22:09 ↗ we don't think that inherently having

1:22:12 ↗ the expansion areas uh include the area

1:22:15 ↗ around the park uh interferes with the

1:22:17 ↗ ability of achieving the sort of

1:22:19 ↗ connectivity and other kinds of

1:22:20 ↗ relationships that Central is qua uh

1:22:28 ↗ anticipated and that's my last slide so

1:22:31 ↗ um if you want to um I I'm assuming you

1:22:34 ↗ want to ask me questions before Costco

1:22:36 ↗ staff makes their

1:22:40 ↗ presentation

1:22:43 ↗ no I've got one okay so um the it

1:22:49 ↗ mentioned that the Eis was based on 1.5

1:22:53 ↗ million square ft of additional

1:22:55 ↗ development in Pickering plays and this

1:23:00 ↗ gives Costco the ability to build 1.5

1:23:03 ↗ million square feet within Pickering

1:23:05 ↗ Place does that then preclude any other

1:23:08 ↗ property owners in Pickering place from

1:23:10 ↗ getting approval to build anything

1:23:13 ↗ without redoing the

1:23:18 ↗ Eis um so I'm G to also look to Sheldon

1:23:22 ↗ because between the two of us I think

1:23:23 ↗ we're dangerous enough to probably say a

1:23:26 ↗ lot of things that aren't exactly true

1:23:27 ↗ what I understand is that the planned

1:23:30 ↗ action Eis for the central liqua plan um

1:23:35 ↗ included um what Costco has asked

1:23:39 ↗ for but beyond that and I'm going to

1:23:42 ↗ give you some numbers but I'll verify

1:23:44 ↗ those next time to make sure that you

1:23:46 ↗ guys don't walk away with a

1:23:48 ↗ misunderstanding what I understand

1:23:50 ↗ tonight is there's another half a

1:23:52 ↗ million Square F feet of retail and

1:23:54 ↗ about

1:23:55 ↗ 5,000 uh residential units that are

1:23:58 ↗ expected in Pickering as part of the

1:24:00 ↗ planned action Eis um from the CIP but

1:24:04 ↗ um Mel I'll verify those numbers and get

1:24:06 ↗ that to you guys in the briefing memo so

1:24:08 ↗ there's not a misunderstanding but my

1:24:10 ↗ understanding sitting here tonight is

1:24:13 ↗ they're taking all the office um they're

1:24:15 ↗ the first ones in they're the first ones

1:24:16 ↗ to ask so congratulations sometimes it's

1:24:19 ↗ good to be first um there is additional

1:24:21 ↗ retail and there's additional

1:24:23 ↗ residential left over for others to come

1:24:26 ↗ in and take advantage of the planned

1:24:27 ↗ action e now once that's gone it doesn't

1:24:31 ↗ mean that others can't redevelop what it

1:24:33 ↗ means is they have to do sepa like

1:24:35 ↗ everybody else has to do sea um in other

1:24:38 ↗ places where the planned action e

1:24:40 ↗ wouldn't

1:24:41 ↗ apply great thank you well and and I

1:24:45 ↗ would add that you know for instance any

1:24:48 ↗ the planned action only applied to the

1:24:50 ↗ urban core so for in since when seventh

1:24:53 ↗ and Gilman and Atlas came to you they

1:24:55 ↗ had to do um a certain level of sea

1:24:58 ↗ review as well because they were outside

1:25:00 ↗ the urban core okay um I guess another

1:25:05 ↗ question the if I understand the master

1:25:08 ↗ site plan I understood it from years ago

1:25:11 ↗ had a wedding cake requirement in it did

1:25:14 ↗ it go up to four stories was it at a

1:25:17 ↗ maximum

1:25:18 ↗ or or five couple of fives I'm hearing I

1:25:21 ↗ remember years ago when I think they

1:25:23 ↗ wanted to build a hotel on the parcel

1:25:26 ↗ and and at that point wanted if I

1:25:28 ↗ remember right they wanted an amendment

1:25:30 ↗ to the master site plan to allow taller

1:25:32 ↗ buildings near the freeway outside the

1:25:35 ↗ wedding cake design and was not

1:25:38 ↗ recommended by the commission to do that

1:25:41 ↗ so without so if I understand this

1:25:43 ↗ correctly if we don't do the amendment

1:25:45 ↗ to the master site planer if the council

1:25:47 ↗ doesn't they wouldn't be able to go

1:25:49 ↗ taller than what's they would be limited

1:25:52 ↗ more more than what the CIP allows

1:25:55 ↗ exactly so I mean just to give you a

1:25:58 ↗ little bit more about the master site

1:25:59 ↗ plan it basically it also it limited

1:26:02 ↗ Building height it limited land uses so

1:26:05 ↗ residentials not allowed period and it

1:26:07 ↗ also had a certain number of traffic

1:26:09 ↗ trips so it's and in square footage so

1:26:12 ↗ it's basically at its peak right now so

1:26:15 ↗ if if we retain the Integrity of the

1:26:19 ↗ master site plan I think what you can

1:26:21 ↗ expect is the Pickering Property Owners

1:26:23 ↗ as a whole would not be redeveloping and

1:26:26 ↗ and one other thing I would add is also

1:26:28 ↗ um they've used all the impervious

1:26:30 ↗ surface so that's part of why there are

1:26:32 ↗ sidewalks on one sides of the streets

1:26:34 ↗ and things because it was very

1:26:36 ↗ restrictive thank

1:26:43 ↗ you

1:26:47 ↗ um there was a brief mention of retail I

1:26:50 ↗ just wanted to confirm is is retail an

1:26:54 ↗ option in the

1:26:56 ↗ 250,000 so there's a a m 1.5 million

1:27:00 ↗ square feet and 250,000 of that up to

1:27:05 ↗ 250,000 could be retail okay but it's

1:27:09 ↗ real we're just at such the beginning

1:27:12 ↗ stages that we don't know any would it

1:27:15 ↗ be like on the ground floor with office

1:27:18 ↗ above so one of the things that might be

1:27:20 ↗ worth bringing up here because we talked

1:27:23 ↗ about a lot of stuff is it let's assume

1:27:25 ↗ that they did want to build um a a big

1:27:28 ↗ block of retail another 150,000 square

1:27:31 ↗ feet or more of retail that's not shown

1:27:32 ↗ on the land plan so that would need to

1:27:35 ↗ come back to DC and DC would be the

1:27:37 ↗ decision maker on that particular

1:27:39 ↗ application if it were to come in the

1:27:41 ↗ future because right now the land plan

1:27:43 ↗ shows some minor additions to the retail

1:27:46 ↗ store and I think there's something

1:27:48 ↗ floating out in the parking lot maybe

1:27:51 ↗ the Costco retail retail store Costco

1:27:53 ↗ retail store so but the amount of square

1:27:55 ↗ footage if they wanted to do something

1:27:58 ↗ of substance fairly large you know and

1:28:01 ↗ it was more than 150,000 square feet

1:28:03 ↗ that's not shown on the land plan right

1:28:05 ↗ now in front of you guys so that would

1:28:07 ↗ have to come back here somewhere in the

1:28:09 ↗ future okay I was I had in mind um in

1:28:12 ↗ the new office building some other

1:28:15 ↗ retail tenants on ground

1:28:19 ↗ floors is that

1:28:21 ↗ what you guys are talking about you're

1:28:23 ↗ talking about additional retail space

1:28:26 ↗ right at this time that isn't part of

1:28:28 ↗ the land plan proposal okay all right I

1:28:31 ↗ was I thought about that when there was

1:28:33 ↗ some discussion of bringing the public

1:28:36 ↗ into those

1:28:38 ↗ spaces um when we were discussing the

1:28:40 ↗ plazas in the pond and everything um

1:28:43 ↗ being accessible to the public and not

1:28:45 ↗ just

1:28:46 ↗ to uh Costco employees and guests I

1:28:49 ↗ thought about that that format

1:28:52 ↗ right I think we would all be supportive

1:28:54 ↗ of that but at this time there isn't a

1:28:56 ↗ requirement in the central isqua

1:28:58 ↗ standards to do mixed use it's certainly

1:29:00 ↗ encouraged and we would be supportive of

1:29:03 ↗ that but that isn't what is actually

1:29:04 ↗ proposed at this time okay thanks and if

1:29:08 ↗ they did decide say to do 150,000 of

1:29:11 ↗ retail that wouldn't cut into the

1:29:14 ↗ 500,000 of retail presume for other

1:29:17 ↗ parts of Pickering in the

1:29:19 ↗ Eis that's the way I understand that yes

1:29:22 ↗ great

1:29:27 ↗ thanks and just to be clear although

1:29:30 ↗ Costco has not expressed an intent for

1:29:33 ↗ doing that as Lucy said the way the

1:29:36 ↗ development agreement is written it

1:29:39 ↗ wouldn't preclude it so if Costco let's

1:29:42 ↗ say 10 years from now Costco decides you

1:29:44 ↗ know what it'd be great to have um some

1:29:47 ↗ third-party um retailers on our ground

1:29:49 ↗ floor of our office buildings it would

1:29:51 ↗ absolutely be

1:30:01 ↗ allowed I'm

1:30:08 ↗ done so I'm going to hand it over to my

1:30:12 ↗ honorable colleague from milany

1:30:15 ↗ here oh okay excuse

1:30:18 ↗ me that makes sense thank you Luc good

1:30:25 ↗ job up up down

1:30:38 ↗ or there we

1:30:40 ↗ go Mr chairman members of the commission

1:30:43 ↗ my name is Jackie Frank I'm the vice

1:30:45 ↗ president of real estate development for

1:30:46 ↗ Costco I've been before this body many

1:30:48 ↗ times going back 20 years for for the

1:30:52 ↗ initial warehouse for building two for

1:30:54 ↗ building three for uh the trading

1:30:57 ↗ building

1:30:59 ↗ um nice to be back um I wanted to uh

1:31:04 ↗ let's

1:31:06 ↗ see ah

1:31:09 ↗ so we've been involved in the process

1:31:12 ↗ for a while back in

1:31:15 ↗ 2007 um representatives of Costco became

1:31:18 ↗ a member of the city's uh committee to

1:31:20 ↗ consider zoning reason zoning of the of

1:31:22 ↗ the valley floor uh Peter Khan actually

1:31:25 ↗ was a a member of the um economic

1:31:28 ↗ Vitality commission um and also a a

1:31:31 ↗ chamber uh member uh for uh for

1:31:33 ↗ government Affairs um between 2012 and

1:31:37 ↗ 2013 we worked well with with staff um

1:31:40 ↗ and provided input uh to the commission

1:31:43 ↗ and the council for the uh development

1:31:45 ↗ of the uh uh development uh and design

1:31:48 ↗ standards um and most recently from 1 to

1:31:52 ↗ 14 uh we've worked with staff on

1:31:54 ↗ applying the uh Central isqua

1:31:56 ↗ Development standards um to the Costco

1:31:59 ↗ campus through this development

1:32:01 ↗ agreement process but first i' before I

1:32:04 ↗ really get started I'd like to extend on

1:32:07 ↗ behalf of the company our appreciation

1:32:08 ↗ for staff we've we've been treated with

1:32:10 ↗ a tremendous amount of of respect and

1:32:12 ↗ professionalism um and we've uh We've

1:32:14 ↗ enjoyed a a marvelous collaborative

1:32:16 ↗ relationship for for many many

1:32:20 ↗ years um tonight U we have Kim Katz

1:32:24 ↗ who's our de development director for

1:32:27 ↗ Costco and Steve bulock of moany G2 who

1:32:30 ↗ will give the lon share of the

1:32:32 ↗ presentation um Russ Hazard a principal

1:32:34 ↗ with mulany is here David Markley of TSI

1:32:37 ↗ our our traffic engineer and Bob shren

1:32:40 ↗ from dowel our civil engineer are also

1:32:43 ↗ um here this evening um they don't have

1:32:45 ↗ a formal presentation but can be

1:32:47 ↗ available to answer any questions if uh

1:32:49 ↗ if you have them um

1:32:52 ↗ so when we look at the benefits that

1:32:55 ↗ would acue to this process that we're

1:32:57 ↗ undertaking um it several things pop out

1:33:01 ↗ to us number one by implementing the

1:33:04 ↗ development agreement it allows us to to

1:33:06 ↗ develop or redevelop the property that

1:33:09 ↗ we own consistent with the central isqua

1:33:11 ↗ plan it also manifests the city's vision

1:33:15 ↗ for a more urban environment um as I

1:33:18 ↗ mentioned we've enjoyed a a a

1:33:20 ↗ long-standing part parip and I think

1:33:22 ↗ this this continues that uh that

1:33:25 ↗ collaborative relationship um but it

1:33:27 ↗ also for us secures a long-term home for

1:33:31 ↗ Costco's corporate campus isqua is our

1:33:33 ↗ home and has been our home for many

1:33:35 ↗ years and we hope that it will be our

1:33:36 ↗ home for many years to come um but by by

1:33:41 ↗ approving this it it creates a context

1:33:44 ↗ for uh future specific development

1:33:47 ↗ applications so we're basically

1:33:49 ↗ establishing the ground the ground rules

1:33:51 ↗ and the and the framework within which

1:33:53 ↗ to um to develop um and it's helpful for

1:33:56 ↗ us it provides us certainty um to know

1:33:59 ↗ that these are the kinds of projects um

1:34:02 ↗ and and the and the kind of the Rules of

1:34:04 ↗ Engagement for uh for our our planned

1:34:07 ↗ growth um but we also think that it

1:34:09 ↗ creates a very efficient and and a

1:34:12 ↗ certain level of certainty uh for uh for

1:34:16 ↗ a process that would would help us

1:34:18 ↗ execute this 30-year

1:34:20 ↗ buildout the process itself encourages a

1:34:22 ↗ very thoughtful approach that integrates

1:34:25 ↗ an existing campus um and the U Central

1:34:28 ↗ isqua plan and as and as Sheldon will

1:34:31 ↗ tell you it it provides funding to

1:34:33 ↗ construct significant road

1:34:36 ↗ infrastructure so tonight I wanted to

1:34:39 ↗ take a couple minutes you know when I

1:34:41 ↗ was before you 20 years ago for the

1:34:43 ↗ warehouse you know an entirely different

1:34:44 ↗ story so I'd like to kind of bring you

1:34:47 ↗ bring you up to speed on on where we are

1:34:49 ↗ today as a as a company um Talk talk a

1:34:51 ↗ little bit about why we're here some

1:34:53 ↗ development background of the campus

1:34:55 ↗ itself um uh Steve will get give you a

1:34:58 ↗ little more definition on the on future

1:35:00 ↗ thoughts um and and Kim will talk a

1:35:03 ↗ little bit well Kim will talk a little

1:35:04 ↗ bit about the the benefits uh that we

1:35:06 ↗ see of of uh of this

1:35:09 ↗ process

1:35:12 ↗ so it's part of my travels uh and and

1:35:15 ↗ doing land use work for Costco

1:35:17 ↗ throughout North America um I spent a

1:35:20 ↗ lot of time explaining we are to people

1:35:22 ↗ who don't know us that well um this is

1:35:24 ↗ our home uh this particular Warehouse is

1:35:27 ↗ a highly successful building I would

1:35:28 ↗ imagine I would hope that that many if

1:35:30 ↗ not all of you have Costco cards if not

1:35:33 ↗ you should um but we we've enjoyed a

1:35:36 ↗ tremendous amount of of success over the

1:35:38 ↗ years and we're and we're very proud

1:35:40 ↗ today we we are in fact the second

1:35:41 ↗ largest retailer in the United States

1:35:44 ↗ and we are of the third largest retailer

1:35:45 ↗ in the world we're um in the fortune 20

1:35:49 ↗ less than Fortune 20 we're number 19 and

1:35:51 ↗ and and and moving up um at the end of

1:35:54 ↗ this fiscal year we will have U probably

1:35:58 ↗ about $10 billion in sales um throughout

1:36:03 ↗ the uh throughout the chain of of our

1:36:05 ↗ business we have uh developed over 90

1:36:07 ↗ more 94 million square feet of of retail

1:36:12 ↗ um which is on average about 144,000

1:36:15 ↗ Square ft we have about

1:36:19 ↗ 190,000 uh employees world wide with

1:36:22 ↗ about 130,000 employees um in the United

1:36:25 ↗ States uh in the Pickering campus

1:36:27 ↗ there's about

1:36:29 ↗ 3,000 um employees um and in the area

1:36:33 ↗ that's kind of adjacent in some of the

1:36:34 ↗ lease buildings uh we we have uh

1:36:37 ↗ probably a grand total of around 41

1:36:40 ↗ 4,100 uh

1:36:45 ↗ employees today we've got uh 663

1:36:49 ↗ warehouses this is as we end our fiscal

1:36:52 ↗ year um in the next two weeks or so um

1:36:55 ↗ this is what this is a snapshot of of

1:36:57 ↗ what it looks like we have 468

1:36:59 ↗ warehouses in the United States um 88 in

1:37:01 ↗ Canada 33 in Mexico uh we've just opened

1:37:04 ↗ in Spain just in the last month or so uh

1:37:07 ↗ 26 in the United Kingdom

1:37:10 ↗ um uh Taiwan uh uh Korea and Japan uh we

1:37:16 ↗ have quite a presence and we have six

1:37:18 ↗ operating warehouses in

1:37:20 ↗ Australia so we're doing

1:37:22 ↗ well a little bit of a timeline um

1:37:26 ↗ Costco was founded in uh in in Seattle

1:37:28 ↗ in

1:37:30 ↗ 1983 um as uh uh

1:37:34 ↗ as and part of my history in in one

1:37:37 ↗ reason why we were in isqua uh we were

1:37:39 ↗ uh we were based in Kirkland way back

1:37:41 ↗ when and uh I think we we had about 60

1:37:44 ↗ 60 warehouses at that time we were

1:37:47 ↗ processing entitlements in Redmond we

1:37:49 ↗ were going to do a a warehouse facility

1:37:51 ↗ and also a corporate office and uh and

1:37:54 ↗ that was going to be it overnight we had

1:37:56 ↗ secured permits and entitlements for

1:37:58 ↗ that um overnight we merged with the

1:38:01 ↗ price company basically doubling the

1:38:03 ↗ size of the company um which which

1:38:06 ↗ caused us to take a step back and say

1:38:08 ↗ whoa we're we're we're now going in a a

1:38:11 ↗ slightly different direction um the

1:38:13 ↗ opportunity came up at the time we were

1:38:15 ↗ processing the uh uh entitlements for

1:38:17 ↗ the warehouse here um and the

1:38:19 ↗ opportunity came up with with uh

1:38:22 ↗ Children's Orthopedic Hospital to to

1:38:24 ↗ take a look um and kind of realize a

1:38:27 ↗ vision and for the for the company to uh

1:38:29 ↗ to establish a corporate campus and and

1:38:31 ↗ really grow the business in a in a

1:38:33 ↗ different way um in 1994 we opened we

1:38:37 ↗ opened the warehouse here um and we

1:38:39 ↗ moved to isqua uh our new home in

1:38:44 ↗ 1995 um in 1997 we constructed the

1:38:48 ↗ trading building um 1998 our our second

1:38:51 ↗ uh building building 2 was

1:38:54 ↗ built um it's interesting though in in

1:38:57 ↗ uh well in 2001 we built building three

1:39:00 ↗ and that's where things pretty much

1:39:02 ↗ maxed out and we talk about the master

1:39:05 ↗ site plan and some of the constraints

1:39:07 ↗ associated with that contract zoning if

1:39:10 ↗ you will um it it it tied our hands at

1:39:13 ↗ that level to at that point where we

1:39:16 ↗ could not continue to develop um uh

1:39:19 ↗ office space um

1:39:21 ↗ uh in on the campus which forced us to

1:39:25 ↗ then start look at leasing other

1:39:27 ↗ properties in 2002 we leased Lake Place

1:39:29 ↗ 2 um 2008 we leased Lake Place one um

1:39:34 ↗ and then most recently we've completed

1:39:36 ↗ our our parking garage um and in 2014

1:39:40 ↗ Just most recently released some space

1:39:42 ↗ on the Microsoft

1:39:43 ↗ campus

1:39:46 ↗ um the reason why we grow our Central

1:39:49 ↗ headquarters is really a function of the

1:39:52 ↗ support for uh you know for the

1:39:54 ↗ warehouse operations um functions like

1:39:57 ↗ real estate and legal and um the buying

1:40:00 ↗ um accounting uh is uh you know are all

1:40:04 ↗ functions that grow as a as a function

1:40:07 ↗ of the business growing and since we

1:40:09 ↗ intend to continue growing the business

1:40:11 ↗ you can expect that we're going to

1:40:13 ↗ continue to grow the support functions

1:40:15 ↗ that uh that that allow the the the

1:40:17 ↗ business to uh to

1:40:19 ↗ run um isqua is definitely on the map we

1:40:24 ↗ have we have extraordinary relationships

1:40:26 ↗ with vendors of big- time vendors all

1:40:29 ↗ over the world and um I'm pleased to say

1:40:32 ↗ there's a lot of people who know where

1:40:33 ↗ isqua is they may not be able to

1:40:35 ↗ pronounce it but they know where it is

1:40:37 ↗ and um and I think there's some very

1:40:39 ↗ positive spin-off benefits relative to

1:40:41 ↗ uh Hotel use and restaurant and um you

1:40:44 ↗ know we have a a lot of vendors who come

1:40:46 ↗ and visit us uh on our turf and uh and

1:40:49 ↗ we're very we're very proud of of isqua

1:40:51 ↗ and and the hospitality that you've

1:40:53 ↗ shown to to uh to our vendors

1:40:56 ↗ community so with that I'd like to turn

1:40:59 ↗ it over to uh to Kim uh and then

1:41:02 ↗ subsequently to Steve to uh take you

1:41:04 ↗ through some some more specifics and of

1:41:06 ↗ course we'll all be available to answer

1:41:08 ↗ any questions

1:41:13 ↗ thanks hi my name is Kim cats I'm a real

1:41:15 ↗ estate de development director with

1:41:18 ↗ Costco and um my share of the slides are

1:41:21 ↗ going to be relatively quick cuz Lucy

1:41:22 ↗ did such a fantastic job of explaining

1:41:25 ↗ why we're here did I just have that page

1:41:30 ↗ down um so one one reason we're here was

1:41:34 ↗ to talk about the um MF

1:41:38 ↗ mtfa and the benefits of partnering with

1:41:41 ↗ the city on the um the funding of that

1:41:44 ↗ and improving the transportation

1:41:48 ↗ element the land plan of course we've

1:41:50 ↗ talked about um as being a very critical

1:41:53 ↗ component of the development agreement

1:41:55 ↗ and setting kind of a framework of what

1:41:57 ↗ our future growth might look

1:41:59 ↗ like and we've hit on the master site

1:42:02 ↗ plan um and I think we'll probably

1:42:04 ↗ continue on this theme tonight because

1:42:06 ↗ that definitely has limited our growth

1:42:10 ↗ potential um in in serving our campus

1:42:13 ↗ needs and we're hoping that you know we

1:42:16 ↗ can implement the SIDS and the

1:42:18 ↗ CIP um as part of our future campus

1:42:26 ↗ expansion so this isqua is our home it's

1:42:30 ↗ my home I live in isqua so I am very

1:42:33 ↗ motivated

1:42:34 ↗ to to keep this going keep the process

1:42:37 ↗ going and as Jackie mentioned as our as

1:42:40 ↗ we expand our warehouses we do need um

1:42:44 ↗ more growth for our home

1:42:46 ↗ office we thought this was an

1:42:49 ↗ interesting um aerial because it kind of

1:42:52 ↗ describes how the campus has grown over

1:42:56 ↗ the years as Jackie mentioned we opened

1:42:59 ↗ our warehouse in '94 and you can kind of

1:43:02 ↗ see how we maxed out in Pickering and

1:43:05 ↗ we've continued to expand outside of the

1:43:08 ↗ campus um we have two offices over we

1:43:12 ↗ call them Lake Place one and Lake Place

1:43:13 ↗ 2 we own one of them and lease one of

1:43:15 ↗ them and we've recently signed a lease

1:43:18 ↗ for one of the Microsoft buildings which

1:43:19 ↗ will be moving people over to in the

1:43:21 ↗ next few

1:43:25 ↗ months so you know our intent of

1:43:28 ↗ expanding the campus is to accommodate

1:43:30 ↗ our business growth but also to

1:43:32 ↗ consolidate our our employees and get

1:43:34 ↗ the Synergy between um all of the other

1:43:38 ↗ components of the home office which as

1:43:41 ↗ Jackie mentioned accounting buyers um

1:43:45 ↗ the is Department we would like to keep

1:43:48 ↗ all of our staff kind of in one area

1:43:50 ↗ because it does

1:43:52 ↗ create a you know just more efficient

1:43:55 ↗ use of the

1:44:00 ↗ campus and I think with that I turned

1:44:04 ↗ over to

1:44:08 ↗ Steve thanks cim good evening

1:44:10 ↗ Commissioners it's an honor to be here

1:44:12 ↗ tonight

1:44:16 ↗ um it's it's it's exciting to to be part

1:44:19 ↗ of a project that feels like we're

1:44:21 ↗ getting to to one of the big Milestones

1:44:23 ↗ again for for the things that Costco is

1:44:25 ↗ is doing here in the community and and

1:44:28 ↗ um and and so I'm just I'm glad to be

1:44:30 ↗ here and to be part of this project and

1:44:32 ↗ and to hopefully try to explain this in

1:44:33 ↗ a way that that makes it logical and and

1:44:37 ↗ have sense and and be a rational

1:44:39 ↗ approach to

1:44:41 ↗ this you know we've been talking about

1:44:43 ↗ the Pickering Place master plan and this

1:44:46 ↗ is actually a rendering from that

1:44:48 ↗ original master plan and if you look at

1:44:50 ↗ it real closely you'll see a bunch of

1:44:53 ↗ lowrise uh structures with surface

1:44:55 ↗ parking out in front of them buildings

1:44:57 ↗ set way back from the roads lots of of

1:45:00 ↗ Trees and Landscaping and and it's it's

1:45:03 ↗ just a very Suburban type type

1:45:05 ↗ development something that we all

1:45:07 ↗ expected to see 30 years ago but as the

1:45:10 ↗ the the region has grown and as we are

1:45:12 ↗ becoming a more urban place um you know

1:45:17 ↗ Visions are changing and and and the

1:45:19 ↗ master site plan was kind of locked in

1:45:21 ↗ time and and it was this Suburban de uh

1:45:24 ↗ development approach it had very large

1:45:27 ↗ Street setbacks there's uh surface

1:45:30 ↗ parking lots there's lots of lawn and

1:45:32 ↗ and Landscaping in front of the

1:45:34 ↗ buildings and then because we're in in

1:45:36 ↗ isqua there was a a a big push to

1:45:40 ↗ protect and and honor environmental

1:45:43 ↗ environmentally uh sensitive areas like

1:45:46 ↗ streams and

1:45:47 ↗ shorelines and you know this is these

1:45:50 ↗ are some some images that show what

1:45:52 ↗ happened out there in in Pickering place

1:45:55 ↗ and it's not bad it's just what happened

1:45:58 ↗ and and now as as time has gone on as

1:46:01 ↗ we're you know getting close to 30 years

1:46:03 ↗ from when that master plan was approved

1:46:06 ↗ there's New Visions uh here here's a a

1:46:08 ↗ shot of a portion of Costco's campus and

1:46:11 ↗ you see how far back the buildings are

1:46:13 ↗ set back from the road and the

1:46:15 ↗ landscaping and the lawn the surface

1:46:17 ↗ parking lots in front here's a an image

1:46:20 ↗ of of the streams that we're preserving

1:46:24 ↗ and and honoring at the same time

1:46:27 ↗ here but but the the MSP definitely uh

1:46:31 ↗ has maxed out what it would allow to

1:46:34 ↗ happen and and that's been said several

1:46:36 ↗ times already tonight the the amount of

1:46:40 ↗ trips that were allowed when it was

1:46:43 ↗ first uh approved were getting close to

1:46:47 ↗ maxed out in 2001 and that's why why

1:46:50 ↗ Costco didn't build any more Office

1:46:52 ↗ Buildings on site after 2001 we were

1:46:55 ↗ allowed to or able to build the parking

1:46:57 ↗ garage because the garage in and of

1:46:59 ↗ itself doesn't generate the trips it's

1:47:01 ↗ just providing a parking place for for

1:47:04 ↗ the uh the office users to use but it

1:47:06 ↗ doesn't generate the trips that was the

1:47:09 ↗ one reason why that that one major

1:47:11 ↗ structure has been able to be be built

1:47:13 ↗ on the Costco corpor campus since 2001

1:47:17 ↗ but then there was other things

1:47:18 ↗ associated with Master site plan uh the

1:47:20 ↗ limit um the the height limits and just

1:47:23 ↗ as mentioned before it was kind of a

1:47:25 ↗ wedding cake effect with with five story

1:47:27 ↗ buildings kind of in the center of

1:47:30 ↗ the the the the facility the of

1:47:33 ↗ Pickering place and then kind of sloping

1:47:36 ↗ out to twostory buildings around the

1:47:38 ↗ perimeter I think there was a total of

1:47:40 ↗ two lots that that had the ability to go

1:47:43 ↗ up to five

1:47:46 ↗ stories and so then over the last few

1:47:48 ↗ years as we've been considering the the

1:47:50 ↗ new Central isqua plan and the and the

1:47:54 ↗ um the new development and design

1:47:58 ↗ standards um there's been a lot of talk

1:48:00 ↗ between mulany and and Costco about what

1:48:04 ↗ the potential will be to maybe start

1:48:08 ↗ building on Costco's campus again and

1:48:10 ↗ and we see it as a great opportunity uh

1:48:13 ↗ you know there there there still is some

1:48:15 ↗ similarities between the master site

1:48:18 ↗ plan and and the current code you know

1:48:20 ↗ there still is this this ideaa to honor

1:48:23 ↗ and protect the environmentally

1:48:26 ↗ sensitive areas and views of the area

1:48:28 ↗ there's a very strong push to to

1:48:32 ↗ recognize and continue to grow the

1:48:34 ↗ community spaces and the circulation uh

1:48:38 ↗ connections but then some of the

1:48:39 ↗ differences is obviously the the the

1:48:42 ↗ density differences low low to high and

1:48:45 ↗ and the Suburban model to to a more

1:48:47 ↗ urban model something that's not so cars

1:48:50 ↗ Centric but more

1:48:51 ↗ multimodal and and allowing for

1:48:54 ↗ pedestrians

1:48:56 ↗ bicyclists um mass transit and the

1:49:00 ↗ rest you know one of the elements of the

1:49:04 ↗ central isiga plan is the the the

1:49:08 ↗ circulation plan and and as mentioned

1:49:11 ↗ before you know the development

1:49:12 ↗ agreement is going to link future

1:49:14 ↗ development on Costco's corporate campus

1:49:17 ↗ with implementing some of these

1:49:20 ↗ plans from the central isqua plan

1:49:22 ↗ putting new roads in that don't even

1:49:24 ↗ exist improving ones that that don't

1:49:27 ↗ have enough

1:49:32 ↗ capacity so the current campus I'm going

1:49:35 ↗ to use my mouse here a little bit um you

1:49:39 ↗ know it's it's got some interesting

1:49:42 ↗ attributes that make it a unique place

1:49:44 ↗ and you know for for one thing on the

1:49:46 ↗ east side of the campus you all are

1:49:48 ↗ familiar with isqua Creek and you can

1:49:49 ↗ kind of see that it it creates an

1:49:51 ↗ undulating line there there's no there's

1:49:54 ↗ no roads that cross that and there's

1:49:56 ↗ there's only going to be

1:49:57 ↗ one uh on on the east side of Costco's

1:50:00 ↗ excuse me the west side of Costco's

1:50:02 ↗ campus there's there's the pond and

1:50:04 ↗ again it's a very irregular shape um

1:50:07 ↗ very organic and and the roads that that

1:50:11 ↗ go through Pickering place are also kind

1:50:14 ↗ of following those Contours and and

1:50:16 ↗ they're very organic and and kind of

1:50:19 ↗ natural and their shape and those things

1:50:22 ↗ have made for irregular property

1:50:23 ↗ boundaries and they're going to make it

1:50:25 ↗ difficult or it it makes it a challenge

1:50:28 ↗ to integrate infield development along

1:50:31 ↗ with this existing campus this this

1:50:33 ↗ campus that was designed specifically

1:50:36 ↗ for Costco the the buildings that they

1:50:38 ↗ put there they put there because they

1:50:40 ↗ built them just for themselves and and

1:50:43 ↗ they value them and they love being here

1:50:45 ↗ and they want to continue to build there

1:50:47 ↗ and and make it a custom campus for

1:50:53 ↗ them the areas that we see on the campus

1:50:55 ↗ that are potentially available for

1:50:57 ↗ expansion down in the South End of the

1:50:59 ↗ campus there there's two large surface

1:51:02 ↗ Lots uh just north of I90 and then

1:51:05 ↗ there's also the trading building which

1:51:07 ↗ is probably it is the smallest building

1:51:11 ↗ from a square footage perspective and

1:51:13 ↗ just not is two stories only for half of

1:51:15 ↗ the building the other half of the

1:51:16 ↗ building is just one story so there's an

1:51:19 ↗ opportunity there maybe to redevelop

1:51:21 ↗ that for additional office space and

1:51:23 ↗ then then there's this surface lot here

1:51:26 ↗ kind of on the northeast corner of

1:51:28 ↗ buildings one and two and those areas

1:51:32 ↗ provide a lot of opportunity for for

1:51:34 ↗ Costco to continue to grow and ADD

1:51:36 ↗ office space there's there's potentially

1:51:39 ↗ two buildings there in the Southeast

1:51:41 ↗ corner of the

1:51:43 ↗ site uh another building on the south of

1:51:46 ↗ building three and then the one up there

1:51:50 ↗ to the northeast of buildings one and

1:51:51 ↗ two and and we we have as

1:51:56 ↗ a Costco and in Milan we have poured

1:51:59 ↗ through the the Central isqua

1:52:03 ↗ Development and design standards Page by

1:52:04 ↗ page I won't say that I haven't

1:52:06 ↗ memorized I there's too much there and

1:52:09 ↗ but but we have studied them and tried

1:52:11 ↗ our best to understand them and and one

1:52:13 ↗ of the things that we feel very

1:52:14 ↗ confident about is that there is enough

1:52:17 ↗ area here in these footprints

1:52:20 ↗ under the height limits that were

1:52:23 ↗ allowed in in this in in the urban core

1:52:26 ↗ Zone to easily accommodate the 1.5

1:52:30 ↗ million square fet that we've asked for

1:52:32 ↗ and in all likelihood we won't have

1:52:34 ↗ anything 10 stories there we want to

1:52:37 ↗ leave our options open but but we don't

1:52:40 ↗ need to have them go up to 10 stories to

1:52:42 ↗ get to the 1.5

1:52:46 ↗ million Lucy did a great job of kind of

1:52:49 ↗ going through and in more detail than I

1:52:50 ↗ am

1:52:51 ↗ about how how the project at this

1:52:54 ↗ conceptual level and and and it is still

1:52:57 ↗ very conceptual we we have every intent

1:52:59 ↗ to come in with individual projects that

1:53:02 ↗ are fully detailed out and show you

1:53:04 ↗ exactly how we continue to meet the the

1:53:07 ↗ the design and development standards but

1:53:09 ↗ right now we're we're just at a really

1:53:11 ↗ conceptual stage and and we we believe

1:53:15 ↗ that we can put together projects that

1:53:17 ↗ will comply and one of the things that

1:53:20 ↗ we want some of the major areas of focus

1:53:22 ↗ that we think um are of interest to you

1:53:25 ↗ and to us at this point and at this

1:53:27 ↗ level of of review are the the areas of

1:53:30 ↗ the CIP and and of the design and

1:53:32 ↗ development standards that cover

1:53:33 ↗ Community spaces site design and

1:53:36 ↗ building

1:53:38 ↗ design we like to to focus you a little

1:53:41 ↗ bit on some of the the community spaces

1:53:44 ↗ that that are already in Pickering Place

1:53:46 ↗ both on Costco's property some of them

1:53:49 ↗ on commonly owned property that Costco

1:53:52 ↗ has constructed um and you know they're

1:53:56 ↗ all places that that have been done with

1:53:59 ↗ a great deal of care that that are

1:54:01 ↗ done to a high quality and a high

1:54:04 ↗ standard and they provide great value

1:54:06 ↗ for both Costco's corporate population

1:54:09 ↗ and anybody that else else that is

1:54:11 ↗ walking through the area and enjoying it

1:54:13 ↗ the Landscaping is is full and thick

1:54:17 ↗ mature and beautiful uh the Gathering

1:54:19 ↗ space

1:54:20 ↗ places offer lots of pedestrian

1:54:25 ↗ amenities there there are great

1:54:27 ↗ connection places and and and and plazas

1:54:30 ↗ sprinkled through Pickering

1:54:34 ↗ place the current campus the the

1:54:37 ↗ buildings that are out there have very

1:54:39 ↗ noticeable and and and obvious intuitive

1:54:42 ↗ ways to access the front doors for

1:54:45 ↗ pedestrians walkways and and such and

1:54:48 ↗ granted they they are are of a more

1:54:50 ↗ Suburban variety a lower

1:54:54 ↗ intensity um and that's going to change

1:54:57 ↗ and evolve as we move into to what is

1:55:01 ↗ required under the central isqua

1:55:03 ↗ plan there there's even the community

1:55:05 ↗ Amphitheater which is almost a work of

1:55:08 ↗ art and and although it was placed

1:55:11 ↗ on commonly held property it was

1:55:14 ↗ actually built by Costco for the

1:55:16 ↗ enjoyment of of the people that are in

1:55:18 ↗ Pickering place and and those that come

1:55:20 ↗ through the

1:55:22 ↗ area there's multimodal Pathways already

1:55:25 ↗ sprinkled throughout the the the

1:55:28 ↗ property so when we look at where we

1:55:31 ↗ would potentially do uh our new

1:55:34 ↗ development we see opportunities to to

1:55:37 ↗ develop more Community spaces similar to

1:55:40 ↗ those and of even a higher quality and

1:55:42 ↗ and definitely of a quality that is more

1:55:44 ↗ urban in character than what's there now

1:55:47 ↗ something that would relate to the

1:55:48 ↗ sidewalk and and and be intuitive about

1:55:53 ↗ how people enter the building how they

1:55:55 ↗ get where they need to go what's going

1:55:57 ↗ on and and those spaces would be

1:56:01 ↗ U integrated with the landscape and with

1:56:04 ↗ the architecture and and with the

1:56:06 ↗ different things that get uh included

1:56:08 ↗ with that you know one of the things

1:56:10 ↗ that we keep talking about internally as

1:56:12 ↗ as we're discussing this is just how

1:56:15 ↗ it's a great challenge to uh try to

1:56:19 ↗ integrate this this new campus plan and

1:56:23 ↗ and this new code and vision into an

1:56:27 ↗ existing C campus that we're going to be

1:56:29 ↗ keeping and that we that works well for

1:56:32 ↗ us but how do we how do we integrate

1:56:35 ↗ this this new design aesthetic into an

1:56:39 ↗ existing aesthetic and make them still

1:56:41 ↗ work together and and and make them not

1:56:44 ↗ clash and and have them be um compatible

1:56:48 ↗ with each other

1:56:52 ↗ as Lucy mentioned there there's a a

1:56:54 ↗ section that talks about site design and

1:56:57 ↗ and here we have an example of of an

1:56:59 ↗ entry

1:57:00 ↗ plaza where there's there's a great in

1:57:07 ↗ um there there's very clear cues about

1:57:11 ↗ what a pedestrian is supposed to do as

1:57:12 ↗ they as they walk up here there's raised

1:57:14 ↗ planting beds there's Landscaping that

1:57:16 ↗ that are not places where you're

1:57:17 ↗ supposed to go there's obvious uh

1:57:19 ↗ walkways where you are to go there's an

1:57:21 ↗ integration of both the the the

1:57:24 ↗ circulation pattern and Gathering space

1:57:28 ↗ um all sprinkled through that area and

1:57:30 ↗ we see that as a very desirable and

1:57:31 ↗ attractive space um you know here we

1:57:35 ↗ have an example of of raised beds and

1:57:38 ↗ and uh

1:57:40 ↗ Landscaping in association with a with a

1:57:43 ↗ what looks like a public road and and

1:57:45 ↗ those all are creating uh spaces and and

1:57:48 ↗ one of the things that that the the de

1:57:51 ↗ the design and development standards

1:57:53 ↗ encourage is is something that creates

1:57:56 ↗ strong edges and and creates and defines

1:57:58 ↗ where that public way is and then where

1:58:00 ↗ the community spaces are adjacent to

1:58:02 ↗ that public way and where where the

1:58:05 ↗ uh where the Gathering spaces are and

1:58:08 ↗ entrances are in relation to

1:58:13 ↗ that we we see this as as a as an

1:58:16 ↗ interesting image about how to apply

1:58:18 ↗ Landscaping and and transition to

1:58:20 ↗ Hardscape and and all those things I

1:58:23 ↗ think are going to be things that we

1:58:24 ↗ have to deal with as we're trying to

1:58:25 ↗ integrate these two visions of of an

1:58:28 ↗ existing uh campus that was developed

1:58:31 ↗ under a different vision and and now

1:58:33 ↗ we're implementing a new

1:58:35 ↗ vision we like this image for for a

1:58:37 ↗ number of different reasons you know

1:58:39 ↗ it's got these these architectural

1:58:42 ↗ elements these trellises and columns

1:58:44 ↗ that help frame a space and and create

1:58:47 ↗ an outdoor room with we've got the the

1:58:50 ↗ motion and the and the interest of the

1:58:53 ↗ water and and you know the change in

1:58:55 ↗ elevation the different kinds of of

1:58:57 ↗ landscape features from raised beds to

1:59:00 ↗ potted plants to to Boulders projecting

1:59:04 ↗ up out of the ground there's a lot of

1:59:05 ↗ interesting things there and and we see

1:59:07 ↗ these all as being potential uh ideas

1:59:10 ↗ and things that we could Implement in

1:59:11 ↗ the future as as we go about creating

1:59:14 ↗ those kinds of spaces as well for

1:59:17 ↗ building design you know the the design

1:59:20 ↗ and development standards are talking

1:59:22 ↗ about uh context and compatibility

1:59:25 ↗ there's there's things related to scale

1:59:27 ↗ and urban densities and height um

1:59:30 ↗ materials and

1:59:32 ↗ colors quality of the architecture and

1:59:34 ↗ detailing obviously sustainability and

1:59:37 ↗ then there's the overlap between

1:59:39 ↗ pedestrian engagement and and sharing

1:59:41 ↗ Community spaces and and and we we've

1:59:44 ↗ got some images here where we're just

1:59:45 ↗ wanting to say that we're not trying to

1:59:48 ↗ build any many of these exactly as

1:59:50 ↗ you're going to see them um it's more to

1:59:52 ↗ give you an idea of of what we think are

1:59:56 ↗ interesting and and ways that we might

1:59:57 ↗ go in the future and when we get to

2:00:01 ↗ putting together our project we're going

2:00:03 ↗ to put together a full package and and

2:00:05 ↗ show you what it's going to look like

2:00:06 ↗ and bring it in and and say okay this is

2:00:10 ↗ this is what we're doing now and this is

2:00:12 ↗ going to be fully detailed but this

2:00:14 ↗ point here is just kind of conceptual

2:00:15 ↗ brainstorming you know we're kind of

2:00:17 ↗ looking for you guys to dream along with

2:00:19 ↗ us about what might happen out there

2:00:21 ↗ this this image is

2:00:23 ↗ actually uh building three out on the

2:00:25 ↗ campus now and it's it's a it's a very

2:00:27 ↗ beautiful building and and

2:00:29 ↗ architecturally it's got a lot of

2:00:30 ↗ interesting features it's it's they've

2:00:32 ↗ done a a a great job of of pulling cues

2:00:35 ↗ from the original buildings on campus

2:00:38 ↗ the brick work and and some of the the

2:00:40 ↗ roof forms and and they implemented them

2:00:42 ↗ in a new and fresh way on building 3

2:00:45 ↗ they introduced some new materials and

2:00:46 ↗ some new architectural forms that that I

2:00:49 ↗ think are very very pleasing and

2:00:51 ↗ and as building three kind of built off

2:00:54 ↗ of building one and two I think that

2:00:57 ↗ when Costco and and if mulvania is part

2:00:59 ↗ of it Mulan when we go to build

2:01:02 ↗ buildings four five and six we would

2:01:04 ↗ like to kind of take that same approach

2:01:06 ↗ where we we try to pull cues from the

2:01:08 ↗ existing campus but then also grow it

2:01:11 ↗ and make it nicer and even better than

2:01:13 ↗ it than the the old stuff

2:01:17 ↗ is you know here here's an image of a

2:01:19 ↗ building that that is showing something

2:01:22 ↗ of a higher density um you know

2:01:24 ↗ potentially we could get up to 10

2:01:26 ↗ stories in in Pickering place I don't

2:01:29 ↗ know that we we will get there but you

2:01:31 ↗ know we we need to think about scale and

2:01:33 ↗ Architectural

2:01:35 ↗ quality um we like this image because of

2:01:39 ↗ of what it says about detailing the

2:01:41 ↗ architectural detailing the care that

2:01:44 ↗ that uh Somebody went to to to give it

2:01:47 ↗ some extra uh materials and and texture

2:01:52 ↗ and and a finer grain and and you know

2:01:55 ↗ lots of different things going on here

2:01:57 ↗ that make make the building an

2:01:58 ↗ interesting building there's also things

2:02:00 ↗ here related to

2:02:02 ↗ sustainability um passive shading and

2:02:05 ↗ and things like that that are are good

2:02:07 ↗ for for um energy sustainability things

2:02:12 ↗ and and we want to be Innovative as we

2:02:14 ↗ continue to build out there on the

2:02:17 ↗ campus here's one more image of of

2:02:20 ↗ building three the backside of it where

2:02:22 ↗ it's got a large Plaza that's that's

2:02:24 ↗ used quite a bit by by the employees and

2:02:27 ↗ and there's a lot of great things here

2:02:29 ↗ there's some some really interesting

2:02:31 ↗ detailing approaches some some different

2:02:34 ↗ and and unique architectural approaches

2:02:37 ↗ that that make it a very pleasing

2:02:39 ↗ building there's the community spaces

2:02:42 ↗ and and The Pedestrian engagement that

2:02:44 ↗ we find all very very

2:02:46 ↗ compelling so in summary

2:02:49 ↗ as it relates to the development design

2:02:52 ↗ standards and and our land plan we we

2:02:54 ↗ feel like the land plan is a framework

2:02:56 ↗ and a context for future development

2:03:00 ↗ applications we also believe and not

2:03:03 ↗ believe this is just the way the

2:03:04 ↗ development agreement and your code is

2:03:06 ↗ set up is future applications are going

2:03:08 ↗ to come and they're going to be reviewed

2:03:09 ↗ for compliance with the land plan with

2:03:12 ↗ the development design standards and

2:03:13 ↗ also with a development

2:03:15 ↗ agreement and Costco is committed to

2:03:18 ↗ creating iny Urban infill Development

2:03:20 ↗ that embodies the policies of the CIP

2:03:22 ↗ and the design

2:03:25 ↗ standards so to

2:03:27 ↗ close we just kind of want to hint hit

2:03:29 ↗ on the the the benefits that uh Mr Frank

2:03:32 ↗ brought up at the start of this

2:03:35 ↗ presentation implementing the

2:03:37 ↗ development agreement that that we're

2:03:39 ↗ proposing between Costco and the city

2:03:41 ↗ allows Costco to develop

2:03:44 ↗ a develop consistent with the central

2:03:47 ↗ isqua plan with which we believe then

2:03:49 ↗ manifests the city's vision for what for

2:03:52 ↗ a more urban

2:03:53 ↗ environment um it continues a

2:03:56 ↗ long-standing partnership between Costco

2:03:58 ↗ and the city and it secures a long-term

2:04:00 ↗ home for Costco and their corporate

2:04:04 ↗ campus we believe the the land plan also

2:04:08 ↗ provides a contest context for future

2:04:12 ↗ specific development applications which

2:04:14 ↗ we believe is important it helps us to

2:04:16 ↗ not have to go back and and re start

2:04:19 ↗ every single project we we all kind of

2:04:21 ↗ start with the same understanding and we

2:04:23 ↗ can build off of that as opposed to

2:04:25 ↗ going back to square one each time and

2:04:28 ↗ it creates an efficient and certain

2:04:30 ↗ process for a 30-year

2:04:32 ↗ buildout you know implementing this New

2:04:36 ↗ Vision on an existing campus is is a

2:04:39 ↗ great Challenge and and we believe that

2:04:41 ↗ the development agreement encourages a

2:04:43 ↗ real thoughtful approach both for us as

2:04:46 ↗ applicants and for City staff that

2:04:48 ↗ integrates the existing campus with the

2:04:50 ↗ CIP and finally that it provides funding

2:04:53 ↗ to

2:04:54 ↗ construct very significant and valuable

2:04:56 ↗ road

2:04:58 ↗ infrastructure so with that unless you

2:05:02 ↗ have any questions for me I'll sit

2:05:10 ↗ down architect specific question answer

2:05:13 ↗ architect specific

2:05:15 ↗ question just you you the map that shows

2:05:18 ↗ the the proposed buildings yes there's a

2:05:21 ↗ there's a dashed line build between

2:05:24 ↗ buildings 4 a and 4B yes that that goes

2:05:28 ↗ through the Western portion of 4A is

2:05:31 ↗ that uh have to do with a view corridor

2:05:33 ↗ or anything

2:05:35 ↗ or are you talking

2:05:37 ↗ about this this dash line that goes

2:05:41 ↗ right here correct and it actually if

2:05:43 ↗ you if you follow it it actually goes

2:05:45 ↗ around the entire perimeter of the

2:05:47 ↗ building and what that was meant to

2:05:49 ↗ indicate is roughly the perimeter of

2:05:52 ↗ underground parking garage great okay

2:05:55 ↗ okay thank

2:05:58 ↗ you did did you say underground parking

2:06:02 ↗ or under the building you meant under

2:06:03 ↗ the building under building underground

2:06:05 ↗ oh there's underground building just one

2:06:07 ↗ one level probably maybe

2:06:09 ↗ two it's it's a tough area to do that

2:06:12 ↗ because there's pretty high groundwater

2:06:14 ↗ so how many levels are you thinking

2:06:16 ↗ about now two levels of of parking one

2:06:19 ↗ underground

2:06:20 ↗ one uh ground level no the so so the

2:06:24 ↗ ground level is going to be flush with

2:06:27 ↗ the sidewalk there's not going to be any

2:06:28 ↗ exposed parking to the sidewalk there

2:06:32 ↗ you know there's going to be Plaza

2:06:33 ↗ spaces um maybe on the back side of

2:06:35 ↗ buildings depending what the grades are

2:06:37 ↗ maybe there might be some some places

2:06:40 ↗ where the garage might be exposed but it

2:06:42 ↗ would be underground

2:06:45 ↗ M thank

2:06:47 ↗ you

2:06:50 ↗ um so commission member Leong asked a

2:06:54 ↗ question earlier about timing for

2:06:55 ↗ Sheldon and I didn't want to lose track

2:06:57 ↗ of that piece because it was um I think

2:07:00 ↗ an important question um about timing

2:07:03 ↗ for the

2:07:04 ↗ Transportation federal component of this

2:07:07 ↗ on the federal fund you said Federal

2:07:08 ↗ funding I'm not saying Federal funding

2:07:10 ↗ so so I I'll do a quick overview Sheldon

2:07:13 ↗ and if you want to add some feel free to

2:07:15 ↗ come up and and do that so so

2:07:19 ↗ a big piece of this development

2:07:20 ↗ agreement revolves around paying for the

2:07:23 ↗ $50 million of road projects that are

2:07:26 ↗ going to benefit not only Costco but the

2:07:28 ↗ rest of Pickering and north isqua um

2:07:31 ↗ because you can't build half a road so

2:07:32 ↗ you build a whole Road and there's extra

2:07:34 ↗ capacity that's going to be available

2:07:36 ↗ beyond what Costco needs to realize

2:07:39 ↗ their 1.5 million square feet so the way

2:07:43 ↗ that the um trans mtfa the master

2:07:45 ↗ transport Transportation Finance ing

2:07:48 ↗ agreement is laid out is it's a

2:07:50 ↗ partnership they pay for a certain

2:07:52 ↗ portion we pay for a certain portion

2:07:55 ↗ what we're relying on or what we're

2:07:57 ↗ hoping for is that we

2:08:00 ↗ can accomplish much of the city's

2:08:04 ↗ obligation through State not federal

2:08:07 ↗ through state grants and so what Sheldon

2:08:10 ↗ mentioned earlier was making an

2:08:12 ↗ application to the transportation

2:08:14 ↗ Improvement board and the transportation

2:08:16 ↗ Improvement board is a state agency that

2:08:18 ↗ allocates money out to the state based

2:08:21 ↗ on um worthiness of projects and one

2:08:26 ↗ some of the criteria that they have is

2:08:28 ↗ they want to make sure that if we apply

2:08:31 ↗ for a a traffic project that it's a real

2:08:34 ↗ project and not just something that we

2:08:36 ↗ hope to get money for that we might

2:08:37 ↗ someday build because there's a long

2:08:40 ↗ line of municipalities and agencies

2:08:42 ↗ looking for these limited funds and so

2:08:45 ↗ one of the things that helps our

2:08:47 ↗ application immensely

2:08:49 ↗ is to have a development agreement done

2:08:51 ↗ because a development agreement is like

2:08:52 ↗ a contract it's with us and and a very

2:08:55 ↗ big company in our state not Boeing but

2:08:57 ↗ a very big company in our state uh

2:09:00 ↗ that's important that we want to keep

2:09:01 ↗ and help grow in our community and so

2:09:04 ↗ having that development agreement done

2:09:07 ↗ adds points if you will to the rating

2:09:09 ↗ system of the application that we're

2:09:11 ↗ going to submit for getting State Monies

2:09:14 ↗ to help build the road so hopefully that

2:09:16 ↗ makes sense and Sheldon if you want to

2:09:18 ↗ add some your this is your enchilada so

2:09:20 ↗ to speak so feel free to you know pull

2:09:24 ↗ that apart if you want

2:09:26 ↗ to no that was a really good summary

2:09:28 ↗ Keith uh just want to add a little bit

2:09:30 ↗ more to it uh one of the specific

2:09:32 ↗ criteria for this application is growth

2:09:34 ↗ and development and that's the criteria

2:09:37 ↗ and one of the major criteria for the

2:09:40 ↗ whole scoring of the application in

2:09:42 ↗ front of the transportation Improvement

2:09:44 ↗ board but to be able to demonstrate that

2:09:46 ↗ as Keith said the development agreement

2:09:49 ↗ needs to be executed and The Tib begins

2:09:52 ↗ their valuations of applications October

2:09:55 ↗ 1st and so we need to have definitely in

2:09:59 ↗ hand the development agreement to give

2:10:02 ↗ to The Tib so they know that is a funded

2:10:05 ↗ and buildable project uh with a partner

2:10:08 ↗ because that's the other substantial

2:10:10 ↗ criteria that's under the growth and

2:10:11 ↗ development is that there has to be a

2:10:14 ↗ substantial partnership with private

2:10:17 ↗ development

2:10:18 ↗ uh or local money to be able to for them

2:10:21 ↗ to say yes that's a valid application

2:10:24 ↗ and they're willing to fund

2:10:25 ↗ it um thank you so hopefully that helps

2:10:28 ↗ yeah yeah it does it helps half of it

2:10:30 ↗ the other half the question that I have

2:10:32 ↗ is is is aad the the partner is isqua

2:10:36 ↗ prepared or does isqua have the money to

2:10:38 ↗ come up yes to match that state fund

2:10:42 ↗ between Costco and the money that isqua

2:10:46 ↗ has and the grant money

2:10:48 ↗ those projects all the projects within

2:10:51 ↗ the suite of improvements that the

2:10:53 ↗ partnership is about uh will be

2:10:57 ↗ funded okay yeah thank you so obviously

2:11:01 ↗ that's um you know that is that's a big

2:11:03 ↗ thing for us um it's a big number um and

2:11:07 ↗ but this is important and if if the

2:11:11 ↗ development agreement is approved and

2:11:13 ↗ you know depending on how successful

2:11:15 ↗ Sheldon is in getting Grant monies we

2:11:18 ↗ already have $5 million that we got from

2:11:21 ↗ the um Department of Commerce Grant to

2:11:25 ↗ purchase some open space as mitigation

2:11:27 ↗ for the road system so we've already

2:11:29 ↗ kind of been in line once and we're

2:11:32 ↗ wanting to get in line again and ask for

2:11:34 ↗ some additional monies you know the hope

2:11:36 ↗ is that whatever is left there probably

2:11:38 ↗ will be some left over at the end of the

2:11:39 ↗ day that the city has to figure out how

2:11:41 ↗ to fund but when you're talking about

2:11:44 ↗ funding a $50 million road project and

2:11:46 ↗ the city's share might be

2:11:48 ↗ you know hopefully you know knock on

2:11:51 ↗ wood less

2:11:52 ↗ than5 Million worth of that that's

2:11:55 ↗ that's a great investment for our

2:11:57 ↗ community to make in additional

2:11:59 ↗ infrastructure that will help our

2:12:00 ↗ community

2:12:01 ↗ grow yeah right thank you

2:12:05 ↗ yeah but at the same time though but at

2:12:09 ↗ the same time we'd like to make sure

2:12:10 ↗ that the interest of isqua is taken care

2:12:13 ↗ of um so there's there's some concern

2:12:16 ↗ you know and I guess off the top is that

2:12:19 ↗ we have numbers for 1.5 million square

2:12:22 ↗ fet of office space that Costco can do

2:12:26 ↗ whatever they that's the option that's

2:12:28 ↗ open to Costco uh I I guess it would be

2:12:31 ↗ nice to have something that says so many

2:12:34 ↗ percent of that or square feet would be

2:12:37 ↗ dedicated to Plaza or Parks or something

2:12:42 ↗ like that I I see area that says

2:12:44 ↗ pedestrian entryway which could

2:12:46 ↗ potentially be uh uh a courtyard I I

2:12:50 ↗ guess that's what you're thinking about

2:12:52 ↗ uh Steve so you know maybe if we can

2:12:55 ↗ come up with some kind of a number so

2:12:57 ↗ it's it it ties everybody together and

2:13:00 ↗ so we have some ideas of how much is

2:13:03 ↗ dedicated to office space how much of

2:13:05 ↗ that is for retail and how much is that

2:13:07 ↗ for open space and Plaza and

2:13:12 ↗ Parks thank

2:13:16 ↗ you

2:13:19 ↗ compl

2:13:22 ↗ mun we ask you if there's members of the

2:13:25 ↗ community that want to ask questions or

2:13:27 ↗ make

2:13:29 ↗ comments yeah if you'll step to the

2:13:31 ↗ microphone and state your name and

2:13:34 ↗ address and again it's late in the

2:13:36 ↗ evening so try to keep your comments to

2:13:38 ↗ five minutes

2:13:46 ↗ please

2:13:50 ↗ good evening I'm Jim sers and I'm the

2:13:52 ↗ owner of Pickering

2:13:55 ↗ square and I just have a brief comment

2:13:57 ↗ that I'll read here that's being given

2:13:59 ↗ to you for our um in compliance with our

2:14:02 ↗ deadline of

2:14:04 ↗ Friday I'm the owner of Pickering Square

2:14:07 ↗ retail shopping center northeast corner

2:14:09 ↗ of Pickering Place directly west of

2:14:11 ↗ Costco store our 13 retail tenants

2:14:14 ↗ comprise over half the retail stores of

2:14:17 ↗ Pickering place including Costco

2:14:18 ↗ warehouse store I also represent the

2:14:21 ↗ other owners of Pickering place as a

2:14:24 ↗ board permanent board member of

2:14:25 ↗ Pickering Place Owners Association

2:14:28 ↗ pboa organized to implement the

2:14:31 ↗ ccnr and the isqua master plan now as an

2:14:35 ↗ overview first let me state that as

2:14:38 ↗ owner I support the central isqua vision

2:14:42 ↗ Incorporated in the CIP and the

2:14:45 ↗ cids I believe other owners sh share my

2:14:48 ↗ desire to move from the 1987 Suburban

2:14:51 ↗ Pickering Place master plan to allow

2:14:54 ↗ future development under this Vision in

2:14:58 ↗ fact I have been negotiating with Costco

2:15:00 ↗ attorneys on proposed amendments to our

2:15:03 ↗ ccnr that will remove the master permit

2:15:06 ↗ from the ccnr and allow isqua to adopt

2:15:10 ↗ zoning and development

2:15:12 ↗ standards processes to guide the

2:15:14 ↗ Redevelopment which is consistent with a

2:15:16 ↗ true urban center

2:15:18 ↗ our proposed draft included full range

2:15:21 ↗ of CIP issues including residential

2:15:24 ↗ which is currently prohibited Pickering

2:15:26 ↗ place we understand from a meeting with

2:15:29 ↗ your mayor and City officials yesterday

2:15:32 ↗ that some urgency has come up with the

2:15:35 ↗ two

2:15:36 ↗ applications to Costco to remove the

2:15:39 ↗ Costco properties from the master plan

2:15:41 ↗ for a development agreement to allow

2:15:43 ↗ higher

2:15:44 ↗ density of the CIP in consideration for

2:15:47 ↗ for substantial funding toward the

2:15:49 ↗ planned action

2:15:50 ↗ Transportation model to support this

2:15:53 ↗ density however CCR amendments are still

2:15:57 ↗ needed in addition to removing Costco

2:16:00 ↗ Parcels from the city's master plan

2:16:02 ↗ since these are private Covenant

2:16:05 ↗ recorded for Mutual

2:16:07 ↗ protection and benefit of all Parcels at

2:16:10 ↗ Pickering place for example the height

2:16:12 ↗ of proposed Costco towers and additional

2:16:14 ↗ garage floors in the land plan are in VI

2:16:17 ↗ viation of the ccnr regardless of the

2:16:20 ↗ council's adaptation of major amendments

2:16:23 ↗ removing car Costco Parcels from the

2:16:26 ↗ master

2:16:27 ↗ plan which consists of the same height

2:16:30 ↗ restrictions We Believe assurances from

2:16:33 ↗ senior Costco official stated yesterday

2:16:37 ↗ that they are ready to immediately

2:16:38 ↗ complete these negotiations for ccnr

2:16:41 ↗ amendments it is our hope that these can

2:16:44 ↗ be approved in a time frame which will

2:16:47 ↗ keep the transportation funding schedule

2:16:50 ↗ intact and if it won't be and it won't

2:16:53 ↗ be for lack on our part on a related

2:16:56 ↗ note the staff report states that there

2:16:58 ↗ are no Criterion for major Amendment to

2:17:00 ↗ the master plan apparently the city

2:17:02 ↗ believes it can remove a property upon

2:17:05 ↗ the request of one

2:17:07 ↗ owner when the master plan was a

2:17:09 ↗ contract with the owner of all the

2:17:12 ↗ property now many successor and their

2:17:14 ↗ successors of that owner we acknowledge

2:17:17 ↗ that the DA has a vague condition to

2:17:19 ↗ protect interest of those left behind

2:17:22 ↗ and we'll wa and we'll be watching for

2:17:24 ↗ more detailed substance and process that

2:17:27 ↗ needs to be added to this part of the DA

2:17:30 ↗ for example the Popa Pickering Place

2:17:33 ↗ Owners Association common roads and

2:17:36 ↗ common areas are going to be impacted

2:17:38 ↗ however if we are successful in amending

2:17:40 ↗ the ccnr to include a process for owner

2:17:43 ↗ association approval for removing all

2:17:46 ↗ Pickering place from the master plan

2:17:49 ↗ this part of the development agreement

2:17:51 ↗ will be moot if not we reserve our right

2:17:54 ↗ to challenge the amendment process of

2:17:56 ↗ the master plan requested in the Costco

2:17:59 ↗ application the staff the staff report

2:18:02 ↗ was complete and clear but we have a few

2:18:07 ↗ questions and I would like the staff to

2:18:09 ↗ either address it tonight or we'll take

2:18:11 ↗ written comment to not take up too much

2:18:13 ↗ time tonight one the background section

2:18:16 ↗ talks about the new

2:18:18 ↗ 1.5

2:18:19 ↗ million of feet included in the Costco

2:18:22 ↗ retail store it goes on to State the

2:18:25 ↗ staff will attempt to make a compliant

2:18:28 ↗ with the

2:18:29 ↗ cidds as soon as possible regarding the

2:18:31 ↗ remodel and full compliance that's been

2:18:34 ↗ already discussed and you can read more

2:18:36 ↗ of our comments on that one of the one

2:18:39 ↗ of you brought it up and the question on

2:18:41 ↗ number eight was about the Eis that was

2:18:44 ↗ also brought

2:18:45 ↗ up on the maps I do not uh we do not see

2:18:49 ↗ the recently annexed area to Popa

2:18:53 ↗ Pickering Place Owners Association by

2:18:56 ↗ Costco what is the location in the area

2:18:59 ↗ does the city plan to assume ownership

2:19:01 ↗ of this parcel in the future including

2:19:04 ↗ responsibility for maintenance of the

2:19:06 ↗ Wetland critical area how much is

2:19:10 ↗ current and proposed expansion of Costco

2:19:12 ↗ retail store how many parking spaces

2:19:15 ↗ will be displaced by Costco retail store

2:19:18 ↗ car wash all parking must be contained

2:19:21 ↗ on site for Costco retail store and

2:19:25 ↗ Office Buildings why is the discussion

2:19:28 ↗ and location of future Costco expansion

2:19:31 ↗ area not owned by Costco included in the

2:19:34 ↗ da many of the exhibits to the staff

2:19:37 ↗ report are inaccurate as to drainage and

2:19:40 ↗ Wetland and critical areas as part of

2:19:43 ↗ the master plan Amendment the remaining

2:19:46 ↗ three wetland critical area shown in the

2:19:48 ↗ master plan permit should be subject to

2:19:51 ↗ replacement without regard to being in

2:19:54 ↗ the city of

2:19:56 ↗ isqua in conclusion Pickering Place does

2:19:59 ↗ not support the current Costco

2:20:01 ↗ application until these issues are

2:20:03 ↗ addressed we've been working on this for

2:20:06 ↗ years and Costco has not been the Good

2:20:10 ↗ Neighbor they've violated our parking

2:20:13 ↗ and parking is critical to any retail

2:20:16 ↗ tenant five minutes are up then I'm done

2:20:19 ↗ thank you anybody

2:20:30 ↗ else thank you David kapler 255

2:20:33 ↗ Southeast Andre Street the pace that

2:20:35 ↗ we're charging in on this is a great

2:20:38 ↗ concern and how the public involvement

2:20:42 ↗ and the commission involvement and the

2:20:44 ↗ rest is of serious concern how that can

2:20:47 ↗ be managed and um I hope the uh public

2:20:50 ↗ involvement and the commission

2:20:52 ↗ involvement is not short shortened out

2:20:54 ↗ in that process uh some little some

2:20:57 ↗ picky things and some sidewalk on 11th

2:21:01 ↗ just west of the Costco store there's no

2:21:02 ↗ sidewalk on the east side of 11th drives

2:21:05 ↗ me nuts but um I mean there's there's no

2:21:08 ↗ sidewalking west of um which is not in

2:21:11 ↗ their part of their plan in no no side

2:21:12 ↗ off West of um Red Robin I mean there's

2:21:15 ↗ things to figure out on the uh some of

2:21:18 ↗ those kinds of things a little picky but

2:21:20 ↗ it would sure this is the time we maybe

2:21:22 ↗ we can address them get them done um

2:21:24 ↗ sounds like bikes are allowed on the

2:21:26 ↗ trail around the pond do you really want

2:21:29 ↗ to have bikes on that trail with

2:21:32 ↗ thousands of people working right there

2:21:33 ↗ and on a narrow Trail it's often icy or

2:21:38 ↗ wet or slimy but um um

2:21:43 ↗ internal inter we got curved streets and

2:21:46 ↗ we went all these crosswalks and stuff

2:21:47 ↗ so the street design and how we get

2:21:50 ↗ these these crosswalks between the

2:21:51 ↗ different buildings really needs to be

2:21:53 ↗ done well so because we're going to have

2:21:55 ↗ a lot of traffic through there where the

2:21:57 ↗ parking garage the New Roads and the

2:21:58 ↗ rest really need to be concentrating on

2:22:02 ↗ people being aware of all those

2:22:03 ↗ pedestrians out

2:22:05 ↗ there um open space lately my confidence

2:22:10 ↗ in the cities dealing with Open Spaces

2:22:12 ↗ real low and um very frustrating um I'm

2:22:16 ↗ concerned about the the open space Along

2:22:19 ↗ The Tib along the creek isqua creek and

2:22:22 ↗ some of the other open space areas and

2:22:24 ↗ how how that will be dealt with the

2:22:27 ↗ trail over there on is is most probably

2:22:31 ↗ when you start mixing the bikes and the

2:22:33 ↗ pedestrians it's too narrow along the

2:22:35 ↗ creek really should be widened and maybe

2:22:37 ↗ consider separating the bikes and the

2:22:39 ↗ the pedestrians when you're going to add

2:22:41 ↗ this many additional people you know

2:22:43 ↗ you've been over there you've seen all

2:22:45 ↗ the people walking around with badges

2:22:46 ↗ from Costco go the employees get out and

2:22:48 ↗ use a trail system with that many more

2:22:51 ↗ people on that trail is that trail

2:22:53 ↗ really

2:22:55 ↗ adequate um at the same time I'm always

2:22:58 ↗ fighting for trees but at the same time

2:23:00 ↗ along that trail we got some big

2:23:02 ↗ cottonwoods that are really not tra

2:23:05 ↗ trees that should be overhanging a

2:23:08 ↗ highly used uh pedestrian and bicycle

2:23:10 ↗ trail and management of those resources

2:23:14 ↗ needs needs needs to be more proactive

2:23:17 ↗ over time to to make that safer but also

2:23:19 ↗ be an appropriate uh habitat along the

2:23:22 ↗ creek 12th Avenue over Crossing they're

2:23:25 ↗ talking about a full as I'm it's shown

2:23:28 ↗ on the map here tonight I'm real

2:23:30 ↗ skeptical about the cost and whether we

2:23:32 ↗ want that to me we need to be looking at

2:23:35 ↗ flyer

2:23:36 ↗ stations bus flyer type drop offs along

2:23:39 ↗ I90 and pedestrian bicycle crossover of

2:23:44 ↗ I90 and that hopefully will will not be

2:23:47 ↗ precluded by what's going to be

2:23:48 ↗ happening at the site over

2:23:51 ↗ time the de development agreement

2:23:54 ↗ development agreements may be allowed by

2:23:56 ↗ the state to cover this whether the city

2:23:59 ↗ code actually allows the type of

2:24:01 ↗ development being proposed here is

2:24:02 ↗ another question and that's the the

2:24:04 ↗ limiting factor on the development

2:24:06 ↗ agreement we need to make sure we're in

2:24:08 ↗ compliance with city code not just state

2:24:11 ↗ law but both thank you thank you

2:24:15 ↗ D anybody else Connie

2:24:26 ↗ hi I'm Connie Marsh you know where I

2:24:28 ↗ live already or at least where I work so

2:24:31 ↗ I was just reading the code again about

2:24:33 ↗ development agreements and all of the

2:24:35 ↗ other development Agreements are

2:24:36 ↗ actually uh required to be um sent by

2:24:41 ↗ development commission to the council

2:24:44 ↗ recommended so where it said optional up

2:24:47 ↗ here that's not what I found in the code

2:24:49 ↗ they said it's a requirement so when

2:24:52 ↗ they focus you staff Focus you focuses

2:24:54 ↗ you on the land plan from everything I

2:24:57 ↗ can see you're actually sending the

2:24:59 ↗ whole development agreement and the land

2:25:02 ↗ plan is a part of that and I guess I'm

2:25:05 ↗ disturbed by what seems to me to be a

2:25:07 ↗ refocus away from one of your main tasks

2:25:10 ↗ which is looking at the development

2:25:12 ↗ agreement and making comments on that so

2:25:15 ↗ I think you can they can't stop you but

2:25:17 ↗ that's not where they're hurting

2:25:19 ↗ you

2:25:21 ↗ um he covered the Pickering so I'm not

2:25:24 ↗ going to let that

2:25:25 ↗ go uh planed to action ordinance if you

2:25:29 ↗ read the actual language within the

2:25:31 ↗ planed action ordinance it says that in

2:25:34 ↗ order to qualify for the plan to action

2:25:36 ↗ ordinance you have to fulfill the

2:25:39 ↗ requirements of the CIP because they're

2:25:41 ↗ doing a development agreement clearly

2:25:43 ↗ they don't so I don't see how you can

2:25:46 ↗ use the plan action ordinance for your

2:25:49 ↗ environmental review for this and

2:25:52 ↗ perhaps another legal opinion would be

2:25:54 ↗ good uh the description of the interface

2:25:56 ↗ with the state park wasn't convincing at

2:26:00 ↗ all this thing in the land plan also has

2:26:04 ↗ to interface with the state park along

2:26:06 ↗ with the other areas to give us the

2:26:08 ↗ connectivity that we need for the

2:26:10 ↗ central Isa plan so I think that needs

2:26:12 ↗ to be strengthened okay so I'm assuming

2:26:15 ↗ you guys read my lengthy and

2:26:17 ↗ ridiculously detailed email and I

2:26:20 ↗ apologize for that but it made me crazy

2:26:22 ↗ so I had to do it so now I want to talk

2:26:24 ↗ about some things that I think are way

2:26:26 ↗ more fun uh and Costco you're probably

2:26:30 ↗ going to dislike this as much as you

2:26:31 ↗ dislike the land and Shore committee

2:26:33 ↗ meeting but I look at the images that

2:26:36 ↗ are pro you know presented and I say

2:26:40 ↗ this is for old people and I am one of

2:26:42 ↗ those old people I see lots of stage

2:26:44 ↗ sort of static yeah we have a rock and I

2:26:47 ↗ guess that's not what I want anymore I

2:26:50 ↗ want places that are active and

2:26:53 ↗ entertaining and potentially even bright

2:26:56 ↗ so when you're looking at a

2:26:59 ↗ plaza I don't see Rockery uh I went

2:27:03 ↗ around isqua last year and I said what

2:27:05 ↗ do you guys want in your parks and I

2:27:07 ↗ talked to adults and I went to many

2:27:09 ↗ people and you know what they said they

2:27:10 ↗ said you know we want adult

2:27:13 ↗ swings we want bouncy toys

2:27:17 ↗ we want places where we can balance and

2:27:20 ↗ goof around and just you know some

2:27:23 ↗ places of Peace but a lot of places

2:27:25 ↗ where we can just sort of destress and

2:27:27 ↗ we want them close and we want to have

2:27:29 ↗ fun and I'm going well yeah I want to

2:27:32 ↗ walk I want to go to the mountains but

2:27:34 ↗ if you're going out to a plaza what do

2:27:36 ↗ you really want to be doing and so me

2:27:38 ↗ I'm thinking I want an immense Scrabble

2:27:40 ↗ board where you can change out the tiles

2:27:42 ↗ and make words and it's Costco it's a

2:27:45 ↗ private canvas I don't even care if you

2:27:47 ↗ spell check it and they could even be

2:27:49 ↗ obscene I would encourage that maybe not

2:27:51 ↗ everyone uh I want words like joy

2:27:55 ↗ laughter relaxation and conversation to

2:27:58 ↗ be your words not you know sustainable

2:28:02 ↗ yeah that's good but that's a given you

2:28:04 ↗ have to do it how do you create a

2:28:06 ↗ vibrant excellent area where when people

2:28:09 ↗ go to their Plaza they feel these things

2:28:13 ↗ so I think the vocabulary needs to

2:28:16 ↗ change in how you're looking at it all

2:28:19 ↗ and that will help provide some of the

2:28:21 ↗ interface that you get with the city

2:28:23 ↗ because if you make it that awesome for

2:28:25 ↗ your people then you're going to get us

2:28:27 ↗ coming over to play on your adult swings

2:28:30 ↗ and play your big Scrabble game and then

2:28:32 ↗ we will get a little bit more of the

2:28:34 ↗ energy that we are seeking in the

2:28:35 ↗ central isqua plan and I got to say just

2:28:39 ↗ pretty much all of that is missing so

2:28:42 ↗ one of my favorite things is I want a

2:28:43 ↗ sound pole where you go up and you hit

2:28:46 ↗ it and and it plays random music and

2:28:48 ↗ then you dance madcap okay so why not

2:28:51 ↗ have fun when you're doing this instead

2:28:53 ↗ of just being at flip and work all the

2:28:56 ↗ time so beyond that and boring again uh

2:29:00 ↗ when I was looking at all of the paths

2:29:02 ↗ very few paths actually went to the

2:29:04 ↗ trails they just sort of cut off and

2:29:06 ↗ went to nowhere and ended and I didn't

2:29:08 ↗ see your requirements for the paths

2:29:12 ↗ actually being able to be linked and

2:29:13 ↗ looped and connected so you could always

2:29:16 ↗ get to a trailer a place on all of the

2:29:18 ↗ paths um and I think that's important

2:29:21 ↗ when especially when you're looking at

2:29:23 ↗ basically making big huge blockades for

2:29:26 ↗ for you know building barriers so people

2:29:28 ↗ can't walk easily okay so five minutes

2:29:32 ↗ Connie y i I don't like this yet I'm

2:29:37 ↗ trying to force you to do something

2:29:39 ↗ better so

2:29:41 ↗ please thank

2:29:43 ↗ you anybody else

2:29:48 ↗ okay again next two weeks we'll have

2:29:50 ↗ another meeting and you can review the

2:29:53 ↗ changes to the land use I'll ask members

2:29:55 ↗ of the commission if they have any

2:29:57 ↗ questions or comments that they want to

2:30:05 ↗ ask I guess I'm I'm wondering the

2:30:08 ↗ process will go through on this since

2:30:10 ↗ this is still a relatively new

2:30:11 ↗ experience I think as we're dealing with

2:30:12 ↗ the development agreement and the land

2:30:15 ↗ plan so do we want to just provide com

2:30:17 ↗ questions we've had opportunities for

2:30:19 ↗ questions but we do we want to do the

2:30:20 ↗ typical provide observations comments um

2:30:24 ↗ that would be next next time I would

2:30:26 ↗ think this time would be asking

2:30:27 ↗ questions next meeting we got another

2:30:29 ↗ meeting for more

2:30:30 ↗ questions I I would prefer to have as

2:30:33 ↗ much as you can tell us because what

2:30:35 ↗ we're going to do is take what we've

2:30:37 ↗ heard from the public what we've heard

2:30:39 ↗ from you we're going to take that back

2:30:42 ↗ we're going to try and respond to that

2:30:45 ↗ and what we would prefer if we need to

2:30:47 ↗ be redrafting language changing

2:30:49 ↗ conditions providing additional

2:30:51 ↗ information we want to do that in a

2:30:53 ↗ thoughtful way ahead of time so you have

2:30:55 ↗ a chance to consider it so we'd prefer

2:30:58 ↗ to get it tonight

2:31:01 ↗ okay so if you got comments or opinions

2:31:05 ↗ on anything we talked about

2:31:08 ↗ tonight go ahead I'll jump in so well

2:31:12 ↗ you may start the um I guess one uh one

2:31:16 ↗ comment I would have that I would want

2:31:17 ↗ to see somewhere in there is specifying

2:31:20 ↗ that it does leave open the 5,000 units

2:31:23 ↗ and 500,000 square feet of retail within

2:31:26 ↗ Pickering place still is capability

2:31:28 ↗ because one of the huge benefits I see

2:31:30 ↗ here is 1.5 million square feet is

2:31:33 ↗ probably 6,000 employees and it'd be a

2:31:36 ↗ great place to build some housing right

2:31:38 ↗ next to that within Pickering place and

2:31:41 ↗ some more retail so I'd want that

2:31:43 ↗ confirmed in there um

2:31:46 ↗ and the

2:31:48 ↗ uh the one the note about the corner of

2:31:52 ↗ building

2:31:53 ↗ 4A I think it was bring that out I I

2:31:57 ↗ actually I understand the agreement I

2:32:00 ↗ was on the task force for the

2:32:01 ↗ development standard so I understand the

2:32:03 ↗ bringing it out and creating the urban

2:32:04 ↗ environment but that one corner I

2:32:07 ↗ thought could would be a perfect place

2:32:09 ↗ to create some better public open space

2:32:12 ↗ it's going to be a real focal point for

2:32:14 ↗ people driving through there and to

2:32:16 ↗ bring the building all the way out I

2:32:17 ↗ thought eliminated the possibility of

2:32:19 ↗ doing something fun at that corner

2:32:22 ↗ perhaps and and I even wondered about

2:32:25 ↗ could that building I wonder about the

2:32:28 ↗ possibility of maintaining any views to

2:32:31 ↗ the South Southeast down Lake Drive that

2:32:35 ↗ building 4A extends out enough to block

2:32:38 ↗ any possibility of that and there was

2:32:41 ↗ nothing in there really about view

2:32:43 ↗ corridors and potential Vistas to the

2:32:45 ↗ South and it was in the staff report but

2:32:48 ↗ you're right I didn't include it in the

2:32:50 ↗ presentation saw I saw some brief

2:32:52 ↗ mentions but not about that specifically

2:32:54 ↗ was it blocking anything and I thought

2:32:56 ↗ is there any possibility to bring that

2:32:58 ↗ building back and maintain more of a a

2:33:01 ↗ view corridor okay thank

2:33:05 ↗ you

2:33:08 ↗ so make sure I'm turned on here so um

2:33:10 ↗ just a maybe a few comments um I think I

2:33:13 ↗ asked my questions one of them is is

2:33:16 ↗ kind of the procedural comment where

2:33:19 ↗ under the development agreement when

2:33:21 ↗ we're talking about how the development

2:33:23 ↗ commission would be involved in in

2:33:25 ↗ buildings over 150,000 square feet it

2:33:27 ↗ was essentially Community Conference

2:33:29 ↗ provide some input it's kind of a take

2:33:31 ↗ it or leave it sort of a scenario where

2:33:34 ↗ other projects in the central is plet

2:33:38 ↗ over 150,000 square feet would be

2:33:39 ↗ subject to a review and we look at

2:33:41 ↗ architectural features and and uh

2:33:43 ↗ implementation of those standards to as

2:33:45 ↗ another level of a detailed review and

2:33:48 ↗ I'm I'm

2:33:49 ↗ wondering um why

2:33:52 ↗ that why that uh process wouldn't be

2:33:55 ↗ applicable here I understand there's

2:33:57 ↗ some additional risk but you're still

2:33:58 ↗ designing to a standard and we're not

2:34:00 ↗ dealing with you know changing the site

2:34:03 ↗ configuration or anything like that

2:34:04 ↗ we're talking about building

2:34:06 ↗ architectural features in compliance

2:34:07 ↗ with those design standards the reason I

2:34:09 ↗ say that

2:34:11 ↗ is um we are new in the central isqua

2:34:14 ↗ plan and those design standards and now

2:34:17 ↗ we're making an agreement that's going

2:34:19 ↗ to last for 30 years it's going to vest

2:34:21 ↗ to a very new standard and I think that

2:34:23 ↗ comment was made in in public comments

2:34:25 ↗ or that were provided um by Miss Marsh

2:34:28 ↗ and I think that was um a good point and

2:34:32 ↗ so I I guess I'm trying to find how do

2:34:34 ↗ we make sure we're holding the future

2:34:36 ↗ development of the Costco campus to the

2:34:39 ↗ rigor of the design standards and making

2:34:41 ↗ sure we get high quality design clearly

2:34:43 ↗ the work that's been done on campus and

2:34:44 ↗ the examples you show are high standard

2:34:47 ↗ and and that's the commitment of the

2:34:48 ↗ company but it it is I'm just want to

2:34:51 ↗ protect that um rigor I think into the

2:34:54 ↗ future U particularly since there's so

2:34:56 ↗ much newness to the standard there's um

2:34:59 ↗ um could I add just one point clarify

2:35:01 ↗ one point that you made and the rest of

2:35:03 ↗ it will address in the memo um the level

2:35:07 ↗ of information that would come to the

2:35:09 ↗ development commission for buildings

2:35:11 ↗ over 150,000 Square

2:35:13 ↗ ft whether you're giving input or

2:35:17 ↗ whether you're making a decision the

2:35:19 ↗ level of information would be the

2:35:23 ↗ same as conceptual as what we're seeing

2:35:25 ↗ today no at at more like the seventh and

2:35:29 ↗ Gilman project right so it would be the

2:35:33 ↗ um same level of information you would

2:35:36 ↗ you would see the building designs the

2:35:38 ↗ plaza designs the landscape plans the

2:35:41 ↗ question um The Proposal in front of you

2:35:45 ↗ is um since you've seen kind of the

2:35:48 ↗ general framework of the land plan um

2:35:52 ↗ and made a recommendation on that for

2:35:54 ↗ those buildings only you would be giving

2:35:57 ↗ input as opposed to making a decision

2:35:59 ↗ that's the proposal but not a reduction

2:36:02 ↗ in the level of information you would

2:36:04 ↗ receive at that meeting okay I I

2:36:07 ↗ understood that okay and I I just we're

2:36:09 ↗ at a conceptual level here we're

2:36:11 ↗ approving something at a conceptual

2:36:12 ↗ level and our future influence is

2:36:15 ↗ different than it would be for other

2:36:16 ↗ similar projects I guess was my point um

2:36:19 ↗ so I I maybe some additional thought

2:36:22 ↗ around that okay you you heard me

2:36:24 ↗ earlier make comments about The

2:36:26 ↗ Pedestrian Bridges and I I continue to

2:36:28 ↗ have concern particularly those that

2:36:30 ↗ cross the public uh Street um and

2:36:34 ↗ commissioner Morgan's Point about a

2:36:35 ↗ viewcar well you create a viewcar then

2:36:37 ↗ you just run pedestrian bridges in front

2:36:39 ↗ of it and you've lost your view corridor

2:36:41 ↗ so I I I just wonder what the um

2:36:47 ↗ space will feel like um when you're

2:36:49 ↗ traveling down Lake Lane when you've got

2:36:51 ↗ pedestrian two at least two pedestrian

2:36:54 ↗ Bridges Crossing in front of you um and

2:36:56 ↗ the examples that were provided in the

2:37:00 ↗ um uh commission materials this evening

2:37:02 ↗ the agenda materials showed glass boxes

2:37:05 ↗ crossing the street and that's not a

2:37:06 ↗ very interesting architectural feature

2:37:08 ↗ in my opinion so again I I uh

2:37:11 ↗ particularly those across the street I'm

2:37:14 ↗ concerned about that and also the

2:37:16 ↗ pulling The Pedestrian activity up off

2:37:18 ↗ of the

2:37:18 ↗ street

2:37:26 ↗ um I am um concerned about and with the

2:37:31 ↗ comment that commissioner Morgan just

2:37:32 ↗ made about the total consumption of the

2:37:35 ↗ essentially the office development in

2:37:37 ↗ the Pickering place um planned action

2:37:39 ↗ Eis essentially creating now a barrier

2:37:42 ↗ to any future office development that

2:37:44 ↗ might happen because they will need to

2:37:46 ↗ go through the more uh detailed sepa and

2:37:49 ↗ potentially environmental review process

2:37:52 ↗ um so it becomes a barrier to Future

2:37:54 ↗ development so this this development

2:37:55 ↗ agreement essentially ties that up for

2:37:57 ↗ 30 years so um something to think about

2:37:59 ↗ is there some way to mitigate that or

2:38:02 ↗ update the planned action Eis at some

2:38:04 ↗ point down the road or help to fund that

2:38:05 ↗ update that addresses the opportunity to

2:38:08 ↗ create additional office development

2:38:10 ↗ although at the same time we want to

2:38:11 ↗ encourage residential and other um sorts

2:38:14 ↗ of development more so than the office

2:38:16 ↗ that's being consumed by the Costco

2:38:18 ↗ proposal and then the other uh and this

2:38:21 ↗ is a more detailed observation and we

2:38:24 ↗ have the trail that runs essentially on

2:38:26 ↗ the backside of the property that's what

2:38:28 ↗ it feels like along uh isqua Creek and

2:38:31 ↗ we had quite a conversation about this

2:38:32 ↗ when the parking garage proposal came

2:38:34 ↗ through about essentially the property

2:38:36 ↗ turning its back to the trail and so uh

2:38:39 ↗ the trail is a great opportunity I think

2:38:42 ↗ to invite people off the trail into the

2:38:45 ↗ the property uh into the plaza to the

2:38:47 ↗ public spaces onto the street even as a

2:38:50 ↗ connection an alternative connection to

2:38:52 ↗ get to the state park um through um you

2:38:55 ↗ know uh something that essentially says

2:38:58 ↗ come take a look because right now the

2:39:00 ↗ way this is proposed is the property is

2:39:03 ↗ turning its back to the trail and Trail

2:39:05 ↗ users are not going to feel welcome to

2:39:07 ↗ leave the trail so I think that's

2:39:09 ↗ something to think about and how this

2:39:10 ↗ and that's maybe a detail that's got to

2:39:12 ↗ be dealt with later but again that's an

2:39:14 ↗ an amenity that we should be taking

2:39:16 ↗ advantage of and not turning our backs

2:39:18 ↗ to uh the public Trail on the on the

2:39:20 ↗ back side of the property so along as a

2:39:22 ↗ qua Creek those are my comments and

2:39:25 ↗ observations

2:39:26 ↗ R thank you um I I guess I just kind of

2:39:31 ↗ like to dovetail into what uh

2:39:33 ↗ commissioner Brennan had had mentioned

2:39:35 ↗ you know the residential part we didn't

2:39:36 ↗ talk a lot about the residential

2:39:38 ↗ although we did say that at this time

2:39:40 ↗ it's not been looked at or traffic study

2:39:44 ↗ hasn't been doing that and couple things

2:39:46 ↗ on that is that one um there's nothing

2:39:50 ↗ right now the way it's presented there's

2:39:52 ↗ nothing that draws The Pedestrian into

2:39:54 ↗ that area it's all office space you know

2:39:58 ↗ um weekends maybe evenings it's it's

2:40:01 ↗ there's not a lot of activities going on

2:40:03 ↗ so we kind of need something to draw the

2:40:05 ↗ uh pedestrian uh residential folks into

2:40:08 ↗ that area and maybe the

2:40:11 ↗ residential concept would come in where

2:40:14 ↗ you have residential folks living there

2:40:16 ↗ and so consequently you have the people

2:40:19 ↗ here and so that ties in with the plaza

2:40:24 ↗ concept you have the plaza people come

2:40:27 ↗ out they spend their time out there you

2:40:29 ↗ have trails and complete the trail so

2:40:32 ↗ you can have folks using that so I don't

2:40:36 ↗ think residential is a bad idea uh if

2:40:40 ↗ that's what you're thinking and maybe

2:40:42 ↗ it's in the future but you know that's

2:40:45 ↗ that's that's good you have residential

2:40:47 ↗ you have and by the time residential is

2:40:50 ↗ completed you have space set up for open

2:40:54 ↗ space Plaza walkway Trails uh with of

2:40:58 ↗ sidewalk is there um I I find it very

2:41:01 ↗ disturbing when you're squeezing the

2:41:04 ↗ sidewalk or or walkway into four feet I

2:41:08 ↗ mean you know four feet is basically two

2:41:10 ↗ person walking and they're always

2:41:12 ↗ hitting each other now if you're

2:41:13 ↗ inviting folks to come out from the

2:41:16 ↗ trail and then biking and walking you

2:41:20 ↗ you need a wider uh width of walkway so

2:41:23 ↗ I I kind of like to see something like

2:41:25 ↗ that that you have the space and you

2:41:27 ↗ have this walkway in there the plaza and

2:41:30 ↗ the open space uh I'd like what you have

2:41:33 ↗ right now uh taking advantage of of the

2:41:36 ↗ water on on the uh West Side there um

2:41:41 ↗ but if you could invite you know have

2:41:43 ↗ some good invitation for folks to come

2:41:45 ↗ out spend some time there uh maybe set

2:41:48 ↗ the building back um so that's what I'm

2:41:53 ↗ seeing and I go back to the fact that I

2:41:56 ↗ mentioned earlier is that if you if we

2:42:00 ↗ could have some

2:42:02 ↗ numbers percentage of of square feet uh

2:42:07 ↗ of open space dedicated to Plaza or open

2:42:10 ↗ space dedicated for garden and stuff

2:42:13 ↗ like that I think that would be

2:42:16 ↗ helpful thank you

2:42:20 ↗ Richard I I guess I'm still a little

2:42:22 ↗ confused

2:42:24 ↗ on the connection between the master

2:42:26 ↗ site plan and and the central isqua plan

2:42:30 ↗ and how how the you know I understand

2:42:32 ↗ how the value to the Costco property

2:42:35 ↗ that that would be to adopt that it

2:42:37 ↗ seems like Pickering place is kind of

2:42:39 ↗ put on there's a nness on them that they

2:42:42 ↗ and I don't understand how you reconcile

2:42:44 ↗ that I guess I

2:42:46 ↗ so I that would I'd like to that needs

2:42:48 ↗ to be cleared up in my mind maybe it is

2:42:50 ↗ to everybody else and I'm just the

2:42:52 ↗ slower person on the board uh could you

2:42:54 ↗ explain what you said you said the

2:42:56 ↗ onuses on the Pickering

2:43:00 ↗ place on the on the on the other

2:43:02 ↗ property on the other property okay

2:43:04 ↗ right and uh I don't know how you

2:43:07 ↗ reconcile that I I think I understand

2:43:09 ↗ the difference but I don't understand

2:43:11 ↗ how they reconcile you know it seems

2:43:13 ↗ like they're being penalized if they're

2:43:14 ↗ not included in the

2:43:15 ↗ at in in what's going to be granted to

2:43:19 ↗ Costco now the other thing that concerns

2:43:21 ↗ me is the the tip tip process in the

2:43:24 ↗ state state the state highway funding

2:43:26 ↗ having a little bit of familiarity with

2:43:28 ↗ that the you know it's great it's great

2:43:31 ↗ that there's an opportunity for that the

2:43:33 ↗ city to be able to minimize their

2:43:35 ↗ investment but the there's the downside

2:43:37 ↗ of that of what if they don't get the

2:43:38 ↗ project and I I know that's always a a

2:43:42 ↗ bit of a gamble but it's a pretty if if

2:43:46 ↗ if the number you said was $50 million

2:43:47 ↗ and the city's obligation would be 5

2:43:49 ↗ million where do the other 45 million

2:43:51 ↗ come up if it doesn't happen you know if

2:43:53 ↗ they don't get the tip tip funding that

2:43:56 ↗ doesn't make sense to

2:43:57 ↗ me and just if I can Mr chair just to

2:44:02 ↗ clarify the piece so I you know just to

2:44:04 ↗ be clear right now the way the mtfa

2:44:07 ↗ reads is there's a partnership so the

2:44:09 ↗ city's percentage is 52% of that $50

2:44:12 ↗ million project so there's so in no case

2:44:16 ↗ are we paying $50 million for that get

2:44:19 ↗ so Costco right now is paying $23.7

2:44:22 ↗ million guaranteed and then the city's

2:44:25 ↗ portion of that could be as high as

2:44:28 ↗ somewhere around $26 million um we're

2:44:31 ↗ going to we're working to try and reduce

2:44:34 ↗ that the goal would be zero um you know

2:44:37 ↗ but where where that falls along the

2:44:39 ↗ Spectrum we have to be ready to pay the

2:44:42 ↗ the the upper end of that assuming we

2:44:44 ↗ get no Grant gr money so that's what

2:44:46 ↗ we're walking into this understanding

2:44:49 ↗ but still

2:44:51 ↗ even with that even if we got no grant

2:44:54 ↗ money we're basically building a project

2:44:57 ↗ at 50 cents on the dollar and in any

2:45:00 ↗ public process that's not a bad deal so

2:45:04 ↗ so that's the starting point and that's

2:45:06 ↗ assuming zero grant money from the city

2:45:12 ↗ okay Katie

2:45:16 ↗ I

2:45:24 ↗ think

2:45:26 ↗ okay

2:45:29 ↗ uh I guess I I want to know from the

2:45:32 ↗ from staff how are you going to address

2:45:34 ↗ Connie asked some very intelligent

2:45:36 ↗ questions smarter than I could and kind

2:45:39 ↗ of would like to know where are we in

2:45:41 ↗ rep in response to her questions are you

2:45:44 ↗ going to prepare response

2:45:46 ↗ memo yes um the questions that are in

2:45:50 ↗ Connie's letter and in Mr siver's letter

2:45:52 ↗ will be addressed um in our memo okay so

2:45:55 ↗ and and just to add one thing so Mr sers

2:45:58 ↗ Connie and we actually got another

2:46:00 ↗ letter um the city received a letter

2:46:02 ↗ from uh the Fred Meyer Home Depot

2:46:06 ↗ shopping center so we'll include that as

2:46:09 ↗ well um and that represents all the

2:46:12 ↗ public comments we've gotten on this to

2:46:14 ↗ date okay

2:46:16 ↗ and I think they were not in town to

2:46:18 ↗ come to this meeting but I would be

2:46:20 ↗ surprised if they didn't come to your

2:46:21 ↗ next meeting okay so and we will provide

2:46:24 ↗ um the commission with copies of both of

2:46:27 ↗ those letters um as part of the

2:46:29 ↗ packet

2:46:31 ↗ um I I have similar concerns of this

2:46:34 ↗ transport for one thing this it bothers

2:46:37 ↗ me whenever we talk about getting this

2:46:39 ↗ much money and we got to hurry because

2:46:42 ↗ we got a

2:46:44 ↗ deadline to me it's something like we

2:46:46 ↗ dealt with in a planning policy in

2:46:49 ↗ regards to going to be a urban center or

2:46:51 ↗ something planning policy said we don't

2:46:54 ↗ want to do this because we're only doing

2:46:55 ↗ it so that we can get

2:46:58 ↗ money and that was our recommendation to

2:47:01 ↗ council and they said no we're going to

2:47:03 ↗ go ahead that's why the council makes

2:47:06 ↗ decisions and we just make

2:47:08 ↗ recommendations but anytime we start

2:47:10 ↗ saying we we got a deadline and we got

2:47:12 ↗ to get this thing done is when mistakes

2:47:15 ↗ happen and one of the questions that

2:47:18 ↗ Connie asks is what

2:47:20 ↗ about the fact that some of these

2:47:22 ↗ standards were done on a we got to get

2:47:24 ↗ them done and we can always change them

2:47:25 ↗ but now we're going to base something

2:47:27 ↗ for 30

2:47:28 ↗ years and we don't know if there's are

2:47:30 ↗ going to be around in two years they

2:47:32 ↗ might change everything in two years

2:47:34 ↗ because they aren't working and how is

2:47:35 ↗ that going to affect this proposed

2:47:38 ↗ development agreement that that just

2:47:42 ↗ bothers me I'd like to know

2:47:45 ↗ the city got a check somewhere in escrow

2:47:47 ↗ for for $26

2:47:50 ↗ million um so just to clarify I guess

2:47:53 ↗ what what I would task the commission is

2:47:56 ↗ to think about what their purview is and

2:47:59 ↗ and in terms of the mtfa is really a

2:48:04 ↗ funding agreement between the city and a

2:48:07 ↗ private developer and you know if you

2:48:11 ↗ guys feel like that you don't want to

2:48:13 ↗ comment on that because you don't think

2:48:16 ↗ that's in your purview then I would

2:48:18 ↗ suggest that you guys be clear that you

2:48:20 ↗ guys are what whatever is coming out of

2:48:22 ↗ this commission you say hey we took a

2:48:24 ↗ pass on that you know because that's the

2:48:26 ↗ council's baileywick and we're going to

2:48:27 ↗ let them decide whether they want to

2:48:28 ↗ write that check for $25 million so I'm

2:48:32 ↗ just saying you guys can pick whatever

2:48:35 ↗ you want to say about that um we will

2:48:37 ↗ transmit that to the council but you

2:48:40 ↗ don't need to take on anything that you

2:48:43 ↗ feel is beyond your

2:48:50 ↗ scope okay except except

2:48:53 ↗ that we're being asked to recommend a

2:48:56 ↗ development agreement that's sort of

2:48:57 ↗ contingent on having $25

2:49:01 ↗ million and so if we don't have $25

2:49:03 ↗ million then I'm not sure why we're

2:49:05 ↗ doing the development

2:49:07 ↗ agreement

2:49:09 ↗ if did I make myself is that absolutely

2:49:13 ↗ my convoluted or did you understand what

2:49:14 ↗ I'm

2:49:18 ↗ saying okay yeah so we might be beating

2:49:21 ↗ a dead horse if I may sh if I

2:49:26 ↗ may the city's share of this this $50

2:49:29 ↗ million number is for a suite of

2:49:31 ↗ improvements as I mentioned earlier that

2:49:34 ↗ is part of the central isqua plan they

2:49:37 ↗ are roads that were planned to support

2:49:39 ↗ the densities of which the city

2:49:42 ↗ adopted to date before the application

2:49:46 ↗ that we make to The

2:49:47 ↗ Tib currently the city has already

2:49:51 ↗ received $12 million in Grants against

2:49:54 ↗ its

2:49:55 ↗ share we're looking for just under 10

2:49:58 ↗ with The Tib we've had meetings with The

2:50:01 ↗ Tib executive director and their

2:50:03 ↗ engineering staff that do project uh

2:50:05 ↗ Grant application reviews they're very

2:50:08 ↗ positive about this

2:50:11 ↗ application I can't guarantee it but

2:50:14 ↗ we've been talking with them for three

2:50:16 ↗ years and they've just about been

2:50:18 ↗ begging us to bring the application in

2:50:21 ↗ so if that application gets in and is

2:50:25 ↗ awarded the city is looking probably on

2:50:28 ↗ the order of $3 million out of its

2:50:31 ↗ pocket for $50 million of improvements

2:50:34 ↗ so that's kind of the status of where we

2:50:35 ↗ are I just wanted to address your

2:50:37 ↗ question a little bit more thoroughly

2:50:39 ↗ would have could or should have yeah

2:50:42 ↗ would have could or should have

2:50:47 ↗ the other question I have is kind of a

2:50:48 ↗ technical question for the

2:50:50 ↗ architect

2:50:52 ↗ um I was a little concerned when you

2:50:55 ↗ were saying two levels of

2:50:58 ↗ parking underground or below ground or

2:51:01 ↗ at ground level cuz I don't think that

2:51:05 ↗ that parking garage I thought I only had

2:51:07 ↗ one level underground or it was when

2:51:10 ↗ they built it and one of the concerns of

2:51:12 ↗ course is the groundwater right

2:51:15 ↗ so are you talking about putting one

2:51:16 ↗ level and maybe raising up

2:51:19 ↗ no

2:51:21 ↗ so buildings one two and three all

2:51:26 ↗ have what do you call

2:51:28 ↗ them they're they're under building

2:51:30 ↗ parking garages that on the front of the

2:51:33 ↗ buildings as the buildings face the road

2:51:35 ↗ they're completely below grade but on

2:51:38 ↗ back sides of building they're exposed

2:51:40 ↗ because the Topography is dropping and

2:51:43 ↗ and that may may be the case when we

2:51:46 ↗ start looking at at some of these

2:51:48 ↗ buildings they may have similar

2:51:50 ↗ opportunity um we know the the the

2:51:54 ↗ parking garage that's the way the

2:51:55 ↗ parking garage the

2:51:56 ↗ first the first level is half

2:51:58 ↗ Subterranean it's it's not fully

2:52:00 ↗ submerged right

2:52:03 ↗ um right now what we're saying is we

2:52:06 ↗ think we need to have at least one level

2:52:08 ↗ of of parking underneath these buildings

2:52:10 ↗ and and maybe two depending on how it

2:52:12 ↗ goes we understand that if we go more

2:52:16 ↗ it's going to cost a lot more we don't

2:52:18 ↗ want to go

2:52:19 ↗ to okay I just but but it would it would

2:52:22 ↗ cost a lot more to do it what you were

2:52:23 ↗ saying That's any other commissions have

2:52:26 ↗ any other

2:52:29 ↗ questions Ray just a follow up on that

2:52:33 ↗ question uh so whatever the parking

2:52:36 ↗ requirement if you run

2:52:37 ↗ into the water table if you start going

2:52:41 ↗ underground why could you not go into

2:52:44 ↗ the the parking garage that you have at

2:52:47 ↗ a few more um levels I'm not I can't

2:52:51 ↗ remember whether we uh there's some

2:52:53 ↗ option that you may be able to add a

2:52:55 ↗ couple more floors on that they

2:52:57 ↗ said they can do oh okay we've already

2:53:00 ↗ designed and built the garage to

2:53:03 ↗ accommodate two more levels oh okay so

2:53:06 ↗ all the steel all the concrete is

2:53:07 ↗ already in the building to handle two

2:53:09 ↗ more floors okay okay thank

2:53:13 ↗ you

2:53:17 ↗ that's it thank you everybody for

2:53:19 ↗ attending we'll adjourn at uh 5 to 10 oh

2:53:23 ↗ um Chris there was one more

2:53:26 ↗ more we got some housekeeping business

2:53:29 ↗ for commission members so the St stuff

2:53:32 ↗ that you guys might might be interested

2:53:34 ↗ in or you're welcome to stay and see how

2:53:35 ↗ we conduct our elections the Chairman's

2:53:38 ↗ not here so he'll probably get

2:53:41 ↗ elected well I'm Christopher Wright with

2:53:43 ↗ the development services department and

2:53:46 ↗ um as you see on the agenda we have the

2:53:47 ↗ election of officers on the agenda and

2:53:50 ↗ you certainly can you absolutely can do

2:53:52 ↗ the election of officers tonight if

2:53:54 ↗ you're ready and willing and able it is

2:53:57 ↗ admittedly a little awkward with the

2:53:59 ↗ chair not being here um so like I said

2:54:03 ↗ you can do the elections if you want we

2:54:05 ↗ know that we have another meeting in two

2:54:07 ↗ weeks and unfortunately Randy won't be

2:54:09 ↗ here for that one

2:54:10 ↗ either then for sure he gets elected but

2:54:14 ↗ we could in the meantime try and get a

2:54:16 ↗ hold of him I don't know how accessible

2:54:18 ↗ he is but at least to ask him if he'd be

2:54:20 ↗ willing to serve if elected so I'll kind

2:54:22 ↗ of leave it up to you on whether you

2:54:23 ↗ want to do it tonight or try to talk to

2:54:25 ↗ Randy spend these two weeks campaigning

2:54:28 ↗ and uh and uh

2:54:43 ↗ lobbying

2:54:45 ↗ keep the same slate for

2:54:48 ↗ another I'm sorry we're going to keep

2:54:50 ↗ the same slate for another year maybe or

2:54:52 ↗ I'll try to get a hold of

2:54:53 ↗ Randy and see if he agrees and then we

2:54:58 ↗ can talk about it you guys think about

2:54:59 ↗ it or when you want to put your you know

2:55:02 ↗ right in candidate for

2:55:06 ↗ Ray I I think what you have so I'll try

2:55:10 ↗ to get a hold of

2:55:13 ↗ yeah

2:55:17 ↗ exis sorry why don't we why don't we

2:55:20 ↗ make a I'll make a proposal tonight or

2:55:22 ↗ make a nomination that we we select we

2:55:25 ↗ extend the the roles of each person for

2:55:28 ↗ another year we'll try to get hold of

2:55:30 ↗ Randy and and confirm that next I that's

2:55:33 ↗ fine we can do that we can vote next

2:55:34 ↗ week I but I'd like to give him at least

2:55:36 ↗ the option to say no I'm too busy now

2:55:38 ↗ signing books or something I'm going to

2:55:40 ↗ have to resign or something so is that

2:55:43 ↗ agreeable with everyone yeah I'm fine

2:55:46 ↗ and we need to make sure everybody's

2:55:48 ↗ term is still good yeah we're we're fine

2:55:51 ↗ yeah your um position it it's May so

2:55:56 ↗ okay we've got some time I'm good um on

2:55:59 ↗ that line um on a personal note is my

2:56:03 ↗ term extended I haven't gotten anything

2:56:05 ↗ writing yet I would have to look I mean

2:56:08 ↗ this past spring we went through that uh

2:56:11 ↗ bringing on the new members I never

2:56:13 ↗ heard yeah we look at Every Spring is

2:56:14 ↗ when we evaluate whether people need to

2:56:16 ↗ be renewed or not and we let you know if

2:56:18 ↗ you do anything oh anything well she has

2:56:21 ↗ a letter no I didn't know if I was up or

2:56:24 ↗ not no if you didn't hear anything show

2:56:27 ↗ up i' I'd ask the staff to check and

2:56:30 ↗ make sure everybody's still I think the

2:56:33 ↗ P same right but I hear that if we

2:56:37 ↗ extend everybody gets a

2:56:38 ↗ rise we'll we'll double your we'll

2:56:41 ↗ double your salary actually if you look

2:56:42 ↗ in your packets yeah

2:56:46 ↗ I don't have

2:56:49 ↗ thec um if you look in your packets on

2:56:52 ↗ the second page it has everyone's terms

2:56:54 ↗ this is a print out from the website my

2:56:57 ↗ packet didn't have that page well that's

2:56:59 ↗ just weird that's because it's they like

2:57:01 ↗ me better no they didn't yeah they

2:57:03 ↗ didn't on both sides she has it I got it

2:57:06 ↗ for some reason yeah you didn't do your

2:57:08 ↗ homework

2:57:09 ↗ um so I don't put the packets together

2:57:12 ↗ but I will make sure it's in the next

2:57:13 ↗ packet see that so um just I'll read

2:57:16 ↗ this out um Michael is

2:57:19 ↗ 2015 Randy is 2015 Mel is 2016 Carl is

2:57:23 ↗ 2016 Ray is 2018 Richard is 2018 and

2:57:27 ↗ Katie is

2:57:30 ↗ 2018 okay so Carl we'll try and get a

2:57:32 ↗ hold of Randy in the next week or two

2:57:35 ↗ and we'll plan on doing the actual

2:57:36 ↗ voting at their next meeting next

2:57:38 ↗ meeting after the next meeting okay

2:57:39 ↗ great thank you thank you thank you

2:57:41 ↗ thank you anything else for the good of

2:57:43 ↗ the order if not we're Jour I want to

2:57:45 ↗ say Lucy did a great job in her

2:57:46 ↗ presentation very good thank you

2:57:50 ↗ yeah no it's

2:58:10 ↗ great

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF