← Back to City Council Digest

Development Commission

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

7:00 PM · 2h 58m · Council Chambers, 135 East Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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
2a
Minutes of May 7, 2014
packet pp.4–14
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Costco Development Agreement Presenter: Costco Applicant
3b
Staff Report
Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, Development Services Department · packet pp.15–78
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
4a
Election of Commission chair and co- chair
Topics: Elections
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
1:44 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
8:12 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
11:08 055 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
19:33 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
46:33 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
1:01:22 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
1:01:55 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
1:02:29 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
1:04:21 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
1:16:49 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
1:18:45 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
1:21:40 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
1:26:47 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
1:28:46 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
1:37:30 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
1:52:51 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
2:04:54 construct very significant and valuable
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
2:06:50 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
2:13:19 compl
2:13:22 mun we ask you if there's members of the
2:13:25 community that want to ask questions or
2:13:29 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
2:15:36 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
2:18:19 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
2:25:21 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
2:33:08 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
2:45:24 think
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
2:49:18 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
2:49:55 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
2:51:21 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
2:53:17 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
2:55:17 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

Recommendations & actions (6)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

  • Niven noted that this Development Agreement works within the recently adopted Central Issaquah Plan (CIP), and said that affects the content and how staff looks at the application as well.
  • The applicant has requested an adjustment in the size of its non-office parking stalls to a larger size with the same minimum requirement of four stalls per 1,000 square feet.
  • Why not go to whoever approved the original Master Plan, where it was presumably reviewed thoroughly and received approval.
  • Sloman gave background on the Master Site Plan, and noted the Council was the body that approved the Master Site Plan in 1987 and would be the body to eliminate it now.
  • Steve Bullock, Mulvanny G2 Architecture, showed a rendering of the Pickering Place Master Site Plan approved in the late 1980s, which was largely suburban in design and approach.
  • The Commission agreed to hold the actual election for Chair and Vice Chair at the September 3 meeting.