← Back to City Council Digest

Development Commission Auto captions

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

7:00 PM · 1h 47m · Council Chambers, 135 East Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Briefing Response Memo 1/2
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 from August 20, 2014
packet pp.4–12
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Schedule Update and Expectations
Keith Niven, Economic Development Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, Development Services Department
3b
MSPA Staff Report
Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, Development Services Department · packet pp.13–20
Staff report:
Summary of proposed action: As part of the Development Agreement, Costco is requesting an Amendment to the Pickering Place Master Plan, to eliminate its applicability to Costco Property. (See DA Section 5) The initial review of the MSPA was included in the Joint Staff Report for the DA and the MSPA, issued August 15, 2014. Public notice was provided as required and described above as notice was combined for the Development Agreement and Master Site Plan Major Amendment. Per IMC 18.04.160, when multiple permits are submitted, the applicant may opt to have an integrated and consolidated review and decision. Per that section of the code, “The decision of all permits shall be made by the decision-maker of the highest level of review.” In this case that would be the Council, with the single Public Hearing held at the Council meeting. Sufficient comments regarding the MSPA were received at…
3c
Briefing Response Memo
Keith Niven, Economic Development Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, Development Services Department Costco Representative · packet pp.21–109
Staff report:
Development Services th 1775 – 12 Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100 issaquahwa.gov
3d
Public Comment
1:25 uh good evening uh the development
1:28 Commission meeting for Wednesday
1:30 September 3rd come to order first item
1:34 of business is the approval of the
1:36 minutes from the last meeting of August
1:40 20th are there any additions or
1:45 Corrections Mr chair I move we approve
1:47 the meeting minutes of the August 20th
1:49 2014 meeting moved and seconded all in
1:52 favor I
1:54 opposed minutes are
1:57 approved good evening uh
2:00 nice to see a nice
2:02 turnout tonight what we're going to do
2:04 again is talk more about a update on the
2:10 U development Commission on the Costco
2:14 Master site plan
2:17 Amendment uh we're going to have a
2:19 schedule update
2:21 expectations um a staff report and then
2:24 briefing response memo and we'll open up
2:27 for public comment again as we did two
2:30 weeks ago I'd ask people that want to
2:33 comment to please sign up and when you
2:36 do make your comments limit you be I'll
2:39 try to keep it to five minutes I will
2:41 keep somewhat of a control on it and
2:43 tell you when your five minutes is up
2:45 ask you to honor that so everybody has a
2:47 chance to speak and we're not here till
2:49 tomorrow
2:52 breakfast so with
2:54 that I'm not sure which one of you guys
2:56 has taken it but I think Keith is a
3:00 short
3:02 STW so um good evening development
3:06 commission Keith nen uh economic
3:08 development director so I'm going to
3:10 start with an apology um I think I sent
3:13 you guys an email about one email every
3:15 hour every
3:18 hour um we received a lot of
3:20 Correspondence associated with these
3:23 proposed actions and staff wanted to
3:25 make sure that you guys received all of
3:27 those and um
3:30 I think at this point at least I believe
3:33 you have so uh starting there so sorry
3:37 for all the emails but I think you guys
3:39 are um caught up uh schedule um as the
3:43 chair mentioned um there is some
3:46 schedule adjustments and part of it is
3:49 you know when you get into a process you
3:51 need to kind of take note of your
3:53 surroundings and I think as Lucy and I
3:55 talked about the last DC meeting you
3:58 guys asked a lot of really good question
3:59 questions and I think there was no way
4:03 that we felt like or very little
4:05 probability that you guys could be done
4:07 talking about this in one more meeting
4:09 so what we talked about is you know
4:11 could we push the schedule could we give
4:14 you guys another bite at this apple and
4:17 the answer is yes and so right now you
4:19 don't need to take another meeting if
4:21 you guys finish tonight great um we can
4:23 have uh two Wednesdays from now off but
4:26 if you need uh to meet on the 17th then
4:29 um we have set aside the amount of time
4:32 to do
4:33 that the second thing I want to talk
4:35 about is what Lucy and I affectionally
4:38 call the parking lot and I put the
4:40 parking lot up on the wall and what the
4:42 parking lot is is as we sit and talk
4:44 about the items tonight um some of them
4:47 can be fairly complicated and we can
4:49 find ourselves spending the entire night
4:52 talking about one particular item so if
4:54 it looks like we're in the middle of a
4:56 conversation that might want to be
4:58 lengthy or might want to be be
5:00 extracted my suggestion is we put it on
5:02 the parking lot so we don't lose it um
5:06 and then we come back to it later either
5:08 later tonight or maybe at the next
5:10 meeting assuming we have another meeting
5:12 so I'm going to man the parking lot and
5:13 as we talk about things if it looks like
5:15 there's things that need to go into the
5:17 parking lot I'll go ahead and put them
5:18 there and then expectations um again
5:21 just to remind the commission um what
5:24 we've queed up is we've queed up um uh
5:29 an amendment to the master site plan for
5:32 Pickering um a draft development
5:35 agreement for Costco and specifically
5:37 the land plan which is exhibit D and the
5:39 staff report that's part of that
5:41 development agreement so that is um
5:45 that's the extent of my introductory
5:48 remarks and I'm going to turn it over to
5:50 Lucy at this
5:58 point that was was Keith niman economic
6:00 development director and parking lot
6:03 attendant yes I am and I'm Lucy slowman
6:06 land development manager for development
6:12 services okay so um here we are at
6:16 meeting number two uh looking at the
6:19 land plan the master site plan Amendment
6:22 and the development agreement for
6:25 Costco um last meeting we spent a lot of
6:28 time talking about the land plan and um
6:33 uh the commission and the public brought
6:35 up questions uh We've addressed those uh
6:38 at least initially in the briefing
6:40 response memo um tonight I want to focus
6:43 more on um the master site plan and the
6:49 um briefing response memo so um first
6:53 the U Master site plan
6:57 Amendment so just to take a step back
6:59 back for a moment
7:06 literally excuse me um so the master
7:10 site plan Amendment this is uh the
7:12 graphic that Costco showed last time and
7:15 as you likely remember the master site
7:17 plan was approved in
7:18 1987 and it set very strict Heights uh
7:22 limits on Heights impervious surface
7:25 land uses and vehicular trips those are
7:27 generally all maxed out um there were
7:29 very high parking requirements and
7:31 significant setbacks required and um as
7:35 a result for instance as Costco
7:37 mentioned last time their last building
7:39 in Pickering place was
7:42 [Music]
7:43 2001 um in 2012 and 2013 the isqua city
7:48 council adopted the central isqua plan
7:51 and Central isqua Development and design
7:54 standards and rezoned the
7:57 properties um and so I think one of the
8:00 things um the ways to think about this
8:03 is just with any other rezone we are
8:05 looking at property that had one zone
8:09 and one kind of land use permit and now
8:11 it has a different Zone and potentially
8:14 a different land use permit and that
8:16 land use permit is one of the elements
8:18 that's before you um so uh I think one
8:22 of the things that's um somewhat
8:26 confusing is that um
8:30 there's the master site plan that the
8:33 city approved as a land use permit which
8:35 contained a billion conditions of which
8:38 you saw all of them in the staff report
8:40 we provided you and part of the purpose
8:43 was that that there was a lot of
8:44 confusion around that what was in the
8:46 master site Planet uh what would we lose
8:49 by um approving this amendment um were
8:53 there things that we needed to keep
8:54 track of so although the original staff
8:58 report on the the land plan you received
9:01 was actually a joint staff report for
9:03 the master site plan Amendment and the
9:05 land plan we have pulled the master site
9:09 plan Amendment out and created a
9:11 separate staff report because it just
9:13 seemed like it needed that level of
9:14 detail and attention and so the purpose
9:17 of the staff report was primarily to
9:20 look at the status of each of the
9:23 original approval conditions and that
9:26 was in the staff report you've received
9:28 and
9:30 from the staff's perspective all but
9:33 three of those conditions were done or
9:35 complete or no longer relevant and
9:39 before I go on to talk about those three
9:42 um conditions my question to the
9:44 commission is do you have questions or
9:46 concerns about the status of those
9:49 conditions as we presented them to you
9:51 yeah I do okay uh under the status of of
9:56 approval conditions under drainage down
9:58 at uh Roman numeral
10:01 20 says uh the city may take over the
10:04 monitoring program and then the status
10:06 is not chose not to take
10:08 over What's happen not chose not to take
10:11 over I don't know what uh so it says
10:14 that the city may take over the
10:16 monitoring program and I think the
10:18 response is intended to say that the
10:20 city decided not to take over the
10:22 monitoring program and it's remained
10:24 with the Pickering Place Owners
10:25 Association not chose not meant that
10:27 they decided to
10:30 so thanks okay the the city decided not
10:34 to um I historically I don't know um how
10:38 that decision
10:40 wased um I assumed that that was the
10:43 city's choice but um I don't actually
10:45 know the history of that
10:49 decision any other
10:54 questions okay so um in reviewing that
10:59 um staff identified three conditions
11:02 that we felt should be carried forward
11:04 into the land plan um and therefore made
11:07 a part of the actions going
11:09 forward um one of these was and and the
11:12 numbers here 678 those are the new the
11:15 numbers as they would be consecutively
11:17 added to the previous five conditions
11:20 that staff proposed so condition number
11:23 six would be to maintain a 200t setback
11:25 from isqua Creek as permanent open space
11:28 and staff recognizes that that 200 feet
11:31 would be equivalent to tract a and tract
11:34 a is what is shown uh in Blue on um this
11:40 slide and in tract a condition number
11:43 seven would limit the use of fertilizers
11:45 pesticides and herbicides within 200
11:48 feet of the
11:49 creek and Lucy yeah before we go any
11:52 further what does that
11:55 mean limit use of fertilizers pesticide
11:59 and herbicid what does limit mean once a
12:02 month twice a week every 6
12:06 months what amounts of fertilizers what
12:08 amount of pesticides what amount of
12:10 herbicides what does that mean okay
12:14 sounds like we'll be revising that
12:16 condition and getting it back to
12:19 you
12:22 um I take your
12:27 point okay and then number eight is um
12:32 the private property cc&rs as they may
12:35 be amended from time to time will remain
12:37 on the property and will govern the use
12:39 ownership and maintenance of commonly
12:41 owned areas and Facilities so um the
12:45 point of this is that that those um
12:47 common properties are owned by the
12:50 Pickering Place Owners Association and
12:53 and the ccnr are the rules by which they
12:56 govern themselves and how those are to
12:58 be hand handled and that would remain in
13:00 place to address those maintenance and
13:02 ownership
13:04 issues procedures
13:12 Etc maybe I'm
13:15 so but CC andrs are private rules or
13:19 regulations against the property and
13:21 you're referencing something that's not
13:24 under the city's control as part of a
13:26 condition of a city decision I I just
13:29 don't know if that's consistent practice
13:32 out there I don't know that I've ever
13:33 seen that done so I I guess I don't know
13:37 that it makes that much difference if
13:39 the language as you've drafted it says
13:41 if they're amended in the future or even
13:42 if they're eliminated by the property
13:45 owners through the process described in
13:47 the ccnr to amend those and I guess it
13:50 it doesn't really matter because their
13:52 standing is different than a permit
13:54 condition you w generally put CC andrs
13:56 in there a permit so I was just confused
13:59 about kind of the blending of the two
14:01 right different ways to essentially
14:03 regulate property one private one
14:05 through the Kei dying to tell you
14:07 something so so um so um neither Lucy
14:11 nor I were here in 1987 so as we kind of
14:15 got into this even born then um yeah we
14:17 exactly um so as we got into this I
14:20 think we were surprised by a lot of what
14:24 happened in 1987 related to this permit
14:27 the city is signature to the
14:31 cc&rs um and so we we actually I mean it
14:35 doesn't mean that what you mention Mike
14:38 won't happen I mean there is a scenario
14:41 potentially where um all of the property
14:44 owners in Pickering could decide to
14:47 disband and remove the ccnr you know the
14:51 difficulty is you have commonly owned
14:53 facilities and so you know the question
14:56 is is you potentially decide to
14:59 you know break that apart and dissolve
15:01 it what happens to those commonly owned
15:03 facilities so for example the pond um
15:05 that's in the middle of Pickering is one
15:07 of those commonly owned facilities and
15:10 the obligations for maintaining that are
15:12 part of the ccnr so it's a good point um
15:16 this one is a little bit of a funky duck
15:19 to some extent and I think we're trying
15:21 to understand it and and deal with some
15:23 of those issues as well well and I guess
15:25 the question that the point that I would
15:28 raise with you um to see if you have a
15:31 thought on it um I think what we were
15:34 identifying because we were signatories
15:36 although at the time Pickering Barn was
15:39 part of it and therefore the city land
15:41 was in it and since that time Pickering
15:43 barn and its land has been removed from
15:46 Pickering place but we're still on the
15:49 cc&rs in some way um so I guess um the
15:55 other option is that this is sort of
15:57 noted as a finding
15:59 but not as a condition um because the
16:04 tool is there and it is the tool that's
16:07 available
16:08 to um establish the uh you know to
16:12 handle these um communal or Community
16:16 issues um and we're we're not trying to
16:20 I don't think we're trying to mandate
16:22 them um I think we were more trying to
16:24 identify that that would be the tool by
16:26 which that um those the questions that
16:29 were raised last time would be addressed
16:31 yeah you know I I don't know that I have
16:33 an answer to the question as to whether
16:34 or not putting it as a finding versus a
16:38 condition
16:40 um you know has a significant difference
16:44 although you may want to talk to legal
16:46 counsel about having a a permit
16:49 condition like this as in its legal
16:51 standing because it doesn't talk about
16:53 as maybe amended but they could be
16:56 essentially eliminated too at some point
16:58 just want to I guess we don't want to
17:00 paint somebody else in the future
17:02 looking at this saying what were they
17:04 thinking back in 2014 so I I guess we
17:07 want to make sure we're being clear
17:08 about what we're trying to accomplish by
17:09 putting that condition on real quick I
17:11 just uh um while I've got the microphone
17:14 um on the chair's uh concern about
17:17 condition number seven I as I read it I
17:19 had a similar concern about okay what
17:20 does that really mean from an
17:21 Administration standpoint or an
17:23 enforcement standpoint if there's an
17:24 industry standard or something out there
17:26 that you could refer to dealing with
17:28 sensitive areas and maintenance of
17:30 landscaping within sensitive um or
17:33 environmentally sensitive areas that
17:34 probably would be a big help because
17:35 then you have something that you can
17:36 refer to from no and and I think I think
17:39 it really was a good point and we have
17:41 language that is in development
17:43 agreements and that's used as permit
17:45 conditions and I think that's where
17:47 we'll start by because that's a um u a
17:51 more tangible way of of directing what
17:54 that action means good thank you
18:00 so um this and and my only question for
18:05 uh the Commissioners is this is the end
18:07 of my presentation on the uh
18:09 mspa unless there are additional
18:12 questions from the
18:16 Commissioners okay nope too quick sorry
18:21 Mr chair so I don't know if it's maybe I
18:24 just need some help um on page it's I
18:27 was looking at through the development
18:29 agreement and it may be related to this
18:31 or not you have to tell me but there's
18:34 um discussion in the development
18:36 agreement as soon as I find the
18:42 page page eight of
18:45 28 where it talks
18:47 about the
18:50 amendment
18:52 um to the Pickering Place master plan
18:57 that authorizes is removal of other
19:00 requesting parties from the Pickering
19:01 Place Master site plan as long as they
19:05 do it before this is enacted so help me
19:08 understand what that's all about so um
19:12 so right now what city code says is if
19:17 you want sorry um so what city code says
19:21 is uh a a major amendment to a Master
19:24 site plan comes to the commission and
19:26 then is decided by the city council
19:28 and so um basically what Costco wanted
19:32 to do was with be um on that page is to
19:37 allow any other Pickering owners to take
19:41 advantage of the door that they were
19:43 opening by removing themselves from the
19:45 master site plan so as the
19:48 council makes that policy decision to
19:51 agree to remove Costco from the
19:54 Pickering Place Master site plan if any
19:57 of the other property owned owners want
19:59 to leave now too what that's saying is
20:02 that they could do that all under this
20:04 Council action so there's so what the so
20:08 in the conversations that we've had with
20:10 the city attorney is that basically we
20:14 would have to have a written request by
20:16 those other property owners so at the
20:18 time that the council passes the
20:23 ordinance or resolution to amend the
20:26 Pickering Place master site plan to
20:28 remove Costco they could potentially
20:31 remove other property owners who have
20:35 written requested that as well and so
20:38 the policy and and the rationale here
20:40 because I'm seeing a lot of fro brows
20:42 the rationale here is that Council has
20:45 already decided from a policy standpoint
20:48 they have a different vision for this
20:50 neighborhood in the city it's it's part
20:51 of the central isquat plan it's higher
20:54 density it's you know less setbacks it's
20:56 all these other things and so from a
20:58 policy standpoint they've already kind
21:00 of painted the picture of what they want
21:02 this to look like so as the property
21:04 owners want out they've really kind of
21:06 wrestled
21:08 with and so what this is saying is if
21:11 there are a number of property owners
21:13 that want to go now rather than make
21:15 them go through a separate bureaucratic
21:18 event um because that's what the code
21:20 says they could take advantage of the
21:22 door being open
21:25 right let's say you know one of the
21:27 gentlemen in and the audience want to
21:29 then be removed from the Pickering Place
21:31 Master site plan they would have to file
21:33 an application it would come to DC it
21:36 would then go to the city council and
21:37 they would have to do their own process
21:39 so that's what B is trying to say is if
21:41 anybody else wants to kind of ride the
21:43 coattails so to speak they can so they
21:45 could participate in this Bureau
21:47 complicated bureaucratic process right
21:49 now yes so
21:51 exactly so it seems to me that that
21:55 would be something that we would want to
21:58 encourage since it allows for the New
21:59 Vision to actually take shape so so so
22:03 and and and just to have this
22:04 conversation fully um maybe not fully
22:07 because I don't know that we have time
22:08 for that but um so the master site plan
22:12 the the words and I'm going to
22:13 paraphrase the City attorney so you know
22:15 basically because it's like a contract
22:18 rezone it it gives property owners
22:21 rights and so the city's not going to
22:23 take those rights away from anybody who
22:25 wants to hang on to them but if people
22:28 want to be removed from the master site
22:30 plan you know they can do that and so
22:33 you're right the more I think the more
22:35 the marrier I mean if everybody wanted
22:37 to come now and we could completely get
22:39 rid of the master site plan in its
22:41 entirety I think that would be great I
22:43 think the likelihood that all the
22:44 Pickering owners will do that is
22:47 probably low but there might be a few
22:50 whether they're in the audience or
22:52 watching at home uh that might might
22:55 take advantage of this it's it's an
22:56 opportunity this is our incentive if you
22:58 will to try and get more of them to be
23:02 removed from the master site plan
23:05 because we see that as being
23:07 advantageous in implementing the central
23:08 isqua plan okay sorry that was a long
23:11 way to go okay so towards that end would
23:13 it make sense to extend it out to say
23:17 anybody that within 12 months of The
23:19 Passage would like to do it after
23:21 they've seen what actually gets passed
23:24 in um so the conversation so we you can
23:28 see a lot of strikethroughs in this
23:29 paragraph um originally we had tried to
23:32 do something along those lines to
23:34 basically say hey if Council says this
23:36 is the right thing to do that you know
23:39 they basically kind of we could make it
23:41 more of an administrative process so
23:43 that doesn't have to be so bureaucratic
23:45 and have so many steps associated with
23:47 it basically what the City attorney said
23:49 is now it's you got to come now or you
23:51 got to do your own process later because
23:54 whether it's a resolution or an
23:55 ordinance it's going to be specific on
23:57 which properties go and it it that
24:00 window shuts when it
24:02 happens
24:06 have you contacted all the property
24:09 owners and advised them of
24:11 this I personally have not I I mean has
24:14 the city or staff made an effort to let
24:17 the property owners know that this is
24:20 one of the items I mean so I'm not sure
24:22 how many property owners are with us
24:23 tonight or watching home eating popcorn
24:26 and enjoying the show
24:27 [Laughter]
24:29 but I would think that this would be
24:30 something like the you know the old what
24:33 is it 500t radius of letting people know
24:36 stuff is going on that you might want to
24:38 put out put out a letter to everybody
24:40 saying this is something that we're
24:41 doing
24:43 and it's a good shot to get it if you're
24:46 interested in getting out and and I
24:47 don't know if Jackie wants to mention I
24:49 mean Costco has been the one talking
24:51 with the other Pickering owners about
24:54 this opportunity um there they held uh
24:58 the mayor and myself and Sheldon uh
25:01 attended a meeting maybe about two weeks
25:03 ago that they held in one of their
25:05 conference rooms for the Pickering
25:07 owners to talk about everything that's
25:09 going on and so those that attended that
25:12 meeting I think heard the message um but
25:16 I believe that um one of Costco's
25:20 Representatives has been having that
25:23 conversation with the other Pickering
25:24 owners so I believe that's happening I
25:26 just don't think the city
25:28 and and they're receiving all these
25:31 materials so they've received the
25:33 development agreement and the staff
25:34 report and and
25:38 I so not anything that specifically says
25:41 this is the Highlight that you should
25:43 note you should note um but that they
25:47 are receiving all the materials
25:48 including the master site plan Amendment
25:51 okay well receiving all of it and
25:54 understanding what is here with uh
25:57 multiple colors underlines Blues cross
25:59 throughs
26:01 yellows and everything else it's almost
26:03 impossible to read this document but I
26:05 would think a letter from the
26:07 city to the property owners I don't know
26:10 how many Property Owners we're talking
26:11 about maybe there's only three I don't
26:14 know there's there's more than three but
26:16 there's less than 20 or something you
26:18 know a letter saying this is one of the
26:21 primary issues and it's it's something
26:23 that we're trying to avoid future
26:25 bureaucracy so if you're interested or
26:27 think you might be interested this is
26:28 your time to jump on a bandwagon
26:41 okay
26:46 okay all
26:49 right um so um Keith got to start with
26:52 an apology I'm bearing mine halfway into
26:54 the program this evening I wrote you an
26:57 email last night in which I tell you
26:59 what I'm about to tell you now and
27:01 discovered that I had never hit send so
27:04 uh I apologize for that um the uh
27:08 briefing response memo that you received
27:11 had 49 issues or topics that we had
27:14 identified um grouped into the
27:16 categories of land plan development
27:18 agreement and master site plan
27:20 Amendment um typically uh and some of
27:23 you may remember this from the seventh
27:24 and Gilman staff report we would go
27:26 through each of those um topics or
27:30 issues as part of our presentation that
27:33 seemed really um long and so what we
27:37 have done is focused on eight of them
27:39 that we thought were particularly um
27:42 that the commission had focused on a lot
27:45 and so we're going to focus on those
27:47 this evening but you are of course
27:49 welcome to ask us to go back um to any
27:52 of these for more information Andor ones
27:55 that we have not brought up um we just
27:56 thought that this would um seem like the
27:59 most um important ones to focus on this
28:02 evening as part of our
28:04 presentation so the first one was
28:05 Community spaces um one of the questions
28:09 was about phasing um each building is
28:12 required to have a certain amount of
28:13 community space and that community space
28:15 would therefore come with that building
28:18 um the what is the amount of community
28:20 space required there's a certain minimum
28:23 amount that's required with each
28:24 building um the proposals are substanti
28:27 more than that minimum um in writing
28:32 this response there was something that
28:33 struck me that I wanted to point out
28:36 which is the central isqua standards
28:39 talk about two kinds of community space
28:41 there's required community space that
28:43 comes with each building and significant
28:46 Community spaces that come with each
28:48 district and the required Community
28:51 spaces seem to be more associated with
28:54 the people who are using that building
28:56 the people in the immed immediate area
28:59 uh the significant Community spaces are
29:02 really intended for the public and um
29:05 for serving the larger area and it's not
29:08 that the required Community spaces may
29:10 not be used um by other people who are
29:13 not working in that building for
29:15 instance um but really the significant
29:18 ones are I think the key ones in terms
29:21 of being public and publicly used and I
29:25 make that point just because I think we
29:26 realize
29:27 um in thinking about the questions that
29:29 were raised that maybe community space
29:31 is not a very good name for that um so
29:34 we'll just keep calling it required
29:36 Community spaces knowing that that may
29:38 not be the best
29:40 name um and I think I think the other
29:42 piece is that these are on private
29:45 property um and so it's the goal is to
29:48 try and balance being both welcoming and
29:50 respecting private property rights um
29:53 some of the questions that have come up
29:54 to us around that topic um made us think
29:57 about the Amazon uh campus um and so I
30:02 just want to talk to you a little bit
30:03 about that because I think that there's
30:05 some similarities that may provide some
30:08 information about how this might be
30:09 handled um what I've provided here are
30:12 two blocks from um South Lake Union in
30:15 Seattle um Terry is probably the most uh
30:19 well-known Street it has the street car
30:21 South Lake Union Street car on it um
30:24 the yellow circles are over s are
30:28 highlighting two of the spaces that um
30:30 Amazon has provided um there's a rather
30:33 large one here that includes a sort of
30:36 performance um space as well as a route
30:39 through the block um this one has a sort
30:42 of a lower space and an upper space um
30:46 I'm not sure exactly when this Google
30:48 aerial is from I um think it may be a
30:50 while ago because if you look at this
30:53 photo which is um this space right I'm
30:55 standing out here this way um you this
30:59 space up here is this space which
31:02 actually has building over it it's
31:04 covered um but I think the important uh
31:08 pieces to point out about this um is
31:11 that it's not unlike the kinds of spaces
31:13 that we might get which um you know this
31:15 is public RightWay and this is private
31:18 property uh when I originally took these
31:20 pictures which was probably for the
31:22 rally or Lakeside development agreement
31:25 um the spaces looked as they they do in
31:28 this photo um since then these signs
31:31 have been added the ones up in the upper
31:33 right hand corner and I don't know how
31:35 legible that is so I'll read it which
31:37 says welcome this Plaza is private
31:39 property available for public use please
31:42 share it safely and respectfully with
31:44 our tenants and your neighbors enjoy and
31:46 then at the bottom it says if you have
31:48 any questions about appropriate
31:50 activities please call and there's a
31:52 telephone number so um they these were
31:56 added in the prob the last year or so um
32:00 but to give you a sense of the way
32:02 Amazon and I'm not saying this is Costco
32:05 but the way Amazon has chosen to use
32:07 these spaces um you can see on this side
32:11 is a kind of a garden with um a green
32:15 screen because this is a blank wall and
32:17 the that's where these women are sitting
32:19 um reading or looking at some material
32:23 together um this seating area is appears
32:26 some time on this side of the plaza and
32:30 actually the group of people that are
32:32 here are a group of performers that were
32:35 part of a art on the- fly um
32:38 installation so uh that happened all
32:41 over that um area of um Amazon and part
32:45 of town so um I just put that out there
32:49 as an example of how um Community spaces
32:52 might occur on the Costco
32:56 campus are there questions before I
33:00 leave
33:02 okay uh mix of uses um there were some
33:06 questions around this the development
33:08 agreement um aots Costco one and a half
33:13 million square feet of office space
33:14 which could include up to 250,000 square
33:17 fet of other nonresidential uses we want
33:21 to be really clear the city is a big
33:23 supporter of mixed juices however the
33:26 central standards do not require that
33:28 the uses be mixed we had the same
33:30 conversation with sth and Gilman um
33:32 there was a desire and certainly support
33:35 for them to provide retail but their
33:37 choice was not to do that um and in
33:41 terms of Costco while we would like
33:43 residential to be um part of this part
33:46 of town or even part of the Costco area
33:49 um again that is not a requirement um it
33:52 is at the um choice of the property
33:55 owner so you know moving forward the
33:58 land plan does not preclude them mixing
34:01 uses they could in the future as their
34:03 business model or the way they um
34:06 Envision their campus they could choose
34:08 to mix uses for instance putting retail
34:11 on the ground floor um and residential
34:14 could be added in the future that's just
34:16 not the way it's presented right
34:22 now so just a question on this one I um
34:25 so the 250,000
34:27 additional non-residential uses as far
34:30 as um square footage is does um that
34:34 include development on the existing
34:36 warehouse store um parcel or is this it
34:39 could yes it could so they could that's
34:42 roughly 150,000 square feet now they
34:44 could take that up to 400,000 square
34:46 feet not that that model is something
34:48 that they're thinking about but that
34:49 they could have a very large retail
34:52 footprint right there sure
34:55 okay
34:58 yeah it it would be nice to see it
35:00 scattered around a little bit but I
35:02 understand okay
35:05 thank pedestrian orientation there were
35:08 a huge number of
35:10 um uh things that Rel comments and
35:14 issues that were related to pedestrian
35:17 orientation so I want to touch on a
35:18 number of those uh one is that given the
35:22 existing nature of this part of town
35:25 There's um Limited opportuni ities to
35:27 insert additional significant
35:30 circulation facilities um there's the
35:32 Pickering Pond um over here and the
35:37 isqua creek um we will be gaining a new
35:39 connection with um the new 62 road which
35:43 will be great it'll be multimodal bikes
35:46 Peds cars um which would which we're all
35:50 looking forward to um and in general the
35:55 way the what the land plan depicts is an
35:58 a Improvement in the frequency of
36:01 pedestrian connections as you remember
36:03 probably from last time there are um
36:06 connections planned between each of the
36:08 buildings um that will be generally
36:11 available to the public as well as um
36:14 connections through the buildings that
36:15 would be available to Costco employees
36:18 and their guests
36:20 um in terms of other things that impact
36:25 uh the pedestrian friendliness of an
36:28 area um the land plan shows a you know a
36:32 significant shift away from surface
36:35 parking uh currently the whole um
36:38 southern area where building 4A and 5A
36:42 are five are shown are currently surface
36:45 parking lots um building six will go
36:48 where there is a Surface parking lot uh
36:51 there will remain some small surface
36:53 parking lots in front of these buildings
36:55 as well as this one
36:57 um we feel that the central oqua
37:00 standards provides um sufficient tools
37:03 to address those small scattered parking
37:06 lots um when and if they occur um and I
37:10 think the other um piece of pedestrian
37:12 friendliness to touch on um streets and
37:16 the orientation to streets is really a
37:18 critical part of Central isqua and um
37:21 for some uses that will mean buildings
37:23 right at the back of sidewalk and um you
37:26 know for uh a very public use like a
37:29 cafe or a store that would be
37:31 appropriate But Central isqua also
37:33 recognizes that there are some uses that
37:35 have a heightened need for privacy or
37:37 security that may need to be slightly
37:40 set back from the sidewalk um and uh
37:44 offices are one of the uses and there
37:46 are quite a few references throughout
37:48 the central isqua standards about
37:50 offices being setback um a certain
37:53 amount with certain kinds of treatment
37:55 of that setback um to both provide the
37:59 security or privacy and wh while
38:02 maintaining the uh a positive character
38:04 along the
38:13 street so I I just want to go back to
38:16 one a point I raised in the last meeting
38:19 and that's regarding the trail that runs
38:21 on the east side and the kind of the
38:24 connection that occurs down at the South
38:26 east corner where uh and just looking
38:29 back at the documents that um were
38:32 provided in for the uh first meeting
38:35 that I I just think we're missing an
38:37 opportunity to really take advantage of
38:41 that trail and integrated into what
38:44 happens on these properties um it's like
38:47 I said I think used the term last time
38:49 the the project feels like it turns its
38:51 back on the trail the garage we raised
38:55 concerns about that with the garage gar
38:56 project and this project continues to
38:58 feel that way and there's no you know
39:02 creating of community space back there
39:05 um you know uh a a nice visible
39:08 connection from the trail into the
39:11 property really the only connection is
39:13 is the street the new street whatever it
39:15 was
39:17 6 I don't remember the name the street
39:19 back there but the new road and it's
39:21 just so it seems like we need to somehow
39:24 um really encourage integ ation of the
39:27 trail and inviting the people who are
39:30 using the trail to come out and um take
39:33 advantage of this part of the town so
39:36 there are a couple of elements I'd like
39:37 to point out just to see um if they um
39:41 alleviate your concerns I uh so one
39:44 point would be that there are going to
39:46 be more frequent um pedestrian
39:49 connections such as these that are
39:51 available um to the public connecting
39:54 both that trail to the the street um the
39:58 second uh point that I would make is
40:00 while it's true that the um uh what
40:03 we're calling the community spaces are
40:05 located along the street which is the
40:07 way the central Isa standards are
40:09 written
40:11 um uh and and you're right that the
40:14 central isqua standards also want us to
40:16 have a strong relationship to those
40:18 kinds of facilities like creeks and um
40:23 uh other critical areas such as a
40:24 wetland um
40:26 Costco has proposed on the
40:30 backside uh the kinds of semi-public
40:33 spaces which they have located um all
40:36 along this side of their project uh
40:40 which you know are often used for
40:42 seating there are often uh where
40:46 um uh lunch lunchrooms and other kinds
40:49 of more public uh spaces are located and
40:53 so they have shown those along the Creek
40:56 and I think our thought was that those
40:58 kind of semi-public spaces facing the
41:02 creek um met the
41:04 intent also in the answer I think that
41:07 um Costco provided and they may touch on
41:09 a little more in their
41:11 presentation um they really do see these
41:13 as four-sided buildings so it's not like
41:15 there will be a building designed with a
41:17 back towards the
41:19 creek okay does that help that helps I
41:22 guess I'm just um want to keep that as
41:25 part of a an awareness um as this
41:29 project continues to evolve in its de
41:31 development and and it's on the parking
41:33 lot so now I'm good thank
41:36 you I have a good parking
41:40 attendant um building 4A was another one
41:44 that came up and and I put it here
41:46 because uh we revised the condition and
41:48 it seemed too uh important to draw
41:50 attention to that um the comment uh the
41:54 this uh image on the left was in the
41:58 staff report and um there was a concern
42:02 that in our identifying additional
42:05 building space being provided in this
42:07 location that we might uh
42:10 impair um the op an opportunity for
42:14 additional community space or views in
42:18 Vistas which is an important part of
42:20 Central isqua so um part of what we were
42:23 responding to um with that little red
42:27 square was um Central isqua Standard
42:31 11.3 which um requires that there be 60
42:35 feet of
42:36 building extending back in each
42:38 direction from an
42:40 intersection
42:42 um and I think that we have some
42:44 concerns about that area being used for
42:47 community space one is because um these
42:50 roads may have uh some volume of traffic
42:53 on them and we already have a community
42:55 space fairly large community space shown
42:58 on either side of this road and we
43:00 really want those to be successful
43:03 however we do have some concerns also
43:05 that there may be conflicts with views
43:07 and Vistas and so we revised um just
43:12 there were a series of bullets under
43:14 condition number four and I'm not going
43:15 to make you go through them all again
43:17 but the um one related to this little um
43:20 piece right here has been revised to add
43:24 um that uh
43:27 the southern wing of building 4A needs
43:29 to fulfill the corner requirements to
43:30 the extent possible given the
43:33 intersections acute angle and
43:35 opportunities to preserve Andor
43:37 highlight views and Vistas so in other
43:40 words when we get to the point of them
43:42 proposing building 4A we see the kind of
43:45 building they're proposing really go out
43:47 and study the site with them um have our
43:49 community conversation that will be a
43:51 great time to really look in detail at
43:53 what is appropriate at that particular
43:55 corner in terms of balancing a number of
43:59 um design
44:06 standards Sky Bridges um that was
44:09 another um piece that we spent a while
44:12 talking about um and where some changes
44:15 have occurred um Costco currently has
44:18 two existing Sky Bridges one here and
44:21 one here um the land plan proposes more
44:24 essentially one between each pair of
44:26 buildings um which are the um yellow dot
44:30 dotted ovals you see up there um there
44:33 were concerns about the impact to the
44:35 critical mass of pedestrians on the
44:37 street would it feel like there are
44:38 enough people around um I think
44:42 that off
44:44 Street staff has felt that um the use of
44:47 Sky Bridges to maintain a secure campus
44:51 while allowing the permeability of or
44:53 frequent um pedestrian connections
44:56 between the street and trails seemed
44:58 like a good balance um in the sense that
45:01 if uh we did not have some of these Sky
45:04 Bridges uh what might result as an even
45:06 larger building to maintain that secure
45:09 campus um so that um to staff seemed
45:14 like an acceptable balance um there were
45:17 concerns raised around architectural
45:19 design the commission hadn't hadn't had
45:22 an opportunity to see the eight criteria
45:25 that are in the draft of the development
45:28 agreement that you received um two of
45:30 them uh we thought were uh
45:33 important um in addressing some of these
45:37 concerns uh as well as the images that
45:39 were in the staff reports and we felt
45:41 like that provided us with sufficient
45:43 tools to um make the sky Bridges a
45:47 positive architectural element I think
45:50 um where both U staff and Costco heard
45:53 the commission's concerns were um
45:55 potential impacts to um the views along
45:59 Lake Drive that we were just discussing
46:01 with building 4A and so um we uh in
46:05 talking with Costco we all agreed that
46:07 it would be appropriate to reduce the
46:10 sky bridges that were allowed outright
46:12 to cross the rideway from two to one now
46:15 they get to pick which one um but the
46:18 proposal the response back to the
46:20 commission is to reduce um uh have these
46:24 as being Alternatives not both both
46:26 allowed
46:32 outright uh just a comment about the sky
46:34 Bridges I don't know what the the
46:36 thought was um um one of the
46:40 commissioner when they made that comment
46:41 about Sky Bridges and I guess my thought
46:44 is that Sky Bridge yeah it it uh blocks
46:47 The View as we're coming down on um Lake
46:52 Drive but you know you can make that um
46:55 into something real nice where it's see
46:58 through glass and uh and partly you know
47:03 maybe put some kind of
47:05 advertising Fair uh that's going on and
47:08 that kind of thing and then let the sun
47:10 come through you can make that really
47:12 nice um and I don't think it's a
47:14 negative thing to have a sky Bridge
47:17 there and um I don't know where we're
47:20 leading by saying let's eliminate one
47:23 sky bridge and have just one and then
47:26 this one is going to be solid block no
47:30 penetration um I I don't think we want
47:33 to go that route I would agree with that
47:36 there is a requirement that the um Sky
47:39 Bridges be at least
47:41 70% um glass transl glass yeah yes yeah
47:45 yeah and and you can make a real nice
47:47 Sky bridge out of that I'm sure Costco
47:50 or M can be creative about that yeah so
47:55 that's just my
48:00 comments sure I'll I'll just try I I I
48:03 get very conflicted about this because I
48:05 could understand the desire to move
48:07 people between buildings easily and out
48:10 of the weather and so forth so forth but
48:12 the
48:14 um a big part of the central esqua plan
48:18 was to activate The Pedestrian
48:20 experience and create a better
48:23 pedestrian world than the 70%
48:26 development of parking lots that we had
48:29 and to the extent that we take people
48:31 and put them in the sky Bridges Crossing
48:33 around we have fewer people out
48:36 experiencing The Pedestrian world and I
48:38 know it gets rainy and dark and
48:40 everything around here
48:41 but um I think when you showed the
48:44 pictures of the Amazon campus I don't
48:45 remember any Sky Bridges they have down
48:47 there and lots of people out on the
48:49 street so I get very conflicted I can
48:52 understand the desire to do it uh but I
48:55 I don't think it fits with the central
48:57 isqua plan
49:05 intent so just uh I'll weigh in since I
49:08 weighed in on this I think at the last
49:10 meeting a bit um I appreciate the
49:12 movement toward and recognizing you know
49:14 there
49:15 are challenges be between meeting kind
49:18 of multiple interests here in the in
49:21 Costco's desire for a secure campus
49:24 convenient comfortable access to and
49:26 from
49:27 buildings um so you know I'm not going
49:30 to fall on my sword on this one but I I
49:34 Sky Bridges across public properties and
49:36 across public roads continues to be I'm
49:38 not a fan um for exactly the reasons
49:41 that commissioner Morgan expressed and
49:43 and just from a uh experience as you're
49:46 traveling the street um I think
49:48 architecturally you can make them
49:49 interesting I think one of my concerns
49:50 last time was some of the examples that
49:51 were provided in the packet weren't so
49:53 exciting um so some work would need need
49:55 to be done to make it uh something
49:57 that's an interesting um feature and not
50:00 just a glass horizontal glass tube um so
50:05 I I guess uh at at this point I think
50:08 we've made progress I think you need to
50:09 be very strategic about how you locate
50:11 Sky bridges too I think once you're back
50:13 on the private property I don't know
50:14 that I have a big issue with that I
50:16 think that what you talked about in the
50:17 way it allows for buildings to be
50:20 separated so you don't have long large
50:22 mass building to provide that security
50:24 at the same time I'm not I don't work
50:26 for Costco so I'm not quite sure how
50:27 they are organized and how they have to
50:29 travel between buildings but generally
50:30 departments are together and from time
50:32 to time they need to travel from one
50:34 department or one building to another um
50:37 but it just from my point of view um
50:41 less or no Sky Bridges is better than
50:43 more sky Bridges so um but I appreciate
50:46 the effort to really work through this a
50:48 bit and respond to the commission's
50:50 concerns so
50:54 thanks
50:56 and if I I'll throw in a clarification
50:58 too the the between buildings on the
51:00 property itself I'm fine with that it's
51:02 the it's the one over the right of way
51:05 and maybe one possibility would be to to
51:08 design the possibility like the one
51:10 skybridge that shown in the lower
51:12 picture designed the possibility of
51:13 having one but not allow it unless it
51:16 was shown that there was a risk if
51:17 there's too much traffic on the road and
51:19 a risk of conflict with pedestrians and
51:21 traffic that they could show that it
51:24 would be better to have people away from
51:26 that
51:27 traffic maybe be able to allow it later
51:37 so thank
51:39 you okay and if I'm I just have to throw
51:42 two cents in just because I do um so so
51:46 the thing about it is um you know Sky
51:50 bridges for all the reasons you guys
51:52 have said has it's kind of a it can
51:56 detract from what we're trying to do on
51:57 the street um I think we all recognize
52:01 that Costco is looking for um some
52:04 security on their campus and having
52:07 those buildings connected via skybridge
52:11 you know actually adds some value versus
52:14 building really giant buildings you know
52:17 where you basically could put the same
52:18 amount of square footage in one building
52:20 or you could break it into two and
52:21 connect it with the skybridge you could
52:22 say well I'd rather have the two smaller
52:24 Footprints connected by skybridge
52:25 because then there's views and other
52:26 things that happen in between um my
52:29 worry about potentially wrapping this
52:32 around pedestrian safety is now you're
52:36 potentially opening the door for Sky
52:37 Bridges throughout all of kind of CIP so
52:41 just I just want to kind of throw that
52:43 out there is I I think we want to be
52:44 careful with Sky Bridges I think used
52:47 for particular purposes in limited
52:51 spaces could be okay but the pler of sky
52:55 Bridges throughout isqua would probably
52:57 not be what any of us in this room want
52:59 so that was my two
53:01 cents I think your a question about or
53:04 your sighting of Amazon was probably apt
53:07 relative to that point there's probably
53:09 as many people moving around that campus
53:11 and having to move between blocks as
53:13 there um is here so probably The
53:16 Pedestrian conflict wouldn't be the the
53:20 um Tipping Point shall we
53:23 say okay okay
53:27 um um sepa or the State Environmental
53:30 Policy Act uh that was you guys had a
53:33 lot of questions around that so um
53:35 hopefully this will help to clarify that
53:38 um Central isap uh had an environmental
53:42 impact statement or Eis and that
53:45 established a development threshold for
53:48 the urban core of 2.4 million square
53:52 feet of commercial without additional
53:55 sea
53:56 review so um that means that those
53:59 impacts have been looked at and as a
54:01 planned action ordinance there's a you
54:04 you're generally saying does is this
54:07 consistent what was with what was shown
54:10 in the Eis and if it was then that's the
54:13 extent of sea review um and typically
54:17 when you do these kinds of um
54:20 environmental impact
54:21 statements as businesses come in it's on
54:24 a first come for basis and um Costco was
54:28 part of developing that Eis and so um
54:32 they are
54:34 first um Pickering place um 1.5 million
54:39 square feet that we've been talking
54:40 about is a subset of the overall 2.4
54:44 million square fet that was anticipated
54:46 in the urban core uh there was other
54:50 uses that were reviewed in the Eis for
54:53 the urban core including almost um 5,000
54:57 multif family units and almost 500,000
55:00 square feet of service and
55:02 Retail um but I think there are a couple
55:04 of points to make here one is that this
55:07 is a 30-year plan and um will have to be
55:10 Revisited um periodically which may uh
55:14 necessitate additional environmental
55:16 review or consideration by the
55:19 city um the other thing is that um if a
55:24 project exceeds that uh threshold uh
55:28 that doesn't necessarily mean there's
55:30 another Eis um what it means is that
55:33 there has to be a review to determine if
55:35 there are
55:37 unanticipated um
55:39 impacts uh and there may or may not be
55:42 and so um that would be the action that
55:44 would be necessary um if a project
55:48 wanted to propose something beyond what
55:51 was already covered in the
55:54 Eis
55:57 oh and um Mel asked a question um in an
56:00 email earlier today um rally is a
56:04 separate had a separate environmental
56:06 impact statement so they are not a
56:08 subset of this uh
56:11 threshold great things see so the 1.5
56:15 million square feet
56:18 it the package said it would use
56:21 up Ed up much of the office square
56:24 footage
56:26 what how much is
56:28 much well so the the total is 2.4
56:32 million and this is 1.5 so that leaves
56:35 900,000 square feet of commercial in the
56:39 urban core so you if somebody came in
56:41 and wanted to build a million square
56:44 feet of office they or 900,000 they
56:47 could it's it doesn't have to
56:53 just service retail tell 500,000
56:56 or right there is still additional
57:00 unused
57:02 uh uh square footage that was reviewed
57:04 as part of the Eis so if if you came in
57:07 let's say you came in and and the
57:09 package right now is there's an extra
57:11 half a million square feet of retail and
57:13 let's assume that somebody came in and
57:16 said you know I don't want to do a half
57:18 a million s feet of retail I want to do
57:20 250,000 ft of office okay so what you
57:24 need to do is basically you you take a
57:27 look at the impacts of office versus
57:31 retail and for the most part office is
57:34 less impacting than retail retail is a
57:36 higher trip generator um you'd basically
57:38 take a look and see if doing that caused
57:43 any impacts that weren't already
57:46 addressed in the central isqua plan um
57:50 Eis if the answer is no then you're kind
57:52 of out the door and you're good if if
57:54 let's say it does generate an impact
57:57 that wasn't evaluated with the original
57:59 Eis you would have to do additional
58:01 environmental review so do so does it
58:04 mean that that anybody that wants to do
58:06 any office if this is approved any
58:09 proposed Office Buildings in the
58:12 central are in the urban core would have
58:15 to go through that process outside of
58:18 rowy and of Ry Costco no there's still
58:22 because this is only 1.5 there was
58:28 2.4 right right is it does the 24 is 24
58:32 just office or is the two4 it's just
58:35 commercial so which includes office but
58:38 does not include the 497 of right
58:40 service retail that's separate oh okay
58:42 so there's 900 out there well there's
58:45 900 right of commercial which would
58:48 include office okay and then almost 500
58:52 of service retail gotcha and then and
58:55 4,800 of multif family right so to take
58:58 Keith's example if someone came in and
59:01 said I want to do a million MH you could
59:04 take the
59:06 900,000 of commercial and then for the
59:09 other 100,000 look at the retail and
59:12 whether there were unmitigated impacts
59:15 got um or not so somebody comes in wants
59:17 to do 200,000 it fits within the
59:21 24 you're still okay right all right
59:26 so I guess one of the thoughts I had
59:27 about this my concern one of the
59:29 concerns would
59:30 be 15 years down the
59:33 road everything's going great things are
59:35 being built out Costco's built a million
59:38 square feet of more space they still
59:41 have a half a million square feet in
59:42 their
59:43 pocket and everything else is built out
59:46 and do they sort of sit there and hold
59:49 the cards of everybody else's sort of
59:52 stuck in the queue not being able to do
59:54 something and wondering if there's a way
59:57 to uh I guess revisit this down the road
1:00:00 to say okay if it if it hasn't built
1:00:02 let's say they don't build anything out
1:00:04 for 15 years if it's just sitting there
1:00:07 undeveloped is there a way for the city
1:00:09 to go back and say we need to rethink
1:00:11 this reservation of all that square
1:00:13 footage so I'd answer that a couple
1:00:16 different ways one is I mean if if
1:00:18 developers are knocking down our doors
1:00:20 to build in central isqua plan then I
1:00:23 think what that telling me is the
1:00:25 Market's great and we don't need to do a
1:00:26 thing let the market figure itself out
1:00:29 because it doesn't mean just because the
1:00:31 entitlement that was evaluated with the
1:00:33 Eis is done that that puts a moratorium
1:00:36 on development in the rest of the city
1:00:37 it just means that additional sepa has
1:00:39 to be done and the advantage of having
1:00:43 the planned action ordinance is gone if
1:00:46 on so but let's take a different
1:00:48 scenario and 15 years from now Costco is
1:00:51 doing whatever they're doing and let's
1:00:52 just it doesn't matter uh but let's say
1:00:55 that we have another project on Gilman
1:00:57 that wants to happen and doesn't because
1:01:00 you know it's it's it's on the Tipping
1:01:03 Point on whether it makes sense for the
1:01:04 developer and you know the environmental
1:01:06 review is going to take a long time and
1:01:08 it's kind of a discouragement the city
1:01:10 could choose to do another Eis to
1:01:13 entitle that next block of development
1:01:16 that would then clear the way for more
1:01:18 properties to redevelop under the CIP so
1:01:22 the city could take the the initiative
1:01:26 to help facilitate that next phase
1:01:29 beyond the first 2.4 million that was
1:01:31 evaluated with the initial planned
1:01:33 action e so it doesn't mean that it's at
1:01:35 the end it means that we all get to like
1:01:38 look at it and decide you know should we
1:01:41 help incent additional development or is
1:01:43 the market doing what it should and and
1:01:46 it's we primed the pump with Costco and
1:01:48 with Rowley and some other things and
1:01:49 now it's it's going on its own great
1:01:57 okay uh development commission's role in
1:02:01 the review of future
1:02:03 permits um so there were some questions
1:02:07 around this this is a slightly different
1:02:09 process than um what happened with uh
1:02:12 other Central isqua permits and so uh I
1:02:15 want to unpack that a little bit um the
1:02:19 land plan which is before you right now
1:02:22 is really the commission's opportunity
1:02:24 to review and approve a permit and this
1:02:27 is similar to other land use permits in
1:02:29 that sense some information such as
1:02:32 specific designs for the landscape the
1:02:35 community spaces in the buildings are
1:02:37 not included in the land plan drawings
1:02:40 um however um we have imagery um which
1:02:45 were the photo sheets that uh Costco
1:02:48 provided as well as the existing campus
1:02:51 which um do Set uh um sort of minimum
1:02:54 minum bar and the character and the
1:02:57 design that would um be employed uh for
1:03:01 those future phases uh future buildings
1:03:04 and in addition to um this review the
1:03:09 commission and the public would have
1:03:11 another opportunity to uh comment on the
1:03:15 proposals as they come in in the future
1:03:18 assuming that they're over 150,000 sare
1:03:20 ft because that is the threshold that
1:03:22 Central isqu at for for what has public
1:03:25 um review versus administrative only
1:03:31 review sorry I have a lot of questions
1:03:33 tonight um Sorry so this is an area I
1:03:37 got a little hung up last time because
1:03:39 we're still trying to get comfortable
1:03:41 with the process changes that occurred
1:03:43 with the central isqua plan so bear with
1:03:45 me here a little bit so in this
1:03:48 particular instance we are going through
1:03:51 a process of reviewing as you said the
1:03:53 images and essentially the site
1:03:56 layout um and we're going to make a
1:03:59 recommendation to the council who is the
1:04:01 authority the decision-making Authority
1:04:03 for development agreements so I
1:04:05 understand that there will be multiple
1:04:06 buildings that will come back through
1:04:08 for entitlements for well for
1:04:11 construction permits as this um as
1:04:14 Costco proceeds with their office Park
1:04:16 development or their office
1:04:18 um um campus so but those when they're
1:04:22 over 150,000 would come back here for a
1:04:26 Community Conference we would give our
1:04:28 two cents and then then staff um would
1:04:31 make the ultim would be the decision
1:04:32 maker the director um or whoever the
1:04:35 designated Authority is okay so is that
1:04:39 an accurate restatement of what you just
1:04:40 said okay I got it that was actually way
1:04:43 more detailed than what I said thank you
1:04:45 the other the other process for let's
1:04:48 just say it's a separate parcel of
1:04:50 property it's in the central isqua plan
1:04:52 area and it's over 50,000 Square fet it
1:04:55 comes to the development commission
1:04:58 we'll do a Community Conference but
1:05:00 we're also the decision maker for
1:05:03 those entitlements is that right so no
1:05:07 there's a a slight adjustment so
1:05:10 um like this permit they only come once
1:05:13 you don't get a Community Conference
1:05:15 that's an option that an applicant could
1:05:17 choose to take um but a community
1:05:20 conference is no longer required okay um
1:05:24 but you would be on those um in this
1:05:27 case it's a Consolidated permit so the
1:05:29 council is the decision maker but the
1:05:31 council is really looking to the
1:05:34 commission as you normally do to provide
1:05:37 the really in-depth review of the land
1:05:39 use permit uh with those uh say seventh
1:05:45 and Gilman as we take an example uh you
1:05:49 are the decision maker but you're doing
1:05:51 the same kind of review that you're
1:05:52 doing now um a Community Conference
1:05:55 would not occur with SE didn't occur
1:05:58 with seventh and Gilman and would not
1:05:59 have to occur with any other buildings
1:06:01 over 150,000 Square F feet okay under
1:06:04 150,000 square feet they wouldn't even
1:06:06 come to the commission that's right so
1:06:09 and just a Nuance point because I think
1:06:11 it's an important one is if Costco so
1:06:14 let's assume those three buildings that
1:06:16 are on their land plan end up being four
1:06:18 story buildings you know that if you do
1:06:21 the math that accounts for only about
1:06:23 half of the entire ement that Costco is
1:06:25 getting with their development agreement
1:06:27 which means that the other 750,000
1:06:30 Square ft is going to be built on
1:06:32 buildings that are not part of the land
1:06:33 plan those assuming they're done in
1:06:37 150,000 square foot increments or more
1:06:40 they would come to DC for a decision
1:06:43 like any other property in the central
1:06:46 isqua plan area
1:06:49 right since they're outside of the area
1:06:52 that's defined within this land plan
1:06:54 plan that will be approved as part of
1:06:55 the development agreement yes but you
1:06:57 just said 750,000 actually we're giving
1:06:59 them 1.5 million square ft so I think
1:07:02 what Keith is trying to say is maybe not
1:07:06 clearly I'm just maybe I'm tired tonight
1:07:10 these four buildings are shown on the
1:07:12 land plan and assuming that they stay
1:07:16 basically as they're shown um these
1:07:19 you're reviewing and approving these
1:07:22 buildings now but they could be between
1:07:25 four and 10 stories that's what they've
1:07:28 been shown as if they're 10 stories
1:07:31 they're done they will have used all
1:07:33 their 1.5 million if they're four
1:07:36 stories there's a bunch of uh uh
1:07:39 allowable development that is not
1:07:40 accounted for and would show up
1:07:43 someplace else uh and that would go
1:07:46 through the process just like the
1:07:47 seventh and Gilman projected okay so
1:07:50 where I'm going with this is the level
1:07:52 of detail that we're we're working at
1:07:55 with the land plan review versus the
1:07:56 level of detail that we're typically
1:07:58 working on previously prior to the
1:08:00 central isqu plan is significantly
1:08:03 different where we had architectural
1:08:04 renderings much more detail material
1:08:07 selections were were part of the review
1:08:10 Etc and so uh this is really we're
1:08:13 moving the blocks around on the property
1:08:15 and that's about the extent of our
1:08:16 review and I'm simpli oversimplifying a
1:08:19 little bit just to make my point so it
1:08:22 it's um
1:08:25 there's the the shift here is a huge
1:08:28 movement toward relying on professional
1:08:29 staff for the review and and um away
1:08:33 from what was a level a detail level
1:08:35 review by the commission so our role has
1:08:37 fundamentally changed when it comes to
1:08:39 the central isqua plan
1:08:43 permits so um I I'm I'm just going to
1:08:46 be kind of picky here for a second if if
1:08:50 it's not on the land plan you'll see it
1:08:52 at the level of review that we are
1:08:54 currently reviewing permits you're
1:08:56 absolutely right that the level of
1:08:58 review that the commission was doing
1:09:00 prior to Central isqua was significantly
1:09:03 more even if this was I mean as you
1:09:07 discovered with seventh and Gilman there
1:09:09 is still a level of detail that is not
1:09:12 we're we're not going to almost
1:09:14 construction permits to um review a land
1:09:17 use permit um so there um is a
1:09:24 more conceptual I'm not sure if that's
1:09:26 the right word a revie uh point at which
1:09:29 the commission is a being asked to weigh
1:09:31 in um you are correct that um those
1:09:35 detailed elevations and community space
1:09:40 plans um are not shown um and the
1:09:46 um substitute maybe uh for that that
1:09:50 we're proposing um is the existing camp
1:09:54 um because the the point is to continue
1:09:57 that that may not be sufficient to you I
1:09:59 just want to be clear that that's why
1:10:01 why that was brought for but just to
1:10:03 clarify again this is I'm I'm just
1:10:06 trying to understand I don't know if I
1:10:07 have a point here I'm just trying to
1:10:09 understand so if for this particular
1:10:12 review this is the level of detail we're
1:10:13 operating at to make the recommendation
1:10:15 to the council who make the decision for
1:10:17 other projects that are outside of the
1:10:19 land plan that's being contemplated here
1:10:21 or considered here over 100 50,000
1:10:24 Square ft the level of detail we will
1:10:26 get though in those reviews will be at
1:10:29 more granular level than what we're
1:10:31 getting here is that I would expect it
1:10:34 would be similar to seventh and Gilman
1:10:36 okay because that was our exp that fair
1:10:38 yeah seventh and seventh and Gilman was
1:10:40 less detailed than we were previously
1:10:42 getting but it was more detailed than
1:10:44 yes okay yes so in this case we're
1:10:46 saying okay staff you know we're
1:10:49 weighing in with our you know um areas
1:10:52 of emphasis Etc but it really is going
1:10:54 to be a professional review that's going
1:10:57 to we're going to have to rely on for
1:10:58 implementation so we're have to have
1:11:01 confidence that's happening yes and no
1:11:03 and and this may not be again satisfying
1:11:06 um I think that was um the importance
1:11:09 that we placed on bringing it back to
1:11:11 the commission and having an opportunity
1:11:13 to hear public and commission
1:11:16 perspective on um does this meet Central
1:11:19 isqua is this consistent with the land
1:11:22 plan does this meet those expectations
1:11:25 you're right it is not a decision-making
1:11:26 role um but it is not sta uh thank you
1:11:31 professional staff um it's not just
1:11:33 professional staff operating completely
1:11:36 uh back of house uh we would be bringing
1:11:39 it forward to get that input yeah no I I
1:11:42 appreciate that I'm I'm good thanks that
1:11:44 that helps me a lot and I guess the way
1:11:47 I understand it too is what what we're
1:11:50 saying is Well the the imagery that you
1:11:53 providers the the current campus what
1:11:55 they've built does that essentially
1:11:57 become part of the the land plant itself
1:12:00 then because I I understand the idea
1:12:02 we've said Costco's built some really
1:12:05 nice buildings that I think if they if
1:12:07 we said those were what are these are
1:12:09 going to look like I think they would
1:12:12 sort of fit everybody's criteria and
1:12:14 what you're going to be doing is saying
1:12:16 are they going to build something of
1:12:18 this quality fenestration all that and
1:12:20 so would this be in essence part of the
1:12:23 land plan absolutely that is part of the
1:12:25 land plan and I
1:12:28 think um you know that's I think part of
1:12:31 the value that we see in bringing it
1:12:32 back we may say okay that's a similar
1:12:34 level of detail and quality of materials
1:12:37 and detailing and the commission might
1:12:40 say no we don't think it is for the
1:12:42 following reasons and that's a that's a
1:12:44 conversation that we want to
1:12:46 have okay I guess I sort of feel
1:12:49 comfortable enough that they built some
1:12:51 really nice stuff so keep doing doing
1:12:53 that you sure ask a lot of good
1:12:56 questions Mike yeah which Dove tail into
1:12:58 what I'm going to ask now we're
1:13:00 approving this land plan with
1:13:02 configuration
1:13:04 concept blocks of buildings which I'm
1:13:07 sure there's a lot of study that went
1:13:08 into it based on the configuration of
1:13:11 the building um when when the plants are
1:13:15 put together for one building um why is
1:13:19 it not coming back to the commission for
1:13:22 review so if the building is
1:13:25 150,000 Square ft or more uh it will
1:13:29 come back for commission input MH um it
1:13:34 just would not be for a decision because
1:13:36 you're making the decision
1:13:40 now yeah but the decision is to approve
1:13:43 or recommend approval of the land
1:13:46 plan um and there's some a lot of talks
1:13:51 about Trails time into the building the
1:13:55 the sky Bridge you know everybody has
1:13:57 their own concept of how it should be
1:13:59 how it why it shouldn't be there and
1:14:01 that kind of thing I have my my way of
1:14:03 thinking how the trail ties into it you
1:14:06 know we talked about little retail shops
1:14:09 you know everybody has their own concept
1:14:10 but um and so yeah there's that limit of
1:14:15 150,000 square feet then it comes back
1:14:17 here but right now we're kind of asked
1:14:21 recommend concept
1:14:24 based on those blocks and how's the
1:14:27 block you know there's a lot of details
1:14:28 that needs to go in before it becomes a
1:14:33 viable uh uh
1:14:36 Place uh enjoyable place so I guess you
1:14:41 know I'm with 150 square feet how many
1:14:45 stories are we talking
1:14:46 about
1:14:48 four uh yes probably yeah well actually
1:14:51 Four would I think be 240 thou I think
1:14:55 they're about a 60,000 foot floor plate
1:14:58 more or less so I say four you know and
1:15:01 to tie it with the trail you know I have
1:15:04 my concept of how retail ties into the
1:15:08 trail coffee shop lunchtime kind of
1:15:11 sitting around that kind of and not
1:15:14 Warehouse Costco retail so everybody has
1:15:17 their own concept of how it should be so
1:15:20 I guess
1:15:21 um you know I I feel uncomfortable in a
1:15:25 way or maybe I'm not understanding the
1:15:27 you know we're approving land plan but
1:15:29 yet there's still a lot of
1:15:31 unworked details that's not worked out
1:15:35 so if I can offer something so so
1:15:37 there's there's there's some choices
1:15:39 that you guys have and I just want to
1:15:40 make sure you guys kind of know the
1:15:42 ground rules as we're going through this
1:15:43 so right now the development agreement
1:15:45 has proposed language on how all this is
1:15:47 going to work you guys at the end of the
1:15:50 day could recommend no we don't like
1:15:52 that particular piece want we want to be
1:15:54 the decision maker on every permit in
1:15:58 excess of 150,000 ft you guys have the
1:16:00 ability to make that recommendation at
1:16:02 the end of the day right now I've got DC
1:16:04 review up on the parking lot part of you
1:16:08 know if if if you guys are going to go
1:16:10 down that path it's helpful for us to
1:16:13 know what the issues are um I think
1:16:17 there's been some conversations about it
1:16:20 does move the bar you know as Mike
1:16:22 mentioned earlier this is this is moving
1:16:24 the bar a little bit and you know are
1:16:27 you guys I think need to gauge are you
1:16:29 giving up any of the responsibilities
1:16:33 that you're tasked with in terms of
1:16:35 reviewing you know site development
1:16:38 permits in the city and and if so let's
1:16:40 talk about that because I think Costco
1:16:43 who has proposed this process and and
1:16:47 you know staff I think believe that you
1:16:49 guys get to see the pieces that that you
1:16:52 should have input on in on but if there
1:16:54 are pieces um Ray that that you don't
1:16:57 feel comfortable with because this is
1:16:59 too conceptual for you then then throw
1:17:01 that out to us let us you know let us
1:17:03 hear that so that we can talk about that
1:17:06 and see if there's some things that we
1:17:07 can offer that might help you get over
1:17:09 that hump and feel that you know what I
1:17:13 I get it if they want to build those
1:17:15 buildings like that we've talked about
1:17:17 the penetrations we we we know generally
1:17:19 how tall they are we know where the
1:17:20 parking is you know I've got pictures
1:17:24 I've got imagery of existing Costco
1:17:26 buildings I'm good or I'm not good and
1:17:29 here's why I'm not good it's helpful for
1:17:31 us to kind of have that level of of
1:17:33 clarity if you can provide it and again
1:17:36 at the end of the day if if this is just
1:17:38 not something that you're comfortable
1:17:40 with you know as we collect the
1:17:42 recommendation out of you guys you know
1:17:45 you don't have to support that you can
1:17:46 say I I support all of this but I don't
1:17:48 support that yeah yeah well and and one
1:17:50 thing I would add is if m and Mel AR mud
1:17:54 wrestle or arm wrestle and they we we
1:17:57 come to a draw we can also send that
1:17:59 forward you know that that there isn't a
1:18:02 um consensus among the Commissioners and
1:18:06 those are the kinds of topics that then
1:18:08 we will carry forward that
1:18:10 recommendation to land Ure and on to the
1:18:12 council because these are the kinds of
1:18:14 things you guys have more experience
1:18:16 with the these kinds of issues
1:18:18 adjustments interpretations Etc and that
1:18:22 this is really what looking for from you
1:18:24 is based on your experience where where
1:18:27 things make sense and where things raise
1:18:30 concerns and whether we can address
1:18:32 those or not yeah and and that's great
1:18:34 you know Keith you clarified that very
1:18:35 well and so uh I guess the point that I
1:18:38 was trying to make is that um yeah
1:18:40 you're right it feels uncomfortable to
1:18:43 approve blocks of buildings that just
1:18:47 blocks and then just let it go and so I
1:18:50 guess to to kind of ease the Comfort
1:18:53 level here the
1:18:55 fear Lucy can you go back to that slide
1:18:58 with the
1:18:58 buildings it's my understanding the land
1:19:04 use that these are conceptual ideas of
1:19:07 what the buildings will be like doesn't
1:19:10 mean they're going to look like
1:19:13 that I mean it doesn't mean they're
1:19:14 going to be like a an eye and whatever
1:19:18 that thing is in the corner and maybe
1:19:21 the only one that's really probably
1:19:23 fixed would be the curved one the other
1:19:25 ones could
1:19:29 vary what we're being asked to do is
1:19:31 approve them they're going to be over
1:19:34 150,000 Square ft so it would come back
1:19:40 us to give
1:19:43 our feelings about what the modulation
1:19:48 is and the color scheme and the windows
1:19:50 and the sky Bridges
1:19:54 but we wouldn't have a decision we would
1:19:56 just give that would just be
1:19:58 input that would go where we could make
1:20:01 say well we don't really like the way
1:20:03 that building looks we think you should
1:20:05 have more
1:20:07 modulation what happens so um staff
1:20:11 would
1:20:13 um to be honest we get lots of comments
1:20:17 from you some of which are related to
1:20:19 the central isqua standards and some of
1:20:21 which are other things that you want
1:20:22 tell us that we're glad to hear the ones
1:20:25 that are related to the central isqua
1:20:27 standards which are the tools that we
1:20:29 have to review by we're going to take
1:20:31 pretty seriously so let's say you know
1:20:34 it comes in as a completely round or or
1:20:37 this building the these two buildings
1:20:40 become one big monolith and it comes
1:20:43 right up behind the street and there's
1:20:45 no community space there we might come
1:20:48 back to you and say we don't think this
1:20:50 is consistent with the land plan we
1:20:51 think that it should go back through as
1:20:53 if it's a brand new building that wasn't
1:20:55 part of the land plan um I I'm I'm not
1:20:58 saying that's what we would I'm not sure
1:21:01 exactly what those triggers are we would
1:21:02 have to face that at the time and what
1:21:04 that's part of the reason that we wrote
1:21:07 the staff report and we provided that
1:21:09 chart looking at each of the standards
1:21:12 in Central isqua and evaluating which
1:21:15 ones would be evaluated with future
1:21:17 permits and which we think have been
1:21:18 addressed now on the other hand that big
1:21:22 monolith could come
1:21:23 in and you could say yeah that's fine by
1:21:26 us it's close enough and everybody on
1:21:28 the staff here would say that's not what
1:21:30 we thought we were dealing with yeah
1:21:32 then what happens I think there's a I
1:21:34 think there's a reality here that said
1:21:36 you you're not indiscriminately making
1:21:38 decisions on and I recognize that those
1:21:41 are blocks but but those blocks are
1:21:43 constrained by the Central isquad
1:21:45 Development design standards I mean
1:21:47 there's it's not cart blanch you can't
1:21:49 you there's that's what the whole the
1:21:51 value of the central isqua plan plan and
1:21:52 the Cs were is to is to be able to set
1:21:56 the parameters and they are more
1:21:57 conceptual than being able to see all
1:21:59 the on the ground stuff but that but
1:22:01 there's a context and a framework that
1:22:03 they have to comply with and we do have
1:22:05 the responsibility to look at whatever
1:22:08 is proposed and say that's not
1:22:10 consistent with what the standards are
1:22:12 and even go be so bold as to say you
1:22:15 guys missed it there you're there's a a
1:22:17 design standard here a parameter that
1:22:19 that you're kind of letting go and we
1:22:20 think you ought to reinforce that right
1:22:22 and so really I I I there's going to be
1:22:26 that conversation there is going to be
1:22:30 um I think the question is do you feel
1:22:33 that it's necessary to have and and this
1:22:35 is I'm just stating this I'm there's no
1:22:37 judgment associated with it do you feel
1:22:40 that you need to have the
1:22:41 decision-making authority to make it
1:22:43 happen or do you feel that the ability
1:22:46 to have that conversation is sufficient
1:22:48 and and you know that that kind of is
1:22:50 the question and by setting certain
1:22:53 framework through the land plan is that
1:22:56 sufficient to um guide that future
1:23:00 conversation or not and you know that's
1:23:04 we we're we've put something out there
1:23:05 we're having a conversation about it and
1:23:08 this is what we need to be hearing and
1:23:10 it's on the parking
1:23:11 [Laughter]
1:23:13 lot go on a long time on this one so
1:23:16 let's move on and and I think there's I
1:23:19 mean you guys this has been a good
1:23:20 conversation and I've got a ton of stuff
1:23:22 in my head and we could spend the next
1:23:23 hour talking about it but I need to talk
1:23:25 about it with them and we'll do that
1:23:27 tomorrow and part of all of this is
1:23:30 getting back to you guys on what
1:23:31 hopefully will be the Silver Bullet um
1:23:35 so that's the
1:23:38 goal so I'm handing it over to my fine
1:23:42 colleague from New Orleans to talk about
1:23:47 mtfa let's just say who's
1:23:51 that hi Shel I'm nicer than
1:23:54 he I was noticing nobody was standing up
1:23:57 nobody want to say I'm from New Orleans
1:23:59 sorry
1:24:00 voila just to remind folks thank you uh
1:24:04 I'm Sheldon Lynn with the Department of
1:24:06 Public Works engineering and a question
1:24:09 came up about you know what are these
1:24:11 projects that are incorporated into the
1:24:13 master Transportation financing
1:24:15 agreement and essentially there are
1:24:17 three projects uh that are incorporated
1:24:19 into it uh there's what uh I term as
1:24:24 kind of the anchor project which is a
1:24:27 new road uh connection between East Lake
1:24:31 manage Parkway and Lake
1:24:33 Drive uh essentially it's a
1:24:37 reconstruction and realignment of
1:24:39 Southeast 62nd Street here creating a
1:24:42 new intersection with the undercrossing
1:24:45 that came in this way a few years back
1:24:49 221st and an extension of Southeast 6
1:24:52 62nd Street all the way over to here uh
1:24:56 this is a widening as well to
1:24:58 accommodate the large volumes of traffic
1:25:01 for turning movements and so forth uh in
1:25:04 here as well as it's going to have
1:25:05 multimodal facilities along the north
1:25:08 side connecting into the East Lake
1:25:10 samamish
1:25:11 Trail
1:25:13 um this section of Road uh from here to
1:25:17 here is about 2,000 ft long I it's going
1:25:22 going to be constructed uh primarily
1:25:25 about half of it is a bridge structure
1:25:27 to avoid the environmental constraints
1:25:30 and so forth through here uh it will be
1:25:32 a raised Bridge structure uh and then an
1:25:36 intersection and then coming back in
1:25:38 here with a 23 Lane uh facility uh
1:25:44 because of the volumes of traffic and
1:25:45 turning movements into the planned
1:25:48 Costco building here the roadway section
1:25:51 up here is going to have have uh bike
1:25:53 Lanes three lanes of traffic and curb
1:25:57 gutter sidewalk and Landscaping as well
1:25:59 uh trying to fit something in where uh
1:26:02 there's existing development and the
1:26:04 like uh to do our best to meet the core
1:26:06 Street standards
1:26:09 uh you'll you'll note that I did not
1:26:11 include bicycle Lanes on this road uh
1:26:14 due to the high cost of the bridge
1:26:16 structure and so forth we're going to
1:26:18 enhance the the Pickering Trail through
1:26:21 here uh right now it's only about 8 to
1:26:23 10 ft wide on this side of the creek and
1:26:25 we're going to widen it to about 12 to
1:26:27 14 ft wide to allow for multimodal use
1:26:31 and the bicycle facilities and
1:26:34 pedestrians uh will be allowed you know
1:26:36 will be connected into the TR Trail and
1:26:39 they can use the trail to reach and make
1:26:42 their way Westward or come Eastward and
1:26:44 come over here to this intersection so
1:26:47 uh oh another component of this is is
1:26:50 that the current uh crossing of the East
1:26:53 Lake samamish Trail is at grade with the
1:26:55 existing roadway there's going to be a
1:26:57 grade separated Crossing for the East
1:26:59 Lake samamish Trail the road is going to
1:27:01 go over the top of the trail uh so there
1:27:05 won't be any pedestrian conflicts and
1:27:06 the Regional Trail can move a lot
1:27:08 smoother
1:27:10 the the other uh larger the next largest
1:27:14 project in the suite of improvements is
1:27:16 East Lake samamish
1:27:17 Parkway that one uh it's currently
1:27:20 constrained in capacity heading
1:27:22 southbound uh by only one lane of
1:27:25 traffic going Southbound through here
1:27:27 through the entire length of the project
1:27:29 essentially the Project's going to add a
1:27:31 bike lane add a lane of traffic
1:27:33 southbound and curb gutter sidewalk and
1:27:35 Landscaping on the west side of thex
1:27:38 mamish Parkway as well as intersection
1:27:40 improvements here to improve the
1:27:42 operations of that
1:27:45 intersection this project is completely
1:27:47 designed and we're going to be starting
1:27:49 the RightWay acquisition process here
1:27:51 and in the next few
1:27:53 months uh with anticipated construction
1:27:57 year the smallest of the three projects
1:28:00 in the uh Suite of improvements is over
1:28:03 here at 12th and sr900 and Northwest
1:28:06 samamish Road uh and we have a large
1:28:11 degree of congestion through this for
1:28:12 Ingress and egress into the Pickering
1:28:14 area as well as holiday and tul City
1:28:17 Hall Northwest uh this project is going
1:28:20 to include bike Lanes on both both sides
1:28:22 of the 12th Avenue coming through here
1:28:25 and it's going to add a left turn pocket
1:28:30 coming this way turning towards I90 uh
1:28:34 currently there's a single left turn
1:28:35 pocket so there will be a double left
1:28:37 turn pocket in the future to reduce the
1:28:39 cues through there and allow improved
1:28:41 operations for this signal the purple
1:28:44 line right here on sr900 is actually
1:28:46 going to be an added right turn lane
1:28:49 only currently there's two lanes one of
1:28:52 them is a through right we're going to
1:28:54 create a dedicated right-and turn
1:28:56 movement in there again to help the
1:28:58 operations that signal and traffic to be
1:29:00 able to move more freely through this
1:29:01 Corridor as well as uh Ingress and
1:29:04 egress into the
1:29:05 Picker these projects together are
1:29:08 roughly $50 million in cost
1:29:12 estimated so that's kind of the the
1:29:20 overview yeah what kind of time schedule
1:29:22 are you looking at Sheldon time schedule
1:29:25 on this I mentioned uh the East leage
1:29:29 Parkway hopefully starting construction
1:29:30 next year uh we expect all these
1:29:34 projects to be finished by 2020
1:29:37 2020 thank
1:29:41 you I've got a question and I I know
1:29:46 Keith you may be able to answer it
1:29:48 because it it dealt with the letter
1:29:49 response to Mr Williamson I'm glad I
1:29:52 came back then yeah I am too and and I
1:29:56 looked for it and I I didn't I couldn't
1:29:58 find it in the red blue yellow green
1:30:03 cross
1:30:05 out development but the last sentence on
1:30:08 reserving Transportation certificate
1:30:10 violates the
1:30:12 law it felt about Costco's contribution
1:30:16 of 20 24 mil thereabouts MH and then
1:30:21 that should Costco elect to build less
1:30:23 than 15 million square
1:30:26 ft then they have over mitigated for
1:30:29 traffic impacts and the draft
1:30:32 development agreement contemplates their
1:30:33 ability to be reimbursed for any
1:30:36 overpayment can you explain that to me
1:30:39 that means that Costco says they're
1:30:41 going to give us 24
1:30:43 million if they build out fully to what
1:30:47 the plan is if they build out half of of
1:30:52 that then they're going to want 12
1:30:54 million
1:30:57 and where does that come from so I mean
1:31:02 where it who makes up the difference so
1:31:05 the concept right now is that you know
1:31:08 because because of the timing if you
1:31:11 look at exhibit H which is the mtfa the
1:31:14 timing for Costco's payment goes
1:31:17 concurrently with Public Works building
1:31:20 those streets that's expected to happen
1:31:23 in the next six years so as as Sheldon
1:31:26 gets out there with his shovel and
1:31:27 starts building these roads he's going
1:31:29 to be invoicing Costco and they're going
1:31:30 to be paying their $23.75 million to
1:31:34 cover their fair share let's assume that
1:31:37 10 years from now Costco's buil half of
1:31:40 their entitlement and they decide
1:31:44 because of downturn people working out
1:31:48 of their house we all becoming midgets I
1:31:50 don't know that they don't need as much
1:31:52 square footage and so they now have over
1:31:56 mitigated because they've participated
1:31:58 in building roads that are going to go
1:32:01 unused by them and so the concept here
1:32:04 is they should be able
1:32:06 to monetize that investment in public
1:32:09 infrastructure in some way now what this
1:32:13 says is that they could potentially sell
1:32:15 those trips to other
1:32:18 developers that could then instead of
1:32:20 paying that their traffic impact fees
1:32:23 they could buy those trips from
1:32:26 Costco and then it's basically like
1:32:29 transferring a concurrency certificate
1:32:31 from one developer to another and then
1:32:33 they come to the city and say we own now
1:32:36 900 trips and instead of having to pay
1:32:39 those to the city um to get our
1:32:42 concurrency we can now build because
1:32:44 we're taking advantage of what we bought
1:32:46 from Costco that's it in a very loose
1:32:50 and non-legal way TDR
1:32:52 kind of like
1:32:53 tdrs so it's not
1:32:57 really a kickback of
1:32:59 money it's not really a I mean so Costco
1:33:03 would get paid for their investment in
1:33:07 the public
1:33:08 streets by a developer of some sorts and
1:33:12 it could be the city now let's and and
1:33:14 if and if there was
1:33:16 no developers that wanted to buy those
1:33:19 then then they just wait they just wait
1:33:22 and that that's spelled out clearly
1:33:25 there's no guarantee here that I that I
1:33:28 read so they can't
1:33:29 force you can't force they can't force
1:33:32 the city to buy it back no that's not in
1:33:35 here not in any color
1:33:37 okay I said I saw the thing on trips and
1:33:40 stuff like that but I didn't know if
1:33:41 that was dealt with the money yes you
1:33:44 know so I mean there's so the
1:33:45 conversation we've had with Costco is
1:33:47 they believe that they want to build
1:33:50 continue to build expand their campus in
1:33:52 isqua you know I mean I think what they
1:33:55 were saying is what happens if we don't
1:33:57 build 1.5 and and this was just a way
1:34:00 for them to possibly recoup some of
1:34:03 their investment there's no guarantee
1:34:05 here okay thank you yeah I have a
1:34:08 question um I guess May for Jerry it it
1:34:12 keeps getting mentioned about the $23.7
1:34:14 million that they're putting up but when
1:34:16 I look at the numbers it's the 237 is
1:34:18 the first
1:34:19 48% and then the city kicks in two and a
1:34:23 half and then Costco kicks in two and a
1:34:24 half so when I add those up I get the
1:34:27 26.2 million and I keep wondering it
1:34:30 sounds like to me like reading it that
1:34:31 they're committing to 26 million not 23
1:34:35 I'm missing something the the other
1:34:37 items are a contingency amount above
1:34:40 what's estimated so if the project has
1:34:43 justifiable reasons where we have you
1:34:46 know the budget needed to be increased
1:34:48 over the estimates that we have today
1:34:50 the city has requested and Costco has
1:34:52 partnered said yeah we'll help share in
1:34:54 that risk up to 10% over what your
1:34:56 current estimate is and so that's where
1:34:58 you get the two and a half and the two
1:35:00 and a half and the incentive is that you
1:35:04 know they want the city to take the
1:35:05 first two and a half because it's an
1:35:07 incentive one for us to be a little bit
1:35:09 more diligent hopefully to keep the
1:35:11 project in line and cost uh and keep it
1:35:15 on schedule and then
1:35:17 the the other component is is the second
1:35:21 two and a half Costco would bear that
1:35:24 burden on their own and then if it
1:35:26 really just goes out of sight the city
1:35:27 takes the responsibilities over that
1:35:30 okay great so that's a contingency
1:35:32 factor it's a sharing in the risk of
1:35:34 schedule materials cost labor costs
1:35:36 things like that great perfect so it's
1:35:38 not an optional item for them if it goes
1:35:40 no that's non option those are
1:35:41 non-optional things the scope of the
1:35:43 projects are defined in the mtfa under
1:35:45 the exhibit H2 I think it's called Uh
1:35:48 and that's the scope of the project
1:35:50 thank you and um I hope this isn't too
1:35:52 off topic but since we have you there
1:35:54 can I ask about uh future expectations
1:35:57 of an O I90 overpass that would connect
1:36:01 in Lake
1:36:02 Drive oh that's way off topic
1:36:05 no uh you're you're speaking of the 12th
1:36:08 Avenue over Crossing and I give a big
1:36:10 circle here uh that's shown in the
1:36:12 central isall plan I that is still on
1:36:15 the radar screen and I believe there's
1:36:18 been comments both at land and Shore as
1:36:20 well as infrastructure committee about
1:36:22 with the expansion areas and things like
1:36:24 that and if expansion occurred in this
1:36:27 area by Costco the land plans and so
1:36:30 forth as uh get developed for this area
1:36:33 need to consider how The Landings and
1:36:36 accommodating for the 12 Avenue of
1:36:37 overcrossing and that's those are that's
1:36:40 future land use planning that we need to
1:36:42 be cognizant of as development proposes
1:36:45 uh in this
1:36:58 okay next
1:37:00 SL so um
1:37:03 actually Sor that's okay um so that's
1:37:08 that's my coverage of the eight topics
1:37:11 with help from a friend phone a friend
1:37:13 um Costco um before we move on to sort
1:37:16 of other questions um Costco wanted to
1:37:22 presentation uh Jackie is going to be
1:37:25 doing
1:37:26 this um you just use the keys to go up
1:37:30 and down and if you can point using the
1:37:31 mouse great thank you Lucy Mr chairman
1:37:35 members of the commission Jackie Frank
1:37:37 um vice president of real estate
1:37:38 development for Costco Wholesale I
1:37:41 wanted to um take a a slightly different
1:37:44 approach but hit many of the same topics
1:37:46 that Lucy Lucy covered this evening
1:37:48 first of all I want to say that um
1:37:52 this uh development agreement is very
1:37:53 important to us and and we believe that
1:37:56 it's important to the city um isqua is
1:37:59 our home and uh from a corporate point
1:38:01 of view and for many of us
1:38:03 personally um I kind of want to take it
1:38:06 from the top because it's it's kind of
1:38:08 who who we are and and what we do and
1:38:11 and how we how we uh how we run our
1:38:14 business um first of all as you know our
1:38:17 our job is to continually provide our
1:38:20 members with quality goods and services
1:38:22 at the at the lowest possible prices and
1:38:25 the way we do this is number one to obey
1:38:27 the law number two take care of our
1:38:30 members three take care of our employees
1:38:33 number four respect our suppliers and
1:38:35 our partners um and if we and if we do
1:38:38 all of these things correctly uh we
1:38:41 believe ultimately at the end of the day
1:38:42 we're going to reward our
1:38:44 shareholders so how does this um how is
1:38:49 this re relevant to our discussion this
1:38:51 this evening well first of all let's
1:38:53 obey the law we've demonstrated a
1:38:56 consistent track record um to adhere to
1:39:00 and to exceed the requirements of the of
1:39:02 the MSP over time which at the time we
1:39:05 were implementing the city's Vision um
1:39:08 and going forward we're committed to
1:39:10 implementing the central isqua plan and
1:39:14 the uh Central isqua Development design
1:39:17 standards and through that manifesting
1:39:19 the city's vision for an urban
1:39:21 um and a dense more dense and a vibrant
1:39:26 environment what this does for us it
1:39:29 allows Costco taking advantage of the
1:39:32 CIP um to to do real infill development
1:39:36 for higher densities consistent with the
1:39:39 with the uh CIP and the SIDS as you know
1:39:43 we've grown as a company um we've we've
1:39:46 as I mentioned last time we've become
1:39:47 the second largest retailer in the
1:39:49 country the third largest in in the
1:39:51 world and we're currently ranked number
1:39:52 19 in the Fortune
1:39:56 um as we grow locations and grow our
1:40:01 ancillary businesses we need to add
1:40:03 Central support to support the growth of
1:40:06 our business it's very simple under the
1:40:08 original
1:40:09 MSP um back from
1:40:12 87 um as Lucy said back in 2002 we ran
1:40:16 out of capacity we ran out of the
1:40:18 ability to add a single square foot of
1:40:21 development to our campus from a
1:40:23 development point of view and as we
1:40:25 continue to grow and evolve the only
1:40:27 option available to us under the MSP was
1:40:30 to lease nearby buildings so there was
1:40:32 late Place one there was late place two
1:40:35 there was the space Labs property and
1:40:37 and now the Microsoft uh buildings
1:40:40 building at the uh at the Vulcan
1:40:42 development under the
1:40:44 da The increased densities allow us to
1:40:47 accommodate future business growth it
1:40:50 allows us to consolidate our employees
1:40:52 and most importantly it allows us the
1:40:54 ability to realize synergies and
1:40:57 efficiencies that are inherent in a
1:40:59 purposefully designed campus now the
1:41:03 history of the da is pretty simple in
1:41:05 2007 we became a member of the city's
1:41:07 committee to consider re the resoning of
1:41:10 the valley floor me members of that task
1:41:14 force up to 2012 we participated in the
1:41:17 city's visioning process and we and we
1:41:19 provided um input to the to the
1:41:23 development commission as well as the
1:41:24 city council for the proposed uh
1:41:27 development design standards and
1:41:29 beginning in 2013 we worked very closely
1:41:32 with staff um in applying the SIDS to
1:41:35 our campus through a development
1:41:37 agreement and that's why we're here
1:41:39 tonight as far as some of our other
1:41:41 codes of Ethics taking care of our
1:41:43 employees and respecting our suppliers
1:41:45 um as a as a high priority to us over
1:41:48 the past 20 years we've demonstrated the
1:41:50 ability to develop within your
1:41:52 regulations to create a first class
1:41:55 corporate campus now we're not a
1:41:57 developer who Who develops and flips
1:42:00 we're a long-term participant we're a
1:42:02 long-term partner um and as I've said
1:42:05 over the past 20 years we've kept all of
1:42:08 promises as evidenced by the continuity
1:42:11 the consistency the commitment to
1:42:12 Quality the commitment to land
1:42:14 stewardship to Quality architecture to
1:42:17 Landscaping to community amenities to
1:42:20 traffic pedestrian
1:42:21 circulation um all in the context of the
1:42:24 natural environment the the habitat esar
1:42:28 creek creek like samamish Etc at the
1:42:32 time this is a private development but
1:42:36 it's it's a private development in the
1:42:38 sense that programmatically it's meant
1:42:39 to serve as a secure safe efficient
1:42:43 International headquarters to thousands
1:42:47 employees and also our vendors and
1:42:49 supplier community who frankly spend a
1:42:51 lot of time here in the isqua
1:42:53 community the MSP established the theme
1:42:57 and the pattern of development beginning
1:42:59 1987 the SIDS implementing the vision of
1:43:02 the CIP allows for the next growth
1:43:05 opportunity for higher density Community
1:43:08 amenities circulation paths building on
1:43:10 the context previously established both
1:43:13 with the existing Street patterns and
1:43:15 the surrounding natural environment this
1:43:18 is not a scrape and rebuild scenario
1:43:20 that would be wasteful and we're not
1:43:22 about waste we're about
1:43:24 efficiency this is truly an infill
1:43:27 development opportunity in the context
1:43:29 of marrying the existing conditions
1:43:31 while implementing the city's vision and
1:43:34 the more Urban Development standards and
1:43:36 yet although a privately owned corporate
1:43:39 campus there are no walls there are no
1:43:41 Gates there are no fences there are no
1:43:42 barriers per se many people use the
1:43:45 amenities associated with the ISRO Creek
1:43:48 Trail um the barn Environ enironment and
1:43:51 the pond Trail it's fairly it's actually
1:43:54 fairly heavily used by the
1:43:56 public we've integrated this into the
1:43:59 integrated into this context are The
1:44:01 Pedestrian connections the employee
1:44:03 plazas places to linger places to eat
1:44:06 places to play and places to work our
1:44:08 property is not a Civic facility or a
1:44:11 public park yet it's an awesome place to
1:44:17 work what i' what I'd like to do is show
1:44:20 you a few things
1:44:22 things and this goes to the point of
1:44:26 trying to not only meet or exceed the
1:44:28 previous development requirements but
1:44:30 also to keep our promises over the
1:44:32 years so when we look at uh at buildings
1:44:36 we built and how we Define
1:44:38 entrances we look at uh building three
1:44:42 um with uh with entrances as
1:44:46 well um we also look at how the
1:44:49 buildings uh sit on the side s and uh
1:44:51 and create community space or Plaza
1:44:53 space for for our employees and our
1:44:55 guests this happens to be um adjacent to
1:44:58 the um to the
1:45:01 pond um as well as um on the back side
1:45:04 of building three adjacent to the to the
1:45:07 pond area um an integrated Plaza that's
1:45:11 you know heavily used for uh for dining
1:45:13 for lingering for meetings um
1:45:17 Etc and we even have places for uh for
1:45:20 play um part of our uh this is just this
1:45:24 past week and our employees at lunch are
1:45:26 notorious for uh pickup basketball games
1:45:28 now we also use the plazas for uh for U
1:45:32 uh product mockups for for uh uh showa
1:45:36 to Showcase uh uh items that were for
1:45:39 sale but but uh but we also do uh uh
1:45:43 have designed and integral uh
1:45:45 recreational opportunities for our
1:45:46 employees and their
1:45:48 guests um
1:45:51 within the context of the Pickering
1:45:52 development of course is the community
1:45:54 ampi Amphitheater which which does get
1:45:56 used and is and is quite well
1:45:59 integrated and you can see small
1:46:01 gathering and small seating places that
1:46:04 separate both the plaza area and the
1:46:06 natural pond area um Lush Landscaping
1:46:10 benches uh low-scale lighting you know a
1:46:13 a real sensitivity to to scale and to
1:46:17 detailing and to texture and and
1:46:19 opportunities for people to you know at
1:46:22 to stop somewhere as they're on their
1:46:23 way somewhere
1:46:25 else as far as pedestrian connections
1:46:28 are concerned here's an image of the uh
1:46:31 of the isqua trail um adjacent to isqua
1:46:34 Creek um I think I think what you'll
1:46:37 find is that we have not turned our back
1:46:40 to anything um on the contrary U the
1:46:43 Landscaping is Lush and Rich um and we
1:46:46 as we as it was said earlier we've
1:46:48 designed our buildings with four-sided
1:46:50 architecture Ure with h with sensitive
1:46:52 Plaza placements um to to to not only uh
1:46:56 not turn our back to it but to actually
1:46:58 integrate in such a way that there that
1:47:00 you know we can we can coexist within
1:47:03 the context of the natural environment
1:47:06 um uh in a in an appropriate way without
1:47:10 barriers without fences Without
1:47:13 Walls another shot uh looking South um
1:47:17 on the uh on the pond Trail
1:47:23 and another view quite quite lovely and
1:47:26 and frankly quite heavily used