← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Development Commission Auto captions

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

7:00 PM · 3h 35m · Council Chambers, 135 East Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Briefing Response Memo 2/2
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 September 3, 2014
packet pp.5–14
Staff report:
Application for recommendations on: (1) a Master Site Plan Amendment and (2) a Land Plan for Future Development of 1,500,000 sq. ft. of office, with the potential to substitute up to 250,000 sq. ft. of non-office uses on 47 acres, as part of the City’s Development Agreement with the Costco Wholesale Corporation
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Briefing Response Memo
Keith Niven, Economic Development Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, Development Services Department Costco Representative · packet pp.15–29
Staff report:
Development Services th 1775 – 12 Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100 issaquahwa.gov
3b
Recommendation
Keith Niven, Director Economic Development
0:20 all
0:21 right good evening and welcome to the
0:24 September 17th meeting of the isqua
0:27 development commission uh this evening
0:29 uh we're going to have a uh a meeting to
0:33 address the Costco development agreement
0:35 and the master site plan Amendment to
0:37 the Pickering Place uh the meeting will
0:41 this is not a Community Conference per
0:44 se but we will nonetheless follow the
0:47 general guidelines uh that we have in
0:49 the community conference uh I have as
0:52 some of you know that have not uh that
0:55 have been to the preceding two meetings
0:57 I have not been here uh but I understand
0:59 that we among other things have what we
1:01 call a parking lot over here of issues
1:04 that uh remain to be addressed uh that
1:06 have been brought up in the past so the
1:08 way I proposed uh to do this is again as
1:11 I said to follow the general guidelines
1:13 of the uh policies of the uh Community
1:16 Conference which means we will hear from
1:18 staff uh first uh then we will hear from
1:22 the applicants and then we will hear
1:24 from any members of the public that
1:26 would like to uh comment or seek
1:28 clarification and if there there are
1:30 members of the public that would like to
1:31 do that I'd ask that you come up here
1:34 and sign uh the uh clipboard that's
1:37 there when you speak go to the
1:40 microphone and please Begin by giving
1:42 your name and your address for the
1:45 record okay and then after the public
1:48 section uh the members of the
1:50 development commission will be able to
1:53 individually seek uh clarification or
1:55 ask questions of any of the previous
1:58 presenters and then uh when that's
2:01 concluded the uh members of the
2:03 commission will discuss and vote okay we
2:07 hope that's the objective I would ask
2:10 that uh people members of the public uh
2:13 we don't have a big crowd here tonight
2:15 but uh try try to uh keep your comments
2:19 to between 5 to 10 minutes okay all
2:22 right with that
2:27 Lucy I'm sorry I'm sorry you have the
2:30 minutes we got
2:32 minutes we have minutes we have the
2:34 approval of the minutes approval of
2:36 minutes from the September thir meeting
2:39 are there any changes that need to be
2:43 made changes that need to be made or
2:46 that want to be made if not Mr chair I
2:48 move we approve the minutes of the
2:49 September 3rd 2014 meeting second second
2:54 is there any discussion any further
2:56 discussion and and then all in favor I I
3:01 opposed okay motion carries the minutes
3:03 are approved
3:10 Lucy good evening
3:15 Commissioners so my screen here looks
3:17 like Vaseline got rubbed all over it um
3:20 I'm hoping yours is clear but if I look
3:21 a little squinty you'll know why um I'm
3:25 Lucy slowman land development manager
3:27 for um development services department
3:31 and I just wanted to um explain the two
3:34 sheets that were sitting at your place
3:37 um the original staff report for the
3:40 mspa the master site plan Amendment and
3:44 for the land plan um had conditions and
3:48 then those conditions have been edited
3:50 through several briefing response memos
3:53 and I thought it might be easier if you
3:55 had that sort of Consolidated set of
3:57 edits to look at um when we get to the
4:00 recommendation later on um I'll be
4:02 covering some of these edits tonight so
4:04 the two-sided sheet is the development
4:06 agreement and the shorter one is the
4:09 master site plan Amendment conditions
4:11 and the M Master site plan conditions
4:13 are also conditions 67 and eight of the
4:16 development agreements so I think we've
4:18 got belt and
4:21 suspenders
4:23 um So the plan for tonight as the
4:27 chairperson laid out I'm going to go
4:29 through um some of the sort of more
4:31 complex answers um or uh edits to
4:35 conditions in the briefing second
4:37 briefing response memo um and then we'll
4:40 um have a
4:42 um question and answer you know uh
4:45 comments from the public um Costco
4:47 doesn't have a formal presentation
4:48 tonight they're happy to answer
4:50 questions or uh participate in any way
4:53 but um The Briefing response memo was
4:56 mainly information from the city and so
4:58 they don't have a separate presentation
5:00 and then our goal tonight obviously is
5:03 um to hopefully have a recommendation
5:04 for
5:06 Council um so the first um two pieces of
5:10 the briefing response memo had to do
5:13 with two of the conditions that came out
5:15 of the master site plan amendment that
5:18 um uh were deemed
5:21 confusing hey Keith could you do me a
5:24 favor I just realized none of their name
5:26 plates got up they're right on the
5:29 counter I think
5:32 think oh right there sorry I'll do that
5:34 thank
5:38 you we we've got you nicely bracketed
5:40 between Rick and Randy but nobody in the
5:43 middle
5:53 um so um there were there was some
5:56 concern that these uh condition seven
5:58 and condition eight were were not um
6:00 were not very clear and so they've been
6:03 been Rewritten um I won't read through
6:06 them they were in your memo um but you
6:10 know I think the point is not only to
6:12 clarify the intent but to um clarify
6:16 that Costco has a limited role in both
6:19 of these they don't own tract day and
6:21 therefore the handling of it is not at
6:23 their sole discretion they don't even
6:25 maintain that tract and the ccnr they
6:28 are just one of many parties to the
6:30 cc&rs um so um they would help
6:34 facilitate certain things to as much as
6:36 they can as any owner can um but these
6:39 were um important the staff felt that
6:43 these were important conditions to be um
6:46 at least noted in kind of a carryover
6:48 way from the uh original Master site
6:51 plan any
6:55 questions the the fertilizer one was the
6:58 question I had because
7:00 it talked about limited use and I wasn't
7:02 sure what that meant of course and this
7:04 is at
7:06 least more expansive but again I'm not
7:10 I'm not sure what it means when you say
7:13 consal to use hazardous toxic substances
7:16 pesticides or certain fertilizers or
7:19 herbicides is this we had talked
7:22 about accepted scientific principles or
7:25 is this is this good language that is
7:28 used somewhere else so the intent was
7:31 that the however phrase desined what
7:34 certain fertilizers or or herbicides
7:36 could be used so the fertilizers would
7:39 be limited to organic slow release and
7:41 the herbicides would be those approved
7:44 for use near aquatic environments for um
7:47 invasive plant removal or elimination or
7:56 eradication Okay so was our in in our
8:01 critical area
8:03 um I I I would leave
8:06 out certain fertilizers or herbicides
8:09 altogether and just say shall not use
8:11 hazardous toxic substances or
8:14 pesticides however organic slow release
8:17 fertilizers and herbicides approved are
8:20 okay okay I think that makes it at least
8:23 in my mind somewhat
8:27 clear okay
8:30 got
8:36 okay um another concern that was raised
8:39 uh at our last meeting was um Pickering
8:42 Place Owners Association and were they
8:44 aware of the opportunity to participate
8:47 in certain actions that were taking
8:49 place um with these various permits and
8:53 um whether there was enough
8:55 collaboration that had been going on
8:56 between the city and the Popa members
9:00 um since our last meeting a letter has
9:02 gone to each of the Popa members
9:05 identifying that um there are certain
9:08 actions that are happening with the
9:09 development agreement and if they um
9:12 apply or if they write us a letter they
9:14 can participate in joining in on those
9:16 actions we also met with um all the um
9:20 Popa members who chose to attend on
9:23 Monday um and uh I think had a very
9:27 productive conversation that identified
9:29 several
9:29 things that we're going to keep pursuing
9:31 over the next couple of
9:38 weeks okay Lucy yep my my recollection
9:42 was that uh people could opt out of
9:47 people could opt out of the master site
9:50 plan if they submitted a letter prior to
9:53 the approval of the development
9:54 agreement is that correct yes and so did
9:58 did if it the the plan is for that to be
10:01 appr we're I guess we're going to make a
10:02 recommendation and then the city council
10:04 will make that approval when when is
10:06 that expected to happen if if we if we
10:09 were to move ahead the next meeting of
10:11 the city council is October 6th
10:14 okay and and even and if I can add
10:16 something because I think it's an
10:18 important point that you've raised um so
10:21 the the development agreement is for
10:23 Costco the way we've Reed the major
10:26 Amendment to the master site plan is is
10:30 is it would allow for the removal of
10:33 properties from Pickering place it's not
10:35 specific to Costco so we know that
10:37 Costco wants to be removed from
10:39 Pickering Place Master site plan but
10:42 we've the way we've written it it would
10:43 allow for other property owners to be
10:46 added into that group that gets kind of
10:49 bundled together if you will when when
10:52 Costco is removed and Keith are you
10:54 referring to the resolution that's the
10:56 way the resolution for the action that
10:58 Council will take has been
11:03 worded but uh you say you had a great
11:06 meeting I
11:07 curious you say great how many people
11:11 actually showed up I mean what percent
11:13 do you I I don't know how many owners
11:15 there are maybe there's six owners and
11:17 two of them showed up maybe there's 100
11:19 owners and 75 showed up I think there
11:21 were four or five owners out of 13 so
11:25 Costco obviously didn't show up uh and
11:29 one of those owners represents a number
11:31 of other owners um he's uh the board
11:35 representative um some owners don't live
11:38 in town um so they didn't attend oh and
11:41 the other the um man the management
11:45 company thank you I couldn't think of
11:46 the term the management company was
11:48 there so um I'm hoping that's part of um
11:51 maintaining good Communications thank
11:55 you
11:58 okay um uh so another issue that we
12:01 talked about um some was um the concern
12:05 about are the buildings just related to
12:07 the streets and what's the relationship
12:09 to the creeks and um making sure that
12:11 we're consistent with Central isqua and
12:14 so in going back and studying it some
12:16 more um and I'm just summarizing it here
12:19 there's more detail in the briefing
12:21 response memo um the central isqua
12:25 standards have um Community spaces on
12:28 the street side of buildings where the
12:30 main pedestrian accesses but they the
12:33 standards also um identify that the
12:36 buildings need to recognize that the
12:38 creek is present and that there are
12:41 spaces or decks or other kinds of
12:43 elements that are oriented to the creek
12:46 um the land plan uh has the sort of
12:49 pedestrian entry plazas on the street
12:52 side um but they also show
12:55 semi-private
12:57 um uh areas on on the backside now uh
13:01 you know semi-private is not a defined
13:03 term um but they have um those um
13:07 existing kinds of spaces uh associated
13:10 with their buildings I've got some
13:11 photos as which you may have seen in the
13:13 memo uh and also the existing buildings
13:17 establish a sort of um expectation of
13:20 how the buildings will relate to um
13:24 those kinds of open
13:25 spaces so uh the first building building
13:29 one which was built in 1990 and is
13:32 located here um and this is the front of
13:35 the building and this is the pond side
13:38 of the building um although it had
13:41 windows and a door and a s sort of small
13:44 Terrace here the ground floor was um you
13:48 know fairly walled off this was a good
13:51 way to screen equipment but not
13:53 necessarily a good way to build a
13:54 relationship with the backside and the
13:57 trail um that building was not built for
14:00 Costco I think that's an important thing
14:02 to say the second building that was
14:03 built in 1998 which I understand was
14:06 built for Costco um this is again the
14:09 front on the left and the pwn side on
14:12 the right um You can see kind of faintly
14:14 in the plan here that there are two very
14:17 sizable Terraces on you know basically
14:20 along each of the Wings and in the
14:22 central area where this um kind of door
14:25 is there's a rather grand staircase that
14:27 comes down from a from the table us uh
14:29 down to the
14:31 trail and then the third building um
14:35 which is right here um this is the front
14:38 um this was built in 2001 and then this
14:41 is the back so you can see here how much
14:44 larger the teras has gotten the
14:46 architecture is much more Dynamic and
14:48 kind of responsive and um uh responding
14:52 to the kind of uses that are there and
14:54 and we think that this really has
14:56 established a trend about you know both
14:59 in terms of how their architecture has
15:01 evolved but their understanding of the
15:04 need to have a four-sided building that
15:05 is both uh has a strong presence on the
15:08 street and has a um response to the pond
15:12 or the creek or whatever is located on
15:14 the back because it could be either
15:16 one so I think from our perspective we
15:19 feel that um that the existing situation
15:24 and the imagery that they've provided
15:26 establishes a sufficient expectation
15:29 of uh the requirements to have both a
15:32 front and a back they may not be the
15:35 same but they both have a strong
15:37 relationship with both the street and
15:39 the um more natural feature in the
15:43 back um I know that this phrase is not
15:48 solely used by the city of isqua but uh
15:52 I I just I don't really understand how
15:54 some something can be semi-private or
15:57 semi-public uh and and I it's frankly it
16:01 surprises me that that's still around
16:03 because I would have imagined that some
16:05 lawyer sometime would have taken it to
16:08 the courts and said no it's either
16:10 public or private so what is the
16:13 objective of having something described
16:17 semi-private so I believe it's actually
16:21 sem no you're right semi-private um
16:24 there as I understand it Lucy there are
16:26 some areas that have been in in this
16:27 copious amount of mat material that I've
16:30 looked at that are designated as
16:32 semi-public and others that are
16:34 designated as semi-private and I I
16:37 personally don't know the
16:39 difference um I was just trying to read
16:42 on my crazy little screen here um in
16:45 terms of for me um I I have not done a
16:49 search through centralistic I'm fairly
16:51 certain it's not a defined term in the
16:54 chapter um so for me it's about the um
16:59 the way they're designed are they
17:01 inviting other people are they inviting
17:04 other people to come in are they just
17:08 open um I don't know whether you can see
17:11 but there is a um kind of low wall that
17:14 raises the Terrace here and here above
17:17 say the trail on that is adjacent so
17:21 there's a certain amount of visibility
17:23 there's um a certain relationship but
17:27 it's um
17:30 vertically uh separate so that it
17:33 doesn't just invite to the whole public
17:36 in the way that say the amphitheater
17:38 elsewhere that might be an element that
17:40 you're familiar with the amphitheater is
17:42 just it's on the same level as the trail
17:45 it's very open and it um is
17:49 available yeah I I understand that that
17:52 is again this is a a general term we had
17:55 the same the commission I asked the same
17:56 question at uh I think I'm sorry sorry
17:59 it's Atlas now not uh I asked the
18:01 question there too because it's the same
18:03 concept but I I don't know well I we
18:07 don't need to hammer this but uh it it
18:09 to me it raises a question of uh
18:12 enforceability or or actual you know if
18:15 it begins to be a problem uh with
18:17 homeless or whatever else I don't know
18:20 how how you legally address access or or
18:25 presence in something like that well I I
18:28 think the piece that I would say from
18:30 the city's
18:31 perspective is that the space that is
18:36 required um as part of the um that is is
18:40 established as a specific square footage
18:43 is the one on the street s side okay now
18:46 both of these are located on private
18:48 property um so I think that if if um a
18:53 homeless person decided to camp on
18:56 either of these spaces they would be
18:58 asked to believe M um so I I don't think
19:01 um I think it's more of a design aspect
19:05 than a um ownership aspect because they
19:08 are both located on private property but
19:10 members of the public just walking along
19:12 with something that they bought to Sunny
19:15 Day can go up there and sit down in that
19:18 nice area there if if they choose to
19:21 well so you you might want to ask Costco
19:24 that question I will say I took these
19:26 pictures no one said anything to me I
19:28 mean I mean I've I've wandered all
19:29 through their campus I think that they
19:33 um have generally been open to the
19:35 public um for people who are behaving
19:39 respectfully um again this is this is
19:42 not just for me it's not just Costco
19:44 it's it's a as I said I brought it up
19:46 with the other one and I I just I just
19:48 don't quite understand what the
19:49 objective is unless it is to give the
19:51 property owner the ability to go out and
19:55 say you got to leave or you know I'm
19:58 police are going to be called
20:00 up well I don't I think if this so um
20:05 let me try it this way Randy if those
20:08 teres on the back um had no label on
20:12 them did not say
20:14 semi-private I would look at them and
20:16 say okay this is the way they're
20:18 responding to the standards that require
20:20 a relationship to the
20:23 creek and these are on private property
20:26 and they other than have having some
20:29 kind of relationship on that side there
20:31 isn't a requirement that that be public
20:34 that that be open um and so if it if it
20:40 didn't have
20:43 um a big wide pathway for instance
20:46 connecting the public trail to the
20:50 Terrace I I don't know that that would
20:53 be a problem I'm looking you know I'm
20:55 looking more at the elements relative to
20:58 the standards than the label
21:01 semi-private I think I think in our
21:03 early work it was to try and help
21:06 provide clarification during your review
21:08 it obviously didn't achieve that um so I
21:12 mean but I understand why you're asking
21:13 it's like what but what is it supposed
21:15 to mean what is it supposed to help us
21:17 understand I don't we that's that's
21:19 sufficient thank
21:24 you
21:27 okay uh skyp Bridges there were uh we
21:29 had a lot of discussion about Sky
21:31 Bridges um one uh had to do with
21:34 precedent um there'll be a little bit
21:36 more uh We've captured some of this
21:40 discussion and some of the points from
21:41 the memo in the development agreement um
21:45 but I think that uh in terms of
21:47 precedent I think the important thing is
21:49 balancing The Pedestrian connections
21:52 with a secure campus especially one that
21:55 is a series of buildings located on both
21:57 sides of the road so in terms of
21:59 precedent I'm not sure how many times
22:01 this will happen but the precedent is
22:04 that we are still finding ways to
22:06 provide frequent pedestrian connections
22:09 and maintain a secure campus um which
22:12 could be at odds but which we feel has
22:14 been um appropriately
22:19 balanced um question Mr chairman um we
22:23 talked quite a bit about the sky Bridges
22:25 and it was a big concern about the view
22:28 Corridor how many bridges are we talking
22:31 about here and at what level is it going
22:33 to be at it's going to be second third
22:36 fourth I mean or is it just one level
22:38 going through has there been any
22:40 thoughts about
22:42 that um so the view was the uh next
22:47 piece I was going to touch on but the
22:49 map um on the right here does show um
22:53 both the existing Sky Bridges one's here
22:56 and one is here um as well as the
22:59 proposed ones so over the RightWay um
23:02 there are two shown but in response to
23:06 the commission's comments at the first
23:08 meeting um Costco has um reduced it from
23:13 one skybridge uh or to one skybridge
23:16 from two they were originally we had
23:19 sent it forward with a recommendation
23:21 for two Sky Bridges being allowed
23:23 outright and now there's just one and
23:25 they can come back and um request
23:28 further analysis to see if another
23:30 skybridge is
23:32 appropriate um in terms of um views uh
23:39 in looking at you know in walking along
23:41 the whole uh Lake Corridor and really uh
23:44 and there's more discussion of this
23:46 which will happen in a few minutes but
23:47 in looking at it there are not a lot of
23:50 views um of this is a wetland so it's
23:53 rather heavily um forested and so at
23:58 this point uh here um there aren't uh
24:03 really very many views and uh most of
24:06 them are over parking lots which we'll
24:08 talk about um I the article that I
24:11 linked to in the memo part of the reason
24:13 that I linked that is I thought that um
24:15 Mark Henshaw who's Urban Design director
24:18 for LMN architects in downtown Seattle I
24:21 thought made a good point which is that
24:24 um unlike some things in which you're
24:27 standing still and trying to look at The
24:28 View when you're a street is generally
24:31 uh the kind of thing that you're moving
24:33 along you're walking you're biking
24:34 you're driving and so a skybridge
24:37 especially with some of the parameters
24:39 that we've put around the skybridge
24:40 about in terms of how wide and 70%
24:43 transparent Etc um that it would have a
24:48 momentary and relatively limited impact
24:51 for whatever views were available at
24:53 that point um in terms of your question
24:57 Rey about
24:59 how high it is there is a certain
25:02 required minimum clearance I'm I'm going
25:05 to say with not utmost confidence it's
25:08 probably at least 14 feet above the road
25:11 um in terms of how many stories um I I
25:16 to date they have built singl
25:19 story um Sky Bridges uh we have not um
25:24 discussed or proposed limitations on it
25:27 having multiple
25:29 um stories in height although there is
25:31 one of the examples and I'll show you
25:33 these in just a second well let's see um
25:36 for instance this one from um Fred Hutch
25:39 is two
25:43 stories yeah I guess U the question I
25:47 was asking was is it connecting on the
25:49 second floor or is it connecting on the
25:52 third floor or is it connecting on the
25:54 fourth floor or is it connecting two
25:58 floors and then we're talking about 10
26:01 story high building Pro possibly so are
26:04 we going to have a set of
26:07 Crossing uh second and third and then
26:09 eighth and Ninth maybe so you know um so
26:13 that's the question that I'm asking
26:16 right now the way it's written there is
26:17 not other than the clearances that would
26:19 be required for the roadway there are
26:22 not specific limitations on how
26:25 many stories that would be MH now I
26:29 think my interpretation would be that
26:31 we've allowed one that could be two
26:36 stories uh I don't think that if they
26:39 put stacked ones at distinctly separate
26:42 floors that would count as one Ray let
26:45 me I think Lucy I think what Ray's
26:47 asking is are they going to connect
26:49 second floor to second floor third or
26:52 third floor to third floor or fourth
26:54 floor to fourth floor is is that yeah
26:57 yeah no and and I do understand that I
26:59 just there's there's nothing right now
27:02 in the land plan or the development
27:04 agreement that would that answers that
27:07 qu that would restrict them that it had
27:09 to be at the second floor or that it had
27:11 to be at the eighth floor correct um
27:13 correct and that that's just the state
27:15 is in and that was my question is it
27:17 just one floor because all the pictures
27:20 that we've seen and all indication are
27:22 the it's it's a one floor one bridge but
27:26 if we go to 10 floor and they said well
27:29 we want to connect 10th to 10th so you
27:32 got two now yet we're looking at just
27:35 one skybridge and not two and you know
27:38 it could be double stacked and you know
27:41 the argument could be made that we're
27:43 approve for one skybridge and two level
27:47 that's one sky bridge too so I was just
27:49 wanting to get a clarification on
27:53 that thank you
27:56 yep um so there was also a question
27:59 about design I put the criteria that are
28:02 in the development agreement currently
28:04 in the memo but just to summarize them
28:07 uh the skybridge would be
28:09 architecturally integrated taking
28:11 external um uh design impacts into
28:15 consideration it would have a pleasant
28:17 interior with uh which is described um
28:22 there are specific width and height
28:24 requirements of the interior uh it needs
28:26 to be relatively level and Square to the
28:28 buildings meaning perpendicular across
28:32 and have transparent walls um not going
28:35 to make you read all of that on the
28:36 screen so those are just the sort of key
28:38 points of the
28:42 criteria and finally there were some
28:45 design questions there was a concern
28:47 that the images that we had um shown
28:50 were two kind of glass too much glass
28:53 boxes these are the four images that
28:55 were originally included in in the staff
28:59 report um so we um did some additional
29:03 uh research and had some additional
29:05 discussions and we added two pairs of
29:08 images uh in the briefing response memo
29:11 um these two images were added um to uh
29:15 give a sense of what architectural
29:17 integration might mean uh the image on
29:19 the left is Western Washington
29:21 University and the image on the right is
29:24 Costco's existing skybridge between
29:27 building one and building three this is
29:29 the second one they built and we thought
29:31 these um demonstrated
29:34 um a relationship of materials of scale
29:38 of kind of openness and um just
29:42 architectural character that uh
29:45 Illustrated were kind of illustrative
29:47 guidelines of what architectural
29:49 integration would be
29:58 another question uh Mr chairman um so on
30:02 the skybridge and maybe we're getting
30:03 into the details with I guess which I
30:05 guess I'd like to maybe get an answer or
30:08 response from you was there any
30:09 indication on whether the bridge the sky
30:12 bridge is um not kind of levered but
30:17 there's no column in between or is there
30:21 any limitation on the on the
30:23 structure um the way it is now and the
30:28 the existing Sky Bridges um so you can
30:32 see here there's a pair of columns here
30:35 and I believe there's another pair here
30:37 so that it kind of frames the walkway
30:39 that goes underneath um and over
30:45 um and that's the way the their other
30:47 sky bridg is also built uh in the
30:51 examples we've shown sometimes like the
30:53 one with Western Washington you know
30:55 this is essentially a clear span
30:58 um but you do see some of them this this
31:01 is also from Western Washington where
31:03 they've used uh columns to create a sort
31:06 of series of portals yeah and likewise
31:09 at um uh Fred Hutchinson uh using the
31:12 columns to create a portal uhuh
31:15 obviously when you're dealing with the
31:16 rideway it is much less common and
31:20 likely that there would be any
31:22 supporting
31:23 structure um uh between the buildings uh
31:28 or certainly with in around the street
31:31 because it interferes with the sidewalk
31:33 and the travel Lanes so I I think it's
31:37 somewhat um the answer depends on
31:40 whether we're talking about ones
31:41 crossing the rideway or ones that are
31:43 over private property between the
31:46 buildings uh but the way it's drawn out
31:49 now is that you're connecting two
31:51 buildings over public right way there
31:54 are some that do um so so uh this
32:00 one um or this one whichever one they
32:03 choose to build first uh those are over
32:06 right of way uhhuh um so there's no this
32:09 one this one this one this one and this
32:13 one are over private property uhuh and
32:15 since there's not vehicular traffic um
32:18 moving under those well there would be
32:21 maybe here the rest of them are um over
32:27 pedestrian and Plaza type areas and so
32:30 they might architecturally choose to use
32:32 some kind of column structure as part of
32:36 the
32:37 design yeah well I guess economics wise
32:40 would probably be cheaper to have
32:42 columns in there but if we're trying to
32:44 maintain the view corridor you know by
32:46 putting more columns you're just kind of
32:48 limiting your your view and you know we
32:52 so I have some images that were also in
32:55 the briefing response memo that um show
32:58 one of the existing corridors so let's
33:00 can we hold and look at that in a moment
33:02 when we get to that part of the
33:03 presentation because I think that may
33:05 answer your question okay
33:11 okay put that down so um the last pair
33:14 of photos that we added to the um
33:17 briefing response memo were um two
33:20 images of
33:22 um possibilities or illustrative
33:25 guidelines for uh Sky Bridges crossing
33:28 the RightWay the one on the left is open
33:31 air meaning that although it has weather
33:34 protection in the sense it's got a roof
33:35 and uh side panels uh it is not climate
33:40 controlled and then the uh image on the
33:43 right um is illustrative of a kind of
33:46 how a skybridge might be used to create
33:48 a Gateway into um Costco campus or the
33:53 pi or Pickering place for instance
34:04 so um the proposed edits to uh condition
34:08 number three um essentially because
34:12 we've now added some additional
34:13 information in the memo are uh add that
34:17 briefing response memo into the
34:19 condition as one of the
34:21 um touch points for understanding uh how
34:25 the skybridge would be uh what those
34:27 illustrative
34:36 guidelines
34:39 okay another uh topic uh in which there
34:43 was a lot of discussion was the
34:44 development commission's role with
34:46 future permits the review of future
34:49 permits um in thinking about responding
34:52 to this uh you know we put some
34:53 information in the memo
34:55 um the uh
34:58 last week um one of the council people
35:01 at a committee meeting uh had asked that
35:05 before the next committee meeting we lay
35:06 out what the differences would be uh
35:09 between a site development permit and
35:11 the process that we were um describing
35:14 and in thinking about this um these are
35:17 the kinds of points that we were going
35:18 through so I thought that might be
35:20 useful in our discussion with
35:22 you um the things that would be similar
35:26 between a standard development permit
35:28 like Atlas and uh a future Costco land
35:32 use permit is that you would see a full
35:35 uh submitt uh with a similar level of
35:38 detail and information uh we would use
35:40 the same types and methods of notice uh
35:44 you would receive a staff report um the
35:46 purpose of the meeting would be the same
35:49 um talk about issues uh opportunities
35:54 inconsistencies um concerns questions
35:57 and that the staff just like we have
35:59 with this process where we do the
36:01 briefing response memo we would prepare
36:03 a um response to each of the issues and
36:06 inconsistencies that were raised um
36:10 differences it seemed uh like there were
36:12 three differences the first is that um
36:16 that this um meeting with the
36:19 development commission and the public
36:20 would happen earlier in the process
36:23 rather than at the end of the review
36:25 process um which is kind of like the way
36:27 Community conferences it it happens U
36:30 earlier it would be a public meeting and
36:32 not a public hearing and um although the
36:35 commission would be um reviewing and
36:37 inputting uh they would not have a
36:45 decision point it would be a a
36:48 recommendation to the
36:50 council uh no because it's a staff
36:52 decision on those future land use okay
36:55 so input is to you not to the council
36:59 which is the difference with the
37:01 community uh a a a difference well a
37:05 Community Conference as I understand it
37:07 is really input to both the staff and
37:09 the applicant yes uh for their future
37:13 full sittle so this would be input to
37:16 the um staff and applicant um and I
37:20 think the important thing that we walked
37:22 away
37:24 from um last uh meeting with the
37:27 development commission was a concern if
37:30 we've identified inconsistencies what
37:33 are going to happen to them so um we
37:36 have revised the um development
37:39 agreement text um you can see the
37:40 underlined
37:42 part uh that us identifies that staff
37:46 will um shall prepare a response
37:49 confirming or not the identified
37:52 inconsistency the basis for the response
37:55 and if an inconsistency exists how it
37:57 will be addressed in the decision so it
38:00 seemed like um we wanted to be very
38:03 clear that
38:05 that input was not just for show um that
38:08 that input was to be taken seriously and
38:11 if there is an inconsistency that we
38:13 need to address um exactly how that
38:15 would be reflected in the decision that
38:17 staff would be making Lucy can you go
38:19 back to the last slide sure please would
38:21 you on the record I really think this
38:24 would be helpful if we get this would
38:26 you def the difference between a public
38:29 meeting and a public
38:35 hearing well I'm not sure that the
38:37 experience is any different um it's uh
38:41 we're having to provide notice uh we're
38:43 taking testimony people are signing up
38:46 um there's a certain formality that
38:48 comes with a public hearing uh the
38:50 record is the
38:51 same
38:55 um I I I guess if
38:58 what I think especially members of the
39:01 public need to understand is what you
39:05 know what are what is the distinction
39:07 between a hearing and a meeting and if
39:09 if there isn't
39:11 one uh there's a level well I'll tell
39:15 one of the differences be whether it's
39:16 quasi judicial or not yes yes it that's
39:21 why a public hearing is required is
39:23 because it's quasi judicial and you
39:25 would have to publish it in the
39:26 newspaper and and we wouldn't be
39:28 publishing this in the newspaper but
39:30 we're publish we're posting we're
39:32 thinking that we would use the same
39:35 level of notice which is uh you know
39:38 posting the site putting it on our
39:39 website mailing out to adjacent Property
39:41 Owners uh so there's not an intent to
39:45 have less notice but the but the point
39:48 is that the public hearing is a quasi
39:49 judicial yes hearing that requires a a
39:53 bit more recordkeeping and a slight
39:56 difference in process but the point is
39:58 it's a quasi judicial which meetings
40:01 that are not can be addressed with a
40:03 public meeting for input yes
40:10 okay proposed
40:13 edits any
40:16 questions
40:19 okay
40:20 views
40:22 um it would be a lot easier if we all
40:24 went out and walked the site together
40:27 it's very hard to uh try and capture
40:29 this in pictures
40:31 um uh one of the things you know that
40:34 was apparent was um that there are many
40:37 spots along Lake Drive where you can um
40:42 see mountains and hillsides but they're
40:45 peek-aboo there's not uh really long
40:48 great
40:49 Vistas um many of those views are over
40:54 parking lots uh over what are currently
40:57 parking
40:59 lots um in terms of street views there's
41:03 not much um there uh for instance I
41:06 included this one simply because I think
41:08 it's um quite typical of the views down
41:11 a street where it ends in um a verdant
41:15 area uh landscape uh where and one of
41:19 the places where you do have some view
41:22 is uh at the very end of Lake Drive
41:25 where you can see to the mountain ACR
41:27 cross I90 um and I just included this
41:30 picture of 12th Avenue Northwest because
41:32 it's it's always one of the things I
41:33 think about when we talk about you know
41:36 mountains or Hills at the end of uh
41:39 streets that when you have a very
41:41 straight Street like 12th Avenue
41:43 Northwest um you really do see how the
41:46 axial view Works um and that with the
41:49 curbal linear street it's more of a
41:53 challenge um so views um very important
41:57 part of central isqua along with several
42:00 other goals um increasing density using
42:03 land efficiently being more pedestrian
42:06 oriented um and significantly reducing
42:09 reducing surface parking and in light of
42:12 those goals as well as the emphasis that
42:15 the city makes on preserving and um
42:19 increasing the number of trees um in
42:22 combination with the curv existing
42:24 curval linear Street system it makes it
42:26 pretty challenging to have very many
42:29 views um in there so that as we achieve
42:32 the
42:33 priorities of Central isqua in Pickering
42:36 place a lot of the views are going to
42:38 disappear because we're using those
42:40 parking lots where we're currently
42:42 getting views that's those are the
42:43 building pads of these future buildings
42:46 some of views will remain um one of
42:49 those is the one that I just mentioned
42:51 that's at the end of Lake Drive um which
42:53 is this one um however one of the things
42:57 I noticed um in looking out over these
43:00 um parking lots to the east and west is
43:03 that you um that where we are requiring
43:06 those pedestrian connections between
43:08 Lake Drive and either the pond Trail or
43:10 Pickering trail that there will be
43:12 opportunities to orient and site those
43:15 trails to take advantage of um the views
43:18 that are existing right
43:21 now and I zo tight uh and then to get to
43:26 um Ray's question uh one of the things
43:29 that I um was looking at more closely
43:32 was uh the existing skybridge between
43:35 buildings uh one and two I wasn't really
43:38 looking at it for the skybridge I was
43:39 looking at it more uh for uh views and
43:43 how they were framed in thinking about
43:45 these pedestrian routs and what you see
43:49 is um so this is the same map I was
43:51 using for all the rest of them this is
43:52 the orientation of the view and these
43:54 dots kind of represent each of these
43:56 five um pictures that as you start out
44:00 here um which is you know maybe 50 feet
44:04 away from the
44:06 skybridge um you can see under the
44:08 skybridge this um but you don't really
44:11 have a sense of the view but even um as
44:15 close as here um you're already getting
44:17 a sense of the treed hillside um then
44:20 when you're almost under the skybridge
44:22 it opens up again and then obviously
44:25 once you're under the skybridge and
44:26 moving towards the pond it really opens
44:29 up now um so that one thing that
44:32 indicates is how valuable the pond is in
44:34 terms of um maybe preserving access to
44:37 views um but one thing we do have to
44:40 keep in mind is that as Pickering place
44:43 redevelops and taller buildings are
44:45 built those views um may be hopefully
44:50 framed um for instance uh there are
44:54 certain corridors uh over here that um
44:58 are in between buildings and so those
45:00 May maintain certain view corridors
45:03 across the
45:11 pond on the third photograph there uh
45:13 Lucy yes um what percentage of glass is
45:17 that skybridge do you
45:19 know I don't I I my guess is that that
45:23 pedestrian bridge probably isn't 70% but
45:26 I I haven't really studied it very
45:29 closely okay yeah all right thank you
45:31 and and I would just note with a little
45:34 irony that uh that we had an excellent
45:37 class this year on the law for all
45:41 members of all the commissions in the
45:43 boards and one of the things that struck
45:45 me in that was that we were advised not
45:48 to visit properties before meetings
45:51 which I found and continue to find a
45:54 little strange but that was the advice
45:57 that we
45:58 got right and you know I um just to
46:02 touch on that um I think the concern is
46:05 that with uh it begins to tread on the
46:08 line of are you doing your own research
46:10 separate from staff um if there W just
46:14 to uh let the commission know if there
46:16 was a situation in which we felt that
46:20 visiting the site would be really
46:22 important and successful we could do
46:23 that as a group um and that would be and
46:26 it would be a public meeting and
46:27 everyone could come along and everyone
46:29 could see the same things and hear the
46:31 conversation and all of that so it's not
46:33 that those visits are um out of bounds
46:36 it's just uh not on your own but yes
46:39 it's hard when we're dealing with things
46:41 like
46:43 this
46:50 um would you like me to go to the next
46:52 slide Mel
46:57 well um oh so right now
47:00 um uh there is a through we we've added
47:04 a condition to recognize that um these
47:08 through block passages that we had um
47:11 conditioned under um con the land plan
47:15 condition number one uh had this um sort
47:18 of opportunity to um take advantage of
47:22 the views and Vistas that exist and so
47:24 the last sentence that's underlined
47:26 there
47:27 has been added to capture
47:31 that
47:33 um which says through block passages
47:35 will be cited and oriented to take
47:37 advantage of views and vistas of treed
47:39 hillsides and mountains as envisioned by
47:42 um CDs acknowledging proposed building
47:45 placement and size as shown in the land
47:48 plan so the intent of that is that the
47:51 buildings um as shown um are being
47:55 recommended by staff as meeting the
47:58 requirements of central issaqua um but
48:00 that these Pathways these East West
48:03 Pathways that um are being required
48:05 would be the opportunity to um maintain
48:09 access to views um as much as we
48:12 can and East West is where we're seeing
48:14 most of the opportunities right
48:22 now do you want to you want me to do it
48:24 yeah well um would you like to start I'm
48:28 happy to start it's really up to
48:30 you your choice okay why don't you go
48:34 first I think I think you should be able
48:35 to say it in your own words not happy um
48:37 well this this is U something I put
48:40 together because U the photos I wasn't
48:44 there was one view that I didn't think
48:46 was captured well enough um and I
48:49 thought the staff did a great job
48:50 providing lots of of viewpoints for us
48:52 to look at but in the upper left corner
48:58 um the the arrow looking down is where
49:01 the view is Down Below on the left
49:04 side so that's a view of squawk Mountain
49:07 looking South at about where the corner
49:10 of the Trade building is right now um
49:13 and I think about the location where
49:15 that skybridge would be so uh so you
49:19 were um you were standing about here is
49:22 that what you're correct okay correct
49:24 although I think if you were are were
49:26 you at the South end or the North End of
49:27 the Trade building South End okay yeah
49:30 that would be about right about where
49:31 that crosswalk is so the
49:34 um just as background again I I served
49:37 on the central oqua plan task force and
49:41 through all the meetings we had one of
49:43 the most important things was not losing
49:45 views of the isqua Alps a big change we
49:48 made in the cids or in the the plan was
49:52 to allow much taller buildings one of
49:55 the concerns people had was will this
49:57 block views part of the idea was we'll
49:59 do whatever we can to preserve views and
50:03 I felt as I mentioned last meeting a
50:05 concern about the East End of or the the
50:09 south west end of building four
50:11 extending into the view quor to squawk
50:15 Mountain where Lucy
50:17 showing what was there what I would like
50:20 to see it over here is
50:25 that remove that Southeast corner of
50:28 building
50:29 4 southwest corner of building 4 to
50:32 preserve that view cord or open up and
50:35 in exchange expand the east side of
50:38 building five to make it curval linear
50:41 with the street to make up for space
50:44 this would we would lose a pedestrian
50:46 Plaza at building five but we would gain
50:48 a larger pedestrian Plaza at building
50:50 four and maintain the views of squawk
50:53 Mountain one of the few places where we
50:54 would I think be able to maintain a good
50:57 view of one of isquat isqua's
51:04 treasures um so so Mel was kind enough
51:08 to send this to me this afternoon so I
51:10 had an opportunity to speak with him and
51:12 to um put this slide together and and
51:16 think about some of the points that he
51:17 was Raising
51:20 um uh one of the points uh one of the
51:24 challenges we've faced in having this
51:26 discussion is that the central isqua
51:28 standards um say that you shall provide
51:32 um building 60 ft back from an
51:34 intersection so uh part of the reason
51:38 that we had highlighted this corner was
51:41 uh or this little box Edition here was
51:45 that you
51:46 know the standards would say 60 feet
51:48 back from this point we should be
51:50 providing Street wall um in thinking
51:54 about the um
51:56 well so that's a shall and one of the uh
52:00 other realizations was that as I
52:03 provided the um primary standard around
52:06 views and Vistas it's a should um so um
52:11 there's this um sort of
52:15 uh potentially different prioritization
52:18 that the code has um and in talking with
52:21 Mel U that was inconsistent with his
52:24 memory and is the way the code was
52:27 written um but in thinking about that it
52:30 seemed that um one of the things that
52:34 the photo in the lower left Illustrated
52:36 was you know these trees are probably 30
52:38 or 35 feet tall and that um in terms of
52:43 providing Street wall if this uh
52:47 addition was say one or two stories tall
52:50 it might be 24t tall and would be no
52:53 higher than the trees and that you know
52:55 trees keep growing so even at 24 ft it's
52:58 not that much so you could potentially
53:00 imagine this uh little box here um you
53:05 know potentially extending out like this
53:07 and you're still seeing over it um to
53:10 the mountain Beyond and you get a sense
53:13 of that the reason the lower right hand
53:16 photo is here is um that uh this was one
53:20 of the photos I took as I walked along
53:22 Lake Drive and you can see that this is
53:24 a three-story building with a hipped
53:26 roof and above that is you can still see
53:29 the mountains so that if it was only a
53:31 two-story building you get a sense of
53:34 how much you still might see over that
53:35 building and so you would meet both the
53:38 priority to access the views and um the
53:43 priority the requirement to have
53:46 buildings right at the street
53:54 corner just a initial reaction to Mel's
53:58 proposal I I think that's a pretty good
54:01 idea you know as you're driving South on
54:03 Lake Drive you pass the sky bridge if
54:06 there's a sky
54:08 bridge and which I'm hoping that the
54:11 glass area would would be increased
54:13 rather than just 70% you know would
54:16 increase it to 80 or 90% And you drive
54:19 through South past the sky bridge and
54:21 then you open up yourself into this
54:24 intersection
54:26 um with no buildings in there and you
54:29 see squawk
54:31 Mountain I I I think that's a good
54:34 idea um and then in return you have that
54:38 we're losing that um the building five
54:42 expanding to the
54:44 street um well I think the challenge
54:47 with that is that there is a requirement
54:49 that the community space be located
54:51 along the
54:52 street and so along the street
55:03 yeah let let me uh let me see if we can
55:07 if with the commission's approval uh
55:09 we're going to have the opportunity to
55:11 make recommendations later this this
55:13 section is probably more productively
55:16 used if we just get
55:18 clarifications and hold our
55:20 recommendations until until later so if
55:22 that's is that our all right I mean this
55:25 is this is this this is a presentation I
55:27 don't view that as a recommendation but
55:29 this is a this is different from this
55:31 needs to be uh we need to be aware of
55:34 this now but we'll have the opportunity
55:36 later uh collectively to make our
55:39 recommendations and and you bet findings
55:43 and one thing I will add that that one
55:45 thing that that came up was the idea
55:48 that part of the issue here is where
55:50 where the street curves to the
55:52 Southwest you lose that opportunity if
55:55 Lake Drive continu straight
55:57 South and connected in and teed in at a
56:01 90° angle to the
56:03 street um and so that your roundabout
56:06 was at a 90 Dee angle on both sides you
56:09 would preserve that view of squawk
56:11 mountain and could still bring the
56:13 buildings up to the street corner and
56:16 still have the view of squawk Mountain
56:18 so that may be another possibility to
56:20 address
56:22 it Mel is that and maybe this is General
56:26 is the roundabout going to be moved
56:29 there is no roundabout there now is okay
56:32 so this uh roundabout that's shown here
56:36 I know it's grade back which generally
56:38 on everything else means that it's
56:40 existing but this isn't part I think the
56:42 reason that um it was shown that way is
56:45 it's not part of Costco's construction
56:47 plan it's a part of the mtfa oh so the
56:50 city would be building that okay um so
56:53 it doesn't exist now
56:56 um and um you know uh it's it's an
57:01 intriguing idea that um Mel brings up uh
57:04 there are some challenges uh with that
57:07 and you know we can talk about those
57:09 later when we get into discussing um
57:12 recommendations or um
57:17 considerations I think that's the end of
57:19 my presentation unless there's anything
57:25 else on the uh in the handout there was
57:28 a seven traffic mitigation cost future
57:31 trips that you didn't talk about some of
57:34 those seemed really straightforward to
57:35 me so if it doesn't seem straightforward
57:37 to you I'm happy to talk my way through
57:39 it the only question I had was and I
57:42 read it I didn't know if it it it was a
57:44 little confusing to me it's a recent
57:45 change the project limits and Costco's
57:48 commitment to increase the cap on their
57:51 participation to $51
57:53 million yep
57:56 so um then it says Costco is committing
57:58 to pay 48% of the $51
58:03 million and it their share of the 51
58:06 million so um
58:08 yeah first thing say was going to
58:10 increase their participation to $51
58:12 million sounded like they were
58:16 GNA their amount of
58:18 money uh let me and and and we would be
58:21 happy with
58:23 that so um
58:31 it may just be the way it's worded in
58:32 this comment no it it's it's not um and
58:36 you know you're paying a lot of
58:37 attention
58:39 Carl so that's good um originally the
58:45 mtfa um not only provided this Crossing
58:49 um to the roundabout um and then it
58:52 covered about to here and you can see
58:55 that in that sort of uh the way the
58:57 roads are shown that's shown a little um
58:59 darker um in discussing uh with Costco
59:03 as uh you know how it would work and how
59:06 the improvements would be phased in and
59:09 what happens where you have existing
59:11 buildings and there no changes being
59:12 built how do the bike lanes and the all
59:15 the other different street uh elements
59:17 of the street section that aren't
59:18 currently present how would they be
59:20 built um it was uh in in those
59:24 discussions it was determined that the m
59:26 TFA will actually go all the way up here
59:29 10th uh and all of this would be built
59:32 at one time so obviously there's an
59:36 increased cost to that so the project
59:39 scope the length and the total amount
59:42 increased the percentages didn't change
59:45 but the amounts that both the city and
59:48 um Costco are putting into it went up
59:51 because the project scope went up
1:00:00 I'm GNA let it go because I'm
1:00:03 confused Lucy I think what he's
1:00:05 referring to is that the text actually
1:00:07 says Costco's commitment to increase the
1:00:10 cap on their participation to $51
1:00:13 million but they're not committing to 51
1:00:16 million correct
1:00:19 yes right thank you
1:00:26 um actually I had uh I have some other
1:00:29 questions on things that have not been
1:00:31 brought up in the parking lot but what
1:00:33 I'd like to do is wait until the public
1:00:37 uh if there are any members of the
1:00:38 public that wish to speak give them the
1:00:40 opportunity to do so and then if my
1:00:43 questions are are not uh addressed we'll
1:00:47 bring it up in the in the individual
1:00:49 rounds so if there are any further I do
1:00:53 I do have one request Mel would you go
1:00:55 over once more what you're suggesting
1:00:59 just so I get a better understanding of
1:01:02 it I'm still trying to catch up here so
1:01:04 could I ask you to do that please sure
1:01:06 so I think two options one would be in
1:01:10 the upper leftand
1:01:12 corner would be pulling back the
1:01:15 Southwest I wrote Southeast there but
1:01:17 it's southwest corner a building
1:01:20 four and in exchange expanding the east
1:01:24 side of building five
1:01:26 to make it curval linear as building six
1:01:29 is is shown in the center to make it
1:01:33 bring that street wall up to the
1:01:36 sidewalk and in essence create a larger
1:01:39 pedestrian Plaza at the corner building
1:01:42 four now if they wanted to take that
1:01:45 building for area and move it over to
1:01:47 there that would make sense as well but
1:01:50 the main purpose being to open open up
1:01:53 the view of squawk Mountain another
1:01:55 possibility is if Lake Drive could be
1:01:57 made north south there at that point
1:02:01 instead of
1:02:02 curving uh then you could bring the
1:02:05 buildings up and still maintain that
1:02:06 same view of squawk
1:02:08 Mountain okay thank you you're
1:02:13 welcome are there any other uh
1:02:16 clarifications to sought at this point
1:02:18 by members of the commission if not uh
1:02:21 we will open the meeting to any member
1:02:24 of the public and
1:02:26 again uh the applicant has no desire to
1:02:30 address anything at this point all right
1:02:33 fine are there members of the public
1:02:35 that wish to
1:02:44 speak good evening David kapler 255
1:02:47 Southeast Andrea Street um almost all
1:02:50 the all the pictures basically of uh
1:02:53 views have been uh with deciduous trees
1:02:55 in Full full Leaf so uh there are some
1:02:58 different views that potential um this
1:03:02 summer I led um kind of joined in with
1:03:04 some PE teachers that were offering
1:03:06 summer classes for high school students
1:03:09 because of the jam schedules a lot of
1:03:11 high school kids have and we were up on
1:03:13 squawk and we went across the whole we
1:03:16 did 11 and a half miles on on squawk but
1:03:18 uh I said you know when you're at Costco
1:03:21 next time you're at Costco look up at
1:03:22 squawk and you'll see where we went
1:03:24 Central Peak West Peak and all of that
1:03:26 and you'll should remember this 11 and a
1:03:28 half mile Adventure so um that view of
1:03:31 squawk is pretty special and U we'll
1:03:34 become more special as that mountain is
1:03:37 discovered when we went through the
1:03:39 central isqua plan process there were a
1:03:43 few things to to buy to buy off the
1:03:46 public and sell the the whole concept
1:03:51 because people were very skeptical about
1:03:53 H adding this much
1:03:56 of population this much retail this much
1:03:59 office the whole bit um how is it going
1:04:02 to work well there was going to be work
1:04:05 people were going to work they were
1:04:07 going to play they were going to shop
1:04:09 they were going to live in central isqua
1:04:11 plan and we're diverting off this that
1:04:15 quite a bit with this Costco proposal in
1:04:18 terms of the uh the the live part yes
1:04:22 there was some shopping um the play
1:04:24 aspect really really gets to me is that
1:04:27 the Costco site is a major Corridor
1:04:31 especially over time to the state park
1:04:34 if you're in downtown isqua here yeah if
1:04:37 you want to go to the boat launch you'll
1:04:39 take the East Lake suami Trail and be a
1:04:42 noisy Trail along major roads the whole
1:04:46 practically um if you're interested in
1:04:48 going to the rest of the Park yeah you
1:04:50 can go around the um West End at 9900 or
1:04:56 you this Corridor the Pickering trail
1:04:59 part of the East Lake Mami Trail where
1:05:01 it's quieter than the Pickering Trail
1:05:04 and then you get to underneath the
1:05:05 bridge which hopefully will deal with
1:05:07 the odors and you can be right there at
1:05:10 the state park and so that's a major
1:05:13 Corridor through the Costco area for
1:05:15 people going there especially when we
1:05:17 get lifeguards at the state park and
1:05:20 some of those other improvements we will
1:05:21 see more movement of people hopefully by
1:05:25 foot and by bike to the state park and
1:05:27 we need to make sure that that that
1:05:30 works through the Costco
1:05:32 area um I guess those are the the main
1:05:37 aspects of where I'm going on this but
1:05:39 uh um we're doing a lot we got to just
1:05:43 look at that site as how it fits into
1:05:45 the whole Central isqua area and it's an
1:05:50 important part of that thank
1:05:53 you thank you sir is there anyone
1:06:08 else hi again y'all my name is Connie
1:06:12 Marsh I have a store at 1175 Northwest
1:06:14 Gilman Boulevard and also live in town
1:06:16 on squawk which looks great from a
1:06:18 distance doesn't it
1:06:21 so it's fun to listen to development
1:06:25 Comm commission have suggestions it's
1:06:28 not so fun to listen to
1:06:32 staff push back all the time and so you
1:06:35 guys have put in a lot of comments and
1:06:37 you've gotten a lot of Nos and one of
1:06:39 the few things development commission
1:06:41 has is the ability to approve and not
1:06:45 approve and that's actually a huge thing
1:06:47 when you're looking at uh a staff
1:06:50 wanting to make changes for you because
1:06:54 if they don't have to and it makes life
1:06:57 easier it's much harder to make changes
1:07:00 because they've always put a lot of time
1:07:02 and energy into it sort of the natural
1:07:04 human state so I would be really
1:07:07 reluctant to give up the teeny tiny
1:07:10 review process that you have left in the
1:07:13 Central isqua Area because you you had
1:07:16 so much and then the central isqua plan
1:07:19 area gave you only enormous buildings to
1:07:21 review and this is even taking that away
1:07:25 even while Costco doesn't have to adhere
1:07:28 to the central isqua plan in many ways
1:07:33 and it just seems
1:07:34 incautious to let them have this for 30
1:07:38 years with so little review when it is a
1:07:42 plan that we have never even used before
1:07:45 and I just think it's if I think you
1:07:47 need to say no I realize they're trying
1:07:50 to make you feel like they will listen
1:07:53 and they will change things I just don't
1:07:55 think it's within human nature to have
1:07:57 it be the same I also know having gone
1:08:00 to community conferences that it's never
1:08:02 a complete thing there's always things
1:08:04 left out and I don't really understand
1:08:06 how it can be early yet the same full
1:08:10 submitt without the staff already being
1:08:13 invested in what they're proposing so
1:08:17 that's probably enough
1:08:18 about that um lack of connection to the
1:08:22 state park did you get my video
1:08:29 okay I made a video and asked for it to
1:08:31 be sent to you before tonight's
1:08:33 meeting guess you didn't get
1:08:37 um the it
1:08:39 is unclear how the common spaces are
1:08:42 going to continue into the future from
1:08:45 the Pickering Master site
1:08:48 uh because those are things like the
1:08:51 amphitheater I think they discussed
1:08:53 track day and I think they discussed the
1:08:54 stormw waterer on but there's other
1:08:56 little common space areas in there that
1:08:58 actually create some of the amenities
1:09:00 that Costco will use and we've discussed
1:09:02 and they've shown pictures of but
1:09:04 there's no real understanding or
1:09:06 criteria that those must remain um when
1:09:10 and if they dissolve the ccnr or change
1:09:13 the ccnr and so I'm a little reluctant
1:09:15 to to say that the ccnr can be changed
1:09:19 without some idea of what must remain
1:09:22 and the city has just said they need to
1:09:23 approve they don't say what they need to
1:09:26 agree with I think that needs
1:09:28 criteria um I already went through that
1:09:31 okay the PED connections I went and
1:09:33 walked and my understanding is this
1:09:35 isn't quasi judicial so you could go and
1:09:38 walk because this is a legislative
1:09:39 action but maybe I'm wrong uh ped
1:09:43 Connections in the CIP actually say 250
1:09:47 ft and um nowhere does it say that the
1:09:52 250 ft can be met by going through a
1:09:57 private
1:09:58 building because all of these P
1:10:01 connections are part of the green
1:10:02 necklace which is a very public grid
1:10:05 that was overlaid on the central isqua
1:10:07 plan to ensure that this is a public
1:10:09 benefit even with the growth so having
1:10:13 looked for shells and shs and looked
1:10:17 through the entire construct of that I
1:10:19 don't see where going through their
1:10:21 private buildings is uh actually
1:10:26 allowed and B should be allowed because
1:10:30 they do get some flexibility to do what
1:10:32 you want them to no matter what the tier
1:10:35 structure
1:10:36 is um now it also says that the
1:10:42 pedestrian grid is supposed to be
1:10:45 friendly and so in all of this I never
1:10:47 saw how we were getting across the
1:10:49 street because it's not easy to get from
1:10:52 the Costco store over to the other side
1:10:54 of the road
1:10:55 um as we all know if you've ever been to
1:10:57 Pickering barn and tried to go to Costco
1:11:00 it's really hard to get off across
1:11:02 Southeast 56 which is supposed to be a
1:11:05 pedestrian linkage across that's
1:11:07 supposed to be part of the central isqua
1:11:09 plan I don't understand
1:11:16 how P pedestrians are going to be using
1:11:21 that I am not clear how they're going to
1:11:23 be getting across from dar Park ducking
1:11:26 under the roundabout and going north on
1:11:28 the Pickering Trail in a way that feels
1:11:31 safe and friendly because they seem to
1:11:32 be having go underneath um the roadway
1:11:35 which is again a dark bridy type of an
1:11:38 area so I don't feel again the joy of
1:11:41 The Pedestrian connections need short
1:11:44 beautiful grid system and you do need
1:11:46 the views and one thing they haven't
1:11:48 talked about is uh part of the view
1:11:50 corridor from my understanding is that
1:11:52 when you in the buildings even four
1:11:54 floors up you you should be trying to
1:11:56 protect the best possible views for all
1:11:59 of the buildings which make your
1:12:00 buildings uh better for the people who
1:12:04 are in the buildings and their resale
1:12:06 value blah blah blah just to pay
1:12:07 attention to to it
1:12:10 um okay one last thing
1:12:15 about uh administrative adjustments in
1:12:17 the central isqua plan there's a lot of
1:12:20 ways to do that in the CIP but the staff
1:12:23 does need to go through
1:12:25 an argument of how this is in keeping or
1:12:29 better than the central isquat
1:12:32 plan guidelines that's really loose but
1:12:36 when you see shs and shoulds and then
1:12:38 you look at the vision statements and
1:12:40 they're all little contradictory there
1:12:42 are tools in there to change all of
1:12:44 those things so I would hesitate in
1:12:46 letting uh anyone tell you that one is
1:12:50 strictly above another because there is
1:12:52 a shall if the VIS language guides it
1:12:56 you can probably make the argument that
1:12:58 it is
1:13:00 possible um you guys should have gotten
1:13:02 two different very long excruciating
1:13:05 emails from me and a video so one last
1:13:10 thing I know I'm going on endlessly um
1:13:14 you don't have the last draft of the
1:13:15 development agreement and so they're
1:13:18 asking you to make a vote as if this is
1:13:20 a near final draft or something like
1:13:23 that they are expecting a next draft
1:13:25 have to come out after this vote is
1:13:26 already taken saying that you uh have
1:13:29 have reviewed and are pushing this
1:13:32 forward uh but you haven't even seen
1:13:35 what they know to be is going to be the
1:13:36 next draft which is unlikely to even be
1:13:39 the final draft so I would also hesitate
1:13:41 in saying that you approve of anything
1:13:44 that you haven't read yet thanks
1:13:58 good evening my name is Jim sers and I'm
1:14:01 the owner of Pickering Square I
1:14:03 represent 13
1:14:05 retailers out of the 24 including Costco
1:14:08 and all of Popa Pickering Place Owners
1:14:13 Association myself and Lowe's represent
1:14:16 two permanent board seats on the Popa
1:14:20 and the other board seat other than
1:14:22 Costco is
1:14:23 represented by what is known as the
1:14:25 lower retail which is all the other 50%
1:14:29 of the
1:14:30 retail other than being lows is all the
1:14:34 guys down by the theater Big Lots you're
1:14:37 all familiar with that area so that
1:14:39 group is the lower retail and they're
1:14:42 represented by Greg who is
1:14:44 here now let me give you a couple little
1:14:48 facts there are
1:14:51 24 retail operations in Pickering place
1:14:55 including Costco's retail
1:14:57 store Costco has uh in that 13 of them
1:15:02 half of them over half are little and
1:15:04 small big tenants in my
1:15:06 center and the office part of this whole
1:15:09 thing of Popa is actually a rather small
1:15:12 part but is going to be the greatest
1:15:15 impact of all with millions of square
1:15:17 feet possibly going up Pickering place
1:15:20 was designed to be a friendly
1:15:23 environmentally well-conceived it's one
1:15:25 of the most iconic shopping areas in the
1:15:27 state of Washington find me a better
1:15:29 place that looks as nice with trees
1:15:32 waterways Public Access you won't find
1:15:36 it now I represent myself and my 13
1:15:41 owners who I've talked or rent tenants
1:15:42 and I've talked to all of them and we're
1:15:45 very much in agreement all the way from
1:15:46 PCC to our smallest
1:15:49 restaurant we have the most biggest
1:15:51 concern and I think it was expressed at
1:15:54 the staff's invitation which we
1:15:57 appreciate very much Lucy and I think it
1:16:00 was a productive meeting there's
1:16:02 potential of 12 people that could have
1:16:04 showed up we had
1:16:05 five and I
1:16:07 think it came away Lucy didn't really
1:16:10 tell you what I think the real and you
1:16:13 can correct me if I'm wrong but the
1:16:15 biggest thing was about parking parking
1:16:18 and parking park where you shop park
1:16:22 where you work stay off of your neighbor
1:16:25 parking because there is no public
1:16:27 parking
1:16:29 and designed responsibly where you can
1:16:33 keep those employees where they're not
1:16:35 tempted to walk across the street and go
1:16:38 onto the Red Robin near or Lowe's Lowe's
1:16:41 this week has brand new signs up and
1:16:44 I've talked to Lowe's this week they got
1:16:46 brand new signs up and it specifically
1:16:47 says no Costco corporate
1:16:50 parking the Steins are still over in the
1:16:53 other areas even with the new parking
1:16:55 garage now we all agreed all of us
1:16:59 agreed to have that critical Wetland
1:17:02 area removed because it was going to
1:17:04 create Costco more parking which they
1:17:06 needed because they were all over us
1:17:09 most of us were not aware that they plan
1:17:12 to build a remote parking garage further
1:17:15 away than our parking lots with people
1:17:18 still parking we've got security cameras
1:17:20 up showing Costco people and Costco's
1:17:22 tried very hard we got a written
1:17:24 agreement that they would Patrol
1:17:26 employees parking on other people's
1:17:29 property because that was not their
1:17:32 policy and only about three or four
1:17:34 weeks ago according to them they changed
1:17:36 their policy where you were allowed to
1:17:38 park on site because you were forbidden
1:17:41 before but is this convenience of the
1:17:43 approval we don't know but they have
1:17:45 tried to Monitor and run people
1:17:48 off but you know it's like holding water
1:17:51 Upstream you either contain it at the
1:17:53 dam at the source
1:17:55 because once it gets down the river
1:17:56 you're not going to control it and
1:17:57 people will park where it's most
1:17:59 convenient
1:18:01 Costco has
1:18:03 the approval I believe of me and most of
1:18:08 the other owners in there and I'm not
1:18:09 speaking for them that we would like
1:18:12 them to build their corporate
1:18:13 headquarters we love
1:18:16 it we also really appreciate what you
1:18:19 guys have done and staff in developing a
1:18:22 future plan for the city
1:18:25 we think I think and I've got years of
1:18:27 experience in development I think your
1:18:31 vision for the city is quite good it's
1:18:33 going to be a lot of work to implement
1:18:35 it and you guys have got a big job
1:18:38 watching all the details and not taking
1:18:40 too big of a hurry and keeping your
1:18:42 Authority all the way
1:18:46 through I think the problem with Costco
1:18:50 is they're trying to get it done cheap
1:18:52 and at a discount they're trying to
1:18:54 build build a parking garage and if any
1:18:56 of you seen it the one they did and if
1:18:59 we'd ever run it through our
1:19:00 architectural control committee which
1:19:02 doesn't really exist on paper it exists
1:19:05 with three Costco people on it but it
1:19:08 had to be appointed by the board board
1:19:10 hasn't meet met in 12 years because
1:19:13 normally we do everything in an annual
1:19:14 meeting approve the grass cutting and
1:19:17 all that stuff and I know because I'm a
1:19:19 board member and the other two board
1:19:21 members Lowe's and Greg who runs the
1:19:23 lower retail
1:19:25 because we have never been to a board
1:19:26 meeting so we don't think there's an
1:19:28 Architectural Review even inside of our
1:19:31 own deal so that garage they got right
1:19:33 now never pass
1:19:35 mustard it would have never passed it
1:19:38 looks like Costco shelving inside one of
1:19:41 their
1:19:42 warehouses fortunately it's surrounded
1:19:44 by a lot of
1:19:45 trees now if this is their plan to
1:19:48 remote park farther away than where
1:19:50 people are working and shopping and my
1:19:53 parking lots across the street it's
1:19:55 never going to work we believe that with
1:19:58 a good architect and good design working
1:20:01 with staff they can generate that
1:20:03 parking like structural parking not down
1:20:06 the way but at their retail store like
1:20:08 they do in other locations anywhere from
1:20:10 Iowa to San Francisco to other
1:20:13 places and Costco's had a notorious
1:20:16 problem because they generate wonderful
1:20:19 traffic and customers people spend a
1:20:22 long time in the store because that's
1:20:24 how I spend a fortune at that store
1:20:27 every year you know I mean it's I love
1:20:30 the store but the problem is it can
1:20:33 cause
1:20:34 problems and it can be solved if they
1:20:37 generate that parking on site for the
1:20:40 retail and they responsibly put their
1:20:43 parking at the office
1:20:45 locations there are three
1:20:48 things that still have to happen for
1:20:50 Costco to get their dream one is your
1:20:53 city approval which you're going through
1:20:56 and I think staff has been thorough
1:20:59 Costco's been vague and you guys have
1:21:01 asked a lot of good questions that you
1:21:03 really haven't got all the answers and
1:21:05 you're being asked to leave your
1:21:08 Authority off in the wind and really not
1:21:11 be able to have the last detail on
1:21:13 everything but that's only one part of
1:21:16 process the city in
1:21:18 Costco and we have legal opinions
1:21:22 now cannot make an agreement just with
1:21:25 Costco the city made a contract with
1:21:28 Popa which Costco is only half
1:21:31 of and you can't cut a deal with them
1:21:35 and cut us out you have to make a deal
1:21:38 where we decide inside of PPA that we
1:21:41 agree and I think if we are made part of
1:21:45 the process we can make that happen but
1:21:48 we will stop the cities signing an
1:21:51 agreement with Costco on the basis of
1:21:54 unless you receive an agreement with our
1:21:57 Corporation
1:21:58 Popa that's just one thing inside of our
1:22:02 CC andrs there are many different
1:22:06 Provisions one of them for the kind of
1:22:09 thing they're doing almost any single
1:22:13 owner can cause a
1:22:15 veto then there's other
1:22:17 Provisions with a with a more less
1:22:20 stringent vote more strict vote rather
1:22:23 they can stop top Costco in height and
1:22:26 other
1:22:27 uses so it's kind of okay they run you
1:22:31 through the process and they've got a
1:22:34 general deal with you and the council
1:22:36 but now they got to get started with
1:22:38 us they only showed us stuff just a few
1:22:42 weeks ago with a meeting they invite us
1:22:45 to they've been having meetings and
1:22:47 detail meetings with the city well maybe
1:22:49 that's all right so they know where you
1:22:50 stand now they got to come talk to us
1:22:54 and Lucy heard it at the staff meeting
1:22:57 they called and again we do appreciate
1:22:58 that because we've never been asked to
1:23:01 talk to staff I mean we've never had our
1:23:03 own little
1:23:05 meeting and I think the biggest thing
1:23:07 you heard was parking parking parking
1:23:09 and do not violate your neighbor if you
1:23:11 go parking your car when you get home on
1:23:13 your neighbor's property I guess you get
1:23:16 upset or if he Parks his RV or his
1:23:20 trailer or his excess things or all of
1:23:22 his guests over in your lot you're going
1:23:24 to be
1:23:25 upset my retailers if they don't have
1:23:29 good parking and we've always had great
1:23:30 abundance of parking they don't have a
1:23:33 business you shop there at PCC or a Home
1:23:37 Depot Office Depot sorry and also the
1:23:40 restaurants because you can always get a
1:23:41 parking space but if you can't because
1:23:44 it's full of Costco employees not even
1:23:47 customers their business is
1:23:50 dead it's just common
1:23:52 logic so they're going to have to
1:23:55 convince the rest of us at Popa that
1:23:58 they can solve it and we want to see
1:24:00 specific architecture which we've never
1:24:02 seen we're just getting little glimpses
1:24:04 a very broad picture some of you have
1:24:07 even suggested well gee this is kind of
1:24:10 what does it really mean where are the
1:24:12 garages where do how many people are you
1:24:14 going to play how many people are you
1:24:16 going to stack in here that hasn't been
1:24:19 answered they're asking for a broad
1:24:20 brush and then they want to control a
1:24:22 development agreement and the other
1:24:25 thing that happened at the meeting and
1:24:27 Lucy can tell me if I'm wrong everybody
1:24:30 want to know what the rush was we're
1:24:32 just kind of really being informed of
1:24:34 this and we need to study it hard we
1:24:37 want to understand now there are also
1:24:40 some counterproposals going out here
1:24:42 that can make this happen very fast I on
1:24:45 my property would love to De Annex out
1:24:47 of the
1:24:49 PPA with Costco me and Lowe's we can
1:24:52 leave like that i' just be part of the
1:24:55 city I'm next to the holiday in tules
1:24:58 and you guys at City
1:25:00 Hall we could take our common area by
1:25:04 the way half of the common area is in
1:25:06 track a which is the most iconic
1:25:09 important area in the whole thing of
1:25:10 isqua because it borders the creek goes
1:25:13 from the highway up to the park that's
1:25:16 half of the common area well if all of
1:25:19 us in the in the lower retail Lowe's and
1:25:22 me said hey go you just do your own
1:25:25 thing you can have your common area
1:25:27 around your pond and you and the city
1:25:29 fight it out go to all public streets
1:25:33 and the rest of us will give you the
1:25:34 parkway or even put up a trust fund to
1:25:36 help clear the path
1:25:38 up because we also don't get to use that
1:25:42 our own common area around Costco like
1:25:44 we would and our
1:25:46 customers we regular retailers love the
1:25:50 public crawling all over us we don't
1:25:52 have membership cards to get into
1:25:55 PCC or into Office Depot or restaurants
1:25:59 and we like people flowing around we
1:26:01 want the public to flow over the whole
1:26:03 thing in fact we've even proposed some
1:26:06 of us to getting rid of our Popa all
1:26:10 together dedicate the main streets
1:26:12 already built all the common area around
1:26:14 the pond and all of that track to city
1:26:18 public property then you don't have to
1:26:20 worry about circulation because the city
1:26:22 owns it now maybe the city doesn't want
1:26:25 some of the burden of the pond
1:26:27 maintenance but it's a retention Pond
1:26:30 district and we could contribute
1:26:32 something every year and do a park fund
1:26:34 or put a taxation on us to do it the
1:26:37 isqua creek trail track a there's no
1:26:40 maintenance set you're not even supposed
1:26:41 to go off the brush it's a clean Trail
1:26:44 and it ought to belong to the public
1:26:46 right now because the way it's set up
1:26:50 technically it is private land
1:26:54 they could restrict the hours or
1:26:56 whatever and it shouldn't be that way
1:26:57 it's the most important connection as
1:26:59 some of you pointed out to the park back
1:27:03 downtown now I can understand why Costco
1:27:07 wants absolute control around that pond
1:27:09 because what they give you or tell you
1:27:12 is part of their neat open space for
1:27:16 their campus is really semi-public
1:27:21 semi-private that discussion came up
1:27:23 earlier well it ought to be just open to
1:27:25 the public period well that's kind of up
1:27:28 next to their office and maybe with
1:27:30 their kind of security they need that
1:27:32 well maybe they can keep their part of
1:27:35 the common area around that cut a deal
1:27:37 with the city but for the rest of us
1:27:40 what's wrong with track a just going to
1:27:42 the city that should not be restricted
1:27:44 at all and the roads that cross the last
1:27:47 connectors because the city already has
1:27:49 some down should just go to the public
1:27:54 we don't really need an architectural
1:27:57 review at
1:27:58 Popa we've got the city because what
1:28:02 Costco didn't do with their parking
1:28:04 garage because if we didn't like it we
1:28:06 only needed 75% vote of the remaining
1:28:10 half to defeat them starting
1:28:12 construction on it it got put up we
1:28:14 didn't notice it it's not going to
1:28:16 happen
1:28:17 again we don't want to do that we let
1:28:20 you decide on my property if if I over
1:28:24 time build Apartments which are
1:28:27 restricted in our ccnr there's no
1:28:30 housing allowed on this site so you talk
1:28:33 about your plan having balance of
1:28:35 housing retail and jobs Costco in most
1:28:38 cities be required to be putting lowcost
1:28:41 housing or some housing element with all
1:28:43 that and if you think you're going to
1:28:45 rely on the other side doing it which a
1:28:47 lot of owners over there would like to
1:28:49 do as Lucy and the planning staff knows
1:28:51 we've already
1:28:52 investigated as my leases come up we've
1:28:55 already talked to tenants how we could
1:28:57 rebuild do Residential then our retail
1:29:00 that we've got on the bottom but we've
1:29:02 got to contain all the parking in that
1:29:06 building you know we're not shifting it
1:29:08 off to remote site it's very expensive
1:29:11 to do that to make it look
1:29:14 good and Costco is getting by on the
1:29:16 cheap you can just put up a regular
1:29:19 stack Park you know like a park and ride
1:29:22 lot and not have any
1:29:25 housing or offices above it because that
1:29:28 requires a very expensive structure Life
1:29:31 Safety fire if you just have cars it's
1:29:34 easy and then you make your people walk
1:29:36 but they'll walk on to our Lots not go
1:29:39 to that so in just in kind of
1:29:43 recapping I can assure you that the
1:29:46 development agreement that we have with
1:29:48 the city we think Popa has lived up to
1:29:53 the commitment made years ago to the
1:29:54 city and build a pretty damn goodlook
1:29:57 project better than anything that you
1:30:00 can find anywhere it can be improved and
1:30:03 it can be densified we applaud Costco
1:30:06 for want to stay in isqua but you know
1:30:09 what they're not going to destroy the
1:30:11 other businesses in there and they've
1:30:13 got to come to us which they haven't
1:30:15 they thought it was easy because when we
1:30:18 did the Wetland we thought they were
1:30:19 solving a problem they didn't they put
1:30:21 the parking garage and they'd still
1:30:23 people come off it so now too many times
1:30:27 burned we if we have to stay as a Popa
1:30:30 with our
1:30:31 ccnr we're going to hold the city to the
1:30:34 fire on the development agreement we've
1:30:35 got they can always be amending it you
1:30:38 know with certain things like allowing
1:30:40 Costco to put their next building in but
1:30:42 there's certain things in that agreement
1:30:44 we like some of my tenants signed up for
1:30:47 40 years of leasing well before the 12
1:30:49 years I've owned it all right go you're
1:30:53 nice you let me more go more than 5
1:30:54 minutes that guy was tough on me so I'll
1:30:57 quit I think you've got the idea right
1:31:00 thank you sir thank
1:31:07 you I think at this point we will um go
1:31:13 back to the
1:31:14 commission and uh if there are further
1:31:19 clarifications that are desired by
1:31:21 individual Commissioners we can
1:31:24 certainly seek them if not then I think
1:31:27 we can go
1:31:29 uh understanding that if you have a
1:31:32 remaining uh uh request for
1:31:34 clarification you can do it but if not
1:31:36 let's just uh go right straight to the
1:31:39 observations uh before
1:31:42 we um get to the last
1:31:45 step Mr chair I've got one question sure
1:31:48 um when the
1:31:50 buildings so when the buildings is going
1:31:52 to be built 400,000 ft
1:31:55 building uh do fees still go to the city
1:31:59 for Parks police those kind of
1:32:03 things I and partly this comes from
1:32:05 thinking about extending
1:32:08 Trails where money might come from for
1:32:10 doing that down the road yes there would
1:32:11 be impact
1:32:12 fees yes impact fees would be paid okay
1:32:16 and those kind of fees could be used for
1:32:18 something like extending Trails yeah
1:32:21 yeah okay thank you
1:32:25 um I actually would like uh to get a as
1:32:30 succinct as you could make it but I'd
1:32:32 like to because the uh all obviously all
1:32:35 through this material that that I've
1:32:37 reviewed on my return there have been
1:32:39 frequent questions about the timeline
1:32:42 and about the compressed what is
1:32:45 perceived by many people including the
1:32:47 gentleman who just spoke as being a
1:32:49 compressed timeline and not
1:32:51 understanding why it has to be done that
1:32:54 way so if you can address that uh I I
1:32:57 think it would be
1:32:59 helpful
1:33:06 sure good evening development commission
1:33:09 Keith nian your economic development
1:33:10 director um so with all deference to Mr
1:33:13 sers he knows why the rush because we
1:33:15 talked about it very specifically at our
1:33:16 our meeting uh the city is guilty uh
1:33:20 guilty uh we are pushing the timeline um
1:33:23 the reason for that is um and if our
1:33:27 Public Works director was here he'd be
1:33:29 the one telling you why this is so
1:33:30 important um so the the Crux of this
1:33:34 development agreement we've we've gotten
1:33:36 into a lot of conversation about land
1:33:38 use and and that's all good and fine but
1:33:40 the real Pinnacle of this development
1:33:42 agreement is a partnership for building
1:33:44 roads and Costco as you've heard um they
1:33:49 are putting forward I'm just going to
1:33:50 use gross numbers so don't count me down
1:33:54 to the penny um so they're putting in
1:33:56 roughly $25 million and in in return for
1:34:00 that they want to make sure they can
1:34:01 build out 1.5 million square feet um the
1:34:05 city has committed itself to pay the
1:34:08 other half of that road project cost and
1:34:11 the way that we want to do that is we
1:34:13 want to do that in as smart a way as we
1:34:15 can which means uses somebody else's
1:34:17 money um and so really what's happening
1:34:21 is uh the city's already received some
1:34:24 money we received $5 million from the
1:34:26 Department of Commerce uh last year that
1:34:29 will be put towards the city's portion
1:34:31 of the cost of this project uh we
1:34:34 received another $3 million which is
1:34:36 being put towards the cost of the East
1:34:38 Lake samamish portion of the project and
1:34:41 the Public Works director has already
1:34:43 made an application to the
1:34:45 transportation Improvement board to um
1:34:48 get another approximately $10 million so
1:34:51 all of those things are in process proc
1:34:54 and the reason why the timing is so
1:34:56 important um is because um The Tib has
1:35:02 asked the city to basically prove that
1:35:04 this project is
1:35:06 real Transportation Improvement board
1:35:08 which I just said um so um you know the
1:35:13 way that the best way that we can prove
1:35:14 that this project is real is to have the
1:35:16 development agreement done um because
1:35:18 that shows The Tib that the council is
1:35:22 on board and has agreed to this
1:35:24 partnership for roads it shows that
1:35:26 Costco is on board and is signed and is
1:35:29 is ready to go and The Tib applications
1:35:32 were due in September so we've already
1:35:34 submitted ours uh they start making
1:35:36 their review in October and so part of
1:35:39 the reason why we're on this timeline is
1:35:41 because we wanted to make an application
1:35:43 this year this year The Tib has money uh
1:35:46 next year um you you've all probably
1:35:48 heard of McClary uh The Tib may not have
1:35:51 money and so part of if we didn't make
1:35:54 this funding cycle what we were
1:35:56 concerned about is that the money may
1:35:58 not be there next year or it may be
1:36:00 there in a smaller dose and if that were
1:36:03 to happen then the city would be forced
1:36:06 to pay more of the share of its share
1:36:09 out of its own pocket and so we believe
1:36:12 there's a public good to move this
1:36:14 project through at this speed and we
1:36:17 know that it's causing you guys to have
1:36:19 to kind of uh take a lot in really
1:36:22 quickly and we apologize for that but
1:36:25 this is kind of where we are so
1:36:27 hopefully that was
1:36:33 clear
1:36:35 this back to our first meeting this was
1:36:38 an issue back then is that the speed of
1:36:41 it because it it
1:36:46 almost you're betting you're going to
1:36:48 get this
1:36:50 money if we would slow this down
1:36:55 you might not get it you still might not
1:36:58 get it and then what happens again the
1:37:01 city's on the hook right so the city is
1:37:04 um so this question came up at the
1:37:06 council infrastructure committee meeting
1:37:08 and it was raised by um another nearby
1:37:12 property owner who's worried that the
1:37:14 city is going to at the end of the day
1:37:17 uh form a local improvement district and
1:37:19 ask the property owners to basically pay
1:37:21 the city's share of this Transportation
1:37:24 Improvement um the city at this point is
1:37:28 saying that uh and and I have not seen
1:37:32 the document but it's coming from our
1:37:33 finance director uh the city is saying
1:37:36 that it can back stop its obligation
1:37:39 under this mtfa so we have the either
1:37:42 and whether it's Council Matic bonds or
1:37:45 using some other tool the city has the
1:37:48 ability to raise its share of this mtfa
1:37:54 and part of the reason is and again this
1:37:56 isn't just uh a project that benefits
1:37:59 Costco this is on the city's
1:38:01 TI um this is part of the overall Street
1:38:06 Improvement projects that we've
1:38:08 identified Citywide that we need to
1:38:10 build you know along with 12th Avenue
1:38:13 overcrossing and reconfigure the Front
1:38:15 Street interchange and we have all these
1:38:17 this $300 million Suite of road projects
1:38:20 that you know what we just we need to
1:38:22 build at some point this is a way for us
1:38:24 to kind of take 50 million of that and
1:38:28 get it off and and going so so you're
1:38:31 right I mean there's a lot of there's
1:38:34 risk here but this is what the city
1:38:35 should be doing the city should be
1:38:37 figuring out a way to build its
1:38:39 Transportation projects and this is a
1:38:43 great way for us to do it in partnership
1:38:45 with our one of with our biggest city
1:38:48 employer um and not having to burden the
1:38:52 individual property owners for the
1:38:58 benefit go
1:39:01 ahead so this is uh mostly just a maybe
1:39:05 for Lucy a question to help me
1:39:08 understand exactly what is now the form
1:39:10 of what's in front of us for
1:39:12 recommendation because we got lots of
1:39:14 documents here we've got a number of
1:39:16 amendments so when we get to the point
1:39:18 of making a motion if we go get there
1:39:21 tonight I'm trying to understand
1:39:23 what are the documents that would make
1:39:25 up the recommendation that would be
1:39:27 transmitted to the council so
1:39:34 um I Lucy I would just add to to uh
1:39:38 commissioner Brennan's question on page
1:39:40 8 of 8 of the document that is dated o
1:39:43 August 28th there is a proposed motion
1:39:47 that was an initial one it's been
1:39:49 revised because we've had subsequent
1:39:51 documents right um
1:39:53 and and the reason we didn't include it
1:39:55 in your packet was we didn't want to be
1:39:58 presumptuous um but we do have a draft
1:40:02 recommendation um which I can put up on
1:40:04 the screen uh and so that we can edit it
1:40:08 but we are looking for recommendation on
1:40:11 the master site plan Amendment with the
1:40:14 three conditions that you have in front
1:40:16 of you and uh the eight uh conditions
1:40:22 with the develop agreement so those are
1:40:24 two separate
1:40:26 recommendations okay and then um just
1:40:30 the other the other piece there are
1:40:31 certain things that well I've got the
1:40:34 microphone that are kind of outside the
1:40:36 scope of generally what the development
1:40:38 commission um Authority is gener what on
1:40:41 on those things that we're acting on uh
1:40:43 for example how we're dealing with the
1:40:45 legal agreements with the um neighboring
1:40:48 property owners and and um dealing with
1:40:51 uh how do we maintain preserve and
1:40:53 maintain those amenities that are
1:40:55 already existing as part of the master
1:40:57 site plan that exists today as that
1:40:59 moves forward those are all important
1:41:01 things that need to be worked through um
1:41:04 that are still at least for me I'm still
1:41:06 not clear about how that all plays
1:41:08 forward and how that how they're
1:41:10 preserved um and how the obligations are
1:41:13 defined for future maintenance and care
1:41:15 but so that my thought there is there
1:41:17 will be things that we would like the
1:41:19 council to focus their attention on
1:41:22 these are concerns that can continue to
1:41:23 exist that require council's additional
1:41:26 consideration and we would identify what
1:41:28 those would be as part of the
1:41:30 recommendation that we would carry
1:41:32 forward right and that's part of why it
1:41:34 seemed um important to be able to write
1:41:38 it on screen that uh you may uh instead
1:41:41 of us presuming that we knew if if there
1:41:45 so when we've worked with the Urban
1:41:46 Village Development Commission on
1:41:48 previous um uh development agreements
1:41:51 for instance
1:41:53 a commission often is not um
1:41:58 technically uh prepared to review the
1:42:01 mtfa for instance and they may say we
1:42:04 recommend the development agreement but
1:42:06 we have not reviewed the following
1:42:08 sections um we are not making a
1:42:10 recommendation on the
1:42:12 mtfa um or we're making a recommendation
1:42:15 with certain considerations um and so
1:42:19 we're prepared to draft those with you
1:42:22 tonight um as you need them to be
1:42:25 drafted okay good thank
1:42:28 you okay Mr chair um for
1:42:34 um um the issue about the U proportion
1:42:38 from Costco and the City of isqua we're
1:42:41 talking about 51 million uh 48 versus
1:42:46 52% if the um dollar amount doesn't come
1:42:49 through should have could have you know
1:42:51 doesn't come through as the fif um um
1:42:56 the amount I don't know how much we're
1:42:57 looking for from the from the feds is
1:43:00 that correct or the
1:43:02 transportation board yeah if the dollar
1:43:05 amount doesn't come through the whole
1:43:06 dollar amount that you're looking for
1:43:08 It's A reduced
1:43:10 dollar
1:43:12 not um you know A reduced dollar amount
1:43:15 that comes through um is Costco still
1:43:18 obligated to come up with 27 million
1:43:24 if 27 is the
1:43:26 48% so so think about it this way so the
1:43:29 partnership percentages are the same and
1:43:32 the road project is the road project and
1:43:34 the road project is made up of three
1:43:36 pieces that's going to stay the same so
1:43:38 we're not talking about changing the
1:43:40 project and we're not CH talking about
1:43:42 changing the partnership so if the city
1:43:44 cannot get all of its funding it it
1:43:47 would have to figure out a different
1:43:49 tool to to pay for its share so and
1:43:53 there and the city we have a we have a
1:43:55 number of tools so grant money is the
1:43:57 best one because that comes from the
1:43:59 state and and doesn't come out of the
1:44:02 local coffers some of some of the grant
1:44:04 monies come with a match but here we get
1:44:06 to actually use the private dollars for
1:44:08 the match so this is a really great deal
1:44:11 for the city and this is why we put this
1:44:13 together this way but at the end of the
1:44:15 day if you know let's say that there's
1:44:18 $10 million left over that the city has
1:44:20 to pay for well we'll sit down with the
1:44:23 Council talk that through we'll figure
1:44:25 it out with the finance director on
1:44:26 what's the best way for us to raise the
1:44:29 $10 million that we need to finish this
1:44:31 obligation that we're making with Costco
1:44:33 we would do that that's that's not an
1:44:34 issue for us so there's no way out this
1:44:38 is a deal once we're signed up Costco
1:44:41 says we will pay the 48% 24 million and
1:44:44 the rest is acquired you're going to
1:44:46 have to come up with it and right now
1:44:48 part of it is coming from the from the
1:44:50 trans Transportation board if the the
1:44:53 transportation board reduces their
1:44:55 obligation then the city of isqua needs
1:44:58 to cough up the money there's no way
1:45:01 that the city can back off on this deal
1:45:03 then um there is the way that we've
1:45:06 drafted the agreement is the
1:45:11 city the city if the city let's assume
1:45:14 let's let's say that that mount rineer
1:45:16 blows and all of a sudden you know our
1:45:19 reservoirs are all gone and our streets
1:45:21 are all gone we're not building their
1:45:23 Road um we're doing a lot of other stuff
1:45:25 so so there are Provisions in there if
1:45:28 just everything is is chaos that we got
1:45:33 to take care of all of our Essentials
1:45:36 first but other than that we can't
1:45:38 choose to say um gee we really want to
1:45:41 go build a new city hall and not build
1:45:43 your road that that we can't do so we
1:45:46 can't we can't arbitrarily decide not to
1:45:49 fulfill the contract that we've executed
1:45:51 or we are proposing to execute with them
1:45:53 through the development agreement it's a
1:45:55 contract yeah well it's not arbitrarily
1:45:57 if the trans Transportation board
1:45:59 doesn't come up with the money we just
1:46:02 don't have it it's not predicated on
1:46:04 that so us so we have the money um it
1:46:08 just is it can come in a number of
1:46:10 different manners that we get it either
1:46:12 through grants or through passing bonds
1:46:15 or some other tool we can get our
1:46:18 portion if the council adopts this
1:46:21 development agreement what they're
1:46:23 saying is they're backstopping their
1:46:25 obligation for the $27 million that
1:46:29 we're making towards this road project
1:46:31 period and whether and if we can if we
1:46:33 if we're if we're if we're lucky enough
1:46:35 to get some of that offset with grants
1:46:38 then we're doing a good
1:46:39 job okay thank
1:46:42 you thank you Mr chairman sure is there
1:46:45 any other any other clarifications
1:46:49 questions all right I yes I do oh go
1:46:53 ahead uh still still confused on uh Mr
1:46:57 siver's comments when um if I understood
1:47:01 what he said bottom line is we can do
1:47:04 what we want but if if the po p PPA
1:47:09 decides they don't want to move ahead
1:47:10 with this they can stop it is that kind
1:47:13 of what I heard they're he said they're
1:47:15 going to have to deal with
1:47:18 us so I'm not I'm really confused on
1:47:22 where the leverages or what what happens
1:47:25 so I'm going to give you um so I'm not a
1:47:27 lawyer um there are lawyers in this room
1:47:30 but I'm not a lawyer um what I
1:47:32 understand is that so Pickering Place
1:47:36 unlike a lot of other properties like
1:47:38 your property my property unless you're
1:47:40 in happen to be in a development that
1:47:42 has binding ccnr you know most people
1:47:46 don't have to
1:47:47 necessarily um you know work with their
1:47:50 neighbors they don't have to um in the
1:47:52 case of of Pickering there are covenants
1:47:54 on the property that limit the amount of
1:47:57 development and as Mr sver said uh you
1:48:00 couldn't do Residential even if he
1:48:02 wanted to build uh housing in Pickering
1:48:05 today he can't do it without amending
1:48:07 the ccnr so Costco does need to amend
1:48:10 the cc&rs um they do need to get a
1:48:13 master site plan amendment to be removed
1:48:15 from the master site plan because it's a
1:48:17 limit and they do need to get a
1:48:19 development agreement to get some shity
1:48:21 for kind the commitments they're making
1:48:23 on the roads so all three of those
1:48:25 things need to happen and you know you
1:48:28 really I I don't think you can just
1:48:30 focus on one at a time they do need to
1:48:32 to work and there is a group at Costco
1:48:36 working with their neighbors on amending
1:48:38 the cc&rs um but that does need to
1:48:41 happen that's my
1:48:42 understanding but that's separate from
1:48:44 the cities right all of these things
1:48:47 need to be
1:48:51 done so what let let me just kind of go
1:48:55 to the let's say we say oh boy this is
1:48:57 the greatest thing we ever saw we want
1:48:59 to recomend the council that they go
1:49:01 ahead what what happens in relation to
1:49:05 the to Pickering
1:49:06 Place uh so if if so I if the ccrs
1:49:12 aren't amended is that what you were
1:49:13 asking
1:49:17 or I guess I'm I'm really confused
1:49:21 on we're in a rush we want to we want to
1:49:24 get this done for all the reasons that
1:49:26 have been been said and so we decide to
1:49:29 go ahead and this yeah this is really
1:49:30 great deal and a bargain for the city
1:49:32 because it'll save us all this money uh
1:49:34 we make the recommendation to the city
1:49:36 council but there's still this cloud of
1:49:39 the Pickering Place
1:49:42 organizational constraints CC andrs that
1:49:45 that may or may not let that may or may
1:49:47 not get approved by that board or that
1:49:50 group where where does that leave us
1:49:53 so so if we were so the meeting we had
1:49:55 on Monday and and I think I'm going to
1:49:57 say the same thing Jim did so if if it
1:50:00 sounds different let me know the meeting
1:50:01 we had on Monday if if you know if our
1:50:06 walk away from that meeting was that we
1:50:08 had a bunch of property owners that were
1:50:10 like you know oh my gosh no we we we do
1:50:13 not want Costco to build this this these
1:50:16 new buildings we don't want this new
1:50:18 road you know we don't want a change we
1:50:20 like status quo we hate the central a
1:50:22 quat plan I'd be worried because I'd be
1:50:25 thinking well gez this is is a huge
1:50:27 mountain to get over and I don't know
1:50:28 that they' they've got the patience to
1:50:30 do that what I heard was the same thing
1:50:32 Mr sers heard was we got issues with
1:50:35 them parking on our property and if we
1:50:37 just you know if we're if we sign off on
1:50:39 the ccnr amendment well now they're
1:50:41 going to have three times as much
1:50:43 building as they have now which means
1:50:45 yeah I'm going to do the math there's
1:50:46 three times as many people parking on my
1:50:47 property that I don't want so they need
1:50:49 to figure out their parking issue with
1:50:51 their neighbors and and frankly I don't
1:50:54 think that's that hard I mean I think if
1:50:57 there's if everybody's poting in the
1:50:59 same direction you just need to sit down
1:51:00 in a room and and figure it out and so
1:51:03 what I heard the commitment from the
1:51:05 people in the room is that they are
1:51:08 willing to have meetings basically you
1:51:12 know their next scheduled meeting the
1:51:13 way I understand it is January but as Mr
1:51:16 sters mentioned you know they usually
1:51:18 talk about cutting grass and budget and
1:51:19 other things so they were talking about
1:51:20 having special meetings to talk about
1:51:22 this and get it figured out what I heard
1:51:24 from them is if they can have a little
1:51:27 bit of a longer leash and you know what
1:51:30 we talked about was maybe the first
1:51:32 quarter of next year so maybe let's just
1:51:34 for lack of anything else say March um
1:51:38 they could probably have this figured
1:51:39 out that's the that's the impression I
1:51:41 got from them so what what we're talking
1:51:44 about here with this with these
1:51:46 documents that the city controls is we
1:51:49 can go ahead and get these done you know
1:51:51 and we can have the Public Works
1:51:54 director make his get his documents to
1:51:57 tib um and then basically the window
1:52:00 stays open for so Costco is not going to
1:52:04 sign the development agreement I don't
1:52:06 believe this is my belief they they
1:52:08 might say differently but my belief is
1:52:10 they won't sign the development
1:52:11 agreement if they don't get the ccnr
1:52:14 amended because basically they're kind
1:52:16 of stuck so so we're we're going through
1:52:19 this with an expectation that they can
1:52:22 work with their neighbors and get their
1:52:23 parking issue worked out and I just I
1:52:25 just have to believe that that's the
1:52:27 case because we're talking about a lot
1:52:28 of money and a lot of development Keith
1:52:31 let me let me follow up on that and let
1:52:34 me try to make this a little bit more
1:52:37 focused Lucy would you go over the
1:52:43 parking
1:52:44 space part of this and what Costco is
1:52:48 proposing to do with regard to parking
1:52:51 to accomp ate this growth and then if we
1:52:55 can get a I personally I don't speak for
1:52:58 the other commissioners of this I would
1:52:59 like to get a better understanding of
1:53:02 how what Costco is proposing for
1:53:05 parking Compares with the headcount that
1:53:09 are going to be in these new buildings
1:53:11 because that seems to me to be the
1:53:13 fundamental issue and if Costco comes
1:53:15 back and says we got a parking place and
1:53:18 a half for every fourth employee and we
1:53:22 expected number of employees then you
1:53:24 know maybe the issue this is a
1:53:27 nonissue the flip side of that or the
1:53:31 follow-up question is in a worst case
1:53:33 scenario that this organization and I
1:53:36 don't want to conjecture here about
1:53:38 whether not they're going to do it or
1:53:39 not but if there is
1:53:46 serious attempt on their part successful
1:53:50 or not to block it at what point does it
1:53:54 come back if at all if Costco continues
1:53:56 to pursue this does it come back to
1:54:01 review of whether it's the DC or
1:54:04 whatever in terms of what is being
1:54:06 proposed so if first place how many
1:54:09 parking places for how many people in
1:54:11 the current plan so parking standards
1:54:13 aren't based on people they're based on
1:54:15 square footage um the um standards in
1:54:21 central isqua are for a range of two to
1:54:23 thou two per th to four per thousand um
1:54:28 their parking is in uh
1:54:32 there's a existing parking lot with the
1:54:37 warehouse there is a five-story parking
1:54:41 garage which has been built they have
1:54:43 built that five-story parking garage so
1:54:46 that it can accommodate two more floors
1:54:48 um it's or the columns and everything
1:54:50 were designed for that so they would add
1:54:52 those two floors and then the Office
1:54:55 Buildings um are shown having one to two
1:54:58 floors of parking
1:55:00 underneath
1:55:03 um and off the top of my head I don't
1:55:06 remember exactly uh what that
1:55:09 is in terms of the number of parking
1:55:12 stalls per thousand
1:55:14 um there was some pretty specific
1:55:17 numbers in there but frankly right it's
1:55:18 on the very of the very first staff
1:55:21 report you received and I'm sure you all
1:55:22 brought every document with you um it's
1:55:24 the very last
1:55:34 page I want to make sure I'm reading
1:55:36 this I'm sure have a lot of finger
1:55:38 pointing
1:56:06 here it
1:56:15 is um I was just confirming um so the at
1:56:20 ultimate buildout that would be 2 per
1:56:23 thousand at interim stages it may be
1:56:27 more I think their thought is that as it
1:56:30 builds out over 30 years with the
1:56:33 multimodal
1:56:35 split that would be
1:56:37 sufficient um 2 per thousand meets the
1:56:41 minimum
1:56:48 requirement the second question was
1:56:53 um no I I I'll withhold it it's too it's
1:56:57 too theoretical so I don't want to I
1:56:59 don't want to waste time you were asking
1:57:01 if something happened and they had to
1:57:03 come back I I think you're probably
1:57:05 right about that it would have to
1:57:07 probably be a substantial change before
1:57:09 it would come back to the DC
1:57:12 okay um Mr chair um just point of
1:57:16 clarification um The Proposal that uh
1:57:20 commissioner Morgan made about chopping
1:57:24 I don't want to say chop but opening up
1:57:26 the view as we're driving South um where
1:57:31 do we go with that um is that what will
1:57:36 be put on the
1:57:39 recommendation
1:57:41 yeah I think it would come up as a
1:57:43 condition condition okay recommendation
1:57:46 okay um and that being the case uh I I
1:57:51 would say I would second that also I
1:57:54 would like to
1:57:55 add um you know the uh we talk about the
1:57:58 sky bridge and you said there's a u
1:58:01 we're down to one sky Bridge am I
1:58:03 correct when you say that one sky Bridge
1:58:05 Crossing the RightWay there is another
1:58:08 there are sky Bridges connecting every
1:58:10 pair of buildings uhhuh but
1:58:15 um so would that be the one connects B
1:58:18 uh 4B and building five
1:58:22 oh they
1:58:24 get oh I
1:58:27 do okay that'll show thank you um so
1:58:32 there are two Sky Bridges shown M uh
1:58:36 over ride of way they H they are allowed
1:58:39 to pick one of those and build one of
1:58:42 those um they would need to come back
1:58:44 for additional approval to build a
1:58:47 second skybridge over the rideway M all
1:58:50 the other skybridge that are shown
1:58:53 connecting
1:58:54 buildings um are currently allowed MH
1:58:59 because it's not on public right of
1:59:01 weight well um because we're supportive
1:59:04 of it in in terms of the things that it
1:59:07 balances and because the commission has
1:59:09 not raised that had has not been a
1:59:11 concern that the commission has raised
1:59:15 um the main commission concern that
1:59:18 we've heard is over the right of way so
1:59:20 that's the piece that we've focused on
1:59:22 okay okay
1:59:26 um I I don't know if uh if it's um I
1:59:31 guess my thought is um keeping it open
1:59:35 span between buildings and no
1:59:38 intermediate columns is what I'm looking
1:59:42 for and I don't know where you would put
1:59:44 that in your recommendation to the
1:59:46 council well I I think the first thing
1:59:48 that we would have to discuss Ry is
1:59:50 whether there's a basis in the Central
1:59:52 isqua
1:59:53 standards um for doing that
2:00:00 um okay okay and I think I think when we
2:00:04 get to our individual uh recommendations
2:00:07 all right uh and observations we can we
2:00:10 can certainly on an individual basis uh
2:00:13 address the sky Bridges as well as the
2:00:15 other issues okay okay okay thank you
2:00:24 opportunities opportunities for
2:00:26 collaboration with the state park system
2:00:29 and or connection to that I mean I think
2:00:32 that uh personally I'd like to
2:00:35 understand where where that issue is
2:00:38 right now uh and and the
2:00:42 specific impact that we can identify of
2:00:46 this development on the the the
2:00:50 CIP Trail connection which obviously one
2:00:53 of the major parts of that is eventually
2:00:56 is the state park
2:00:59 sure um when we went
2:01:11 oops so
2:01:20 can so when and not sure how well this
2:01:24 shows up uh that had been a question
2:01:26 that one of the um Council people had
2:01:29 asked and so I went through uh the
2:01:33 central isqua plan and the central isqua
2:01:36 standards looking for the references and
2:01:41 description uh and relationship between
2:01:44 the um districts the central isquad
2:01:47 districts that are around it so to start
2:01:49 with um so these are little excerpts and
2:01:54 um this was a handout so I apologize I
2:01:56 hadn't planned to show it on screen so
2:01:57 it's a little uh little difficult to see
2:02:00 um this is the park in this area um
2:02:04 there are three districts samamish Park
2:02:07 Pickering and East Lake that are located
2:02:10 around it um this sort of central um
2:02:14 chart on this sheet shows um the vision
2:02:19 for each of these districts the uses um
2:02:23 the environmental features and the
2:02:26 mobility
2:02:28 connections
2:02:30 um all of these districts anticipate
2:02:33 resid uh office and some of them
2:02:36 anticipate residential as well
2:02:39 um they all uh want to integrate with
2:02:43 the park and um you know complement it
2:02:47 with corridors and shared use routs and
2:02:49 so part of what we looked at was was uh
2:02:53 how are those shown in the mapping that
2:02:55 identifies the um facilities that would
2:02:59 be built so in the central isqua plan
2:03:03 which is the policy document um let's
2:03:06 see I'm
2:03:11 sorry so it showed um
2:03:16 sorry so it showed uh this map which had
2:03:22 bike lanes and uh shared use routes
2:03:27 connecting into the park and the dashed
2:03:30 ones are the proposed ones um in the
2:03:35 central isqua
2:03:37 Plan central isqua standards it showed
2:03:40 essentially the same Roots um and so our
2:03:44 expectation is that as those
2:03:47 properties um either more fully develop
2:03:50 we're not sure how much open Land There
2:03:53 is or they redevelop that that would be
2:03:55 the opportunity at which um those
2:03:59 additional Roots would be
2:04:01 added I I think what um our citizens
2:04:05 were asking for was that because we were
2:04:07 adding additional density that those um
2:04:12 Roots would be
2:04:13 Associated um with the approval of this
2:04:16 development
2:04:20 agreement okay
2:04:26 CH thank you
2:04:31 Lucy all right um I think we've if there
2:04:36 are not more requests for clarification
2:04:38 I think we've come to the point where we
2:04:40 can start with our individual uh
2:04:43 assessment
2:04:45 uh of all the material and all the
2:04:49 testimony that we've or the hearings
2:04:50 that we've conducted that you have
2:04:52 conducted one of which I have
2:04:54 participated in so as usual we'll start
2:04:59 uh Mr SOA the chair at the far end and
2:05:03 end up with uh with me
2:05:07 chair well I uh I appreciate I
2:05:10 appreciate the efforts of of the city
2:05:12 staff uh I think I think uh you did a
2:05:15 good job of explaining I it finally got
2:05:18 into my head especially when when you
2:05:20 made the comment uh that uh the cc&rs
2:05:24 are still binding I mean that we can
2:05:26 change the master site plan but the
2:05:27 bottom line is the ccnr are still going
2:05:29 to have an over overarching effect on
2:05:31 what Costco can or can't do and uh that
2:05:35 that CLI finally you know sorry sorry to
2:05:37 be so dense uh I think obviously the uh
2:05:43 effort sounds like it's a a positive
2:05:46 change uh there's there's a fundamental
2:05:49 sense of of a need for trust
2:05:52 and I think as as we continue to work in
2:05:55 this new environment that that that will
2:05:58 start to prove to be good or bad and uh
2:06:01 so the concern right now is we don't
2:06:04 know you know it sounds good yeah but
2:06:06 I've been sold a lot of stuff that
2:06:08 sounded good that I necessarily didn't
2:06:10 turn out to be my teeth aren't any
2:06:11 brighter than they
2:06:13 were so anyway I don't really have any
2:06:16 subsi of comments I I appreciate the
2:06:17 effort and I appreciate the public and
2:06:19 their comments uh that was really
2:06:21 helpful
2:06:28 yeah thanks for the effort Lucy and
2:06:32 Keith uh that was very U detailed work
2:06:34 that you've done and very prom in
2:06:37 getting to us so that we could wait till
2:06:39 the last minute to review it but thank
2:06:41 you um um I think this project it's a
2:06:45 good opportunity for the city to get
2:06:47 together with um a big employer um
2:06:50 Costco here in SE here in isqua if we
2:06:53 could work things out if we can take up
2:06:56 the opportunity I I would surely um
2:06:58 support that but again it goes back to
2:07:01 you know we need to be careful as we
2:07:03 move along here and goes back to the
2:07:06 trust that um um Costco um has to um
2:07:12 give you know they're asking for just
2:07:14 give us the project and we'll move along
2:07:17 here I guess U that's the reason why we
2:07:19 have our jobs here is to kind look over
2:07:22 the the uh benefit of
2:07:26 isaa um so we just it you can call it
2:07:30 the bureaucracy but basically it's uh
2:07:33 looking after the interests of the city
2:07:35 of isa's population
2:07:38 community
2:07:39 um uh on the skybridge I guess I
2:07:43 would um I would ask Lucy if you could
2:07:46 look into that if it's in the CIP then
2:07:49 that's fine if not perhaps we should
2:07:52 say put a condition or um on the
2:07:55 recommendation to say um uh if Sky
2:08:00 bridge is um is decided if the
2:08:03 applicants decide to have a a sky Bridge
2:08:08 uh the sky Bridge shall be
2:08:10 um with an an open
2:08:14 span uh between buildings no
2:08:16 intermediate
2:08:18 columns um
2:08:20 and uh um limited
2:08:24 to I'm thinking 80 to 90%
2:08:29 glass
2:08:31 um and as far as
2:08:34 connecting uh right now I guess I'm
2:08:37 envisioning maybe one sky Bridge one
2:08:39 level of Sky bridge and if it goes up to
2:08:42 10 floor then the um Costco probably
2:08:46 wants to add another skybridge and if
2:08:49 that becomes the case then
2:08:52 um either come back to the city for
2:08:53 approval or some sort of approving
2:08:56 agency that would look into that if
2:08:58 that's what the applicants wants to do
2:09:02 but um I have um a lot of good fith uh
2:09:07 in Costco in their design and same thing
2:09:11 maini um so they've done a good job so
2:09:14 far but it's just a something that I
2:09:16 think would be um uh check and balance
2:09:19 that it comes back here
2:09:22 thank
2:09:25 you so uh this has been uh a confusing a
2:09:29 bit confusing as we're kind of Blazing
2:09:31 new ground here with this uh development
2:09:33 agreement
2:09:34 and um amending a master site plan and
2:09:38 dealing with the transportation funding
2:09:41 agreement and Etc so there's a lot of
2:09:44 pieces to this one uh which has made it
2:09:47 confusing a bit for us um for me anyway
2:09:51 but I'm I'm starting to get a grasp of a
2:09:54 grasp enough of a grasp of this to try
2:09:56 to get a sense for kind of where to go
2:09:58 um first of all the reality that we're
2:10:00 in is we need to get this to the council
2:10:01 so they have time to consider it before
2:10:04 this deadline to submit for a grant
2:10:06 consideration so sitting on it really
2:10:08 isn't an option and there's still a lot
2:10:10 of unanswered questions and so some of
2:10:11 those are issues that need to be further
2:10:13 explored I think at the council level so
2:10:15 I want to um suggest uh some of those um
2:10:19 I think first of all and we've already
2:10:21 heard about that the this the issue
2:10:23 regarding the legal agreements that um
2:10:26 are in place related to the current
2:10:28 Pickering Place Master development plan
2:10:30 or Master site plan um are with legal
2:10:34 staff need to be clarified I I think for
2:10:37 the benefit of the council and I think
2:10:38 for the the community Etc I think the
2:10:43 um Trail connections to the park we've
2:10:46 heard about that and the importance of
2:10:48 the integration of the work that's
2:10:50 happening with this part of the central
2:10:51 isqua plan and how that going to really
2:10:55 accentuate the trail system that's there
2:10:57 and build upon that and particularly to
2:10:59 the state park because the future plans
2:11:01 for the state park really are um much
2:11:03 more than what exists there today uh and
2:11:06 so I think we want to make sure that
2:11:07 we're really taking advantage of that
2:11:09 and whatever can happen as part of this
2:11:11 development and be inputed in as part of
2:11:13 or conditions as part of this
2:11:14 development should happen but otherwise
2:11:16 you know the funds that become available
2:11:18 as the as the city continues to grow and
2:11:20 densify um to actually make those
2:11:22 connections happen I think it's another
2:11:24 thing that the council really needs to
2:11:25 be thinking about how that part of the
2:11:28 the the broader Central isqua plan is
2:11:30 implemented and how what place does this
2:11:33 agreement have in accomplishing that
2:11:35 versus kind of the broader strategies
2:11:37 that the city has in place so I think
2:11:38 that's another area the council needs to
2:11:39 think think about um I think there's the
2:11:43 this risk uh for city funding we've
2:11:46 heard about that and I think the issue
2:11:48 regarding the uh transportation funding
2:11:51 agreement is really out of scope for the
2:11:53 development commission but it is
2:11:55 something that the council really needs
2:11:56 to weigh in on it's very much a policy
2:11:58 question for at a council at the council
2:12:00 level in the level of risk the city
2:12:03 wants to take and entering in this
2:12:04 agreement before there's a
2:12:07 funding um there's funding that's being
2:12:10 relied on coming from another source
2:12:12 that really isn't in place yet so that's
2:12:14 a risk factor the council needs to wait
2:12:16 so I think that's one that needs
2:12:17 additional Council
2:12:19 consideration um there's another piece
2:12:21 in here and I um it's it's kind of
2:12:24 legislative but it's not and it has to
2:12:25 do with the role of the development
2:12:27 commission into the future related to
2:12:29 this project and as this um uh moves
2:12:32 forward uh I understand Costco's uh
2:12:36 desire to have as much certainty as they
2:12:38 can get they're putting in a significant
2:12:40 amount of money for this um they're
2:12:43 looking for um longterm commitment from
2:12:46 the city and certainty in how this how
2:12:48 they can develop their property meet
2:12:49 their corporate needs uh and staff uh uh
2:12:52 and employee needs into the future and
2:12:54 and I understand that but at the same
2:12:56 time I'm wondering why do why does the
2:12:58 city give up the kind of level of
2:13:00 oversight and quality of design um in
2:13:04 this particular agreement that we hold
2:13:06 all of the other larger projects too as
2:13:09 we move ahead so I'm I'm still a little
2:13:12 bit um and I raised that at previous
2:13:14 meetings about why are we changing the
2:13:16 oversight level of oversight for these
2:13:18 projects um as they go through the the
2:13:21 development permit process um here um uh
2:13:26 I I I don't I don't understand I I think
2:13:28 there's that's something that a lot of
2:13:30 the issues that you've heard us talk
2:13:32 about get addressed as part of the
2:13:34 development process as we go through
2:13:35 those and ensuring that the standards
2:13:37 are being satisfied and the interests of
2:13:39 the city are being addressed and the
2:13:40 design is of high quality now I will say
2:13:43 that the work that you did um kind of
2:13:45 showing the progression of the design
2:13:48 and development of their projects on
2:13:49 their campus really showed a movement to
2:13:52 great a really great quality project and
2:13:54 I I have great confidence in Costco and
2:13:57 their design team to to accomplish that
2:14:00 but at the same time um I think there
2:14:02 are certain nuances and and um interests
2:14:05 that the city has that it wants to carry
2:14:06 out not just on this campus but
2:14:07 throughout the city that we want to hold
2:14:09 consistent to uh the rest of development
2:14:11 that happens in the city so on that
2:14:13 overe explaining myself there but I I
2:14:15 guess my point is I'm I'm I'm not sure
2:14:18 that we should give up on the level of
2:14:21 design quality oversight um in this
2:14:24 agreement and and exclude that from that
2:14:27 process that is um that rest of
2:14:29 development in this in the central isqu
2:14:31 area is going to be subject to so that
2:14:33 that is uh one of my con concerns uh and
2:14:36 in fact I know that's talked about in
2:14:38 the development agreement and I dug
2:14:40 around tried to find it and I I couldn't
2:14:42 find it but U find that section but it's
2:14:44 it's talked about in one of the
2:14:45 Amendments um
2:14:52 parking just want to comment on the
2:14:54 parking challenges um Mr siver's
2:14:57 comments um he's been pretty consistent
2:15:01 um through the his public comments and I
2:15:03 appreciate you being here again this
2:15:04 evening I know it's a commitment of your
2:15:06 time parking challenges between
2:15:08 properties is pretty common occurrence
2:15:10 in urban areas and um we try to deal
2:15:14 with that through development standards
2:15:16 and making sure there was adequate
2:15:17 parking for whatever the uses are um and
2:15:20 we try to designed parking so that it is
2:15:22 in a proximity that is you know serves
2:15:24 the use well but there are lots of other
2:15:27 factors that come into how parking gets
2:15:28 laid out and part really it boils down
2:15:30 to it's a property owner to property
2:15:32 owner parking management challenge that
2:15:34 you just need to figure out how to solve
2:15:36 and it sounds like you're you've got the
2:15:38 door open now which is awesome um and to
2:15:41 have that conversation and sounds like
2:15:43 Costco's done some work already to try
2:15:45 to put some controls in place but that's
2:15:47 not really something we're going to be
2:15:49 able to deal with here and so kind of
2:15:51 out of the range of what we can get at
2:15:53 in in the development agreement um but I
2:15:56 do think it's an important friction
2:15:58 point that needs to be you know continue
2:16:00 to be pursued I think it's going to be
2:16:02 an important thing so um uh I guess
2:16:05 those are my comments at this point I I
2:16:07 guess um willing I'm interested in
2:16:09 hearing other commission
2:16:11 members um you know feedback on on some
2:16:14 of these points that we want to push
2:16:16 forward to the council and and also the
2:16:18 question about the process change that's
2:16:20 been integrated here here
2:16:24 so um first of all thanks very much to
2:16:26 the staff for the great work they've
2:16:28 done Lucy and Keith you've really done
2:16:31 um a lot of work and I very much
2:16:32 appreciate the fact that all the
2:16:34 questions that have come up you've
2:16:36 responded to you've done a good job of
2:16:39 encapsulating the questions that have
2:16:41 been raised by both the Commissioners
2:16:43 and by the public and trying to address
2:16:46 those um when you've come back to us
2:16:49 that's been an excellent and I
2:16:50 appreciate very much the work that
2:16:51 Costco's done working with the city and
2:16:54 coming in front of us answering
2:16:55 questions as we've got them especially
2:16:58 appreciate the public coming in to
2:16:59 provide us input um and in general
2:17:05 Costco is a great Corporation to have in
2:17:07 the city of isqua I think we all
2:17:09 recognize that an excellent employer uh
2:17:12 there are good jobs to have it is
2:17:14 exactly what we want to see within
2:17:16 Central isqua when we talk about live
2:17:19 work play work as a huge part of that
2:17:22 and to the extent that we have more jobs
2:17:24 in downtown NOA it's always better for
2:17:26 us and I think uh as commissioner bernon
2:17:29 pointed out the design of the Costco
2:17:32 buildings I think has shown us that they
2:17:34 can do an excellent job and they have
2:17:35 done an excellent job in designing
2:17:37 buildings that are uh really a great fit
2:17:41 for what we want to see downtown and
2:17:43 Lucy I very much appreciated the
2:17:45 progression you showed us of how those
2:17:47 building designs changed and I think
2:17:49 improved greatly
2:17:51 um there are I think some some issues
2:17:55 that this has been uh has been sort of a
2:17:58 confusing process I think for all of us
2:18:00 a learning process some issues that I
2:18:02 still think are outside of our purview
2:18:05 which would be the like the Owners
2:18:07 Association issues that I don't I keep
2:18:10 thinking I don't think those are things
2:18:12 that we can address here I do think they
2:18:14 need to be worked out especially with
2:18:15 the parking but I don't think that can
2:18:17 really be part of our decision process
2:18:20 the I think would be true of the off the
2:18:22 some of the offsite traffic issues that
2:18:25 we heard in our last meeting about
2:18:27 design of some of the traffic uh to the
2:18:30 east of here I just don't think that's
2:18:32 for us to to get involved in um one of
2:18:36 the questions that comes up that that
2:18:38 I've um pondered a lot is the
2:18:40 development commission role as
2:18:42 commissioner Brenan pointed out the
2:18:44 reduction in our role going forward for
2:18:46 the buildings over 150,000 Square ft and
2:18:50 it really is it it's the elimination I
2:18:52 think of the
2:18:54 decision the process can stay the same
2:18:57 in terms of the Community Conference and
2:18:58 the input we provide to the
2:19:01 administration to staff it's just that
2:19:03 we don't get to make the decisions on
2:19:04 those as we would now um in a way I
2:19:08 don't feel that we're the appropriate
2:19:10 body to make that decision whether we
2:19:13 should do that because we'd be deciding
2:19:15 our own fate and I think our fate lies
2:19:17 in the hands of the mayor and the the
2:19:19 council and we shouldn't be here to tell
2:19:22 them what we can and can't do as as a
2:19:25 commission I so that part I almost
2:19:28 ignore somewhat and leave it to the
2:19:30 council to decide how much power they
2:19:33 want to give our commission to do so but
2:19:36 I do appreciate the fact that by having
2:19:38 Community conferences and providing
2:19:40 input to staff when buildings do come up
2:19:43 that hopefully our voice would be heard
2:19:45 and the public would have a chance to
2:19:46 app on things
2:19:49 um and General I think removing uh
2:19:53 Costco from the master site plan
2:19:54 amendment makes sense given how long the
2:19:57 MSP was put in how long ago it was put
2:19:59 into place and how much things have
2:20:03 changed including the central isqua plan
2:20:05 since then as to the land use plan um I
2:20:11 think we're trying to fit a square peg
2:20:14 truly into a round hole the land use
2:20:17 standards
2:20:19 for uh the central isqu plan and I was
2:20:21 the chair of the subcommittee that wrote
2:20:23 the standard so I got pretty close to
2:20:26 them we really designed for the idea of
2:20:29 a uh Square rectangular Street type
2:20:32 design you would see in a typical City
2:20:35 bringing buildings to the front parking
2:20:37 behind and so forth um it didn't
2:20:40 Envision really how do you fit that into
2:20:43 an existing corporate campus curval
2:20:46 linear streets that was designed in the
2:20:49 80s perhaps so so trying to do that I
2:20:51 think creates a lot of problems um
2:20:54 however I think big picture Central OAC
2:20:57 crop PL is better off with more jobs
2:21:00 Downtown and less straight uh if it's as
2:21:03 the sacrifice of fewer straight streets
2:21:05 and Corners um I do still feel like uh
2:21:09 the view issue is something that I'll of
2:21:12 squawk Mountain that I'll bring up an
2:21:14 amendment about so thank you
2:21:22 the nice thing about being near the end
2:21:23 is all we can say is we agree with
2:21:25 everybody in front of
2:21:28 um I would like to compliment the staff
2:21:31 again on on answering the questions and
2:21:35 presenting it know clear answers to what
2:21:38 we've asked the prior meetings similarly
2:21:41 like to uh compliment the members of the
2:21:44 public that have attended these and in
2:21:46 the past maybe put up with a more
2:21:49 stringent sh in regards to how long
2:21:53 people were left to
2:21:59 um I'd Echo what commissioner Brennan
2:22:03 and Morgan both
2:22:05 said my problem has been along all along
2:22:09 has been the speed of which we are doing
2:22:11 this in regards to the
2:22:14 funding and now tonight all of a sudden
2:22:18 we we were at least new to me we we were
2:22:20 told that there's one little other
2:22:23 aspect of this called the
2:22:28 cc&rs and I I'm concerned about what
2:22:32 we're doing to try to get this money
2:22:34 we're rushing this through and I
2:22:36 understand I agree that we we can't wait
2:22:38 another two weeks and and beat this
2:22:40 horse again it's got to go the
2:22:42 commission or this Council and let them
2:22:45 decide but I'm concerned that we're
2:22:49 going to the
2:22:52 Tib and that's why we want to go to them
2:22:55 because we want to have this develop
2:22:56 agreement to prove that this is a real
2:23:00 thing now I don't think they exist in a
2:23:04 vacuum and they might be looking at this
2:23:06 saying what about those CC
2:23:11 andrs it may be a real thing with the
2:23:14 development agreement that's only if we
2:23:16 can get over that ccnr hurdle and I
2:23:18 don't think that that's necessarily
2:23:21 something that can't be
2:23:24 accomplished but it's one more of those
2:23:28 variables um you know would have could
2:23:31 have should have that that bothers me a
2:23:33 little bit it bothers me a
2:23:36 lot I'm also a little concerned well I'm
2:23:39 I'm pleased that the city finally got
2:23:41 together and I don't know if it's
2:23:43 finally or based on encouragement from
2:23:47 commission um that you've had a meeting
2:23:52 but I'm a little concerned that you had
2:23:54 meeting
2:23:56 Monday and we had to get the meeting in
2:23:59 and get some response because we're
2:24:00 having a development commission meeting
2:24:04 Wednesday
2:24:06 and I would have preferred to have the
2:24:09 city been more proactive with the
2:24:11 members of the Popa particularly with
2:24:13 this now overriding ccnr issue U again
2:24:17 it may be beyond our scope
2:24:20 and the council will have to deal with
2:24:24 it as to the development agreement and
2:24:26 the land
2:24:28 plan I personally think that Costco's
2:24:31 design is it looks fine to me I mean
2:24:33 some of this is going to vary as to
2:24:34 where the building is going to be
2:24:35 aligned I think commissioner Morgan's
2:24:38 plan to straighten out Lake Avenue to
2:24:41 get the
2:24:42 view might or might not work with what
2:24:45 you guys have got already invested in
2:24:48 your design plan but it's something
2:24:50 certainly to
2:24:51 consider I would just hope that we
2:24:54 can not we the council can figure out
2:24:59 whether they want to take the
2:25:01 risk which is what it is at some point
2:25:04 this is a valuable
2:25:06 agreement with Costco to get roads that
2:25:09 we want and
2:25:10 need and the the city has to decide
2:25:14 whether they want to accept that risk
2:25:17 going
2:25:18 forward thank you
2:25:25 I'd like to start by making an
2:25:28 observation um and I I think anybody
2:25:32 that knows has been in these meetings
2:25:35 knows that I put great stock in not only
2:25:38 the staff consistently excellent work
2:25:41 but we always have applicants that do
2:25:46 very good
2:25:47 work uh and then we have the members of
2:25:50 the public which I believe are crucial
2:25:53 and I say at every meeting are
2:25:55 absolutely crucial to this
2:25:58 process that
2:26:00 said um there was an observation or a
2:26:04 statement made earlier this evening that
2:26:10 um rubber stamps I think is an accurate
2:26:15 phrase uh
2:26:18 for issues programs whatever that come
2:26:22 before us for review uh I would take
2:26:25 issue and I'd like to do it on the
2:26:27 record because I believe that as far as
2:26:30 I can recall there has not been a single
2:26:33 presentation to this commission since
2:26:36 I've been on it where in when it came to
2:26:39 the final decisions the the commission
2:26:42 has not made
2:26:44 recommendations very specific
2:26:46 recommendations that in some cases were
2:26:49 uh it required significant
2:26:52 changes sometimes they didn't but there
2:26:55 as again the point is that the commi
2:26:58 members of this commission spend a great
2:27:01 deal of their private time
2:27:04 reviewing documents and plans and uh
2:27:08 attending these meetings and it is uh
2:27:14 always with a view toward balancing the
2:27:17 interests of the taxpayers of the city
2:27:20 and the applicant in question whether
2:27:22 it's a private citizen or a business
2:27:25 that's that's our
2:27:27 job and we do
2:27:30 it with due consideration for all the
2:27:34 factors involved as far as we can and we
2:27:37 have and will continue to make
2:27:40 recommendations that would will result
2:27:43 in changes by by the applicant so we're
2:27:47 not a rubber stamp I want to make that
2:27:50 really
2:27:52 clear
2:27:54 um when it comes to the time
2:27:57 frame I too was concerned about that for
2:28:01 those of you who don't know I this is
2:28:02 the first I've missed the previous
2:28:04 meetings because I was out of the
2:28:05 country uh and I was a little taken
2:28:08 aback by the time frame we've already
2:28:10 talked about this and I understand why
2:28:13 um what I and I I don't have a problem
2:28:16 with the time frame now but what I do
2:28:18 have uh A continuing con concern about
2:28:21 is that this seems to me
2:28:25 to require us to trust where that word
2:28:29 has come up Costco is going to do the
2:28:32 right thing when it comes to the facades
2:28:34 of the buildings uh the Landscaping plan
2:28:37 and things like that that we normally
2:28:40 see and I don't see us getting the
2:28:43 opportunity to do that going forward
2:28:46 with this project and if it were anybody
2:28:49 else Frank but Costco a company that has
2:28:52 the history here that has the the
2:28:54 demonstrated progression of their uh
2:28:56 their design I would be very concerned
2:29:01 but the development commission exists in
2:29:04 my opinion it exists to uh
2:29:08 represent the continuity of the plans
2:29:11 that have been put in place by the
2:29:13 elected
2:29:14 members and the staff and I don't see us
2:29:19 getting the opportunity to do that when
2:29:21 it comes to what the buildings are going
2:29:23 to look
2:29:24 like so again if it's if it's Costco
2:29:30 trust would verify right that's if it's
2:29:33 good enough for strategic arms
2:29:35 limitation basis trust but
2:29:38 verify that's what that's what uh I
2:29:41 would like to see us get the opportunity
2:29:47 quickly the skybridge
2:29:52 uh one of the things that I noted when I
2:29:55 was in Europe was the buildings uh the
2:29:58 Palaces and so on that had Sky Bridges
2:30:00 as a matter of fact I I find myself
2:30:02 taking pictures of of Sky Bridges
2:30:05 because as I was walking down the street
2:30:07 I they they caused me to look at the
2:30:10 vista under the skybridge so I I ab and
2:30:14 I absolutely understand this is the
2:30:16 Pacific Northwest we usually get you
2:30:19 know 12 months of
2:30:21 winter sometimes we get lucky so moving
2:30:24 people back and forth between buildings
2:30:26 I mean it hasn't even been mentioned but
2:30:27 it's an environmental uh issue as far as
2:30:30 I'm concerned as well as the other
2:30:32 things that have been been mentioned uh
2:30:35 the applicant as I understand has
2:30:37 already agreed to reduce the number of
2:30:39 Sky bridges over over right rights of
2:30:41 way and there is also a security issue I
2:30:45 my concern though and it's not really a
2:30:48 concern I would hope that the skybridge
2:30:50 cannot be completely functional but it
2:30:52 will also have an aesthetic
2:30:54 value in the design but again we're
2:30:58 we're we haven't seen we haven't seen
2:31:01 the design yet but I would urge that in
2:31:03 addition to um uh not blocking the Vista
2:31:08 but offering the Gateway aspect of it
2:31:11 that the that some real attention be
2:31:13 given to the actual aesthetic value of
2:31:16 the skybridge itself okay
2:31:23 um the last thing that I'd like to say
2:31:27 is that I think the council when it
2:31:30 comes to the role of the development
2:31:32 commission which is changing I
2:31:34 personally think the council needs the
2:31:37 recommendations of the development
2:31:39 commission council members have a lot on
2:31:44 their plate uh and when it comes to
2:31:48 things like this I believe that the
2:31:50 demonstrated history that we all know is
2:31:53 as with any executive position you rely
2:31:56 on staff reports and you rely on the
2:32:01 educated uh expressions of opinions on
2:32:04 relevant issues provided by commissions
2:32:06 and boards and things like that so I
2:32:09 personally I don't quite know if if we
2:32:12 stop producing the kinds of
2:32:14 recommendations and observations and
2:32:16 conditions recommended conditions and
2:32:17 amendments if we if we either stop doing
2:32:20 that or significantly reduce that I
2:32:23 don't know where the commission or the
2:32:24 council is going to get that information
2:32:27 other than from staff which is and I'm
2:32:29 not questioning the value or the
2:32:31 validity or whatever but the DC does
2:32:35 provide a separate set of
2:32:38 recommendations and observations that
2:32:40 can be accepted or Deni or ignored by
2:32:43 the council members as they see fit but
2:32:45 I I don't quite understand who's going
2:32:48 to provide the product that we now and
2:32:50 have traditionally provided if we don't
2:32:53 do it anymore so that to me is kind of a
2:32:56 going forward what is the role uh of the
2:32:59 development commission and I understand
2:33:01 we all do that that the city's looking
2:33:02 at all the boards and commissions as it
2:33:05 as it should in my opinion but I think
2:33:08 that has to be if not the primary
2:33:11 consideration for what we do it has to
2:33:14 be a major
2:33:17 consideration where do they get it if
2:33:18 they don't get it from us
2:33:22 okay commissioner I'd just had like to
2:33:25 add one more comment to we've had three
2:33:27 meetings in four weeks we approved three
2:33:31 sets of minutes and none of those
2:33:34 minutes had any edits to them at all and
2:33:37 I just wanted to add accolades to Susan
2:33:39 L our recording secretary for the
2:33:41 excellent work that she does and I know
2:33:43 in my case making me sound far more
2:33:46 cogent than I truly am thank you Susan
2:33:49 yeah thank you for mentioning that
2:33:51 because she does do amazing and the the
2:33:53 last you know the last thing is that
2:33:55 that uh this this is a function that
2:33:58 that is uh in my opinion I I I can't
2:34:01 stress this enough this is a trust issue
2:34:03 not just internally but it it's a trust
2:34:07 that that there is an entity that
2:34:11 doesn't represent the city that the
2:34:15 staff that doesn't represent the
2:34:16 applicant but that represents
2:34:20 all of the above and the
2:34:22 residents uh and the information that we
2:34:26 get and the the decisions that we make
2:34:29 based on that information uh are just a
2:34:32 fundamental positive aspect of how this
2:34:36 system is supposed to work and I and I
2:34:38 just got dunked in a Eastern European
2:34:41 bureaucratic I mean I asked people about
2:34:43 that we don't appreciate how good this
2:34:46 system is individually and we should and
2:34:49 it's tough and it's messy and there are
2:34:51 loose ends and everything that I hope
2:34:53 we're going to get a chance to address
2:34:55 but um that said it's good work by
2:34:58 everybody
2:35:02 commissioner and looking over my notes I
2:35:04 skipped over something that I wanted to
2:35:06 bring up that concerned me a little bit
2:35:07 Connie Marsh made the comment that there
2:35:10 was additional information that should
2:35:12 provided that we didn't get and I don't
2:35:14 know if if that I don't know if that was
2:35:17 fact I don't know if if there was I
2:35:19 don't know
2:35:20 if there was enough time to be able to
2:35:22 provide that as an opportunity for us
2:35:24 but it it really seems it in in the
2:35:27 messiness of this process the the value
2:35:30 of making sure that we have the
2:35:31 opportunity to see as much in advance as
2:35:33 we can the public input you've done a
2:35:35 great job I at one point I was thinking
2:35:37 holy smokes if they send me one more
2:35:38 letter I'm never going to get this read
2:35:40 but it was really it's really valuable
2:35:42 and and I think we all I know we all
2:35:44 take input from the public as real
2:35:48 serious and we really pay atten
2:35:49 attention to that so uh if if there was
2:35:53 I just encourage the the staff to make
2:35:56 sure that you do as good a job as you've
2:35:58 been doing to get us information as soon
2:36:02 possible and just to since that probably
2:36:04 came to me um I'm going to go ahead and
2:36:06 give you my excuse if if there is one
2:36:08 needed so uh Mr kapler and misss Marsh
2:36:12 both forwarded documents to me this
2:36:15 morning um and asked that we get those
2:36:18 to the development Commission the item
2:36:20 that Miss Marsh referenced that she
2:36:22 wondered if you got was a video that she
2:36:24 took walking through the Costco campus
2:36:27 and she did it
2:36:28 for uh the council committee and if she
2:36:32 asked me to forward that to you guys I
2:36:34 did not get that message so you know I
2:36:37 apologize to her on TV for that but that
2:36:40 was not something done purposely so we
2:36:42 do try to get stuff to you it's
2:36:45 difficult when it comes in the day of
2:36:46 the commission meeting given the fact
2:36:47 that we're in meetings for much of the
2:36:50 I wasn't I wasn't being I wasn't looking
2:36:52 for an apology as much as I was just
2:36:55 you've done a great job of getting us
2:36:56 ination like I said at one point I was
2:36:58 thinking holy smokes if you give me any
2:36:59 more stuff I'm going to die but uh just
2:37:03 just maybe most importantly they let the
2:37:05 the public know how how serious we take
2:37:07 that information and and that feedback
2:37:09 from it and and I'll just say that uh I
2:37:12 had plans for this morning but when I
2:37:15 received the uh I don't know how many
2:37:17 pages 18 I believe 18 pages that
2:37:19 required review and consideration the
2:37:22 plans went out the window which is
2:37:24 another thing that I get to about the
2:37:27 the work that the DC does I mean I I
2:37:29 just can't I was so impressed with what
2:37:33 I looked at in
2:37:34 aggregate it's you know it's good work
2:37:37 okay enough patting ourselves in the
2:37:40 back um we need or me uh all right so
2:37:44 gentlemen the next uh issue I believe is
2:37:49 to consider our
2:37:52 um Collective position on the um the
2:37:56 Motions if uh there are so any is there
2:38:00 any further staff had a motion to kind
2:38:03 of set the foundation for a
2:38:06 recommendation maybe that's a good place
2:38:08 to start yes I agree well and also I
2:38:11 think that the mtfa yeah no mspa too
2:38:16 many initials the master site plan
2:38:18 Amendment needs to come first and that
2:38:20 may be a simpler one to get through the
2:38:23 recommendation and then um craft the
2:38:26 conditions that come uh with the
2:38:29 recommendation on the development
2:38:32 agreement and I my understanding and
2:38:37 again I'm going to get this on the
2:38:38 record my understanding is that if the
2:38:43 mspa is not approved then the da is mov
2:38:50 the the master site plan um because it
2:38:53 limits the amount of square footage in
2:38:55 Pickering it basically if you guys
2:38:57 decided that that was the most important
2:38:59 thing and we need to keep that sacred um
2:39:02 then the development agreement is moot
2:39:04 because they can't grow so it it seems
2:39:07 like tackling that issue first and then
2:39:10 maybe the second thing Lucy just as a
2:39:12 suggestion as you guys talked I wrote
2:39:14 down I've got nine things that I think
2:39:16 you guys identified I think what we need
2:39:18 to do is figure F out if there's
2:39:20 majority on these nine things or if
2:39:22 there's a majority on only five of them
2:39:24 or three of them and then we could start
2:39:25 working on language if you want to
2:39:27 forward language to the Council on these
2:39:30 things that you guys have identified as
2:39:32 you went around I mean it may be because
2:39:34 nobody objected maybe it means that yall
2:39:37 agree with it but it just seemed like
2:39:39 yall kind of talked about what you found
2:39:40 important I wrote down nine things so
2:39:44 maybe that's you know if we can get past
2:39:47 mspa so many letters um especially at
2:39:50 night um then maybe we talk about these
2:39:52 and we go through this list and see if
2:39:54 you guys feel as a majority whether
2:39:57 these things are as amendments to the MS
2:40:00 to the the the to the so as part of the
2:40:03 recommendation to the council you know
2:40:05 and just to give you examples things
2:40:07 like Trail connections to the park
2:40:09 talking about the CIP and Costco and how
2:40:12 it all fits together in a big Vision I
2:40:13 wrote down kind of the the topics that
2:40:17 you guys brought up not the exact words
2:40:19 and if you guys feel like yes a majority
2:40:21 of you feel like you want to address a
2:40:23 recommendation related to the trail
2:40:25 connection then we can start crafting
2:40:27 words on what that would mean let me
2:40:31 does that make sense yeah it makes sense
2:40:33 Keith but but um what I would suggest is
2:40:37 that we see if the commission can come
2:40:40 up with the with the S the proposed
2:40:45 wording uh on both of the issues the
2:40:48 mspa and the da they're two separate uh
2:40:51 votes if you will that that we're going
2:40:53 to take uh with appropriate amendments
2:40:56 that are going to so let let's see if we
2:40:58 can come up with them and then uh at at
2:41:02 the point where the proposal or the
2:41:05 motion is made uh we
2:41:09 can determine if there are any further
2:41:11 amendments that are necessary I think
2:41:16 believe that the mspa so I'm just going
2:41:20 to summarize what I've
2:41:22 heard that if you are recommending to
2:41:25 council approval and I I haven't heard
2:41:28 which way the count the commission's
2:41:30 Leaning the only topic I've heard are
2:41:34 Carl's edits to condition number
2:41:37 two which I can drop into the motion as
2:41:41 you know including edits to the
2:41:43 following edit to condition number two
2:41:49 otherwise if if if it is a
2:41:51 recommendation to approve there is
2:41:55 language here that could be used okay so
2:41:59 I can drop that language the edit in and
2:42:02 then you can read the motion and see if
2:42:04 you would want to change it in any way
2:42:06 so Lucy if I can offer a friendly
2:42:08 amendment to your suggestion because I
2:42:10 think one of the things that the
2:42:12 commission wanted addressed at least
2:42:15 what I heard from a couple commission
2:42:17 members is to send forth um a
2:42:22 recommendation to the council to
2:42:24 consider this issue about the
2:42:26 cc&rs and the Popa and just to make sure
2:42:29 that they're tracking on the
2:42:31 complexities of that Arrangement and
2:42:34 that may want to go with the mspa and
2:42:36 not with the da and so just as a point
2:42:40 of order if you were going to do that
2:42:42 that might want to go there as opposed
2:42:44 to in the other
2:42:47 Camp commissioners
2:42:50 um so how about the timing how's that
2:42:51 going to go are you going to craft it in
2:42:54 and then for us to review or go straight
2:42:56 to the council we're going to try and do
2:42:58 that work tonight yeah so I hope you
2:43:01 have coffee in that um thermos of yours
2:43:04 so so our our all right our objective
2:43:07 tonight is to make a decision on the two
2:43:10 issues approval or
2:43:12 disapproval and to forward our
2:43:16 recommendations to the council with the
2:43:19 attendant amendments uh that are already
2:43:24 have we some of them have already been
2:43:28 given to us a number of times and if we
2:43:30 have any additional additional
2:43:32 amendments that we want to make then we
2:43:35 should do that now
2:43:38 tonight in order to have a complete as
2:43:41 complete with the time frame as complete
2:43:44 a set of recommendations to the council
2:43:46 as we can deliver from the commission
2:43:49 so let me try to make sure I'm clear
2:43:52 here maybe maybe provide some
2:43:54 clarification so for me the way I think
2:43:55 about this is that the Motions the
2:43:57 formal motions that we make are going to
2:43:59 be specific recommendations that are we
2:44:03 want to see included in the agreements
2:44:05 they're going to be modifications to the
2:44:07 agreements and they're going to be
2:44:08 binding
2:44:10 eventually um if the council if it goes
2:44:12 through and the council agrees to
2:44:14 whatever we suggest here or whatever we
2:44:15 recommend there are the other categories
2:44:17 and maybe the the nine things you have
2:44:20 on on your your list Keith and that's
2:44:23 these are other areas that we think the
2:44:24 council needs to direct some attention
2:44:27 but we don't have to get overly formal
2:44:29 about that um it it's really identifying
2:44:32 those those kind of key areas that the
2:44:34 council needs to be thinking about um
2:44:37 aware of that there's we had some
2:44:38 concerns or we had robust conversation
2:44:41 around these things and want them to um
2:44:43 because they're either out of the scope
2:44:45 of the commission or is for example the
2:44:48 issue of the role of the commission into
2:44:49 the future those are really things that
2:44:51 are Council policy choices so we can
2:44:53 just identify those with some fairly
2:44:55 General language and we can let staff
2:44:57 kind of craft that because you've been
2:44:58 here you've listened to the conversation
2:45:00 and I'm confident that that that would
2:45:02 be effectively communicated but I think
2:45:03 we need to make sure that the language
2:45:04 in the Motions is exactly what we want
2:45:07 to include in the what would transpire
2:45:10 as formal agreements eventually so
2:45:12 that's my understanding of the path
2:45:14 we're on here anybody else I personally
2:45:17 agree yeah I I think I get I'm I'm real
2:45:21 interested in the Motions but I'm also
2:45:23 interested in those recommendations
2:45:24 because there were a few that were
2:45:25 fairly specific that I didn't agree with
2:45:28 at least one so I just I I want to hear
2:45:30 them you know I'd like to be able to
2:45:31 have that dialogue go through those
2:45:33 before we walk away from here I trust
2:45:35 his staff but I'd still like to hear
2:45:36 what what we're recommending in those re
2:45:39 Rec areas of concern you know I think
2:45:41 it's what what
2:45:43 uh he wrote down
2:45:46 right my understanding Rules of Order
2:45:51 are that we will there will be a motion
2:45:53 made uh there will be a
2:45:57 discussion the motion if there are
2:46:00 proposals to amend it if there are
2:46:03 proposals to amend it those proposals
2:46:06 will be made at that time we will vote
2:46:09 on up or down on each
2:46:12 additional
2:46:14 Amendment come up with the final wording
2:46:18 including the amendments that have been
2:46:19 approved and vote on
2:46:23 that did I say something funny no I'm
2:46:27 reading what he wrote and I'm Tak me to
2:46:29 task on uh on on trying to inject a
2:46:32 little humor into the evening here thank
2:46:33 you thank you okay so and Mr chair just
2:46:38 to clarify too the extent that we make
2:46:40 recommendations with conditions I
2:46:43 presume the council can take or refute
2:46:47 yeah they do whatever they want they
2:46:49 could change any one of those
2:46:50 specifically it's not a yay or or IGN
2:46:53 right yep
2:46:55 absolutely okay so just to just so I'm
2:46:58 clear are we writing into the agreement
2:47:01 now or ident identifying it as an
2:47:04 amendment so that the council can say
2:47:06 yes for Amendment one no for Amendment
2:47:09 two that kind of thing we're we're going
2:47:12 to we're having we're going to have
2:47:14 ultimately two different votes one is on
2:47:17 the mspa MH and one is on the
2:47:19 development
2:47:20 agreement both the wording of those two
2:47:25 is uh different and there will be
2:47:28 amendments there already are uh
2:47:30 amendments to both of them that have
2:47:32 been discussed in the past that are
2:47:34 included up
2:47:36 here what I was saying earlier Ry is if
2:47:39 if there are additional
2:47:41 amendments that as a result of tonight's
2:47:43 meeting that the commission wants to
2:47:45 make they should be proposed disc
2:47:48 discussed voted on up or down and then
2:47:52 included in this and then we vote on the
2:47:55 total package of the two total packages
2:47:57 okay is that all right does that sound
2:47:59 right to everybody I know we're all this
2:48:03 is a new process I mean the process is
2:48:05 changing folks all right okay
2:48:09 okay so um what I've done is um edited
2:48:14 the uh draft based on tonight
2:48:20 discussion and
2:48:21 suggestions um and uh Carl's edits to uh
2:48:27 condition number
2:48:28 two so I I would suggest maybe reviewing
2:48:33 this and see if this is
2:48:41 appropriate okay so these are the second
2:48:50 all right this is all what we're looking
2:48:52 at here is all the mspa right this this
2:48:56 is the first one just the mspa
2:49:01 good Mr chair at this point can I
2:49:04 recommend just one small addition to
2:49:06 this absolutely just Lucy in the first
2:49:08 paragraph says subject to the conditions
2:49:10 ident as identified in the staff report
2:49:12 can we say subject to the three
2:49:15 conditions identified just so we know
2:49:17 that it's sure
2:49:49 Brandy our author is reading very very
2:49:58 carefully should conditions on the
2:50:01 bottom paragraph too
2:50:11 question is your
2:50:14 um configuration of the building is that
2:50:17 in your that would come up in the
2:50:19 that's that's the da the da yeah got you
2:50:22 I'll just dve tail into that then on the
2:50:26 bridge is there any more changes you for
2:50:29 a do we have a motion to approve I'd
2:50:32 make a motion that we approve the draft
2:50:34 as presented I'm
2:50:36 sorry I'd make a motion that we approve
2:50:39 the draft as
2:50:40 written
2:50:42 second is there any discussion further
2:50:47 discussion int and then all in favor
2:50:50 indicate by saying I I
2:50:53 I carries unanimously Mr chair I move
2:50:58 we approve the oops oh sorry do we have
2:51:02 to approve the motion for the second
2:51:04 window well yeah the da yes no not the
2:51:07 da but the oh I'm sorry to direct staff
2:51:11 to oh right
2:51:15 yeah Mr chair move we approve the draft
2:51:18 motion for preparation memo of
2:51:19 recommendation second
2:51:23 discussion all those in
2:51:25 favor I carries unanimously sorry I went
2:51:29 to save but I was a little too
2:51:43 quick okay
2:51:50 just as a administrative thing Lucy I'm
2:51:53 sorry let me go ahead uh when when do
2:51:58 you think I can I've got some other
2:52:00 travel and but I want to be available
2:52:02 when this is presented is for me to sign
2:52:05 would that be like within a week I think
2:52:06 we're hoping to do it in the next couple
2:52:08 of days oh great
2:52:12 okay you don't have to unpack your
2:52:17 suitcase true
2:52:33 I need to
2:52:39 up and Lucy can you add to that the
2:52:42 eight
2:52:43 conditions
2:52:44 um yes but I don't know that you've got
2:52:47 eight conditions
2:52:49 you may have more condition why don't we
2:52:51 look at those while you do that can we
2:52:56 multitask so can I go to the um
2:53:00 sweet all right good idea no I'm sorry
2:53:02 not those conditions I meant no the
2:53:04 recommendations her those a conditions
2:53:07 you want to look at those now no no I
2:53:09 just wanted the add those in add no he
2:53:12 just want just say to the number eights
2:53:14 I got that yeah okay m
2:53:19 okay yeah great um so I've added eight
2:53:21 down here and then uh eight up there yep
2:53:42 great I know you go from finding fact
2:53:45 recommendation just like that you lost
2:53:47 that bunch
2:53:50 okay I did the
2:53:53 button
2:53:54 so so we have the a conditions right and
2:53:58 Keith is working on a list for um the
2:54:02 recommend no we're still working the
2:54:04 mspa now we're not we're not on the da
2:54:06 no we're on the da MPA done right okay
2:54:09 so what these these eight conditions are
2:54:11 going to be on the at the end of or
2:54:14 included in the in the recommendation on
2:54:16 the da yes yes all right those if so
2:54:18 that sheet if we agree to them right um
2:54:22 hypothetically speaking uh there a
2:54:25 there's that double-sided sheet that you
2:54:27 received tonight that has eight
2:54:28 conditions those are the eight
2:54:30 conditions that Mel was asking me to
2:54:31 reference in the um two motions
2:54:39 oneus is
2:54:41 ased oh
2:54:43 right okay I'm going to right I'll fix
2:54:50 is there a date on
2:54:52 that September
2:54:55 1 I was just going to ask if you're
2:54:57 going to add that because it's the same
2:54:59 paragraph as the other one
2:55:10 okay I love to cut and paste stuff Mr
2:55:13 chair move we approve the development
2:55:16 agreement for Costco Wholesale
2:55:17 Corporation ation as drafted
2:55:22 second discuss Mr chair I'd like
2:55:27 to make a motion to amend condition
2:55:30 number
2:55:34 four to remove the last bullet the in
2:55:38 the last bullet point remove the last
2:55:42 phrase beginning with and at building 4
2:55:45 a taking into account opportunities
2:55:47 preserv and or highlight views and
2:55:50 Vistas and add an additional bullet
2:55:54 point that would read at the south end
2:55:57 of Lake Drive maintain the southerly
2:56:01 view of squawk Mountain by either one
2:56:04 pulling back the Southwest section of
2:56:06 building 4 to approximately the line
2:56:08 showing the location of the underground
2:56:10 parking
2:56:11 garage or two revising the south end of
2:56:15 Lake Drive to be oriented in a north
2:56:17 south direction from approximately the
2:56:20 location of the sky bridge between
2:56:23 buildings four and five to its
2:56:25 intersection with the proposed
2:56:27 roundabout if building fours are revised
2:56:30 As Above in one Costco shall be allowed
2:56:34 to expand the footprint of building five
2:56:36 to have the Eastern facade match the
2:56:39 curval linear shape of Lake Drive or
2:56:42 expand building Forest footprint within
2:56:45 the bounds of the underground parking
2:56:46 garage line
2:56:51 discussion
2:56:52 second I'm sorry
2:56:56 second my my brain's not getting late so
2:57:00 it's um I'm not thinking as clearly as
2:57:01 possible but it it it seemed like we
2:57:04 limited Costco to building one skybridge
2:57:07 and it wasn't obvious to me it it would
2:57:09 seem like that recommendation would be
2:57:11 contingent upon them building the
2:57:12 southernmost skybridge as opposed to the
2:57:14 one on the North and so it would it
2:57:17 would see seem like we ought
2:57:20 to we ought not constrain them if if
2:57:22 they if they choose not to build that
2:57:24 southernmost skybridge then doesn't make
2:57:26 any I I still think a 90 degree
2:57:28 intersection is better than a you know
2:57:31 cute one but that's the engineering me I
2:57:34 think you were yeah so uh Mr chair I'd
2:57:37 like to amend my motion because I I was
2:57:42 thinking of that when I was drafting it
2:57:43 almost add this verbiage but I didn't to
2:57:46 say from approximately the location of
2:57:49 the skybridge shown on the plans between
2:57:51 buildings four and five to its
2:57:53 intersection with the roundabout in
2:57:55 other words this is just for the council
2:57:59 what's shown on the plans right now
2:58:00 whether they build that or not doesn't
2:58:03 really matter just so they reference an
2:58:05 area yeah so thanks for the question so
2:58:08 do we need to
2:58:09 reread okay yeah so I've got it written
2:58:12 and I need a second for my I did okay
2:58:16 you got a second all right so no I mean
2:58:18 on on the this amendment oh on the
2:58:20 change is there we have a do we have a
2:58:22 first do we have a okay so you're all
2:58:25 right I did the main motion second he
2:58:27 made it he made an amendment I seconded
2:58:29 both okay so any further
2:58:32 discussion yeah so the the one issue
2:58:34 that's not addressed there is the
2:58:36 required open space that's there's a
2:58:39 certain square footage of public space
2:58:40 that's required in the plan and part of
2:58:42 that was um on the that that would be
2:58:46 taken up by the expansion of the bill
2:58:48 building to align with the road so I
2:58:51 guess my concern is they still have to
2:58:54 accomplish that someplace so I'm
2:58:55 guessing in your proposal they would do
2:58:58 that now down at the corner near the
2:59:00 roundabout intersection correct okay so
2:59:04 okay and the idea Lucy I don't know if
2:59:06 you can pull that up again easily enough
2:59:37 there so in the upper leftand corner
2:59:40 start talking about building five on the
2:59:42 left side not having that public
2:59:44 pedestrian area in essence that would be
2:59:47 replaced by the area that's been taken
2:59:49 out by building
2:59:51 four uh that that's creating more open
2:59:54 pedestrian Plaza then okay so that
2:59:56 because there was conversation about
2:59:58 well we could have a two-story building
2:59:59 there potentially Etc so in this
3:00:00 particular proposal you would you would
3:00:03 flip the open space or the public space
3:00:05 over to uh the cornite building for
3:00:09 correct okay so that would require
3:00:13 adjustments of standards and things that
3:00:15 are not we we we are not there's some
3:00:18 process that goes with that so that's a
3:00:20 concern I have by the kind of clear
3:00:23 cutness of this that some of the process
3:00:26 as well as um feasibility of moving the
3:00:30 road isn't really taken into account so
3:00:33 I I I I'm I'm wondering how we can
3:00:36 factor in that there has been no study
3:00:39 of either of those uh proposals in terms
3:00:42 of the impacts I guess my thought is
3:00:45 since it is just since the council wants
3:00:47 us to move quickly and since it's only a
3:00:50 recommendation to council they'll have
3:00:53 this in front of them and they can
3:00:55 between now and when they meet it would
3:00:58 give them time to do their own research
3:01:01 staff time y okay
3:01:10 um so you have you you feel confident
3:01:13 that you have the condition because I
3:01:15 know I don't I've got it oh okay all
3:01:17 right I know she would have a perfect
3:01:20 anyway
3:01:22 I okay um I'm just GNA say um
3:01:28 put okay that's what you
3:01:42 put all right um Mr chairman would this
3:01:45 be a good place to put the uh um issue
3:01:48 on the skybridge following your bullet
3:01:50 we still need to vote on this amendment
3:01:53 I think right we need to vote on this
3:01:55 you want do one at a time then yeah okay
3:01:58 so we have a second is there any further
3:02:03 discussion all in favor signify by
3:02:05 saying I I I I all right it's
3:02:10 unanimous next Mr chairman um I'd like
3:02:13 to add another bullet to paragraph four
3:02:18 um in reference to um the
3:02:22 skybridge and um the language would read
3:02:25 something along the line
3:02:27 of um
3:02:30 if if the applicants decide to install a
3:02:37 skybridge um it shall be of one
3:02:42 level so I believe you're actually
3:02:44 editing condition number three am I
3:02:47 correct uh it it yeah it could be number
3:02:49 three I'm not sure whether we
3:02:52 could do number three because number
3:02:54 three basically says you know it's a uh
3:02:57 same thing as the staff report uh in the
3:03:00 imagery and since we're doing number
3:03:02 four with the um expanding
3:03:06 view it could go either way okay sky is
3:03:10 under three
3:03:13 though so would you re read that again
3:03:16 please um if the applicants decide to
3:03:19 install a
3:03:22 skybridge um it shall be of one
3:03:25 level and it shall not
3:03:27 have it shall be of open span with no
3:03:31 intermediate structural
3:03:35 columns and
3:03:40 80 I don't know what 80% of glass means
3:03:43 but well Ray I have a question about
3:03:45 that sure so you're saying that you want
3:03:49 an you want the cost code to be required
3:03:52 to build a skybridge that doesn't have
3:03:55 any supporting columns if they decide to
3:03:58 put a sky Bridge the sky Bridge shall
3:04:01 not shall not shall be an open span with
3:04:03 no intermediate columns yes including
3:04:07 columns that are structural that are say
3:04:10 4 feet from the building but don't don't
3:04:13 have any no columns at all just open
3:04:16 span I
3:04:18 okay is that a that's a proposal that's
3:04:22 yeah it's a motion a motion rather it's
3:04:23 a motion do we have a
3:04:29 second I I'll second it for discussion
3:04:32 all right the second is for discussion
3:04:34 discussion is the I I guess one the
3:04:37 questions Lucy I'm make sure I
3:04:39 understand this
3:04:42 um section is it section 26 of the
3:04:45 agreement addresses sky
3:04:48 Bridge it is currently the whole section
3:04:51 is being moved into an exhibit but
3:04:54 that's why it says um you see in
3:04:58 condition uh three the edit that says
3:05:01 exhibit J exhibit and okay that's where
3:05:05 all the interpretations and adjustments
3:05:07 are going into that exhibit some things
3:05:09 like the there's already the the walls
3:05:11 of the sky bre shall be transparent or
3:05:13 open approximately 70% so that's already
3:05:15 addressed in there yeah yes that is a
3:05:18 part of the development agreement okay
3:05:20 the the eight criteria that were in the
3:05:23 memo that you the briefing response memo
3:05:26 those are taken directly from the
3:05:28 development
3:05:32 agreement is there any further
3:05:34 discussion um I guess
3:05:40 the so the the the the one thing I
3:05:43 thought uh I guess so we have a limits
3:05:46 on the width
3:05:48 but we don't it's when you say one level
3:05:52 they think well what if you have one
3:05:53 level but it's 30 feet tall just a very
3:05:56 high roof but we don't have a limit on
3:05:58 how tall it could be right no it it has
3:06:01 to be a minimum of 8 feet high on the
3:06:05 inside um but it doesn't on the outside
3:06:09 or inside or outside yeah I guess what I
3:06:12 was looking for was rather than having
3:06:14 two floors connecting to two floors or
3:06:16 three floors
3:06:18 connecting the three floors so I I guess
3:06:20 what I would suggest is if the
3:06:23 commission wants to propose this that it
3:06:25 it would be that it would be one level
3:06:27 consistent with the floor levels of the
3:06:30 buildings to which it attaches instead
3:06:33 of trying to pick a number that we won't
3:06:35 really have any
3:06:37 basis for yeah I'm I'm just for the sake
3:06:41 of discussion I'm really concerned about
3:06:43 limiting you I I understand the notion
3:06:45 of limiting height but I think
3:06:48 it's really would really be a mistake at
3:06:49 this stage to take away discretion of an
3:06:51 architect to create a really great
3:06:54 wonderful I mean know the examples of
3:06:55 the sky Bridges he showed us were all
3:06:57 different and they all fit where they at
3:07:00 least to me they fit where they were so
3:07:03 uh I I could support maybe a a a limit
3:07:07 on height but I I I'm not even I
3:07:09 wouldn't support a no intermediate
3:07:11 columns that I think that can really
3:07:13 create some wonderful frame frame views
3:07:16 so uh
3:07:18 just not going to go there so just for
3:07:22 um discussion so you have some images
3:07:25 around those those two issues um and and
3:07:29 I know I said this before but just now
3:07:30 that you're thinking more about it uh
3:07:32 the these two over the RightWay use um
3:07:37 suspension from above um these uh
3:07:41 between buildings do have intermediate
3:07:45 um intermediary column
3:07:48 um and this one is more than one level
3:07:51 um the one thing that I noted here was
3:07:56 um again this didn't have columns
3:07:59 although the building does extend out a
3:08:00 bit um Costco does use intermediary
3:08:04 columns uh one thing that struck me is
3:08:07 uh what you said uh Rick was that uh
3:08:12 this one is uh somewhat more than the
3:08:15 level they've almost added a Clara story
3:08:17 I think for light and maybe experience a
3:08:21 As you move through it so let let me
3:08:23 just kind of defend on on the column um
3:08:27 I guess I was trying to get away from
3:08:29 having it column and second just second
3:08:33 level and before you know it it's a
3:08:35 tunnel uh that's why there's the
3:08:38 limitation the maximum limitation on
3:08:40 glass is to kind of open it up uh you
3:08:43 start putting columns in there and
3:08:44 you're squeezing yourself in there and
3:08:47 I'm I'm sure I'm looking at the worst
3:08:49 scenario and and that's why I kind of
3:08:51 like to open it up um so without the
3:08:55 column question are you suggesting
3:08:57 columns internal to the actual skybridge
3:09:01 or columns underneath the skybridge
3:09:04 column underneath okay we're trying to
3:09:06 eliminate column underneath it so in
3:09:09 glass so that you have the sun coming
3:09:11 through it's it's you can make it a very
3:09:14 nice feature with color panels uh
3:09:17 colored glass so opening that up and I
3:09:21 didn't want to have
3:09:23 again U three three story height uh
3:09:29 Bridges coming through you could make a
3:09:31 mezzanine out of that you could make a
3:09:34 cafe um serving coffee there and before
3:09:37 you know it it's a mesine and then uh
3:09:39 below you have the bridge going through
3:09:42 and so that's the reason why it's one
3:09:44 level instead of three so Li it to one
3:09:48 level no column opening it up glass the
3:09:51 sun is on the south side coming in very
3:09:54 nice well as the I guess r as the person
3:09:57 that seconded I would only vote for for
3:10:00 amend it to just one level because I
3:10:02 would agree with Richard about I
3:10:04 wouldn't want to limit the architect on
3:10:06 columns if there could be something done
3:10:08 there and I think we've addressed the
3:10:10 clarity in the report but I would vote
3:10:13 for the one one level only but I
3:10:15 wouldn't vote for
3:10:17 all three factors I would uh I would
3:10:20 also I agree with that I don't want to
3:10:22 limit the uh architectural uh
3:10:26 possibilities of this but this gets into
3:10:28 the trust but verify I mean we're at
3:10:30 this stage we're uh we're we're not
3:10:32 going to the the DC is not going to see
3:10:35 what the actual proposal looks like the
3:10:39 architectural design uh you would but at
3:10:41 what point when they when they are ready
3:10:44 to make an actual uh uh land use permit
3:10:50 submittal for a building of at least
3:10:54 150,000 square feet right if it was
3:10:56 shown on the land plan so buildings 4 a
3:10:59 4B five or six which are it when they
3:11:02 make their full site development permit
3:11:04 submitt it will come to you okay right
3:11:08 well and that's fine that's fine uh yeah
3:11:10 so I don't I agree that uh we don't I I
3:11:14 don't want personally I don't want to
3:11:15 address the columns issue um and even on
3:11:19 the uh one level I I think it should be
3:11:23 level uh or one
3:11:26 one not connect more than one level of
3:11:29 one building to another but I have a
3:11:32 little bit of a reservation about trying
3:11:33 to get into how high or whether it can
3:11:36 have a clear story on it or not so I I'm
3:11:39 I'm not real comfortable at this point
3:11:41 in the game dictating architectural uh
3:11:44 requirements to to the uh
3:11:48 so the the language then might be that
3:11:52 connects um the same level between two
3:11:57 buildings two two buildings right with
3:12:00 with uh and I'll I'll amend my motion to
3:12:03 delete the open span
3:12:06 then so it would read uh if the
3:12:09 applicants decide to um install a
3:12:14 skybridge um it shall be of one
3:12:22 level um so my only concern about saying
3:12:26 it shall be one level is that if you
3:12:28 wanted to add that clar story that that
3:12:30 some of the members seemed interested in
3:12:32 that might not be the
3:12:34 interpretation in implementing that um
3:12:37 one okay well one story would be one
3:12:39 story clear story is this is clear story
3:12:42 this room is a one-story room with clear
3:12:45 St clear story what you're asking is if
3:12:48 the applicant decides to install a
3:12:50 skybridge it may be one story in
3:12:55 height yeah what yeah one story in
3:12:58 height yeah I thought what he was saying
3:13:00 is it's going to connect the same level
3:13:02 building to building so if you're
3:13:03 connecting the second floor on one
3:13:04 building you connect the second floor on
3:13:06 another building so just so you know
3:13:08 that there the currently the skybridge
3:13:10 criteria does not allow significant
3:13:14 grade right but across so you you would
3:13:17 not be able I mean
3:13:19 unless this building was significantly
3:13:22 lower it it would have to connect level
3:13:25 two to level two and nor do as I
3:13:27 understand it nor does does it allow for
3:13:29 angles to be in for it to start lower
3:13:32 and have an arch or anything like that
3:13:34 and it has to be it has from what I
3:13:36 understand about it has to be level I'm
3:13:37 not sure I would interpret that it
3:13:39 couldn't have an arch Randy but I would
3:13:41 agree that connecting level two to level
3:13:43 three would not be possible okay so
3:13:45 let's m
3:13:47 so you what we want here or what I think
3:13:50 you're saying is you want to make sure
3:13:53 that we don't have multiple level Sky
3:13:55 Bridges so we're talking about
3:13:57 connecting one floor of one building to
3:14:00 another floor of another building well
3:14:02 maybe what you want to say is what you
3:14:04 don't want is that you don't want
3:14:05 multi-level skyb again how's that that's
3:14:10 fine okay no multi- level clear story
3:14:30 there we go
3:14:32 okay okay thank you agree so we need is
3:14:36 that okay so I agree with the change as
3:14:39 second so we have a second is there any
3:14:42 further
3:14:43 discussion all those in favor as draft I
3:14:48 carries unanimously all
3:14:52 right
3:15:01 okay so are there any
3:15:05 further there any of any on your list of
3:15:08 stuff that we want to list of eight that
3:15:10 you wanted to consider Mr chair no no I
3:15:13 thought well I thought the list of eight
3:15:15 were going to be recommendation or just
3:15:17 kind of recommendations we've asked the
3:15:18 council to to look at that you wanted to
3:15:21 add a condition and that and that's true
3:15:24 you could make a recommend it could be
3:15:26 part of your recommendation it
3:15:28 conditions probably these conditions
3:15:30 really relate to the land plan right so
3:15:32 if you had a recommend if you wanted to
3:15:34 give them um additional information
3:15:38 perspective opinion recommendations on
3:15:40 the development agreement that would
3:15:42 probably be a recommendation
3:15:45 Okay so one so so we covered um
3:15:50 commission commissioner Morgan Southern
3:15:52 Vista one I had that as one of my age so
3:15:55 if you cross that one off the others I
3:15:58 think are more development agreement
3:16:01 Orient oh I'm
3:16:03 sorry yes so um so of the eight um one
3:16:08 of them was already addressed by
3:16:10 commissioner Morgan so the southern
3:16:12 Vista the rest are um were I think
3:16:16 bigger uh development commission or
3:16:19 development agreement
3:16:22 um conditions or recommendations and not
3:16:24 necessarily tied to the land plan
3:16:27 okay so are there any
3:16:31 further is this a development agreement
3:16:34 yes this is the development agre this is
3:16:36 the da right this is the development
3:16:38 agreement we've already you've done the
3:16:39 M done the mdaa right so if you wanted
3:16:42 to add recommend um cont ENT to the
3:16:48 recommendation the probably the place
3:16:50 would be to put it down in that motion
3:16:52 that the memo to of recommendation would
3:16:56 include the following points
3:17:00 yeah yeah yeah does that make sense
3:17:02 here's what here's what we're really
3:17:06 thinking okay so again are there any
3:17:10 further uh amendments or conditions that
3:17:14 the commission wants to consider with
3:17:17 regard to the
3:17:20 DA Okay no Okay do I have a motion we've
3:17:24 got a motion we have a motion on the
3:17:26 floor was amended now we're back to the
3:17:28 main motion right as amended okay so
3:17:31 it's already been well it's already been
3:17:33 moved in
3:17:34 seconded so we're into yeah we're into
3:17:37 discussion on the back to the main
3:17:40 motion so there no there being no
3:17:44 further uh amendments or conditions
3:17:46 suggest suggested by the commission and
3:17:49 there being a first and a second Mo
3:17:51 motion we are now ready to
3:17:54 vote all those in favor of the da the
3:17:58 development agreement as worded with the
3:18:00 appropriate uh wording for the
3:18:02 conditions desired by the commission
3:18:05 signify by saying I I opposed
3:18:11 okay Mr chair I move we prepare a draft
3:18:14 motion for preparation of a
3:18:17 I'm sorry Mr chair move we the staff
3:18:20 prepare a memo of recommendation as
3:18:25 shown second second
3:18:31 discussion the things you might want to
3:18:33 add yes right so can we put the list up
3:18:35 so we can remind ourselves of what we
3:18:36 thought was important now what again
3:18:38 what we're doing here are these are
3:18:40 things that we want to call to the
3:18:43 attention of the city council and say by
3:18:45 the way we think you also ought to
3:18:47 really look at the following issues uh
3:18:50 which we believe are related to this
3:18:53 generally but not specifically so we'd
3:18:55 like you to give serious consideration
3:18:58 to these these points going forward
3:19:11 okay I didn't do that I wouldn't have I
3:19:14 know you were still reading no no that's
3:19:16 right I I can't find the on switch on my
3:19:19 computer so that's that I do that okay
3:19:21 so the first one um let me know if you
3:19:24 can't hear me uh the first one you may
3:19:26 or may not still want to keep as a
3:19:28 bigger topic but this was what uh
3:19:31 commissioner Leong brought up and and
3:19:34 and you know you guys work through an
3:19:36 amended condition but whether or not you
3:19:38 want a bigger more
3:19:40 overarching um recommendation related to
3:19:43 consideration of Sky Bridges and views
3:19:46 you know that would be number one number
3:19:48 two clarify the limitations to the ccrs
3:19:50 and the Popa for Pickering you know that
3:19:53 came up um number three I think this was
3:19:57 from commissioner Brennan was you know
3:19:59 talk about CI you know CIP Central qual
3:20:03 plan and the
3:20:04 Costco um kind of development agreement
3:20:07 and you know thinking about the bigger
3:20:09 picture and how those two pieces relay
3:20:12 and I think specifically since there's
3:20:14 no residential in Costco and and I'm
3:20:16 kind of adding my own lens is does this
3:20:19 mean that the city should be thinking
3:20:22 maybe a little bit differently about the
3:20:23 rest of Pickering and the Redevelopment
3:20:25 of that neighborhood and the inclusion
3:20:27 of Housing and should that be a
3:20:29 conversation that somebody should have
3:20:30 at this point uh number four and also
3:20:34 the other point was the kind of
3:20:35 integration of this development into the
3:20:37 trail system and and the enhancement of
3:20:39 that trail system to the
3:20:41 to absolutely um and and okay yes um uh
3:20:47 mtfa uh the funding risk you know that
3:20:49 was clearly something that the
3:20:50 commission had some concerns over uh the
3:20:54 role of DC I put trust and verify with
3:20:57 question mark I think the the issue that
3:20:59 was brought up by the commission is the
3:21:02 evolving or de evolving role of the
3:21:04 commission and the importance of that
3:21:05 and I think you know putting forward
3:21:08 that message to the council is important
3:21:10 and Keith I would suggest again the
3:21:12 issue to me for the council to consider
3:21:14 is do they want do they continue to want
3:21:17 the information that traditionally the
3:21:20 council or the commission the
3:21:21 development commission provides or not
3:21:25 so as a point of
3:21:29 clarification with a site development
3:21:31 permit the commission is the decision
3:21:34 maker and that there is no
3:21:37 recommendation or
3:21:40 additional action at the council okay so
3:21:43 can can I narrow this one down even a
3:21:46 little bit more it really is
3:21:48 about the the the role because this
3:21:51 these permits don't go site development
3:21:53 permits don't go back to council so they
3:21:54 are either at staff level or commission
3:21:57 depends on mostly the threshold is
3:21:59 150,000 Square fet so the question is
3:22:03 whether we want to exempt or we want to
3:22:05 change the process within the
3:22:07 development agreement to for Costco
3:22:10 projects that are in excess of 150,000
3:22:11 sare ft and remove the decision-making
3:22:13 role of development commission that's
3:22:16 the issue one point of clarification
3:22:17 that's only for the four buildings that
3:22:19 are shown on the land plan any other
3:22:21 buildings right that are not shown on
3:22:24 the land plan would go through the
3:22:25 standard process understood okay thank
3:22:27 you okay uh number six is parking um and
3:22:31 I think you know the parking issue was
3:22:33 brought up uh and then uh number will be
3:22:37 now seven is the speed of the process
3:22:40 and you know that was a concern for the
3:22:43 I think that gets cranked in with the
3:22:45 MTF funding risk
3:22:48 that that I can I can definitely link
3:22:51 those two yeah yeah all right
3:22:55 so my feeling on this frankly and I'll
3:22:58 go first so uh is that I personally
3:23:02 don't believe we need to address Sky
3:23:05 Bridges and
3:23:06 Views okay yeah so Keith you can scratch
3:23:11 through that uh I I think that uh number
3:23:16 my personal opinion is two we we should
3:23:19 ask them to think about clarification
3:23:22 there I'm not sure what the wording
3:23:23 would be at this juncture but but to me
3:23:26 two and three and then
3:23:32 uh the speed of the process the MTF
3:23:34 eliminate Park yeah and I think that's
3:23:37 right I think parking is also
3:23:39 uh something that you know that's that
3:23:42 that issue comes up with everything that
3:23:45 we do uh so so I'm not I'm looking at
3:23:48 things that are different than what we
3:23:52 always look at and always areas that we
3:23:55 always recommend that are unique to this
3:23:59 da okay that's that's kind of my what
3:24:01 I'm looking at here so clarification CIP
3:24:05 and Costco think about the big picture
3:24:07 absolutely in my opinion uh the speed of
3:24:10 the process driven by the mtfa and the
3:24:12 the concurrent funding risk if it isn't
3:24:15 moved that and what are the
3:24:16 ramifications of that and then uh the
3:24:19 role of the DC going forward so parking
3:24:22 comes off I I am I here is there a
3:24:26 consensus y okay all right and with five
3:24:29 things okay and and I in my mind the the
3:24:33 ccrs of Popa still in my mind become a
3:24:38 private issue but it becomes important
3:24:40 to the extent that the ccnr May limit
3:24:43 residential development which I hadn't
3:24:45 heard before tonight and so
3:24:47 I think that I think the city really
3:24:49 would like to have some residential
3:24:51 development take place within picking
3:24:53 place I would hate to see the ccnr or
3:24:56 Popa prevent that prevent that from
3:24:58 happening so just on that I agree with
3:25:01 that and just on that point the the ccnr
3:25:06 is essentially well the the the master
3:25:09 uh plan for Pickering Place actually
3:25:12 doesn't um allow for development
3:25:14 consistent with the central isqua plan
3:25:16 and so the idea here is in my mind is
3:25:19 how do we encourage those properties to
3:25:21 move forward into the kind of the
3:25:23 current plan and that's a strategy the
3:25:25 council should think about and I think
3:25:27 we can add that um because that's that's
3:25:30 a great policy direction for the council
3:25:32 to understand because you guys I mean if
3:25:35 you remember the first time we talked
3:25:37 about this there was some serious kind
3:25:39 of recoiling about well I don't know
3:25:41 about removing the MSP from Pickering
3:25:44 and that that might be a big problem and
3:25:46 and kind of we work through that and as
3:25:47 you guys learn more about what that
3:25:49 meant and how it limits development and
3:25:52 really enactment of the vision for the
3:25:54 CIP I think you guys came to the
3:25:55 conclusion yes that's 27 years old it's
3:25:58 from a past time we need to get rid of
3:26:01 it and if we can encourage other
3:26:02 property owners within Pickering to also
3:26:05 be removed from that Master site plan
3:26:07 that that would be good for the council
3:26:08 as well that's the message I heard if
3:26:10 you guys want to add that in here I
3:26:12 think that would be a great message to
3:26:13 send forward to the council yes that
3:26:15 that's I mean that's why we have this
3:26:18 this meeting is to address the
3:26:22 limitations on a member of that
3:26:25 organization to do what they want to do
3:26:29 and this is to try to address it from
3:26:31 the consideration of the city the plan
3:26:34 and the parties involved
3:26:37 okay and I think this we should also
3:26:39 include in the memo that this was really
3:26:41 a lot of hard work by the commission and
3:26:43 that we would like them to double our
3:26:44 salaries
3:26:46 we support that in an annual Z time two
3:26:49 is what you think the 51 million would
3:26:52 cover that yeah all right one other
3:26:55 thing uh just a thought role of the DC
3:26:59 um again I I think we're here because of
3:27:03 the council and the mayor but I think I
3:27:06 would not have if this had been a new
3:27:09 entity coming into town saying we want
3:27:11 the ability to do this
3:27:13 unproven I wouldn't have voted to
3:27:16 approve the idea of buildings over
3:27:19 150,000 going to staff with only
3:27:22 Community Conference but I think Costco
3:27:24 has proven over the years to be a good
3:27:27 developer good Steward of property
3:27:29 within the city I think they've shown
3:27:31 they can provide something that we'd all
3:27:34 like so yeah I I agree with uh
3:27:37 commissioner Morgan on that I think what
3:27:39 we what I would like to see is that we
3:27:41 get across to the to the we don't think
3:27:44 I mean it's a precedent obviously
3:27:46 obviously it's a precedent but I'd be
3:27:49 real careful about giving the impression
3:27:52 that this can be followed by somebody
3:27:54 that doesn't have a track record a
3:27:57 demonstrated track record that we can
3:28:00 look at and and mitigate to a
3:28:02 significant degree our discomfort with
3:28:04 approving things that normally we would
3:28:07 have to see first so I'm having to write
3:28:10 interpretations for all of this so I
3:28:12 love this
3:28:13 conversation um and uh
3:28:16 I I think two two things I think that's
3:28:19 a great piece and I don't know if that's
3:28:21 in there so I'll I'll go back and look
3:28:22 at that um I think the other piece is uh
3:28:27 that we've spent a lot of time uh on the
3:28:30 land plan as part of this and that we
3:28:33 have these existing buildings that
3:28:35 create this sort of style manual this
3:28:38 level of
3:28:39 expectation um that that we're not we're
3:28:42 not just looking at I mean the land plan
3:28:45 without the existing campus I think
3:28:48 would not be reviewable right well and I
3:28:51 I heard the word trust out of at least
3:28:52 four of you so I think you know clearly
3:28:56 whatever words Lucy and I picked to you
3:28:59 know immortalize this or memorialize
3:29:01 this trust will definitely be listed in
3:29:03 there trust and Costco as a long-term
3:29:06 you know city employer will be part of
3:29:08 that discussion so that it's clear
3:29:10 procedural question Keith when when does
3:29:12 the the commission get to see the
3:29:15 proposed the draft wording of these well
3:29:19 so that that's up to you right now the
3:29:21 way the motion is drafted it would be up
3:29:24 to you yes to now now the commission can
3:29:29 decide how they want that memo to be
3:29:31 prepared are you going to be in the
3:29:32 country anytime soon the next unless my
3:29:35 bail bondsman fails
3:29:38 me uh yeah all right so what I don't
3:29:41 want to do uh I mean obviously we've
3:29:44 spent enough time on this to sign
3:29:46 signify that it's important to us but I
3:29:49 don't want to get into an unnecessary
3:29:52 delay uh so of of of the process I mean
3:29:55 I I don't think this is I'm comfortable
3:29:58 with your
3:30:00 review like well I I think we'll double
3:30:03 your triple his salary triple uh you
3:30:06 know uh you also have the option of
3:30:09 emailing it out to other Commissioners
3:30:11 if you feel that you need additional
3:30:13 eyes on it all right so so
3:30:16 I'm sorry it's late for all of us so we
3:30:20 can vote on the da we did we
3:30:26 did and not have to hold anything up
3:30:29 with regard to these conditions so the
3:30:31 das's we voted on it now we're asking
3:30:35 the staff to draft these
3:30:38 conditions these points of information
3:30:40 points of information I'm sorry they're
3:30:42 not conditions they're points of
3:30:43 information which will be forward to the
3:30:44 council from the commission
3:30:46 and when I get
3:30:48 that I'll forward it to you say here's
3:30:51 what are the drafts I've made let me
3:30:53 know in what 48 Hours think we did two
3:30:56 other meetings wor the work don't we
3:30:58 isn't he catching up
3:30:59 still so um so just so you know the
3:31:02 commitment I made um in terms that
3:31:05 affect you guys because I commit you
3:31:07 guys to do all sorts of stuff um so the
3:31:09 commitment I made was I want to get your
3:31:14 recommendation out to the public public
3:31:16 by no later than Wednesday of next week
3:31:18 oh so that you know if you guys wanted
3:31:20 if you guys even want to keep it over
3:31:21 the weekend you know I'm good with all
3:31:24 that but by Wednesday of next week um
3:31:27 I'd like to get it out to the public so
3:31:28 the council can look at it and start to
3:31:30 chew on it and have some time to think
3:31:32 about it
3:31:34 okay to work okay that's
3:31:38 good all
3:31:40 right Lissa I guess just one question
3:31:43 the question about the trail that I
3:31:45 think commissioner Bren and brought up
3:31:47 would that also include the trail
3:31:49 connection within L mam State Park that
3:31:52 was brought up in the letter from Mr
3:31:55 kapler or hopefully that will include
3:31:58 reference to that too
3:32:00 so yeah thank
3:32:03 you I was
3:32:10 thinking is in in the in your opinion as
3:32:14 City staff
3:32:18 that that we it would be redundant for
3:32:21 us to for the DC to as one of these
3:32:25 recommendations or points of points of
3:32:28 interest uh
3:32:32 to ID to identify the fact that the two
3:32:36 things the two projects that have come
3:32:39 up since the CIP was put in
3:32:43 place uh do not on the surface appear to
3:32:48 be in the spirit as in residential
3:32:53 retail office space together but that
3:32:57 this this is this is in my opinion this
3:33:00 is the way it it's just going to it's
3:33:02 going to roll out I mean the fact that
3:33:04 there's no residential in Atlas And this
3:33:09 is you know the plan calls for it as Des
3:33:14 highly desirable but not required and if
3:33:17 they are concerned about the direction
3:33:20 that it seems to be going then they
3:33:22 might want to think about
3:33:25 it okay Mr chair we still need to vote
3:33:29 on the oh yeah the last we do okay
3:33:32 so um oh sorry I've been I
3:33:37 didn't yes no I
3:33:40 went so we have we have a motion we have
3:33:43 a second uh and we I'm sorry so I took
3:33:47 the bottom motion and I did the edits
3:33:50 that we did for the mspa but then I
3:33:53 added sort of the four consolidating the
3:33:55 points as I heard them this is not the
3:33:58 way they will appear in the memo we will
3:34:00 unpack these based on your discussion
3:34:03 between the minutes and the videotape
3:34:05 but just to capture that these are the
3:34:08 four topics with which you want expanded
3:34:11 within the recommendation okay
3:34:14 yeah all right so so again we have uh we
3:34:17 have a motion we have a second we have a
3:34:19 discussion is there any further
3:34:22 discussion and
3:34:29 then I stand retail I stand corrected I
3:34:32 meant retail those r words get me every
3:34:38 time I lived in the back off got it
3:34:41 right so yeah all right so again we have
3:34:44 H we have a first and a second and we
3:34:46 have discussion is there any further
3:34:47 discussion all right we'll then go to a
3:34:49 vote all those in favor of the uh motion
3:34:53 as drafted please signify by saying I I
3:34:57 I oppos ain't unanimous okay thank
3:35:01 you all right let's go home is there any
3:35:04 further
3:35:05 business and then the meeting is
3:35:09 adjourned thank you all right woohoo
3:35:13 good work guys good job hey seriously
3:35:18 after
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.