Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12141999 - D8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS c f Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP # Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. County DATE: NOVEMBER 16,1999 SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL FILED BY WALDEN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS, FOX CREEK RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION AND MADISON OWNERS ASSOCIATION, OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 180,000 SQ. FT. (SEVEN STORY) OFFICE BUILDING, 15,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL SPACE AND A PARKING GARAGE.; THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OAK ROAD AND WAYNE DRIVE,IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA(JORDAN WOODMAN DOBSON—APPLICANTS AND THOMAS PROPERTIES - OWNER),FILE 4DP993001 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve a final development plan for the seven story 180,000 sq. ft. office building, 15,000 sq. ft. of retail uses, and parking garage, with the attached conditions of approval. 2. DENY the appeal files by Walden District Improvement Associations, Fox Creek Residential Association and Madison Owners Association. 3. ADOPT the project findings contained in Commission Resolution No. 27-1999 and the growth management findings in the conditions of approval as the basis for the Board approval. 4. ADOPT the mitigated negative declaration as adequate and in compliance with CEQA. 5. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring program. 6. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE7L7 t RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON D e c P m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER= SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT — } CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Maureen Tams,335-1250 ATTESTED December 14 , 1999 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Public Works Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMININISTRATOR B EPU' ttoara of zsupervssors Appeal--Development Plan#DP993001 November 16, 1999 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT None, the applicant pays all costs associated with processing the application. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This matter concerns an appeal of a County Planning Commission decision to approve a final development plan to allow the construction of a seven story office buildings and a parking garage fronted with retail uses. The project includes 180,000 sq. ft. of office and 15,000 sq. ft, of retail. The County Planning Commission heard this item on September 28, 1999. Ager taking testimony, the Commission approved the final development plan, with the attached findings and conditions of approval. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL In a letter dated October 8, 1999, Walden District Improvement Association, Fox Creek Residential Association and Madison Owners Association appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project. Listed below is a summary of the points contained in the appellant's October 8, 1990 letter and staff's response to each point. I. Specific Plan Requirements for a Structure to Exceed Five Stories Staff Response: The Specific Plan conditionally allows up to seven stories and 108 feet with the following findings: The increase in height (1)will not create shading or wind conditions adversely affecting nearby public outdoor space, (2)will not unduly restrict view potential from other sites from other sites in the Station Area: and (3) where a Subarea is in multiple ownership, a coordinated design has been prepared and agreed by all property owners within the Subarea. (pg. 39). In addition, the Specific Plan allows height of up to ten stories and 150 ft., based on individual circumstances (pg. 50). The applicant prepared a virtual project analysis, including building mass,elevations, architectural design,shade and shadow analysis, and building height. The study demonstrated that the project would not obstruct views from off-site areas nor result in substantial shading of public spaces. The shading analysis found that mid-day shadows from the office building would primarily be cast onto the parking garage in fall, winter and spring. A wind analysis was prepared and confirmed that the project would not substantially effect existing wind patterns and would not adversely effect public open spaces. A visual analysis was also prepared and demonstrated that existing views from offsite areas would not be substantially altered with project implementation. The applicant prepared a view study from the proposed hotels. The office building is concentrated on the southern portion of the site, which preserved views of Mt. Diablo from the hotel. The applicant has amended the site plan in response to comments from adjoining property owners. Although the parking structure is in front of the Amerisuites hotel,the height is such that the majority of the rooms facing east maintain their view of Mt. Diablo. The proposed seven story office building, which is located along the western boundary of the specific plan area, located away from residential neighborhoods, does not unduly restrict view potential from other sites in the station area. Visual impacts of building heights on pedestrians will be greatly improved over buildings of the same square feet constructed at lower heights due to reduced mass at pedestrian level. The taller buildings provide greater amount of open space, plazas and landscaping than buildings of less height and more bulk. The location of the property and the building on the west side of the BART platform precludes it from obstructing any views of Mt. Diablo from the BART platform. The previously approved project for the site included two hotels and a one-story retail center. At the time the application was submitted, all three uses were under the same ownership. The three parcels are now under three separate ownerships. At the time the development plan application for the office building was submitted,the Redevelopment Agency worked with the applicant and the owners of the hotel properties to develop a shared parking arrangement. ,Since the hotels met the parking requirements of the code,they did not have a need for a shared parking arrangement. The revised development plan shares the same pedestrian connections with the hotel properties as the previously approved retail project. The pedestrian walkway from Oak Road, between the two Board or 5upenisors Appeal--Development Plan#DP993001 November 16, 1999 Page 3 retail buildings, lines up directly with the porte cochere. of the Amerisuites hotel. In addition, the proposed project shares an entrance driveway from Oak Road with both of the hotels. The Planning Commission's approval of the project required the applicant to amend the plan to allow for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the rear of the site, as required by the Specific flan. Staff concludes that with the revision to include a pedestrian/bicycle pathway at the rear of the property, and the requirement of a coordinated design among the three property owners, satisfies the requirement of the Specific Plan. Therefore staff recommends approval of seven-story office building. 2. Integrated Project for Subareas 7B and 8 Staff Response: The Specific Plan contained provisions specific to Subareas 7b and 8. These provisions include orienting buildings to face Oak Road and to provide a well-defined, pedestrian- scaled street frontage with ground floor retail uses related to the pedestrian environment; locating commercial serving retail uses near the comer of Wayne Drive Oak Road, and the entire development area shall be designed as an integrated project. The large plaza area at the corner of Wayne Drive and Oak Road , together with the buildings oriented to face on Oak Road, provide a well-defined, pedestrian-scaled street frontage with ground floor retail uses related to the pedestrian environment. The requirement for locating commercial serving retail uses near the corner of Wayne Drive Oak Road is also met with this site plan. As discussed in Section 1 above,the project was designed as an integrated plan with Subareas 7A, 7B and 8. A development plan for the entire Subarea has been prepared by the applicant that shows several elements which integrate the projects on Subareas 7B and 8, including common entries, coordinated traffic flow, and other circulation elements; landscaping elements; Provision of a pedestrian promenade,corner plaza, and retail corridor on this parcel,as contemplated by the hotel approvals; and coordinated view corridors. The applicant has made every effort to coordinate plans, parking, access. Two driveways were eliminated by sharing entries, and approximately $500,000 for this cooperative effort is in escrow at First American Title Co. The objective of the Specific Plan is to "ensure that buildings and related site improvements throughout the Station Area are well designed and functionally and visually compatible with their surroundings." (p. 14) This does not require all development in a Subarea to be of an identical style. The fact that a portion of Subarea 7B is for sale is irrelevant to the integration analysis because the County is not empowered to defer entitlements on one parcel pending sale of a separate legal parcel. A final development plan is provided for the hotel parcels, and the County retains discretion to ensure that future development is integrated. Based on information above, as well as in Section 1, staff believes the proposed project meets the intent of the Specific Plan goal for an integrated plan. 3. Variances to Parkins;Aisle Width and Parking S ap ce Depth and Deviations from Specific Plan Requirements for Minimum Building Setbacks, A. Staff Response(Variance to 28 foot parking aisle width required by the zoning ordinance to allow a 26 foot aisle width). The applicant has requested approval of the variance to allow a 26 ft. aisle width in the parking garage. The County Code requires the following findings be made prior to the approval of a variance. 1. The variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. As a result o,f'the size, shape and topography of the parcel, strict application of the setback requirements would deprive the property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same land use district. Board of SUperVISOrS Appeal—Development Plan#DP993001 November 16, 1999 Page 4 3. A variance would substantially meet the intent andpurpose of the land use district in which the property is located. Other projects in the area have received variances from zoning requirements when circumstances have warranted. Aisle widths of 25 ft. were recently approved for the Amerisuites,Homestead Village, and the BRIDGE Housing Projects. It should be noted that although the proposed parking aisle width does not comply with the County's 28 ft. parking aisle width, it is consistent with the 25 ft. parking aisle width for the City of Walnut Creek. The Redevelopment Agency also worked with a consultant on finding alternatives for the parking garage. As a result of this effort, both staff and the applicant determined that,the best location and most efficient configuration of the parking structure would be that which was submitted with the application. A double-aisle parking garage could fit, without variances, in the deepest portion of the site, the corner of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. However, Specific Plan policies identify this area as an important area for pedestrian oriented retail uses. The parcel is not deep enough for the required aisle width and a double loaded garage in the most desirable portion of the site. Based on the County's past experience, double loaded garages are necessary to reduce the overall mass and impact of the garage, and a reduction in aisle width is justified if necessary to achieve this objective. Strict application of the requirements would require parking garage redesign and massing in undesirable locations, resulting difficulty in meeting the overall objectives of the Specific Plan. The property's size and shape, combined with the Specific Plan objectives to maximize pedestrian circulation on the site and view corridors from adjacent parcels and to focus retail uses at the corner of Wayne Drive and Oak Road justifies a reduction in parking aisle width. Thus, staff recommends the Planning Commission's approval of the variance to the aisle width be sustained. B. Staff Response(Variance to the 19 foot parking space depth required by zoning ordinance to allow 16 foot parking space depth for compact parking spaces): The applicant has requested approval for 80 compact parking spaces with a 16 ft. depth. The County Code requires the following findings be made prior to the approval of a variance: 1. The variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. As a result of the size, shape and topography of the parcel, strict application of the setback requirements would deprive the property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same land use district. 3. A variance would substantially meet the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the property is located. The Specific Plan policies for commercial parking allows for 50 percent of the parking spaces to be small cars spaces(pg. 34). However,the County Zoning Ordinance does not have regulations for compact parking spaces. When needed,the approval of compact spaces are generally handled through variances. The City of Walnut Creek's ordinance allows for 50 percent of parking spaces, intended for long-term employee parking, to be compact spaces. Walnut Creek's minimum requirements for compact spaces is T5 ft. in width and 15 ft. in depth. Less than 20 percent of the parking spaces are proposed to be compact. Other projects have received variances from zoning requirements when circumstances have warranted. The BRIDGE housing project received variance approval for compact parking spaces and over one-half of the parking spaces in the Treat Towers project are compact spaces. As discussed above, the property's size and shape are such that a double-loaded, double aisle parking garage does not fit without the variances in the most appropriate part of the site. The no- variance alternative to the proposed parking garage,would result in one of the aisles of each level of the garage to be loaded on one side only. This configuration would result in taller parking structure, which would block views from the adjacent Amerisuites hotel. Strict application of the requirements would result in parking garage redesign and massing in undesirable locations. Based on the County's past experience, a double-loaded garage is necessary to reduce the overall mass and impact of the garage, and a reduction in aisle width is justified if necessary to achieve this objective. The overall goals of the Specific Plan are better met with the approval of this variance. In addition,the approval of variance for compact spaces is consistent with Specific Plan policies. Thus, staff recommends the Planning Commission's approval of the variance to the parking depth requirements for compact parking spaces be sustained. tioara of Nupervisors Appeal—Development Plan#DP993001 November 16, 1999 Page 5 C. Staff Response(Deviation to Specific Plan Standard From the 40 Foot Stepped Setback Above the Fourth Floor to a 25 Foot Stepped Setback from Oak Road.): The Specific Plan calls for a 40 ft. stepped setback along Oak Road for the fourth floor and above. The proposed office building setback, at the fourth floor and above, varies from 25 ft. to 80 ft., thus extending into the 40 ft. stepped setback requirement by five to fifteen ft.The 40 foot stepped setback does not apply to the garage because it is not over the height established by the County to constitute three stories. The majority of the office building complies with the 40 ft. stepped setback requirement,however due to the irregular curve shape of the parcel along Oak Road, the applicant has requested a deviation to the stepped setback standard. The desire for the large pedestrian plaza,consistent with Specific Plan policies for pedestrian-oriented retail at that comer,result in the need for the variation to the stepped setback standard. Thus the required finding for approving a deviation to the Specific Plan standard is that the overall goals and objectives of the Specific Plan can be met. Although not legally required, the following variance findings for the deviations to the Specific Plan standards can be made: 1. The variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. As a result of the size, shape and topography of the parcel, strict application of the setback requirements would deprive the property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same land use district. 3. A variance would substantially meet the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the property is located. Strict application of the standard will deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the Subarea. The four-story Homestead Village project was recently approved with a deviation to the stepped setback. Strict adherence to the 40 foot setback policy would result in undesired modifications to the site plan (i.e. reduction of pedestrian plaza at the comer of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. Allowing a narrower stepped setback area in certain places allows the project's buildings to be located and massed in such a way as to maximize view corridors from nearby property. Alternative locations would create greater impacts and block hotel views, and would impact the circulation plan on the property. Although the setback distance is narrower in some areas, it is much wider than required by the policy in other areas, especially at the important corner of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. Calculating the setbacks on an overall project basis allows the office building to achieve the goal of achieving a large public area at the comer of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. The architecturally pleasing curve of the building and setback at that location more than compensates for the reduced setback in other, less predominant locations. Thus, the project setback line would substantially meet the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the property is located. D. Staff Response (Deviation to Specific Plan Standard from 20 foot setback policy for development along Oak Road for the parking garage): The minimum setback for structures fronting Oak Road is 20 ft. The applicant has requested a minimum setback of five ft. for the retail building/parking garage at the northern-most part of the structure. Due to the curve of Oak Road, the 20 ft. setback requirement is met at the southernmost part of the structure. As discussed previously, the depth of the parcel is such that a two-aisle, double-loaded parking garage does not fit without the variances and deviations to the development standards. By locating the most efficiently designed parking garage in the proposed location, with requests for variances and deviations to the development standards, the overall Specific Plan goals and objectives can be met. In addition, putting the retail edge closer to the public right-of-way enhances its effectiveness as an activity node. An alternative parking garage design, meeting all the code requirements and development standards, would result in a taller parking structure to accommodate the required number of parking spaces. The taller structure would obstruct views of Mt. Diablo from the Amerisuites hotel and would not meet the Specific Plan goal of a coordinated design. The County has balanced Specific Plan standards to achieve overall consistency with the Specific Plan in the past. Where appropriate, other projects have similarly construed setback minimums on an overall project basis. 'Thus,the required finding for approving a deviation to the Specific Plan standard, that the overall goals and objectives of the Specific Plan Board of Nupervisors Appeal—Development Plan#DP993001 November 16, 1999 Page 6 can be met can be made. Although not legally required, the following variance findings for the deviations to the Specific Plan standards can be made: 1. The variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. As a result of the size, shape and topography of the parcel, strict application of the setback requirements would deprive the property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same land use district. 3. A variance would substantially meet the intent andpurpose of the land use district in which the property is located. The proposed setback line would not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The unique shape of the parcel and other constraints such as lot depth, combined with the County's desire to provide both a pedestrian promenade along Oak Road and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation behind the buildings, would justify that the Specific Plan policy not be rigidly applied. Strict adherence to the 20 foot setback requirement, as opposed to an overall 20 foot standard, would result in adverse modifications to the site plan. The overall 20 foot setback (with variations at points) allows for higher quality aesthetic features, superior integration of the parcels, and maximization of pedestrian circulation on the site, The setback line of the site plan furthers the superior architectural features at the comer of Wayne Drive and Oak Road. The open area and landscape features at the corner more than compensates for the narrower setback variations in other, less predominant locations 4. Specific Plan requirements for an Interior Circulation Route to Serve Both Pedestrians and Bicycles. Staff Response: The Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project included a condition that the site plan be revised to include the interior circulation path on the site. The site plan was subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission, in a noticed public hearing. Plans submitted to the County on November 3, 1999 include the required path. It should be noted that the Specific Plan does not require bicycle circulation through the interior of the property in all instances. Bicycle circulation is provided along Oak Road and Wayne Drive as required by the Specific Plan, and bike racks are conveniently and appropriately provided in the garage area and along the retail frontage. Providing bicycle circulation through the interior of the Project is not feasible in this instance because the bicycle circulation would end at the stairway to Treat Towers 5. Intensity of Development Disproportionate to the Total Square Footage Staff Response: The Specific Plan combines density for subareas 7B and 8'and does not require a specific allocation of density to a particular site or legal parcel. The Specific Plan allows a total of 401,800 sq. ft for Subareas 7b and 8. The two hotels approved for Subarea 7b total 151,000 sq. ft. There is 250,800 sq. ft. of commercial uses remaining for the site. There are no requirements for the allowable sq. footage to be evenly distributed over the entire Subarea. In order to mitigate the impacts associated with building scale and style incompatibilities within the Pleasant Hill BART Station area, the Specific Plan states an objective which!places high intensity, less sensitive uses west of the BART Station and lower intensity local-serving uses near adjacent neighborhoods. Since the site is on the west side of the BART Station,the impacts associated with the scale of the building are avoided or substantially lessened. The office sq. footage was approved at 175,000 sq. ft. and the retail uses approved at 15,000 sq. ft., for a total of 190,000 sq. ft. The approved 190,000 sq. ft. project is substantially less than the 250,800 sq. ft. allowed by the Specific Plan. The intensity of the proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan. 6. Adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration(Land Use and Planning Section IX-b) Staff Response,- The appellants contend that the Mitigated Negative Declarations prepared for the proposed project is inadequate and should not be approved due to the"no impact"response to the following question in the Land Use and Planning section of the initial study tjoarrl of Nupervisors Appeal—Development Plan#DP993001 November 16, 1999 Page 7 Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project requires variances to the parking aisle width, parking stall size for approximately 80 spaces, and deviations to the Specific Plan setback standards. The standards in which variances are requested were not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, a"no impact"response is appropriate. The Environmental Impact Report (certified on October 6, 1998) for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan is a program EIR prepared in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Act(CEQA) Guidelines. CEQA enables the EIR to serve as a tiering document for individual development projects proposed for the Specific Plan area. The program EIR addressed all of the significant cumulative impacts of the amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsequent activities (i.e.,development plans)in the program(specific plan)must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading either to a Negative Declaration of EIR. The applicant provided additional site specific studies, at the County's request, to supplement previous analysis prepared for the Specific Plan EIR. These include traffic analysis,wind and shadow study, and a visual massing study. The EIR included the evaluated a project of the dimensions and density as that which is proposed on Subareas 7B and 8. The EIR found potentially significant impacts and provided mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed project and are identified with an asterisk in the document. The proposed project does not result in additional significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated by the County in that EIR. Project specific mitigation measures, which reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level, are also incorporated into the project. Therefore, the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. CONCLUSION The proposed project, as approved by the Planning Commission, is consistent with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. In addition, the environmental documentation for the project was prepared in compliance"with the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission's approval of the project be sustained. _. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 8 December 14, 1999 Agenda On November 16, 1999, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the hearing on the appeal by Walden District Improvement Association, Fox Creek Residential Association, and the Madison Owners Association (Appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by Thomas Properties (Owner) and Jordan Woodman Dobson (Applicant) for approval of a final development plan to develop a 222,000 sq. ft. office building (9 stories in height) and approximately 11,050 sq. ft. of retail space and a parking garage on a 2.4 acre site (Subarea 8 and a portion of Subarea 7B) in the Pleasant Dill Bart Station area. The Applicant requests a variance to allow a 5 ft. minimum street side setback (20 ft. requested, 28 ft. required).(County File #DP 99- 3001). (Subsequently, the County Planning Commission in their Resolution dated September 28, 1999, reduced the building height to seven stories and 180,000 sq. feet, and increased retail uses to 15,000 sq. ft, etc). Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, reported that the appellants and applicant came to an agreement regarding this appeal, and stated that it would be useful to have them make their statements and then the Board could consider the matter. Supervisor Canciamilla agreed, and opened the hearing. The following people offered comments: Steve Thomas, Thomas Properties, Applicant, 3100 Oak Road, Ste 140, Walnut Creek; Kristine Hunt, President, Walden District Improvement Association, 2632 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek. Those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Gerber noted that in keeping with the arrangement worked out by the involved parties, there is a list of criteria on certain design elements to be reviewed by the staff and then presented to the Board for their review. These are relative to modifying Conditions of Approval #4 and#6. The criteria is as follows. Exterior design; site placement footprints; a design that involves engagement of the street; the issues of setback and variances; the concept of a pedestrian friendly streetscape; and internal circulation. Supervisor Gerber stated that the design review process criteria will go the Board rather than the Planning Commission on January 11, 2000, for final wording. The appellants and applicant will work with the Community Development staff, and present the final design review elements to the Board on January 25, 2000. Victor Westman, County Counsel, suggested that the appellants',and applicant state for the record that they are in full agreement with changes in the Conditions, and that they concur with them. 1 Applicant Steve Thomas verbally acknowledged that he concurred, and the appellant nodded in agreement. Following further discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved to close the public hearing, accept the withdrawal of the appeal, direct staff to come back on January 11, 2000, with the modified conditions of approval, and proceed as outlined regarding that criteria. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. Dennis Barry inquired of Supervisor Gerber, if the motion was requesting that the conditions be finalized as outlined, and that staff return for ratification on January 11, 2000, and issue a permit subject to that ratification. Supervisor Canciamilla advised that there was a motion on the floor, a second, and called for the vote. Dave Gold, Esq., Morrison and Foerster, attorney for Thomas Properties, requested clarification that it was not a permit that would be issued based on the change, but that the Final Development Plan as modified by the discussion today, and the additional design review process would unfold as outlined today. Mr. Barry stated that the Community Development Department generally does issue final Conditions of Approval following the Board's action. And could wait until January 11, 2000, to do so. Jay Lutz, a member of Supervisor Gerber's staff, clarified that on January 11, 2000, the staff would come back with written criteria to be used in the design review process, then there would be a Board hearing on January 25, 2000, to determine whether the plans submitted at that time met the criteria they previously accepted for design review. At that time the entire process, if approved, would be completed. Mr. Barry advised that the staff will work with all of the parties involved to make certain that the criteria is acceptable before January 11, 2000. Mr. Gold clarified the entitlement. The withdrawal of the appeal and the final development plan as modified is something that is in effect. Supervisor Canciamilla stated yes. He advised there was a motion and a second, and called for the vote. 2