HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Albertson's Expansion C
' Of
6500 DUBLIN BLVD. (415) 829-4916
SUITE 100
DUBLIN, CA 94568
AGENDA STATEMENT 540-o 40
MEETING DATE: March 28, 1983
SUBJECT: PA 82-013 Albertson '.s Variance
r>
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis .including
Resolutions
RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Open Public Hearing, Hear Public
Comment, Close Public Hearing.
,2 . Make the three findings indicated on
page 8 of the Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis
3 . Adopt the resolutions approving the
parking and building code variances
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Albertson' s, would like
to expand their store by enclosing the front arcade and
extending their building into the northerly side yard. This
would increase the store ' s- size by 8, 208 sq.ft. Two major
concerns arise with the proposal:
1 ) The entire shopping center, which Albertson' s is
located in, was built to its maximum size with no extra
parking spaces available . A parking variance of 105 spaces
would be necessary for the proposed expansion.
2 ) When the shopping center was constructed, a
Building Code variance was granted, in part, to permit a
larger floor area than typically allowed. A 60-ft. sideyard
was a condition of approval . The proposed expansion would
require a modification of the previous Building Code
variance .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Applicant
Five issues regarding the parking variance need to be
addressed:
1 . Is the parking variance reasonable?
2 . What precedent would the variance set?
3 . Should the parking requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance be studied instead?
4 . Will the variance have a negative impact on the
overall operation and effectiveness of the
shopping center?
i
5 . Should a parking study be undertaken before acting
on the variance?
The attached Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis discusses these
issues and contains additional information regarding
recommended conditions, and an alternative approach that
would involve the preparation of a comprehensive site plan
for the entire shopping center. The Planning Commission and
Staff recommend that the variances be approved subject to
the conditions indicated. The applicant prefers these
recommendations rather than the alternative approach.
Should the Council prefer the alternate approach of having a
comprehensive site plan prepared for the entire shopping
center, Council should direct Staff to secure estimates of
such work and revise the conditions accordingly.
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin,CA 94566 (415) 829-3543
MEMORANDUM
PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS
Meeting Date : March 28, 1983
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Parking Variance and Building Code Variance
for Albertson' s Store #733 - PA 82-013
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: Albertson' s has requested a 105-car parking variance
and a Building Code Variance to allow them to expand the
size of their store in the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center.
APPLICANT: Albertson ' s, 6400 Village Parkway, Dublin 94568
REPRESENTATIVE: Dennis Sheehan
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-305-14-2
PROPERTY OWNER: 7th Cheltenham Properties, Inc ..
EXISTING ZONING: (C-1) Retail Business
EXISTING LAND USE: Albertson' s Food Store
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE:
North - C-1 - GEMCO
East - C-1 - Small shops
South - C-1 - Small shops/parking
West - C-1 - Shopping Center
SITE/ZONING HISTORY: On December 3 , 1969, the Alameda County
Planning Department approved a Tentative Map #3135 and Site
Development Review, S-293 , for the Dublin Plaza. The
shopping center has nine lots , each of which has its own
owner (See Attachment - Parcel Map) .. Common rights of
access are provided for each parcel to allow cars to drive
across parcel lines and share parking spaces .
In January, 1971, the Board of Supervisors also granted
Building Code variances to the developers of the .center to
allow: 1 ) buildings to be closer to the property lines than
was allowed by the Building Code; 2 ) that these buildings
could have openings in them (for doors and windows ) that
were closer to the property lines than allowed, and; 3 ) that
covered walkways could connect the buildings, where the
Building Code required fire separations which would not have
allowed connected walkways (See attachments) .
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Zoning Ordinance: Section 8-93 . 0 , Variances : discusses
the precise legal basis upon which a land use variance may
be granted. Each of the following must be answered in the
affirmative in order to grant a variance:
1 . That there are special circumstances including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to
the property which deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, under the
identical zoning classification;
2 . That the granting of the application will not constitute
a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone;
3 . That the granting of the application will not be
detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to
the public welfare .
City policy is to have the Zoning Administrator act on
variances, however, where a City policy concern is involved,
the variance may be referred to the Planning Commission for
comment and then be decided upon by the City Council .
The Building Code variance must be acted upon by the City
Council, which has the sole authority to amend the Code .
Section 506 (b) of the 1979 Uniform Building Code, requires
that a building the size of Albertson' s be .surrounded by
yards or streets that are at least 60 feet wide. It is this
section that has been requested to be amended to permit the
proposed construction to be 35 feet from the property line .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Variances are Categorically Exempt from
environmental review.
NOTIFICATION: Public Hearing notices have been published in the
Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and
posted in public buildings .
-2-
ANALYSIS :
Albertson ' s would like to increase the size of their
store by enclosing the front arcade, and by extending their
building 45 ' , into the northerly side yard. This would
increase the store ' s size by 8, 208 square feet.
Two problems arise when the store is increased in size .
First, additional parking is required (1 space for each 100
sq.ft. of public space) . When the shopping center was first
built, it was built to its maximum size with no extra
parking being available . Therefore, as it now stands, no
additions can be added without a parking variance being
granted. Historically, Alameda County has rarely granted a
parking variance . To do so would establish a new precedent
regarding parking variances, and it could greatly affect
many other properties that would like to expand but do not
meet the current parking standards .
Secondly, when the shopping center was initially
subdivided, buildings were built on property lines, and
special Building Code variances had to be granted by the
County to permit the buildings to be located closer to
property lines than was, and still is, permitted by the
Building Code . The proposed construction would also be
closer to the property line than is permitted by the
Building Code, the previous Building Code Variance, and
subsequent Declaration of Encumbrances . (See attachments) .
The Albertson' s addition, due to its proposed
elimination of some existing parking, and the City
requirement to add new parking for the addition, will result
in a net deficit of 57 parking spaces . The entire shopping
center is now shy 48 parking spaces . Therefore, if the
addition is permitted, the shopping center would have 105
fewer parking spaces than is required by the parking
requirements (e.g. a 20% reduction) .
A. Parking Variance
There are five primary parking variance issues that
need to be addressed when determining the validity of this
variance request :
1 . Is it reasonable to grant a parking variance for this
shopping center?
2 . What precedent would granting a parking variance set for
the City?
3 . Is it appropriate to grant a variance for parking or
should the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance be
studied instead?
4 . Will the Albertson' s variance have a negative impact on
the center ' s use, appearance, circulation, or site planning?
5 . Should a parking study be undertaken before this or
other parking variance requests are acted upon?
Taking each questions individually:
1 . Is it reasonable to grant a parking variance for the
Dublin Plaza shopping center in order to permit Albertson' s
to expand?
In their variance application, Albertson' s states that
its Dublin store is at a competitive disadvantage because of
its current size, and that other major stores (Alpha Beta
and Fry ' s) have closed their doors because their facilities
were non-competitive .
Alp
Albertson' s has also indicated that the other property
owners in the center do not object to the variance request.
Field observations show that the center has more than
enough parking space available for the present tenants . The
amount of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance is
computed on a sliding scale such that larger stores are
required to have proportionally more parking than smaller
stores . It is typically the .reverse . Given the mix of uses
in the center, and that the customers of different stores
tend to shop at different hours, there appears to be
sufficient available parking to allow Albertson' s to expand
without creating a shortage of parking.
2 . What precedent would granting the parking variance have
on the City?
Since Alameda County has rarely granted a parking
variance, and since allowing more construction without
related parking could allow each development in the City to
expand, the granting of this variance could establish a
significant precedent. If the City supports this variance,
it is crucial that specific findings to suppport the
decision be made . Also, the City must expect that several
other such requests are likely to follow.
3 . Is it appropriate to grant a variance for parking, or
should the Zoning Ordinace be changed instead, to require
proportionally less parking than is now required?
-4-
The City of Dublin is just now gaining an understanding
of the cause and effect of the regulations that it inherited
from Alameda County. Changes are, and will be, made to
these regulations so that they will better fit the interests
of the City. This process may be a lengthy one . We are not
inclined to put a moritorium on development during this
transition period. It is therefore desirable, though it is
time-consuming, to work within the existing regulations and
use them as best we can, to achieve our long-term
objectives . Thus, it is appropriate at this time to .utilize
the variance process .
It is, however, highly preferable to amend the parking
regulations directly, rather than use a variance procedure,
and review requests on a case-by-case basis . Amending the
parking requirements should be a future consideration for
the Planning Commission. The Commission should, of
necessity, look at all the parking requirements .
4 . Will the Albertson' s variance have a negative impact on
the center ' s use, appearance, circulation, or site planning?
The expansion will not change the shopping center ' s
land use mix, or balance . It will, however, as proposed,
have a negative impact on the pedestrian circulation, and it
does not include any measures which would improve the
appearance of even its portion of the center.
The initial proposal includes enclosing the covered
arcade in front of the store . People would then be required
to walk in the driveway to get past the store. This is not
desirable . At the Planning Commission meeting (March 7 ,
1983 ) the Commission found that it would be acceptable if a
new arcade were built around the proposed addition. This
would allow the store to expand and still provide for
pedestrian circulation, though it would be a bit circuitous .
The new arcade is to match the existing one and thus provide
a pleasing visual space as well as shelter from the sun and
rain.
The rear of the store does not contain a trash
enclosure and subsequently is cluttered with considerable
debris, crates, carts and the like . It is Staff ' s position
that, as incremental changes are made to existing
developments, the City should, within reason, seek to have
improvements made to them which enhance their appearance,
use, circulation, etc . This will, over time, assure the
City that its commercial development continues to be
competitive . While it can be said that such concerns should
be left solely up to the property owner, experience shows
that City involvement is often needed, and that such
involvement produces advantageous results .
-5-
Staff would like to make sure that if the parking
variance allows the present arcade to be enclosed, that a
new arcade be required to be instlled around the enclosure
to match the existing arcade and maintain pedestrian
circulation.
There are several approaches to assure that the
proposed changes will be consistent and compatible with the
overall shopping center:
APPROACH NO. 1 : Apply conditions to this variance
application and to the subsequent Site Development Review
L . for the Albertson' s project. The City and Albertson' s would
work together to assure that the project is consistent and
compatible, and provides necessary and desirable site
improvements such as landscaping, covered arcade, pedestrian
and vehicular ciculation, parking, signing, lighting and
similar items . The Site Development Review application and
plan would apply to only the Albertson ' s site.
APPROACH NO. 2 : In cooperation with the property
and shop owners, prepare a comprehensive site plan for the
entire shopping center. The City could coordinate the
preparation of the comprehensive site plan to enhance the
overall development and to assure that each individual store
would fit into the shopping center . The City could consider
contracting with an architect or site planner for the work,
and then be reimbursed by the property owners, based on a
"fair-share" formula, in the future when they wish to exand
and improve their stores . The shopping center was initially
processed as a single cohesive project, so it would be
reasonable to process improvement plans in similar fashion.
5 . Should a parking study be undertaken before this
variance is acted upon?
As indicated above, we are in a time of transition and
are working within the regulations that are now in place .
The parking question involves more than just this
development. We have sufficient information, though it is
somewhat subjective, to indicate that the parking variance
can be acted upon at this time . It does, however, seem
appropriate to ask Albertson ' s, as the benefactor of the
variance which, in fact, involves the entire shopping
center, to contribute to a traffic study on a fair share
basis, when the City elects to undertake such a study.
-6-
B. Building Code Variance
The Alameda County Building Official, Mr. Vic Taugher,
has indicated that while he is not generally in favor of
modifying the Building Code, the circumstance of this
application are such that he would not oppose the granting
of a variance to allow the sideyard expansion, as proposed.
There is ample room between existing structures and the
proposed construction to limit their potential damage, were
the addition to catch on fire. The existing building and
proposed addition are of masonry construction and will be
fully sprinklered. The size of the building, with the
addition added, will not pose any other Building Code
problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission reviewed these variance requests at
its meeting on March 7 , 1983 . The Commission recommended (4-0)
that the variances be approved subject to the conditions as
stated in the PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION section below. These
conditions vary somewhat from Staff ' s initial recommendations .
They, however, are in keeping with the intent to allow the
expansion while insuring that the new construction will improve,
or at least maintain, the functional, safety, and appearance
aspects of this proposal, and provide a net benefit to the
Shopping Center and City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:
In order to approve the project, the City Council must:
1. Make findings to support its decision on the parking
variance and the Building Code Variance .
2 . Adopt a Resolution granting the parking variance (see
attachment) .
3 . Adopt a Resolution granting the Building Code variance
(see attachment) .
PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the parking
and Building Code variance requests to permit Albertson ' s to
expand by 8, 208 sq. ft . to the north and west sides of the
existing store as shown on Exhibit A, subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Written statements shall be filed with the City
Planning Department, prior to issuance of a Building Permit,
that show that all of the property owners in the Dublin
-7-
Plaza center agree with the parking variance and Building
Code variance . Such agreement is also to be evidenced in
the amended and certified Declaration of Encumbrances .
2 . When Albertson ' s applies for the necessary Site
Development Review, their plans shall include: a) an
enclosed trash area of sufficient size to contain their
trash and miscellaneous refuse needs ; b) several additional
trees are to be installed within Albertson ' s lot to break up
the visual expanse of asphalt and create a buffer to
adjacent development; c) additional provisions shall be made
for pedestrian and vehicular circulation access, including,
but not limited to, access to the GEMCO property, should
GEMCO agree to provide a connection on their property.
3 . The addition is to be compatible in design and
materials to that of the existing structure, so as to blend
with it. All mechanical equipment and the like is to be
screened from view.
4 . A safe pedestrian walkway shall be constructed from
Amador Valley Blvd. to the Albertson ' s store.
5 . A new covered arcade is to be constructed around the
front enclosure to match the existing arcade with
landscaping and other design features , and that a two-way
driveway be maintained with a minimum 28 ' width.
6 . That Albertson' s participate, in an amount based on its
proportionate share of the total building area, in a future
parking study for the shopping center should. the City decide
to conduct one.
FINDINGS:
The following findings are recommended for use in both the
parking and Building Code variance decisions :
1 . There are special circumstances including the site ' s
configuration, lot line locations, and .the location of the
pedestrian arcade, and vehicular circulation patterns, which
restrict the Albertson ' s ability to expand in an economical
manner, which is available to similarly zoned property, were
additional parking spaces available .
2 . The granting of the variance will not be a special
privilege which is inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone, given that the
other property owners within the Dublin Plaza shopping
center agree with the granting of the variances, and that
reciprocal parking arrangements cause Albertson ' s parking to
be viewed as part and parcel to that of the entire center .
-8-
3 . The granting of the variances will not be detrimental
to persons or property in the area or to the public welfare,
since pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns will
allow safe travel through the center, and since fire
protection is provided.
Attachments : Exhibit "A" Site Plan
Assessor Map
Draft Resolution regarding Parking Variance
Draft Resolution regarding Building Code Variance
Building Code Variance #136999
i Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances 1/19/71
Exhibit "E" (Variance application - Attachment A)
-9-
i L
- I eA1:5 f-i f l LO!iJU p2.109Uf
....,�.::: ��.L'✓•G1��tJ - - 4509 .
' 111 `rOThlr fr•rlit.��p,t!( �rLCF1- 3013.:� +�---
� -, Si aYc1 SITE
Jn
_JTt1la
AlbertwtkS
i f Cc
• `� \✓ %� •\• "� j�,�1�� � iii-:-•i.;. �
i" 111 ---IIF"�.^^� ��,�,. •�-
r I
P.0140 ttp)
Cot,ff 7• :•, C -3344 rt ,ems N
• - t• �•ry n •n• � I r—S r�- -
td • 5 a !
• 01�.S. �� 4 ��s .vZo �/•.a,f••w _.•...�v .._ _ ��+io in+:t 2t
•r,r. r•i:S•rS11 vue *'O 1:7:YC) ;rr 51,
c•locr r,�]1 4 1
c•r34'-OS11Ac. 5
t �'rSo9 !
vy ,3 'C'3450
r• �./ , V 1
c.3RLl .,..r � ; ;I it �/.13�0• I
-A I `
s
Y • M i,4.7 ,
�" 7� In � C � /� ..•...�t I w I r
T ,,. F r, 5.41Ac U 734
°arcefs
-r -----* c - )643 !; B.46 Ac.f(,)
�s 17 3
Po -ro/J ~I°,- g/ 4 5 SZ7 .. , r s� ,r -- `_ _ —• S 4r
gl7,q-D.•V: 8G1/D� � z r ^-� A N • Q ..° �l �';j;2 i5-4�'S
Ni
r 1!
2� rot-77c.>. - ,,. � Sr,.� � -... r,=:=.% '-� r ` -- - •-• r I
'
795u. �V'4 153 : --C`26�� f - —:_..�•_ _.. ..._ - --
Gtr 1ti-�r S-S/ o . . '-' '` J.�f7� •;S-f• ti•� y/ , .n-%� .
;: .�. , ,, r: LL, n '� ` y' Z3gZ-7(° C ✓� C 3o4Z c,' 1
'.S ,� / / I .1 V' Pc
p.,(r�! `; ` v 39s V �a b3 1; J•r
— .-- -- --- �"'� A�1• Al���jst ;"e 1 30ac.- = `� 2 '•I 1 Za 18t1 :'a- -"•:,:.. r
C 'IFig7 S , 4.50Ac � � � yl• r _ _._ _
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION IS HEREBY ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, the owners and leasee of certain property as
herein indicated and as shown on Assessor Parcel Map
941-305-14-2 , and as . shown on Exhibit "A" on file with the Dublin
Planning Department, have proposed to expand the size of the
existing Albertson 's store at Regional Street and Amador Valley
Blvd. , in Dublin, California, and;
WHEREAS, the subject building adjoins another
building, both of which connect along a common property line
between parcels 941-305-14-2 , owned by 7th Cheltenham Properties ;
941-305-16, owned by Payless Drug Stores ; and 941-305-21, owned
by WMMIG, and;
WHEREAS, the existing buildings were granted Building
Code variances by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on
January 26, 1971, to permit there existing construction as
specified in Resolution #136999 , and;
WHEREAS, because of such separate ownerships variances
to the following sections of the Alameda County Building Code are
necessary for the proposed project:
1) Section 504 , Table 5-A and Section 1103 - which
prohibit openings in exterior walls which are less than 5 ' from
property lines , and require walls which are less than 10 ' from
property lines to be of one-hour fire-resistant construction.
2 ) Section 506 (b) - which permits unlimited floor area if
the building is surrounded by yards or streets 60 ' wide and
provided with an automatic fire extinguishing system.
3 ) Section 509 - which permits arcades or covered walkways
connecting buildings, providing there are no . openings between the
arcade and the building except doors .
and;
WHEREAS, Albertson ' s did request variances from such
conditions , and;
WHEREAS, good cause appears to this City Council
that such variances to the Alameda County Building Code should be
granted to Albertson ' s in connection with said proposed addition
to Albertson ' s ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Albertson ' s be
hereby granted variances to the provisions of section 504 , Table
5-A, Section 1103 , Section 506 (b) and Section 509 of the Alameda
County Building Code in connection with said proposed addition to
Albertson ' s , located at Regional Street and Amador Valley
Boulevard in Dublin, California; subject, however, to the
following conditions :
1 . A 35 ' clear yard be maintained around the northerly
side of the Albertson building as indicated on the site plan
labeled Exhibit "A" on file with the Dublin Planning Department.
2 . That all the buildings on Parcels 14-2 , 16, and 21 be
provided with automatic fire sprinklers .
3 . That the use of the buildings be limited to "F"
Occupancies as defined in the Alameda County Building Code
(Drinking or Dining Establishment) with an occupant load of more
than 100 not permitted.
4 . That parcels 14-2 , 16 , ' and 21 be encumbered by an
agreement acceptable to the 'Dublin City Attorney which will
assure compliance with the foregoing conditions, said agreement
to be recorded and run with the land.
and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Building
Official be and he is• hereby authorized and directed to issue the
necessary permit or permits accordingly, subject to the foregoing
conditions .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1983 .
AYES :
NOES:
a
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
----------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION IS HEREBY ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Albertson ' s, Inc . wishes to expand the size
of their store at Regional Street and Amador Valley Blvd. by
8, 208 square feet and not provide any new parking for the
addition; and
WHEREAS, the existing parking for the Dublin Plaza
Shopping Center, of which Albertson ' s is a part, is currently shy
parking as per existing City parking requirements; and
WHEREAS, ample parking is available within the Dublin
Plaza Shopping Center, based on existing tenant mix, the amount
of parking currently and proposed to be available; and
WHEREAS, the proposed additions will maintain
efficient and safe pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns ; and
WHEREAS, the expansion of Albertson's will be to the
benefit of the City of Dublin as conditioned below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that:
1 . There are special circumstances including the site ' s
configuration, lot line locations, and the location of the
pedestrian arcade, and vehicular circulation patterns, which
restrict the Albertson ' s ability to expand in an economical
manner, which is available to similarly zoned property, where
additional parking spaces available.
2 . The granting of the variance will not be a special privilege
which is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and zone, given that the other property owners
within the Dublin Plaza Shopping center agree with the granting
of the variances, and that reciprocal parking arrangements cause
Albertson' s parking to be viewed as part and parcel to that of
the entire center.
3 . The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the area or to the public welfare, since
pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns will allow safe
travel through the center, and since fire protection is
provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
grants a variance to the parking requirements for the Dublin
Plaza Shopping Center to permit Albertson ' s to expand its size by
a maximum of 8 , 208 sq_ft . , as shown on Exhibit "A" and that a
maximum of 105 parking spaces may be waived for the entire
shopping center, as proposed by Albertson ' s, subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Written statements shall be filed with the City Planning
Department, prior to issuance of a Building Permit, that show
that all of the property owners in the Dublin Plaza center agree
with the parking variance and Building Code variance . Such
agreement is also to be evidenced in the amended and certified
Declaration of Encumbrances .
2 . When Albertson ' s applies for the necessary Site Development
Review, their plans shall include : a) an enclosed trash area of
sufficient size to contain their trash and miscellaneous refuse
needs ; b) several additional trees are to be installed within
Albertons ' s lot to break up the visual expanse of asphalt and
create a buffer to adjacent development; c ) additional provisions
shall be made for pedestrian and vehicular circulation access,
including, but not limited to, access to the GEMCO property,
should GEMCO agree to provide a connection on their. proerty. ,
3 . The addition is to be compatible in design and materials to
that of the existing structure, so as to blend with it. All
mechanical equipment and the like is to be screened from view.
4 . A safe pedestrian walkway shall be constructed from Amador
Valley Blvd. to the Albertson' s store .
5 . Significant architectural improvements shall be incorporated
into the project . These improvements shall include but not be
}.; limited to:
a) Improved covered arcade with landscaping and other .
' design features;
,. b) Maintenance of a two-way driveway with a minimum 28 '
width.
6 . Albertson' s shall agree to participate, in an amount based
on its proportionate share of the total building area, in a .future
parking study for the shopping center, should the City decide to
conduct one.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of
1983 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-•��c:Zc..Jn 9 a h"}•'1't'4 f J w� f��.vi � � 1 .a:r> rf• �. r � LYE '.�yQ ,i r
'rYv}'���, av�l''.,,,� dF'•7�'�`(�+�vU,C,�Vr �..t� '/( K+ i:1�•,�."�n '�,^t ,'+Ki' �. .
yr
��` r.•.. �.. .p��'. �b �'�i'i'�+��,,11� wa rq,1�b Fe '�r � rj jr x �,�r�}�'� ,,f �'.
Ow,�• , ,r i 'G" •t y �y`�
N rti.lj�S"•G !,' . .)Y! +f Pi''. t-Ir ,t• t �
k� n I t (4{n. q't� {!� fj1 X. s, y
+,�,!-•7.,rr�.,; ? ' '' '' ' t . ' ' Y{�1 '�L '� �' � i • � �',� �. �` ���,•• ` k
7 i'•�C,)/r Nrt�a �.1.."-.��'�; � tt, .1}4i� $Wi[�(�t� �,t1' 'K% t �' -1' `.�,�;t��(?r "1. � _
�Y%�?yt t�A� tL? t. ?• Y. ss`Wit16. Cs ,St _ _ _ ;�:.,.\,:;:. ._._.,.. "
;,"�'� sc•' *f'ts� I{4 %. Q p r Appr, is to Form
h
r,�'s��';;�;;•"y�y';;.�,1t�� 'nrN,�, �. ?1i(:=.CC(.'�i�t�'::Di_�_r::�L:>•i?;}:ri�x�<
F�ICF,3J J. 1.00::., 'County Co nc
B Y.......................................... :..Depot
.' 14i*, i,OAR D 0 F SUPERVISORS OI: TH1: COUNTY OF•ALA_(EDA,' STATE OF'CALIFORNIA
c.;lon t>r Supcn tsor.....................°oL�....... , Secondcd by Sopcn isor-----••--..._._ ..Ii-V)n0a.-..........-....._.
,.r, ' :
G Nt7. n:I app roN'c�i b}' the following sole,
Jupertlsors...............................Bar cu,:_ etn,..Siteency:-wrtd..Ch°.i .-..5......
\rocs: Su' cr�-Isors _...Iiot1e........................
k kj
,l,xcuscd or Abs Ab,cnt:'Supcn'isors.__._...'.:110I1C.__°..........................................
.....................................................................................
THE FOLLO\X'ING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: -� � - NUAfI3ER._.�_U�.1-:--.,...�..
GI-Vil V1�RIA1\'CES
u; 1.11=rFAS, the owners of .certain property as her indicated and as
t.� Jr. ( .:��!•.i('':� 'Y. 1. 'rs ,i
shown on the Parcel Diap 521, mar' Exhibit A).,and ori' file Frith *this Doar' d o�
-I? C Supervisors, have proposed to construct a shopping center located at Regional
Street and Am.ador Valley'Boulevard`ift''Dublin :'California f•to' be' known as
-
Dublin Plaza Shopping Center:
' 0.+nor .t �� Parcel PIo.
'= Sutter 1ii11 I)cveloinent Corporation " `-'3 and 5 -
►.:' .. S; s Pay Tx5s Drub; Stores 4
Alba'_-i,son's. Inc. 2
and
j ltllLN�/1J, 0(lcauje 0. Such '1ieoux"Llt,C: U4lrltC'Jii1_Uo ViSiidr,t U , 'vv i i,l av�iv�yriv
sections of the 'Alan ed:z County T3uildira� Code are`riecessar�j -for ai:e pi:;ooscci ,
- -., •;
ect
p ro 3
(1) Section 504, Table 5-tl and Section 1103 - which prohibit oi:eminrs
I ' in e cterior •wally, .vhich are less than 5'. fror., pro?.ert; :?it;c ,, and
remdre calls'-which arc less •'than--10' frotri property;lines .to.be oi-
one-hour fire-resistive construction.
✓: (2) Section' 506(b) .which per:rits unlimited floor':_•rea-if.the buildin-
is surrounded by yards °'or ,street:, 60'-;:wide and T rovicied wit' »n a�_tto ra�,Ic
fire extinguishing systc z. -
p 4, (3) Section 509 - which 'perrnits arcade:; or covered wallizoa :� ,con::t:ctint;
�1. buildings, providing there are.no openings betaecn tt:c arr,.dc artu
the building e:;ccpt doors. `
r'rn and
40 'd71;;:2?A�, the Sutter lIill Dc��clo_,t::cnt Corporation, on behalf' of thy: abovt-- .
mention) d properL'y owners, did. request variances fro.,. such conditions; aim"
good cauc;c apocaring to this Doard of Supervisors that Bitch
v.',ri-:incr:s to 'the Alameda Ca.tntf TDuildinC Code should be :;g.•_ntcd to Sutter
liill Dcivt:lo Corporation; Sk.c;gs Pad T�e:s' nit,; atores 'aid Albcrtson's
Inc. in connection •,filth caia prr�por.c,T .DuUJ_in I'1�:;,?a Slio�ping Cca{ cr; '
's-
r'
�F
1. �''L•.�r�eYr• �y:, h7
1� ti.mot•! 31J1��,i���2de�r'r�{ �3s..} .t, i;�t ��` � ��t�� , r�r3y� 5�' .y',jG,• ;jr"�:+' � r $'�
,,{ S�r iJ/�,� � '1S � ��>� }. �Y,,``` fr t '.,r r � cif , t �• f��
El
,i , r,�iK+? livy a r
:�`'' `,�;ai�IIl��'' �{t 1:� .�K4 w ''J'• f r , t' ', )�
?��.!� �j f,� :.1\Ct,�l,,,,j'�`•yn�'� t, tftlt `�r•�` .±f'tU'1t�h, +�>' �p '1 3 .7 �t �. 1, '�� S -� fir..
:i',�•f��1�4 ��±��':��� `v�'4��' �
�Sit
h. �i�:l
\;`jm7"�T" �,{}hal'sl\iCli :}�'�:h: .•rb a°;. !`'�a,'�� ` t r. ,a. 'y,l � t! 1 tr r
"'�•a �!• .11e'.V:_ •(r l� �51�'.� r'��-t�y1i' •��' h•�i �' 11 r, \i y,1• \_,••.•� ..n
r:s:,;G:,t,. V"'F'.t+/�f .7"�� �,.,�''"'ifi.,tfkn�>�•4`1'{• •� •j'R ..i t1 _...-.. .,.u... .r_ '.c:�'tr :.:{.ti,if_'.r�t:...r.::}�: :'+C;: �..n.ax:"�`:.�'Z_,.:.1.�
•�+M �$`i:"+ 1 �y�� "}1F��_b,Y"' ' —,.r1,:LLY: .,r. .—�,-:`.___.._..._. _ ... .... .._.... ._.---._._-_._..._.::�::<w�:'�:-:"•;',_•-.1 _tv:\•.....•:..._.___.•:...-
.... IEOUiIOt rr0.' 3( .
GrvL•i VARIANCES ;
PAG.. 2
IvOW, VERE RE, 'BE IT RLSOLVI;D that the Sutter Bill Development Corporation,
'? .�:
,SkaGGs Pay Less+ Dru Stores and Albertson's, Incl. be and they are hereby
granted variance.s' to tl�e 'provisions of Section 504, Table 5-A, Section 1103,
Section 506(b� and Section 509 of the Alameda County Building Code in
connection with 'said proposed Dublin Plaza Shopping Center locatec, at ReGional
.:Street :and"Anador -Valley Boulevard -iri Dublin;`'Cal-if ornia; 'sub,ject;-however;
c • '
__:to the following conditions : -.. ._. ..:.... , ._...:_._.. _ . __ ...
• __..._:.... ..1. ..:A 60', clear -yard..be •maintained around the buildinGs as "indicated 'in
Green on the site plan labeled Exhibit B on file with this Board of
Supervisors.
' "m• : 2. That 'no�openings be permitted in .the exterior walls of the buildin`s
as indicated in black on said 1;`_chibit B.
: 3: =-That all the buildings on Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 be provided with
automatic fire sprint i-rs .
4. :..That the use of the buildings be limited to "r"-•Occurancies as
defined 'in .the .Ala eda County Building Code (Drinking; or Di nine`
Establish.ent) with an occupant load of more than 100 not •pci;::itted.
5• That parcels '2, ':3, 4 crd =5 be 'e:10 ;iei cd'by 'ari arce:::�r accco Le.I)1Q
to ..the:Ala;;cria Cou;ay County�Counsc:l_ =which i 111 assure co aliance .
:Kith the.:fore{,oink coriditiori;;` said. aGreererit.to be recorded "arid
run .with the 'land..
and
BE IT FL(HER RMOLVED that the County Building Official be and he is .
hereby authorized and directed to issue the necessary permit ,or permits
accordingly, subject to the foreUoinG conditions. ,
I CSRTIF( TH.%,
RECT COPY OF A FESOLUTIC,y A�I.PTED BY
THE BOA-10 OF SJPcR'!($U„S ALA?,1EDA
COUNTY. CALIFORNI,k-__.__.._.._.._..
JACK K. POOL, CLEkK O'
THE BOARD OF SUPERYISO(jg
BYt
' • � .. :r, •,,: Daly•�r '. , r
r10 ll— 1.8959 i K:.2700
1
,ECAZDL?.at UQUES OF,n
fast
FEB 1. 9 1911 AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF ENCUMBRANCES
OFFICIAL: RECORDS, OF,
Index the AZreement and the Consent
f,L:AMEDA COUNTY, CAUFORNIN
!SACK G. M.UE .
FouNT.Y. nECORUCR THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this
off`
day of �✓�LGtI�!"L_ 19 �/� , by and between
ALBERTSON' S, INC. , a Del/aware corporation (hereinafter
referred to a berts SKAGGS PAY LESS DRUG STORE
V t,
-
;; ycor oration (her`einafter preferred :..' as Pay
r is
.:a
a ifo n
�:C 1
P
ss" ) HILL 'DEVELOPMENT �CORPORATION, a California
Le
and •SU
TIER
-
„
corporation -(herei.nafter:;referred -to ':as Sutter ..Hill
Albertson : s ,' Pay Less and Sutter Hill Development
Company, the predecessor in interest :of Sutter Hill with
respect to the subject matter of this Amendment, are parties
to a certain Declaration of Encumbrances dated November 26 ,
1969 , , and recorded on December 23 , 1969 , at Reel 2537 ,
Image 673 , Official Records of Alameda County, California.
Said Declaration of Encumbrances contains certain covenants,
conditions and restrictions concerning the development and
operation of the real property described therein. The interest
of Sutter .Hill Development Company in the portions of the
subject property owned by it has since been conveyed by
grant deed to Sutter _Hill
t The parties now wish to amend said Declaration of
Encumbrances to conform the. development of the subject real
property to requirements imposed by Alameda County, California.
In consideration of the foregoing, and of the
mutual undertakings hereinafter set forth, it is hereby
agreed;.as follows :
1. Subject Property. The property subject to the
provisions of this Amendment consists of Parcels 2 , 3, .4 and
S C •fl er Will( I )I e.L/ 1()1'),,0), j Cc f'l
� l soo .
z� 06 Cczy►� �a c�. — 14C
�Z I
0 lea , Co-
1•,
• y
5 as set forth on that certain Parcel Map filed in Book 61,
Page 89 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder,
County of Alameda, State of California.
2 . Open Area Around Buildings. During the term
of this Amendment there shall be no construction, install
ation or introduction in any manner of any building or
other structure within a distance of 60 feet of the perimeter
of :.the .Building Areas of_ Parcels 2, 3, A .:an d .5 as such areas
;� .• are defined in• the Declaration"of Encumbrances; provided,
however, 'that 'this prohibition shall not apply to sidewalks,
landscape planters , curbs in the automobile parking lot,
lighting fixtures , loading platforms, or other installations
directly related to the buildings to be erected on Parcels
2 , 3 , 4 and 5 and not constituting independent and self-.
sufficient structures. The area which is to remain open
as provided in this Paragraph 2 is shaded in green on
Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Openings in Exterior Walls of Buildings.
During the term of this Amendment, there shall be no openings
in the exterior walls of buildings within ten (10) feet of
it
FF4
the boundary lines of Parcels 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 in those areas
is
indicated in red on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a
part hereof:
1'Y '
4 . Automatic Fire Sprinklers. During the .term
of this Amendment, all buildings constructed on Parcels 2 ,
3 , 4 and/or 5 shall be furnished and equipped with operative
automatic fire sprinklers.
5. Occupancy Limits. During the term of this
Amendment, occupancy of the various establishments (co=nercial
2 .
< < PE:27J0IM:42'
or otherwise) situated within premises located on Parcels
2 , 3 , 4 and/or 5 shall be limited to "'hype F" occupancy
(including the special limitation contained therein limiting
occupancy of drinking and dining establishments to less
than one hundred '(100) persons) as such occupancy .is . de-
.. .`:fined in the Alameda County Building :Code. .•-A copy of the
-:` applicable rovisions of such Buildin Code "as presently'
•.:in effect is attached' hereto .as Exhibit A and made a part
0.
... hereof
6 . Term of Amendment.' The provisions of this
Amendment .shall remain in force for a period equal to the
term of the- aforementioned. Declaration of Encumbrances, or
until such earlier time as all of the parties hereto shall
mutually agree upon changes herein; provided, however, that
no such changes ,shall be effective for any purpose unless
they conform to then existing provisions of law applicable
to the development and operation of the subject property.
7. Effect of Amendment Upon Original Declaration.
Except to the extent that this Amendment supersedes or is
inconsistent with the Declaration of Encumbrances between
the parties dated November 26 , 1969 , said Declaration re-
mains unmodified and in full force and effect, and the pro-
visions of said Declaration are incorporated herein by
reference and made a part hereof.
8 . Successors and Assiqns. This Amendment and
all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein
i
provided are intended to create privity of contract and
privity of estate with and among each of the parties hereto.
Said covenants, conditions and restrictions are intended to
rc�r►t►I.a.l1.1Lc� oq►i:l.U.nbl.() liol vittlelos and covenants running with
the respective properties of each of the -parties as *described
3 .
' ' ._ _ y :,�a .. . . ... !':�`iC • . .may. _ . .
t' C `
BF:2700 I�,I :V-'
herein. This Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit
of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, repre-
sentatives , tenants, successors and assigns. .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Amendment the day, month and year first above written.
. . ALBERTSON'S,' :INC
e The undersigned owner of By
Parcel 2 hereby joints in the . Vice President
foregoing Amendment to Declara- c �'•..�' '
tion of Encumbrances and agrees B�' �' '' �� � '
to be bound by the terms thereof. Secretary .. .
SEVENTH CHELTENHAM SKAGGS PAY LESS DRUG STORES
ASSOCIATES,. a'New York
partnership. ;
A Partner
By
The undersigned Trustees
under that certain Indenture of
Mortgage and Deed of Trust dated '
as of October 15, 1970 covering SUTTER HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Parcel 2 hereby joins in the
execution of and consents to
the foregoing Amendment to
.' c. By \
Declaration of Encumbrances. \
WMUT
THE NATIONAL SHA By G .,hl �`��� .
BANK OF BOSTON; s Trustee. Ss eC
4 iUL HE MUff
W. B. Wadland, As Trustee
i
4 . II- J.5915 }
? APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
: . :.. :..Attachment A
When the center was originally approved, all site area was
maximi.zed •with building and parking.. Subsequently, all
additions ,to the center must generate additional parking
in a ratio to the store addition. Because of the center's
maximized parking, additional parking cannot be provided
on-site to allow corresponding additions*to the center
building area...-
The facility is at a competitive disadvantage because of
its current size. Other major facilities in the area
(Alpha Beta and Fry's) have had to--close because their
facilities were non-competitive. ' There are no alternate
'undeveloped locations within the City to allow us to
relocate a larger facility. Additionally, our surveys
- indicate that approximately 5-10% of.our customers walk
to the store.
#2. Because so much of the existing parking facilities are
not currently utilized to their maximum extent,"a granting' :
of the requested variance -would not constitute a grant of
special privileges for us, -this''center,- or other properties
in the vicinity. -.
#3. By granting .the variance, it will enable a business to..
expand its physical structure, thus better enabling the
store to .serve the local.community..in the quality and ... _
quantity of its services. As the existing parking is
not fully utilized, we believe the spirit of the .zoning
ordinance to provide adequate parking will be maintained.
a '