HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/6/1988 PC Agenda AGENDA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p.m.
7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room September 6, 1988
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - August 1, 1988 and August 15, 1988
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted
to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the
Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If
any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her
concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have
his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 88-078 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit,
located at Pak'n Save, 6605 Dublin Boulevard
PA 88-079 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit,
located at Lucky, 8909 San Ramon Road
PA 88-080 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit,
located at Albertson's, 7333 Regional Street
8.2 PA 87-159.2 First Western Development, Parcel Map and
Variance, 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from August
15, 1988 meeting)
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
12. ADJOURNMENT
(Over for Procedures Summary)
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES SUMMARY
WELCOME to the Dublin Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission is made
up of five Dublin residents who have volunteered their services to the community. They
were appointed by the Dublin City Council. The Planning Commission encourages and
appreciates participation by Dublin residents. Regular meetings of the Planning
Commission are held on the first and third Mondays of each month in the Dublin Library
Meeting Room, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin.
TIME: Planning Commission meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. No new public hearing item will
begin after 10:30 p.m., and the meetings will be adjourned by 11:00 p.m., except
under unusual circumstances where the Commission votes to hear the item or to extend
the meeting for 30-minute increments.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the
posted agenda unless: 1) the Planning Commission determines by majority vote that an
emergency situation exists, as defined in the Government Code 2) the Planning
Commission determines by a two-thirds vote, or by a unanimous vote if only three
members are present, that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted;
or 3) the item was included in a posted agenda for a prior meeting held within five
(5) calendar days and was continued to the current meeting.
ORDER OF PRESENTATION: After the Chairperson opens the public hearing on an item, the
order of presentation will be as follows:
1) Summary Presentation by Planning Staff
2) Questions by Planning Commission
3) Comments by Applicant
4) Comments by Others in Favor
5) Comments by Those in Opposition
6) Rebuttal by Applicant if Necessary
7) Additional Comments by Staff as Appropriate
The hearing is then closed and the item turned over to the Commission for discussion
and action. The audience is not permitted to make any further comments unless
invited by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS UNDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Any citizen desiring to speak on an item not
scheduled on the agenda may do so under Oral Communications at the beginning of the
meeting. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please state your name
and address, then proceed with your comments. When an item not on the agenda is
raised by a member of the public, the matter shall be deemed automatically referred
to Staff unless the Planning Commission determines to take action as outlined in the
section above entitled ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A HEARING ITEM: On a public hearing or other scheduled item, the
Chairperson will ask the audience for its comments, first from those in favor, then
from those in opposition. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please
state your name and address, then proceed with your comments.
The Planning Commission wants to hear all citizen concerns. Each new speaker is
asked to be brief, add new information, and not repeat points which previous speakers
have made. The Planning Commission is particularly interested in the specific
reasons why the speaker is for or against an item.
Applause and other demonstrations are prohibited during public hearings. Such
demonstrations tend to intimidate those in the audience who may have valid but
opposing viewpoints.
The Chairperson maintains the discretion to request the use of Speaker Slips and to
limit comments. Anyone who does not want to speak may write comments on the Speaker
Slip and turn it into the Planning Commission while the public hearing is still open.
SMOKING CONTROL: Please do not smoke during the Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM WITHOUT APPLICANT: If the applicant or representative fails to attend the public
hearing concerning their item, the Planning Commission may take action to deny,
continue, or approve the item. The item may be considered for continuance upon
receipt of written notification of the applicant's inability to attend the hearing.
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 6, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
,,nn
FROM: Planning St�#: ss� 4.
SUBJECT: PA 88-078 20/220��0RRe��,•cycle Center Conditional Use
Permit, Pak'n Save, 6605 Dublin Boulevard
PA 88-079 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use
Permit, Lucky, 8909 San Ramon Road
PA 88-080 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use
Permit, Albertson's, 7333 Regional Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Due to schedule conflicts, the Applicant has informed Staff that their
representative would not be able to attend the September 6th meeting. The
Applicant is therefore requesting that the Planning Commission continue this
item to the September 19, 1988 meeting so that they may have a representative
in attendance.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Continue public hearing.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue PA 88-078 20/20
Recycle Center-Pak'n Save CUP, PA 88-079 20/20 Recycle Center-
Lucky CUP, PA 88-080 20/20 Recycle Center-Albertsons CUP to the
September 19, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. Ss
File PA 88-078
File PA 88-079
File PA 88-080
MI
O' 0 •-i
£4 o X. -
.�• 7 :o-.;
��3
IV
U NC. G
0• m
" oWN
at
W N-,o- C
mV a7
U al C
I•C re
y
L C r
C'y l+
O.0o
U N C
611 O N
R U
G m C
O O C u
a m u •a a
V m 0 m m
u a "4
al Sa L E E • > W L
aA a.i v E 'O n i •Nra
m
C co •.i 0 N a0 M u O es N ? ••-, c
61 E G 4.+ u1 N m
co
y�as as O
%.I W C.ZS . E .tiCOro a Q.0
Q-aWo1-1oOo1 W s. � r0 eo.•+a 0.0. W C o a o vi(i oe.-i =0.m 0 10 0 Cs7 W mUJ10n[4 = d
L fa al C C.) Li-iala ?. C II
a $a.a..) O+X y L• Uy
0 .] U C •.i .0 'a C .. •••4 as S.. o p
+.) 0>4 C •.- is 0)Y•C 7 C q3 tea: •.
O. • m E+ rt O.Q 0 ., 0 l+ ar > •n U .:C..-I
al as m.-4.••i • a a7 C s0 a) N C. 0 ,.--, is O ;.) C
41 V1`
UWo
UZ
IR ocU;
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 6, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff n,o,,i-t
SUBJECT: PA 87-159.2 First Western Development, Parcel
Map and Variance, 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Request to subdivide an existing parcel into two
lots creating one substandard parcel. Variance
request to allow lot with insufficient lot
frontage.
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Rick Hess
First Western Development
3470 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite A-150
Lafayette, CA 94549
Nancy Voves
Wm. Glass & Associates
22245 Main Street, #100
Hayward, CA 94541
PROPERTY OWNER: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Western Office
Metropolitan Plaza, 6th Floor
101 Lincoln Center Drive
Foster City, CA 94404
LOCATION: 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-305-8
PARCEL SIZE: Existing - 7+ acres
Proposed: Parcel A - 5.91+ acres
Parcel B - 1.09 acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-1 Retail Business District
Commercial Retail Development (Circuit
City/T. J. Maxx and Oshman's)
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION: The site is located within Development Zone 8,
Restaurant and Specialty Retail.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: PD, Planned Development District with
church and office uses.
South: C-2, General Commercial District
developed with a mixed use retail
outlet.
East: Alameda County Flood Control Channel and
Interstate 680.
West: C-1, Retail Business District developed
with various retail and restaurant uses.
COPIES TO: Applicant
g Z Owner
ITEM NO. File PA 87-159.2
n /
ZONING HISTORY:
Fall, 1968 - S-276, approval was granted for development of the Handyman
Store. Approval for the outdoor nursery was withheld pending a Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment to the C-1 District.
November 19, 1969 - The Alameda County Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit Application C - 2105 allowing development of the
open-air nursery adjoining the Handyman Store.
July 2, 1970 - The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the
appeal for S-276 and Variance 4852 allowing use of a 36 foot high, 280
square foot Freestanding Business Identification Sign for the Handyman
Store.
June 26, 1972 - The Alameda County Planning Director approved S-440 and
Variance Application V - 5800 to allow development of the current
sporting goods store. Action on the Variance provided for a Numerical
Parking Variance.
June 20, 1985 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved PA 85-026
(Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests) allowing
the enclosure and remodel of a portion of the open-air nursery at the
northeast corner of the Handyman Store.
March 2, 1987 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved PA 87-009
(Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests) allowing
Circuit City Stores to refurbish the vacant Handyman Store (including
enclosing a 5,700+ square foot nursery area) and to construct a
freestanding sign with a height in excess of 20 feet located
approximately 40 feet from the front property line.
March 16, 1987 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved PA 87-034
(Conditional Use Permit request) for a car stereo installation facility
in conjunction with the proposed Circuit City Store refurbishment of the
vacant Handyman Store.
October 5, 1987 - PA 87-096: The Dublin Planning Commission denied
subdivision request and denied without prejudice a Site Development
Review request to construct a 10,000+ square foot commercial building.
June 27, 1988 - PA 87-159.1: The Planning Director approved a Site
Development Review request to construct a 10,000 square feet commercial
retail building.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-1.2 (Intent) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance states: "It is the
intent of this Chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare; to assure in the division of land consistency with the policies of
the Alameda County General Plan and with the intent and provisions of the
Alameda County Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate lot design, street patterns,
rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with community and neighborhood
plans; to assure that areas dedicated for public purposes will be properly
improved initially so as not to be a future burden upon the community; to
preserve natural resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain
suitable standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and, to prevent
hazard to life and property."
Section 8-3.4 (a) states: "Lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the
minimum standard area, median lot width, and effective lot frontage specified
for in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district in which the
subdivision is located."
Section 8-3.11 states "The Advisory Agency may, in the exercise of reasonable
judgment, grant variances to the requirements of this Chapter for water and
sewage disposal system improvements, for street alignment, grades, widths,
lengths, block design, median lot width, and effective lot frontage, and to
all subjects referred to in Section 8-3.5 and 8-3.7 as is determined warranted
by topographic limitations or soil or geological conditions, the opportunity
-2-
for more effective and desirable land utilization, or the showing that under
the particular circumstances an alternate standard would meet or surpass the
intent of the given requirement."
Section 8-60.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires "Building Site:
Effective Lot Frontage" and requires that "Every Building Site shall have an
Effective Lot Frontage equal to or greater than one-half the Median Lot Width
required in the district, and in no case shall the effective lot frontage be
less than twenty-five (25) feet. Whenever a Building Site is hereinafter
created by division of an existing Lot, the Effective Frontage of each such
new Building Site shall be equal to one-half (1/2) of either the required or
the actual Median Lot Width thereof, whichever is greater. Each new Building
Site shall be recorded forthwith as a Lot in the office of the County
Recorder."
Section 8-93.0 establishes the following findings required for granting
variances:
a) 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;
b) 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;
c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan establishes policies and standards to
control development within the downtown area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
which finds that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on
the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the August 15, 1988, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission continued this item from the August 15, 1988 Planning
Commission Meeting at the request of the Applicant.
In October, 1987, the Planning Commission denied the Applicant's previous
subdivision request to create two parcels including one landlocked parcel and
denied without prejudice the Site Development Review for construction of a
10,000 sq. ft. commercial building (PA 87-096). This action allowed the
Applicant to apply for a substantially different subdivision and apply for a
Site Development Review within a one year period. The Applicant subsequently
applied for a new Site Development Review, a subdivision to create two parcels
including 1.09+ acre flag lot and a Variance for substandard effective lot
frontage on the flag lot. Staff determined the application was complete for
processing purposes in January, 1988.
Staff provided the Applicant with a list of comments and corrections on the
project in March, 1988. At that time Staff informed the Applicant that Staff
would have difficulty recommending approval of the Subdivision and Variance
request as proposed, but would likely recommend approval of the Site
Development Review provided the corrections were incorporated into the revised
plans.
In April, 1988 the Applicant requested Staff to process the Site Development
Review application separately from the parcel map and Variance request.
On June 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved the Applicant's Site
Development Review request to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial retail
building on the existing parcel currently developed with Circuit City, TJ Maxx
and Oshmans.
-3-
eN
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is currently requesting Planning Commission approval of a minor
subdivision to create two parcels of land from one existing 7+ acre parcel.
Parcel A would consist of 5.91+ acres, currently developed with the 57,680
square foot Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and the 12,000+ square foot Oshman's
Sporting Goods building and approximately 287 parking spaces. Parcel A would
have approximately 690+ foot frontage on Amador Plaza Road and a 391+ foot
frontage along Amador Valley Boulevard and 170+ foot frontage adjacent to the
flood control channel.
Parcel B would consist of a 1.09+ acres flag lot within the existing eastern
parking lot area between the Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and the Oshmans
building located on Parcel A. This area, although currently supporting
parking and drive aisles, will eventually be developed with the 10,000 sq. ft.
retail commercial building and approximately 51 parking spaces previously
approved (PA 87-159.1). Approval of the Applicant's proposed subdivision
would result in the creation of a parcel (Parcel B) with substandard effective
lot frontage necessitating approval of a variance.
The City's Zoning Ordinance requires the effective lot frontage of all new
building sites to equal one-half (1/2) of the median lot width, either actual
or required, whichever is greater.
The median lot width for the proposed Parcel B is 150 feet. A 75 foot wide
effective lot frontage is required. The Applicant proposes a 25 foot wide
effective lot frontage.
The subdivision ordinance establishes provisions for granting variances from
the effective lot frontage requirements, if warranted by 1) topographic
limitations or soil or geological conditions, 2) the opportunity for more
effective and desirable land utilization, or 3) the showing that under the
particular circumstances an alternate standard would meet or surpass the
intent of the requirement (see Attachment 2 for Applicant's position on
granting Variance request).
1. There are no topographic limitations or soil or geological
conditions which would warrant granting a Variance from the effective lot
frontage requirements as the lot is a relatively flat site.
2. Granting of a Variance from effective lot frontage does not provide
an opportunity for a more effective or desirable land utilization as
development of the existing site is possible without subdivision of the site
into separate parcels. From a Planning perspective, it is more desirable and
effective for the site to develop as one parcel, functioning as a single
retail center under one ownership. Development of the site under one parcel
would eliminate or minimize the problems which have arisen in the Downtown
area with future expansion of development on the site, obtaining access
easements and location and placement of freestanding signage.
3. The Applicant has not identified any particular circumstances in
which the granting of the variance would meet or exceed the intent of the
effective lot frontage requirement. The primary intent of the effective lot
frontage requirement is to provide adequate street frontage for parcels,
thereby enhancing visability from adjacent streets, and promoting uniformity
and compatibility of lot sizes and development within a zoning district.
Staff met with the Applicant and his representative on July 29th, August 24th
and August 30th, to identify and discuss the following major concerns
associated with the Applicant's subdivision and variance proposal:
1. Future Development - Approval of a parcel with substandard effective
lot frontage may adversely affect future development on the site, in that each
separate property owner would not have the same interest or control over the
adjacent development. In a worst case situation, having a substandard
effective lot frontage without proprietary interest in development of the
entire site could result in surrounding development effectively blocking
visability on the flag lot development from the adjacent streets.
-4-
2. Easements - Obtaining cross access easements within the Downtown has
proven to be a lengthy and cumbersome process for the City, property owners
and tenants involved. Compliance with the effective lot frontage requirement
reduces the need for cross access easements.
3. Signage - The City's sign ordinance allows one freestanding sign per
parcel with the exception of large parcels four acres or greater located
adjacent to I-580 or I-680, or the Flood Control Channel, in which case a
second freestanding sign may be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. The existing site currently has one freestanding sign and is
entitled to apply for a second freestanding sign. Under the Applicant's
proposal it would be possible for the site to contain three freestanding
signs.
The Applicant's attorney suggests that the issues of future development,
easements and signage identified by Staff can be addressed through the
Conditions of Approval for the project and through the Declaration of
Encumbrances recorded for the property. The Applicant has indicated that the
T J Maxx lease requires maintenance of the common area parking lot for parking
purposes with the exception of a maximum 10,000+ square foot building (the
proposed First Western Development building) and a maximum 3,000+ square foot
building. From a City Planning and Zoning perspective, deed restrictions and
lease agreements are difficult to monitor and enforce as the City is not a
part of the agreements between property owners. Agreements can be entered
into, broken or modified without the City's knowledge or approval.
The Applicant's attorney proposed language for Conditions of Approval to
address Staff's three primary concerns (see Attachment 3). Staff has reviewed
the proposed language and does not believe it adequately addresses the major
concerns identified with creating a lot with substandard lot frontage.
Additionally, it is unlikely that language could be developed and incorporate
within a deed restriction which would insure proprietary interest in
development of the two lots to meet the intent of the City's effective lot
frontage requirement and to justify granting the proposed variance.
The restrictions and limitations necessary to insure proprietary interest
present under a single ownership can be accomplished through approval of a
commercial condominium parcel map and establishment of a Planned Development.
Development standards would be established through the regulations of the
Planned Development, maintenance of the common areas would be regulated
through both Conditions of Approval and CC&R's subject to review and approval
of the City Attorney and Planning Director.
Staff recommends denial of the proposed Subdivision and Variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution denying Minor Subdivision and Variance
request, or continue the item and give Staff and the
Applicant direction.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution denying PA 87-159.2 the Minor Subdivision and Variance
request.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Resolution of Denial
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Parcel Map dated received August 11, 1988
Attachment 2: Letter dated received July 1, 1988
Attachment 3: Letter dated received August 10, 1988
Attachment 4: Location Map
-5-
. , �.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
1) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.002 ACRE SITE INTO TWO SEPARATE SITES (PARCEL A
CONTAINING 5.908 ACRES AND PARCEL B CONTAINING 1.094 ACRES) AT 7450 AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD;
AND
2) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A
SUBSTANDARD PARCEL WITH INSUFFICIENT EFFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE AT 7450 AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, First Western Development filed an application for a
Minor Subdivision request to subdivide an existing 7.002 acre site into two
separate sites (Parcel A containing 5.908 acres and Parcel B containing 1.094
acres) and a Variance request to allow a substandard parcel (Parcel B); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
need not be fulfilled as Staff is recommending denial of the Subdivision
request and denial without prejudice of the Variance request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
application on August 15, 1988 and September 6, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Subdivision request be denied and the Variance request be denied without
prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereianbove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that PA 87-159.2 First Western Development Minor Subdivision
and Variance request is inconsistent with the intent of the applicable
Subdivision regulations and City Zoning Ordinance in that:
1. The subdivision would result in a parcel that would not have
the required effective lot frontage as defined in Section 8-60.13 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance;
2. There are no topographic limitations or soil or geological
conditions which would warrant granting a Variance from the effective lot
frontage requirements as the lot is a relatively flat site.
3. Granting of a Variance from effective lot frontage does not
provide an opportunity for a more effective or desirable land utilization as
development of the existing site is possible without subdivision of the site
into separate parcels. From a planning perspective, it is more desirable and
effective for the site to develop as one parcel, functioning as a single retail
center under one ownershp or proprietary interest. Development of the site
under one parcel would eliminate or minimize the problems which could arise
with future expansion of development on the site, obtaining access easements,
location and placement of freestanding signage.
4. There are no particular circumstances in which the granting
of the Variance would meet or exceed the intent of the effective lot frontage
requirement. The primary intent of the effective lot frontage requirement is
to provide adequate street frontage for pacels, thereby enhancing visability
from adjacent streets and promoting uniformity and compatibility of lot sizes
and development within a zoning district. A
-�j
TRe5o.
off .
,en,a Q
i-15�.2F UJe nW ~k
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
deny PA 87-159.2 First Western Development minor Subdivision and Variance
request for substandard effective lot frontage on Parcel B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
Z�
cc
w�
0
0
~nZ
w(Z
=o
it
Oow
Zm
A
97. 83 WAM
—
N 25 0 21' 44„ W
-N52o52'29"W -
��, c:'
19-
N250 211 704 mi
�I
u
rr
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT TO VALLEY C
COMMUNITY SERVICES ;
DISTRICT BK 417 O.R. I
PO, 287
N 09° OG' 4 9 " E
2. C05
DETAIL "A"
NOT TO SCALE
0 20 80 120
SC' __, =40'
u
.e �-- R= 40.00
Or
0
MIN
ka
L = G2.82
32
37 O
fi"• F/C
01
g j o
, .. 0)
"'j N
Fes,:__. 1 'l
�L
d r;
w1lo
l
./ALLEY
FREE AY
VICIINITY MAP
N.T. S.
,-
6� Lo
ALMM LA WnyW W.
AUG 10 1988
PRINTED
NOTES
1. OWNER: CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION
2040 THALBRO STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23230
2. PROPERTY ADDRESS:
A. CIRCUIT CITY STORE: 7153 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
B. T. J. MAXX STORE: 7177 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
C. OSHMAN'S SPORTING 7448 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
GOODS STORE: DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
3. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 941-305-8
4. ZONING: C-1 (PER CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DEPT.)
5. AREA: PARCEL A = 5.908 + ACRES
PARCEL B = 1.094 ± ACRES
6. UTILITIES: THE UTILITY LOCATIONS NOTED ON THIS MAP WERE
PLOTTED FROM A COMBINATION OF FIELD DATA (WHEN SURFACE
CONDITIONS PERMITTED) AND INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SITE
PLAN FOR HANDYMAN - SAN RAMON, PREPARED BY ROTH AND GOING,
DATED AUGUST 1969, JOB NO. 14210. THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED
TO REPRESENT THE ACTUAL LOCATION OR EXTENT OF THE UTILITIES
WITHIN THE AREA ENCOMPASSED BY THE MAP. THEREFORE IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE
LOCATIONS, SIZES AND EXTENT OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO
ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN.
7. TREES: REFER TO THE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR CIRCUIT
CITY STORE - DUBLIN, FOR LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF EXISTING OR
PROPOSED TREES ON THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS PLAN IS AVAILABLE
THROUGH THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
8. CONTOUR LINES: EXISTING CONTOUR LINES ARE PLOTTED AT 1 FOOT
INTERVALS, AND WERE DERIVED FROM A FIELD SURVEY MADE ON
DECEMBER 11, 1987.
9. PARCEL 1 IS SUBJECT TO GRANTS OF RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING WATER FLOW AND DRAIN AS NOTED
ON PARCEL MAP 518 (61 MAPS 70) AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE
GRANTS OF EASEMENTS TO THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, RECORDED
MAY 26, 1961, ON REEL 333, IMAGE 625 AND AUGUST 13, 1963, ON
REEL 963, IMAGE 944, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS.
10. DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: NOVEMBER 15, 1987
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 518, FILED IN THE RECORDER'S
OFFICE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ON OCTOBER 21, 1969, IN BOOK 61,
PAGE 70 OF MAPS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON
SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM A DEPTH
BELOW 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND WITHOUT RIGHT OF
ENTRY UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MINING,
DRILLING, EXPLORING OR EXTRACTING SUCH OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND
OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES OR OTHER USE OF OR RIGHTS IN OR TO
ANY PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET
BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF, AS EXCEPTED IN THE DEED FROM
VOLK-MCLAIN COMMUNITIES, INC., TO QUALIFIED INVESTMENTS, INC.,
RECORDED JUNE 27, 1967, IN REEL 1988, IMAGE 207, OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL WATER RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT
TO USE SUBTERRANEAN WATERS, TOGETHER WITH ANY PIPES, PIPE LINES,
WELLS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT RELATING TO THE USE OF OR EXTRACTION OF
WATER FROM OR UNDER SAID PROPERTY, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF
ENTRY UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH SAID
RIGHTS, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM QUALIFIED INVESTMENTS,
INC., TO EDBRO CALIFORNIA REALTY COMPANY, INC., RECORDED
DECEMBER 4, 1969, REEL 2526, IMAGE 427, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
TAKEN ON THE EXISTING MONUMENT LINE OF AMADOR PLAZA ROAD,
BEARING NORTH 32°52'38" WEST, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 2821,
RECORDED IN BOOK 107 OF MAPS, PAGE 95, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,
AND AS SHOWN HEREON.
TITLE INFORMATION
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY ORDER NO. 0040579 DATED DECEMBER 10, 1987.
PREPARED UNDER. THE DIRECTION OF.
ALTAMONT LAND SUR.\J EYOR.S, INC.
:r I
ALA N C. RO C E DAT
LICENSE EXPIRES G/30/9I
DATE: DEC. I98-7
2600 KITTY HAWK ROAD. STE. 110
l/ LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
Of V (415) 449-0939
^ I I
f�D SUf��IE�OI�S, IBC
TENTATIVE PARCEL® MAP 5
5EIN. G A SUF301VISION! OP PARCEL_ 1 OF PARCEL W
FIL.ED IN BOOK 61 OF KyiAPS PAGE ?O, ALAMEM COUN T
CITY OF DUBL.I�4 AL_A". EDA COUNTY
SCALE: 1"- 40
DESIGNED: A.R.
DRAWN: L.J.
CHECKED: 61..P.
PROJ. ENGR: �• R.
I
AR
8-9-88
REVISE Pr-L. LINE A/8; REVISE BLDC SIZE
F.B. REF 128
BY
DATE
REVISIONS
SG4
sp spa
Y RECORDS
CALIFORWR.
�.• I
4
. u a , "', ii
, a0lo f ,
9-r- 159 • a.
�1CIV D
AUG I
PLANNINO
SHEET
OF I SHEETS
JOB NO.
185001
-r 4 , s l' fsW'f r �yy 1
rf +k` ray � '�, � �r� » � �� f` - ��
%mil tJ'..%rrph _.r"•t` , # tk"' t4f"'*.+ `�" �'••y , +} �t."v �','`
.. . .� n ii f`t s 3. 1 r,Y .�•dlt sn y G it tiA.. `�
• � '�'3tP'�,ay sn. ��� .`r'� �& 3,�'� ,X'c'��Mr r t}a, 4
y ,�._-� tSx,, x _
.1,t Ct✓IY a �f i`' . q a <P,,`� Ys � -tT! • •
•
4- x+rt S r fs •s" # f kf
a
SMITH, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
•
e LAWRENCE G. SMITH STONERIDGE CORPORATE PLAZA
GEOFFREY J. ETNIRE
EDWARD W. POLSON 6140 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD. SUITE 500
G. JUDSON SCOTT, JR. PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-8097
JAMES J. PHILLIPS TELEPHONE: (4I51 463-3600
STEVEN H. LAVE
JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAD FAX: (415) 463-3110
JAMES R. LANGFORD III
ROBERT L. TAYLOR
HOLLY HELMUTH
JAMES H. GULSETH
ROBERT S. HAYES
MICHAEL J. SAN SOUCI•
DWIGHT M. WILLARD
.,•r,«UMITCO TO TEOCOA,COURT June 30, 1988
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran J.�_ _ 122-3
Planning Department
City of Dublin DUBLIN PLANNING
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Minor Subdivision Request
Circuit City Specialty Shops Parcel
S.W.C. Amador Plaza Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard
Dear Ms. O'Halloran:
First Western Development (FWD) has requested that I
supplement their minor subdivision request, as referenced above,
with a brief narrative, including brief discussions concerning
the variance issue and reciprocal easement agreements.
It is the wish of FWD that the contents of this letter be
considered by the staff in the drafting of its recommendations on
this minor subdivision request.
General Comments Re Subdivision Application.
The present request by FWD for a minor subdivision differs
markedly from the request submitted by FWD submitted in 1987.
The staff report recommended denial of the 1987 proposed
subdivision for the following reasons:
( 1) A landlocked parcel would be created.
( 2 ) There would be no frontage on a public street.
( 3 ) Concerns about the adequacy of a reciprocal easement
agreement.
( 4) Site Development Review concerns, such as:
, ATTACHMENT
t �
•
►7 �./ ,Recetue. 7-1-88
F
0 / rcr We-S cop
..yk w 't`_ -kr M "kit,. 5 y.r k 6., q r - 1V}r r+. ..3r.` t r' s f*
r5. / a ��r,,y v„ G£" "yi` d�# x�l.,t� a'�`y,•.(F e,y a� m ',,y .` * .f°., . f 5 ''`�$'t�/i '� 'h.F
... .,,4'�, ; '}�',"< ,4 .'t tq 2, �,bwy t,,_• .,-, '¢, '...!1;-
..f ' �r,l.�t '�'P'� 44 fk'%7 ' FYI Y'x }f?,"4 p`Y ?+ '1 �i-+'>ai'''`,^'t' it
t • '>r•zt ! ,. t u�6'�_'Jr 1N'x�- ,f f;'J� ,,f,. ,�;, 7"''K '- tt `+i; t. ..-7+ � c> �,a ;,-a .:* t {�'rT r
yr a,: -r Y' ; i J. , .,u'A a i" �J> r f x t' "'I„:-K ra , p T:7- r Y. ' t I.'v sTt{ X7r'-.: .�`
t t f !�rq Y,. � �>?{` �t'A 4 ir•� ...a+ ri, r �. � e 1 N; v t.{ . s +s. r r,r'
it ..+.c a,� � �'"�' � ! r ' S ' 'r'�^ '�$, *� - � r`''� �'Y;.r�j`, s0��'�r �'a ,���"� ,- '.'wJ"`''r , rtd,,.rtJ i ' r..�,, vt,",�'y li, ,e° 4y :-tI. K • Z. f: >,>, 'IA,ia�[[({{.. °i,. r n r .1/44 ,a� 'Srfr.4-11; a . .r A * -: d:1t J Tf ! .f 1 Jj a r br y
'+�i »r e ���r.,sy�'y � r �,'rs 4 tea. ,y � ;r,�y r �• o ,�' `!"S2 r •K���sa�'�
r /S n y z'$x aq,}T ' ,t�"'�F a� >t r q.�j'L r �r 3�' +t' +F � :
��.7�.%I& ,, 2-7'i 7 i4 .4..ra 7 **4 t ry' 1 1y t', 4'.w ft hra may tfr ii,, T to -s- E 'ttTy „hus' . .`,
y �- r a .v 1✓t4 -1, ' C +ox a t, v rf47 , , 13 `t- - : :r .; �" —'41 ,u T ▪ _.
' JV�p�s;3 ,. ..# x!,,, K. ji!y',' +k e;, .k +'F Y .,*,: rr '�� ' rr 13>��" !7 r�.. f R h,�.rr y�£'.r',i'R, t v' qr t :l »
t d .c�, ;m r a .�4jJ !>4'Y ii . t?.�+r:g 2s bz,tril .0 -+f it ,"�".'. ,.,r ', r ,{p " i.,.✓.,.�.3"is IY`3 '',,; s� ,
6.L,. � fi 1f'trYr #.4�.4� kyA`. e {�' 'K'" -.f �il®.�� � � ,+' ry r F'nF �•;s<� i /r.5 k : f
S Y7
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 2
(a) Failure to comply with on-site parking
requirements.
(b) Failure to comply with maximum floor area ratio of
thirty percent ( 30%) .
(c) Failure to meet design criteria, such as
landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and special
design features.
In response to the staff report on the first request and
directions from the Planning Commission, FWD has come in with a
request for a different subdivision, addressing head-on each
concern expressed by the Planning Department and the Planning
Commission. Specifically, the request for the new minor
subdivision addresses the above concerns as follows:
( 1) No landlocked parcels are created.
( 2) The parcel to be created does have both actual and
"effective" lot frontage.
( 3 ) A reciprocal easement agreement has been proposed
following guidelines established by the City Attorney
for Dublin.
( 4) The Site Development Review has already been completed
and approval given.
FWD deliberately separated its request for Site Development
Review approval and its request for a minor subdivision approval.
The reason for this separation was simply that Site Development
Review disposes of most of the site development issues, which
isolates and narrows the factors that need to be considered with
regard to the subdivision request. That is, the fact that FWD
has satisfied parking requirements, circulation concerns, floor
area ratios, and special design concerns means that Planning
Commission may address the narrow subdivision issue with the
confidence and knowledge that, should the subdivision be granted,
the site design criteria have already been met.
In reviewing the subdivision request, it will be important
for the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the Planning
Director has already made the following findings in the Site
Development Review:
( 1) "Consistent with Section 8-85.0, this project will
promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious
development, recognize environmental limitations on
development; stabilize land values and investments; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment
of uses or erection of structures having qualities
..t Q , - xx't:ai.:L`<k;a.(e4,i ' :."•. . '- a1 r` --, i:r , - "- .� aqZ
,iy 4.• rt ,, r4 wyi F y, .',, r,-;-s, 4 i ax , id pa'v i4 'z . r . t ! C a 'a � `� r st4 '-�,'- yV
. +1 r ay .4 a . , �_�S`F :`i, _ �ati S jf'a, 'i" 'KS!;aao :y .- Y
;t,c. t' .^ n � 410- K y 4 r▪ " .zc
..4r- _ # � \k 4+' .V ai , .4 eo�>� {"� . 'G. s 4WX
, {.: _�T ;,14.•S e ..xa 1g .:1�e °art. n. .- ca' t vi,. _.4 ge,-1.is �,. _
Y T t ..�.' (aY ? ' 9,�' - S s.i-R P L } t 4'Ti �f .',' 'i� Y ' i f i'T' rr+,.
p
;°i v 7`7 -. r 1;ft- ,44 ." n -f r�'pa,�F k+Ev'rr f`
�, Sa" i< t � x5 e " '� �7' n. .a� /Y. �- 1��, ;, ���" � .S � +��'R t
a g •l v*:` F 4c ,(�,'v �+ 9 ya 4 � � �... dt t Z�t".>� „e -yY �f f.
�-, z r:.a , i, x»A' �Ne y T. Tr ' .r. k _ '!"J r > 1.,: r(Atlet�''a ?' !y,yCy��y � '` �'* �y _
7 c1` / � C • yY. } 1 R ( f14 f �`ryt. } i ' ' { T S K 1:
€' '� 1"fix r i Y _ k'1"c s .r' .tea, t,. " i t `.. <J ; f `: tit v;
•'•'7'4 ror r.i v ?'`ai !_it; � . .��^i.t„r a;`�1 ic5� s'y`s 4kirik Wt � i�
�Nr wla .4 t" r .�.�. _�:.+_. _.du' .i�a,.`:'t s:�:x.c_t e. u�, ca.":.a.. ..,.._ - ..
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 3
which would not meet the specific intent clauses or
performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
and Downtown Specific Plan and which are not consistent
with their environmental setting. "
( 2) "The approval of the project as conditioned is in the
best interest of the public health, safety and general
welfare. "
( 3) "General site considerations, including site layout,
orientation, and the location of buildings, vehicular
access, circulation and ' parking, setbacks, height,
public safety and similar elements have been designed
to provide a desirable environment for the
development. "
( 4) "General architectural considerations, including the
character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other
buildings, building materials and , colors, screening of
exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar
elements have been incorporated into the project in
order to insure compatibility of this development with
its design concept and the character of adjacent
buildings. "
( 5) "General project landscaping considerations including
the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials and provisions for irrigation,
maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and
similar elements have been considered to insure visual
relief to complement buildings and structures and to
provide an attractive environment to the public. "
( 6 ) "The project is consistent with the policies contained
in the City' s General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. "
Given the evident value to the City of this development, as
described in the above findings, the remaining question is
whether someone other than the present owner of the existing
buildings may develop the site. That is, the only issue
remaining is whether the drawing of property lines, which is a
paper exercise, would have such an adverse impact on the actual
physical use of the project that a subdivision should be denied.
The property line question raises the issues of effective
lot frontage and reciprocal easement agreements.
4 S b }
'7rJ t 4 /J' { { sn'.�R ✓Y i f�<r}`�, 1 Yd lh ¢`
} iL r ^4 tr y j �- + 1j' f �wh s $f/Y3 yljt's 4J � j
R � � p � x� 9
.+:.sS:.I�f'�..r.. ..• < ..... .r,..:(.G.YA'x:F. _✓,� i ' > v. Z u <�.4
•
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 4
Comments Re Effective Lot Frontage.
The requirement stated in Section 80-60.13 is that the
Effective Lot Frontage, however that phrase may be defined, be
equal to one-half of the Median Lot Width (one-half of 150.08
feet is 75 .04 feet) . The new proposed minor subdivision includes
25 . 08 feet of "actual" lot frontage on Amador Valley Boulevard
and approximately 1,117 feet of "usable" or "effective" lot
frontage, through the use of an easement agreement, on Amador
Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard.
FWD understands that it may have been staff ' s position that
the subdivision, as proposed, may lack the necessary Effective
Lot Frontage and that a variance may be required. FWD does wish
to make the argument that the proposed minor subdivision does
meet the Effective Lot Frontage requirements and does not require
a variance.
This argument is presented here for two purposes. First,
the alternative interpretation of the "Effective Lot Frontage"
requirement would mean that a variance is not necessary. Second,
if a variance is deemed to be necessary by the Planning
Department, this alternative interpretation provides an
"alternate standard" allowed by Section 8-3. 11 on the granting of
variances.
The argument that a variance is not required in this
situation may seem novel, but it is the interpretation followed
by the County of Alameda (Dublin adopted the county codes
virtually verbatim in this area) and several other communities.
The argument may simply be stated as the position that "Effective
Lot Frontage" must mean something different than "Actual Lot
Frontage. " That is, the phrase "Actual Lot Frontage" would have
been used had the drafters of the codes intended that the
requirement of lot frontage be taken literally. Under this
argument, the term "Effective Lot Frontage" refers to that
physical curb frontage which is, for all practical purposes,
frontage for the parcel in question, including both actual
frontage and frontage created by cross easement agreements.
With regard to this argument, two questions immediately
occur. First, the underlying policy which generated the rule may
shed some light on which interpretation is correct. Second, is
the specific language used in the codes such that this common
sense definition of the word "effective" must be abandoned?
The policy of the provision is to limit, over a large
planning area, the ratio of actual building frontage (and,
•
r ri ✓Ryf�b�a7 !4i r: - s
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 5
indirectly, floor area) to curb frontage. With regard to this
particular development, it is apparent that a total building
frontage ( including the existing buildings and the proposed
building) totals less then fifty percent (50%) of the actual curb
frontage of the property. It is also apparent that the proposed
building has, for all practical purposes and from the viewpoint
of potential users, substantial "frontage" on public roads. It
is also apparent that the ratio of floor area to curb is quite
small.
Section 8-60. 13 provides that whenever "a new Building Site
is hereinafter created by division of an existing Lot, the
Effective Frontage of each such new Building Site shall be equal
to one-half of either the required or the actual Median Lot Width
thereof, whichever is greater. " Section 8-20.16 provides that
the term Effective Lot Frontage means whichever is smaller of the
following two specified dimensions:
(a) The length of the Front Lot Line . . .
(b) The least Lot Width at any point between the Front Line
of the Lot and the point at which the "Median Lot
Width" is measured.
As pointed out by the attorney for the City of Dublin (see memo
from Michael Riback dated August 26, 1987) , the above provisions
are "vague. " Riback recommended amendment to this provision to
clarify the intent.
Section 8-20. 16 defines Effective Lot Frontage, on this
particular application, as the length of the front lot line. The
question is whether that front lot line should be deemed to be
actual frontage only ( 25 . 08 feet on Amador Valley Boulevard) or
deemed to include the frontage which is, for all practical
purposes, available for use (an additional 1,117 feet) .
FWD understands that the City of Dublin may view this
argument that a variance is not required as a novel argument.
There are communities on both sides of this issue and the
intention of FWD in presenting this argument is simply to point
out that there are two reasonable interpretations of the
requirement, one of which does not require a variance. What is
clear is that custom and practice, in virtually all communities,
is that shopping centers are frequently allowed to have flag lots
and landlocked parcels, whether this be by variance or by an
interpretation that a variance is not necessary.
V •
'* �` ,x}'� mkt*ch � � >. •
r F �41 r
4-1
t u
y
°s:; I
•
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30 , 1988
Page 6
Comments Re Reciprocal Easement Agreements.
If a reciprocal easement agreement can be drawn which
answers the concerns of the City of Dublin with regard to ingress
and egress and future planning control, then ownership and
development of this parcel by FWD is no different than ownership
and development of this land by the present owner of the larger
parcel.
In a memorandum dated August 10, 1987 Rod Barger, who was
then Senior Planner and assigned to this project, presented the
following question to Michael Nave:
"Second, by creating this landlocked parcel,1 there is
also a need to create reciprocal easements for parking,
ingress, egress and utilities between the two
properties. Staff ' s experience indicates that
agreements of this nature can be cumbersome, difficult
to enforce, unfairly binding and difficult to revise.
In an effort not to duplicate similar problems in the
downtown area, Staff has asked the Applicant to submit
a reciprocal easement agreement that contains a clause
which gives the City the authority to revise the
agreement at any time in the future if found necessary
( in order avert or intervene problematic issues) . "
"Can the City require a clause of this nature as a
condition of approval of the subdivision?"
Michael Riback responded on behalf of Nave, indicating as
follows:
"You ask whether with respect to the creation of
reciprocal easements for parking, ingress, egress and
utilities between the two proposed lots, the City may
require that the developer and its successor in
interest comply with any conditions the City may find
necessary to impose upon the properties in the future
in order to alleviate any problems that may arise with
respect to the creation of a landlocked parcel. "*
"It is my opinion that the City may impose such a
requirement and that such a requirement should be set
forth as part of the documentation approving the
1 *Note: The original subdivision request was for a
landlocked parcel.
•
lei ? yr �J. �`'!x ,i -.
i r �-s� r h� �� .' N�PJI"IDS
� t
} • S I'• $i/ 6 4''K/'L f�:,PP U � ' C 3s: y S
• 7+N'' '.1� x "!! J.
.«.. �:...e sua(v.:i..xx,e:<,.l.i�.a...a.:rol,s�z*,f.�stif.6_d.�ii. .......s,Y.�,.-}•••. -..a,3.,L s ....�..iwS.�:Cit;.la..._Y�sh ��...'r<...i,+na". _x. ..r.-._:^Fat..,..s.:,. .... .
• .>;'
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 7
subdivision and recorded with the County Recorder. If,
in the future, conditions are necessary to impose and
the-then property owners refuse to comply with those
conditions, the City could record a notice of non-
compliance against the property and refuse to issue any
building permits or other zoning approvals thereafter
applied for. Additionally, such a notice of non-
compliance would make it difficult for the owners to
either sell or lease the property or to obtain any
loans using the property as collateral. "
Mr. Riback has indicated that other cities, including San
Leandro, have successfully used the type of provision he is
recommending. Mr. Riback has indicated that this can be
accomplished by using a standard Reciprocal Easement Agreement
and adding a provision similar to the following:
If problems arise within five years from completion of
the structure which is presently planned for the
subject parcel and these problems are attributable to
the subdivision approval, the City of Dublin may impose
such additional reasonable requirements as may be
necessary to mitigate those problems.
Given that a Reciprocal Easement Agreement may be drafted
which meets the needs of the City, the final planning concerns of
ingress and egress and future control by the City have been met.
Granting of Variance.
Should the interpretation of the City of Dublin be that a
variance must be granted, FWD respectfully requests that the
n
Staff recommend the grating of that variance. The requirements
of the granting of a variance are easily met in this matter:
( 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. Section 8-
93 . 0(a) .
Each of the special circumstances cited in this requirement is
met with regard to this application. With reference to size, the
subject parcel is quite large and, compared to neighboring
parcels, substantially underdeveloped. The total floor area
ratio of the two existing buildings and the proposed building
does not even approach the thirty percent ( 300) maximum. With
s r
.1 �'"i-+ w) a a-A '_L '! q..r w '£%_ o Y A•a}. •
a.R Jt'ik. q a. c f
C. 't� t',a; i +k at.+ g # •. t y R+, _
'`� V +'A t''ISw..:r� '�"K a`� @
...3,d.>m.:a..,...!:..s...:..4, .:.:...ti ,+xhw..:e. .1..-w..s: ..? ' 'l .s•,h�:.�..�T S-..3:.. �i..�ia��e.�i,M'�i4S�c ��.. h.....`..<
• -
t . 1"'t .,,�Y. #,. �y a:;.hY',rr.+nfi, Lp ���
ti l; c f'*it - v., <14a- £
• t! NrCy't• }�r �•# +' 'vs d 7t##•Y. 4y `M •t r.
,�. i,. r l! tk2 e %M�f 'AM .H! - ,'>� a'� 'a 'y `.t a i,
�.'
1 '� f ltlr txfl_ ij"
l*
•
•
...,.: .. ... ..'_r,. y s _...... . �'' `y `rr'�tX;cif..".._-f _:... = { >...Y..._ .. .. -d
•
1ti
s
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 8
reference to shape, this parcel is a corner lot, providing it
with a great deal more effective street frontage than neighboring
parcels. The ratios of total building frontage to curb frontage
and total floor area to curb frontage is extremely high. With
reference to location, there are several special considerations .
The back line of the property is contiguous to a flood control
district and Highway 680, with a result that there is not the
normal access to surface streets at the rear of the property.
The proposed parcel is contiguous to the location of important
destination retail outlets (Circuit City and T. J. Maxx) , making
small satellite retail stores a substantial convenience for the
public. Placing the building at the rear of the property would
be a better planning decision than putting it at the front of the
property, where it would have sufficient actual lot frontage, but
where it would also block access to an exposure of the large
retail outlets. It is the planning staff's desire to have this
new building located at the rear of the property rather than the
front and the rear lot line is, in fact, the ordinary location of
retail outlets in most shopping centers .
That this "special circumstances" requirement is met by this
application when one reviews the actions of the City with regard
to the application of Bedford properties to subdivide property it
owned so that each building would be on a separate parcel. The
reason for the request was internal to Bedford (it had to do
entirely with the financing of the property) . The subdivision in
that case was, as is this case, entirely a paper exercise, with
no visible signs of the subdivision to the public and to users of
the property. The Planning Commission made the following
findings:
There are special circumstances, including the site' s
existing building locations, zoning boundaries, and
existing lot lines, that make it extremely difficult to
subdivide the land in a reasonable and economic manner,
without the granting of a side and rear yard variance
for Lot C, and an effective lot frontage variance for
Lot E. Section 8-93 . 0(a) .
In the FWD application, as in the Bedford application, the
"site' s existing building location, zoning boundaries, and
existing lot lines . . . make it extremely difficult to subdivide
the land in a reasonable and economic manner without the granting
of . . . an effective lot frontage variance. "
{
k a 4 A C- ,a S y',�,,, i
.. - .. ... � T �:'w ,. .. _..� Y, i' d `sa' `sl 1^y: � £...m...._... �•' ` e '` o.�Y
Kf }: y.•1 i _f f .'i Z...?:',', i i'' f� 't ,.' ro t J' ..` u ;7 ;/b:,, t t ,i:
Y .n '�A ,.. t"`,y ,fnt '`". s '4 'tS r f ;1` s " t n
4 ,-.: t c}�+st , -, '"1 K? ,,I s� R RF•< " 'Sy tr, II + %, "'+.r'tn y,,4,��-, N fy', f �r d, 3• _t
�,j 4 t„' �: � i�*,+.�a,} us e a ,� ry� p te� 'l�8 ` r?t^'y'•-$e`s -s�a r �, 'z d r; t t ,
""3"
3• t.x14" t` i.: =.�4.y ri yf, rf{ ✓.0.+ c'‹'4 a- 74-P.,; t A i •7 L ` ,� 4 t
A rv. ' 7 ,r .. s tw Pt<;-'t}' i 'e b- r 9 k s' } ♦;
a x w t .,c
S ° _ ✓'k- It 'y�,ty ' r f ,wrx s rr
a fB7., '- t ie r k+ �a l Tp .y t< rya y3�� y,,. r : ; ,.. r
. r
a t A 'r t t
r ..'a � ; "rz 3 .ffi 6. -- h ° tsW i8 J M .'"S .. y �rr- ^ ""�fi 4: lkrw8 t4 2,,: w4:nv rFhMlA v1'. sw-S _J-a: s"Ur-
.ti:t�,.eM. ['s .. ..^
,i`" li zt +w . .. ajx. i4 t,.c
._ s__a 4_,L4. t i Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 9
( 2) That the granting of the application will not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and zone.
It is clear that the granting of this subdivision would not
constitute a grant of special privileges to this property
inconsistent with the limitations on properties in the vicinity
and in the zone. The proposed subdivision and development meet
or exceed the requirements for floor area ratio, on-site parking,
pedestrian amenities, traffic circulation, and design
considerations. Similarly, the Planning Commission in the
Bedford application found that this requirement number two was
met "given that adequate access, parking, and circulation is
available, and the adjacent future and existing uses on
neighboring properties should not be constrained by the granting
of the variance.
( 3 ) That the granting of the application will not be
detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood
or to the public welfare.
The findings of the Site Development Review clearly indicate that
the welfare of the neighborhood and the general public is best
served by the allowance of this subdivision and development.
( 4) The advisory agency may, in the exercise of reasonable
judgment, grant variances to the requirements . . . of
. . . effective lot frontage . . . as is determined
warranted by topographic limitations or soil or
geological conditions, the opportunity for more
effective and desirable land utilization, or the
showing that under the particular circumstances an
alternate standard would meet or surpass the intent of
the given requirement. Section 8-3 . 11. [Emphasis
added]
This requirement number 4 is actually a very important
modification of the preceding three requirements. That is, this
provision instructs the Planning Commission that the "special
circumstances" requirement is met if there is a finding of either
(a) opportunity for more effective and desirable land utilization
or (b) that under the circumstances an alternative standard would
meet or surpass the intent of the given ( "Effective Lot
Frontage" ) requirement. The FWD application meets both of these
conditions. With regard to condition (a) , this parcel of land is
certainly more effectively and desirably utilized in the event
1 � a
.S. �a.ac` a e
1'.SL :' -.,AA+.: .. ._,. .3 .._w Y .,..,,. ._�P..}kuPaw. 2.. .. 3e, YV atltra$:., ...,...t s.-x'.t_ .Ss.--,t4 2^.,. L,-,.,.. : a : ' ,
� t:4 g' 24 r:. , . + ,Iy Y y.�{'r. ). s :.f h ,i. r, c. , vi. .,I ;- ..- }.r r:y w 1 d
Fk_a ,d�Y i� , 1' . ,. y *#,Kk ,Y` i• .1 P X a{,P L^4 Via' . F.°, r �r t
a�,� � sir , I �„E,,,y'� ! i�.;, t t�r,„'-fi�`.f'� �' lF .u:,o-#r s�',rj+$ {. �f"a, i ,'y��;p z �i <Y
e -•-f, �, 1 'F:—--:1- -rrs.'.i j'yy. 3 - .z .�' fi 4, aF .,' i� .r.'`- ,c" e• Mr,- -i. �Y t (w ,� { "`p'. -=, 12% t 'ice di r/ ' �,i
Y � „� :.k4: ?' Ef'p)."+Y fi:l 'X �'" f �43rtl�`7rY ��t{ 4_�.i."t 4 if _ � I Y > ��v.f Jam; �� 44 ,�.
�;. 4�, � r ni= ,�a �, �v,,,.E,y.t ;/� �-yK erg x��.�„c,,,.t�� r rpF - �+i .DJ � :Zpt3�- .d',
rag
3 F � rix.t, '.?'. rs4'� 't`t., � i .. Y.+, `i31""rT `r3 !"', `,,rz� ,�+a b,»F F�`.r �� �'.a` r'7! 'x
r tf i r+,ff1 Si- 4,rS'r'` `"g• k . . a-p ,t ,ylF 1 :. f ,r ,. : F 1 Ale ,4'
'.,.;;„ 5 I rtl � " h r4 lfV
�J',y � 'Y, � A.�'ry�f �1' W" ire � (Y. fv P'Y r D i�
% may,r�Jk :t r r, k /'t. ,�.:-. h '�C , t} /r- ! f ',.
+'�..; 2 .�r+`xJ '� y + �1li',,��a�� x k 't^f ..✓/ra �R k�o-v��'' �-s`T h;ram.ti•dv �" �r y d. k .''`t'�y���rrs'"`di s /��'^��"�` �ft
F w'.� +3:.;7,1-.,,i..' ..t a .:s j `k l`�°'1T�s,tA, MF�.y} m};:% r..N k w � a ,,i �Y'( , ,' ;,r.. Js'4‹Si 4; 4! ,w
'ZAz, 2?r.A�jri'�Cs' ,Z,TPYa t,. x'" �*r Ss F f x s.; 'S Jf • '°v`,,j,'' €q'°_ ;-, :.)
r:2 :..-' ,3�,,. r,� 1. ''sr� -r"`.g.✓ti' p t Y.af',fix % P"r_f y 4. w si ('f7Y.,Nt' ,, -„ 1 7`.
‘.'A'-. v .ri r ,- M -s. - v, rr - z f ,.s,.: F.;; w
4` ,r *..`y� yr rt°P ,Z w .
3 .• ' . _ '$�! !s .e .�!„¢_+�g,+Ygr.' _3.trs .�. Y�tia {a.};..i�F?YW:T- V M4�t"Rsr4YLL". „t.._ .r
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 10
that the shopping center is completed. The finds of the Site
Development Review included findings that "this project will
promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development, recognize
environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values
and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing
establishment of uses or erection of structures having qualities
which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance
standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Specific
Plan and which are not consistent with their environmental
setting. " The findings also included the statement that "general
site considerations, including site layout, orientation, and the
location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking,
setbacks, height, public safety and similar elements have been
designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. "
As stated above, the destination retail outlets would draw many
citizens and users who will be well served by specialty retail
stores located nearby (without additional driving) .
With regard to condition (b) , this particular location is a
prime example of particular circumstances where there is an
alternative standard which would meet the intention of the
"Effective Lot Frontage" requirement. One alternative standard
might be, as discussed above, the alternative definition of
effective lot frontage to include all usable frontage (actual
frontage plus frontage which is there for all practical purposes
pursuant to easement agreements) . Other alterative standards
would be such established standards as floor area ratio (which
limits to ( 30%) the building footprints on both the new and old
parcels) , parking requirements, traffic circulation requirements,
and the like. That the alternative standards of floor area
ratios, on-site parking, and traffic circulation are met is a
specific finding of the Site Development Review. The point here
is that other established standards are sufficient to protect
quality of this development and that it is not necessary to
rigidly enforce the "Effective Lot Frontage" requirement.
Conclusion.
The bottom line here is that the Planning Department has
concluded that the project is proper and desirable from the point
of view of the City.
The only remaining question is whether the subdivision
(which is necessary to allow the development in the first place) ,
because of its shortage of actual lot frontage, cause such
substantial problems with the use of the development that the FWD
application should be denied.
sr
S
.. a c.-.r_..u- :.�I ...1..�.i....•. ,.:.. ...�,r.,_.,.,y Js J.. ,.y. .. ,_...... _ _ ., e..,..s.'-. "` ,fin. �w.r..,. .. ..... _..
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
June 30, 1988
Page 11
The City can certainly justify the granting of the FWD
application and the variance on the grounds that the three
standard conditions of variances have been met and on the ground
the application provides the "opportunity for more effective and
desirable land utilization. " There is no possible source of
criticism for the granting of this application.
There is simply no technical barrier to the granting of this
application. The City of Dublin may approve and have this
development if it wishes to have this development. The findings
of the Site Development Review include findings that the project
meets the standards of the Downtown Specific Plan and that it is
in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Sincerely,
SMITH, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT
A Professional Law Corporation
Geoffrey J. Etnire
GJE/jf
cc: First Western Development Company
,
ie.i;y, Y4 '. •e a • xfx'a;�S+ ,� � + T t � r/` �. ,.y t"t"".xI+JF
4' .. r6 r c',-- a tcii 1,r`r`x' '? r3' L y t a"f Fye$ Br, - l.:r.•+,e %i
r nv y yr N y`f t
1 ' r�r r e T ree�i 1
«j ii' Ld �
3 �x'. . rfir r -S.e3t y r ` ; s a#.' '�trywyr,y..�+" " tj.''x +�. y •,ai
r t t r f ra r xa 1 r x,yt 7 . AA: X% Hs:
Lyy �.i,v..tti� �- ,va r,S L'M- $ 'r ` 40 `xr7 '` '�,kYr v. S siX g a s}. r .,. 'E."`'t1,
f' A4 I • y ra."y E sr 44/f f .' ' •t r.d , . ` 'f°( - �, 'f. <7
k t ." S t e r $._. �,,, #3 y.'? $ F� vN�,S"t 5l. • j Ty •'r .+ x> .Zy'T r
t e ,,�4" eti< f"" "� , < '�v S ti' +'� '�► r'✓ j t I
?y44 ,v 4?z ' K �. ,/ k .+ gyp„ R Y. t74:• x�x'f9' e�•� �, tfi r k > .4�
?i ,.�+4 ' ' Yt ,� s F 1$a •
`9 x'
•l '�'/ JryJ. t t*y� S �hf •
k /'.0 ty .Jr; f �^"J !'L:' } N yy'r YAA`f
+4r
•
i. t �,} y�-., ,. s�y 1 r'wx* i'-^ r s., Y,3 T.�f i r
• .r.� 7t ' • .'. / �_p7 ,<•; u'
A f
•
•
_ J T.x .n-� �r
RECEIVED
S'aR
tU A i jv ` SMITH, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
DUBLIN PLANNING
LAWRENCE G. SMITH STONERIDGE CORPORATE PLAZA
GEOFFREY J. ETNIRE
EDwARD W. POLSON 6140 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, SUITE 500
G. JUDSON SCOTT, JR. PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94566-8097
JAMES J. PHILLIPS TELEPHONE: (415) 463-3600
STEVEN H. LAVE
JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAO
FAX: 14151 463-3110
JAMES R. LANGFORD ICE
ROBERT L. TAYLOR
HOLLY HELMUTH
JAMES H. GULSETH
ROBERT 5. HAYES
MICHAEL J. SAN SOUCIR
DWIGHT M. WILLARD August 10 , 1988
•M.CT•CC UNITED TO ICOCR4 COUNT
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran HAND DELIVERED
Planning Department
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Minor Subdivision Request
Circuit City Specialty Shops Parcel
S.W.C. Amador Plaza Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard
Dear Ms. O'Halloran:
Enclosed is the most recent draft of the proposed language.
I believe (and hope) that this language goes a long way to
overcoming the inadequacies on which you commented in our
telephone conversation of August 9, 1988 .
The first suggestion is that this language be included in
the easement agreement and in the conditions of approval of the
subdivision.
The second change is that I have incorporated Michael
Riback' s language with regard to the power of the city of impose
additional conditions to resolve any problems which may arise
because of the granting of the subdivision.
Third, I have added language to provide that First Western
Development will not be allowed to construct a free-standing sign
on its property or the property owned by Metropolitan Life.
Larry had expressed some concern about this factor.
Fourth, I modified the language to make it clear that the
principal concern is to allow the City of Dublin the maximum
amount of control and flexibility in planning decisions relating
to future applications by Metropolitan Life. Larry had expressed
the concern that First Western Development might be able, in
• . ATTACHMENT
N'L v1 rN .• LV` ee—A
•
41? .:���.z F<e.s r L ,eti
, 5 ,. _ ��'+r+.a"
�......._�_ ,.t... ._._ ..,. ,. ...,.c. L; .. ._ .. ...r..., 4:,.'.. ..e....,.x_. awl....,...j.�. ....,.... _ _ :.F
(Th
•
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
August 10, 1988
Page 2
effect, to veto development plans by Metropolitan Life which
would otherwise be approved by the City of Dublin. He and I
discussed the problem that the City of Dublin is having presently
with the Target and Albertson' s parcels. The expressed concern
is that First Western Development would be able to object to
future development because future development would restrict or
impact on the easement that First Western Development has over
the Metropolitan Life property. The solution that I have
proposed is simply that First Western Development gives up its
right to object to changes in the easement, allowing Metropolitan
Life to unilaterally modify the easement if that modification is
required by a development plan approved by the City of Dublin.
I think that the above four factors, taken together, do
address the planning concerns expressed by Larry. I am looking
forward to meeting with you on August 24, 1988. I would welcome
your suggestions on the language at that point and would be happy
to try to address any additional problems that you might have.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Ms. Silver and Mr.
Riback.
Sincerely,
SMITH, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT
A Professional Law Corporation
Geoffrey J. Etnire
GJE/jf
Enclosure
cc: First Western Development
Elizabeth Silver, Esq.
Michael Riback, Esq.
•
3 e.Y .
{ r 7 f • �g fl '+Fh # #.5
r"r ,l t,,. > a it
t L - e rt tt0 }
�1
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
RE
CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
It is suggested that approval of the requested minor
subdivision be granted on the following conditions (among
others) :
( 1) If problems arise within five years from completion of
the structure which is presently planned for the subject parcel
and these problems are attributable to the subdivision approval,
the City of Dublin may impose such additional reasonable
requirements as may be necessary to mitigate those problems.
( 2) Applicant shall not be permitted to construct a free-
standing sign on the subdivided parcel. Nor shall the applicant
be entitled to construct a free-standing sign on the parcel owned
by Metropolitan Life, the parcel from which applicant' s parcel is
to be created.
( 3 ) The application for the minor subdivision anticipates
that there will be a cross-easement for ingress, egress and
parking by and between First Western Development and Metropolitan
Life. Without further conditions, a problem may arise in the
future in that a development project desired by Metropolitan Life
and the City of Dublin could be effectively blocked by First
Western Development on the grounds that any such development
would impinge or cut back on its easement rights. Therefore, it
is a specific condition of the subdivision approval that First
Western Development may not object to a reduction, change in
shape, or other modification of its easement if:
(a) The modification of the easement is requested by
Metropolitan Life (or its successors) because of development
plans;
(b) The plans for development by Metropolitan Life
have been approved by the City of Dublin; and
(c) The remaining easement following such modification
is sufficient to provide reasonable access to the First
Western Development property.
It is a condition of the granting of the subdivision approval
that First Western Development shall, in the future, execute any
and all additional documents as may be required from time to time
to effectuate modifications requested by Metropolitan Life, or
its successors, which meet the above three conditions.
( 4) These conditions shall be included in a reciprocal
easement agreement recorded in the official records of the County
of Alameda.
L i
•
•�1 I }r ur {,sl.�: 4 ti„ 'c9'.',k. 'y ` `' i'3.firs L
LrJUy t \ • X \\ \\ m00%
���
, _ .___,_.„:,_,A _ ._',..i..- _T_)\ .. .,,, 1 ,..1.
tI\
1 ._.7,_ --\-
'- -\• '' / '\\ --,--,.\- ....\< , 1 .v--- - ,"- '-',-, l' i :)'.1 ,. :
/ .• _ _ I\ \ , , X . -. ‘,
•
IC-
\\
\\,•
i '• mow•..
SCHOOL • _
•
4 / / T 1.,TH
_�„-L-a _.�\ COMMUNITY \\ 1
��y•
�\4 -- J1 1 SHIM CENTER 1,,
\ 1• s
'-\\." ' • --/-r, .... L---.c \
\,\\\ ed''C'AK!),.>7 V .....)........'7--77--.--'--.Z .------.'-1 "....; •....."..'r-,---) \ l--' ,___ ' \ ' .\
\ \\., N.,, . .. \ ..).- , , , ,
, . , . :,....
' T---i• ; •
. .
,‘ ,, ... .
—.,,:,
, . s
apa. B \ \\ \ UN
•'' :,�— — a -- r— __ yam J
' I - , \
...r % . \ -,.....Y ` • :\‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘,. I \ ___, —__
1...._::._,:•
•
\ .;\\\ \ .` o ; ; , tea..— `~l['__ FKOE,INxN \ \
\ � ]� , : 1 'v:... L`- 9C F71
TART `\`• / ` .'
3 MAN so.ocl \`\ b\\ /. 1 •--_ / V'
.^. \ .7, \‘‘\\\NI'.\-\,,.............. .---',. ..--\..., .......1 •
\\\ \\' ice` 1 [ - \-----. \• '�t
:::
✓ 1 \ `\\\ \ 'iT► \ 1 'fir': 1s�' � •� � ,-i. c\./ ✓. `Y S"
°"` , Y ' Y \ .. \ss'o\ ram" �_ t/ ^�- y ,.
--N/ ./
\\0 10100 ..,..- \
‹* /\
No Ss Hss .,•\
mon
. .4 .
me ,14„„ iiiii, „---;__, ,.:, N:,,,,,,s,‘,;‘,„ 404.-r-- ‘A '- 0. - 7.44°
,-,---,,,.: ,.....-0 , . V 7\\ •Nzto , ,., x,,,,,.
?."14......._: .. 1,,,
„,,„ , . . ,,. . ,
•
, , .
.„ .. .
ow
a , .
,-. --, ....filwo 011111 / '\--__Vt.\-(-\ --- '' --/'. )7/- „--.' -. -'-' ,. •. - .
\`\\\\\\,116‘10 "—,.... `, . „, \\• ,,,'�•,,'�•
ELEMENTARY
•
A \ Vt \\\\‘'\\`..s \ \..." ,..)\\„:„.....„ . .
* \ 1\TE-I r--..., . :„.
..„, \_,:.• ,... ..,, , _,..„‹.....,,,,,..:,...:::ii„,„......
\:„_>- ..--_/ \ \ •\‘‘,‘„s ,,,
\ ...,,,, ... .„...... c., ..,..„.. . _ • sc... .. ,.......
......_ • • , ,... , , \ •_ .- -,
, . \_____---\ ‘‘ , ‘ ._.,...„
„.....
, \• • \ „ . „.„...,/ -,-,......tie,
. .....„. ., , .„•‘, _. ...„
1.
,.,... „ .
.. _
. \
, •,‘„„s, , ...„. ,
__....„.....
...„ .
. , , , , . .„.......„ .....,.....
, \ ,. \\. \ ,,\
,\\\,,,,,,,...:‘.. .c..„. -- -\- --
; ..„...._ _____._...„.
, . .. , ... ,......
, \ \ . ...., . ", . . . .......:__
.• .....‘ . , . , , , . -__,----
. , ,
, \ , , ,
\\\,..... , ._ ../ ,
_ „
, .. .
\\ _ \
\ „:... , ___..... , ,
.\ \ .... . SAN RAMON .•'-- .. '-'1--••l.'s./
\ --. ' 1 1 .... "le\ ------.'
_.....)\..„.„.....-----;:y• 1
\ \ V ‘‘ .
...,
7.
.., .
1� \\ ,, V
, ,
:4 \-- .
„ . ._....._
,,c 1
., ,,
_, ....---,
, ,
..„ , ,, . -,,,_._,, i ,
_ , __,--,, _____-- .
\. , s ,, ,
s ,_ . , ,______,,.... \ ,,.\ \ ,,, ,
, \
.t:.> \ /
5 \