Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-1983 Pre-hearing Staff Analysis PA82-013 Albertson's Var''THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94566 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS Meeting Date: March 28, 1983 City Council Planning Directors (415) 829-3543 Parking Variance and Building Code Variance for Albertson's Store #733 - PA 82-013 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 -1- 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 siza 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 estaolish 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 Cade 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- 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 ac-=ed upon? Taking each questions individually: 1. Is it reasonable to grant a parking variance for the Dublin Plaza shopping center in order -=o 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. V 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 __nstead, 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 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 proposed construction to the addition to catch on proposed addition are of fully sprinklered. The addition added, will not problem. - between existing structures and the limit their potential damage, were fire. The existing building and masonry construction and will be size of the building, with the pose any other Building Code 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- -11 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 :_nclude: a) an enclosed trash area of sufficient size to contain their trash and miscellaneous refuse needs; k)) 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 cf the entire center. -8- 3. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to persons or property in the area or -=o the public welfare, since pedestrian and vehicular circula-=ion 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 Amendment to Declaration of ]encumbrances 1/19/71 Exhibit "E" (Variance application - Attachment A) -9- h 4 __ , i? jIr \ \ \ \ 1 -+? ??LL?--LL F00 -Z1 _ _ _ q' ?' _ _ C XIN lo I rs rr% y M p v- ? ? ,y. ?. ,D 4I , IS OJ" 'ca u ? ? `+ CD DUD ?.... rC..6Yw ?. "•?I V V% a 9; y f rr1 M .33?.. v N q dJ rJ "; ? ? ? u v v Yi In 1n ,J „n Q` 141, 1 1S rl Lfl fry N Vl \ r ... ?i VN .4 t OD ' ? :i? N .fin h :? N•_ ? 0LL:. a V,J I Ott JI ?. ?_ • n ° L -? \ N9r Rd C, 6 2 j„ a ) v e rr) 44 s '• ?•y ? ? I I ? ts3? _ i Q /Z CID .f G O'?i Q t 2 I ?' I ! i { cu_ 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 alcng a common property line between parcels 941-305-14-2, ownec by 7th Cheltenham Properties; 941-305-16, owned by Payless Drug Stores; and 941-305-21, owned by WMMIG, and; WHEREAS, the existing bi:.ildings 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, ar.d; 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 perm'.ts 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 S-:reet 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 t'ie Dublin Planning Department. 2. That all the buildings oz Parcels 14-2, 16, and 21 be provided with automatic fire sprinclers. 3. That the use of the build:_ngs 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 ADOP'PED this day of 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O]? DUBLIN •------------------------------------------ THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION IS HEREBY ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Albertson's, Inc. wishes to expand the size of their store at Regional Street a:id Amador Valley Blvd. by 8,208 square feet and not provide a:iy 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 tJ 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 tr.e necessary Site Development Review, their plans shall include: a) an enclosed trash area of sufficient size to contain their tr«sh and miscellaneous refuse needs; b) several additional trees «re 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 shal:_ 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 w:_th landscaping and other design features; b) Maintenance of a two-way driveway with a minimum 28' width. 6. Albertson's shall agree to par-:icipate, 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. AYE'S : NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ?A. Attachment A #1. When the center was originally approved, all site area was maximized 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 w 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. • ` r Approt-cd as to Form ?1 (?..CQ?IC: Y::Dit r.iiLl4l:i: ez( s--' ? ? FiIC['_ J J. 1•:003:., County Counce I. By..... ..... ........................Deputy t ? 714 ti 1;OARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF.ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA -'Nn W Supcrvisor..................... Bort ............................... Seconded by Supervisor ....................... H=on---..................., F C fi.'. `l?y ' n,I approccd by the follosl utg cote, .....::......BorL'..14nrnu "tzci.o Srcency...^t1d..Ch:a ;,,an..talxhY..n..5........................ sup crcisors .................. :,rocs: Supmkors ............................... I:one.......................................................................... ............................ 4f?. ? Iixcuscd or Abient: Supervisors......... 1Ione:.:: :..........:.:....:.....:.:.:.--°:...::.....:.::....._.:..:.....:.::__...:.._::..`.:.:::._....................._............. t. THL: FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER-.-_X.u 4. GFvV71 VAI %1'CES WIIERFAS, the owners of certain property as hereinafter indicated and as shown on the Parcel Map 521, rarked Exhibit A, and on file with this Board of SUpCrViSOrS, have proposed to construe E. shopping center located at Regional Street and An. ador Valley Boulevard in Dublin' California,' to' be ',mown as F? Dublin Plaza Shopping Center: 1 C>+ncr Parccl 1.o. E Sutter hill Development Corporation 3 and 5 SLR _-lay Le ;s Dru Stores k Albei-r,son's, •Inc. 2 t. and %;nr vvt3, because of such 5epart,te .,1nec•binipo vuc 'f,Cb 1. sections of the Alameda County Building Code are necessarj-for ti:c proposed i project: t. (1) Section 504, Table 5-A and Section 1103 - which prohibit oi;ciinrs 4. in e,terior.wal.7.G which are less than 5' from pro.:crty lincs, and # rec_itire walls which are loss tt an '10' -from property *lines to be of ?• one-hour fire-resistive construction. (2) Section 506 (b) -, which pcmdts unlimited floor area if the tuildin `.` iG surrounded by yards or 3trec:tG 60' wide and provided with an autocrat.c y'. fire extinGuishinG system. (3) Section 509 which permits arcades or covered wal;:ways, conncctinG buildings, providing there are no openings between tine a:•c::dc and the building except doors. is i, r! and W, -,READ, the Sutter Hill Devoloriscnt Corporation, on ber.21f of th-.n above- . , - ... , mer.tionud property owners, did. request vL.riances from such conditions; and. • » ..rlo, good cause appearing to this Board of Sripervisor5 that sitch 6II(c., . v..riancr.s t6 the Alameda Caanty Building Code should be•,n, anted to Sutter t hill hovClol, '::t Corporation; Slca6-G Pay Less Diu; Stores nx.1 -'s ?" Inc. in connoc-tion with said propoocd Dublin 111_7.a S7:nppinr Ccntcr; C R2SzOLUtION 110. GFW, VAIRIJUICES PAGE 2 ROW, TIEI. O,E, B:.' IT RLSOLVED that the Sutter Hi 11 Development Corporation, ` Skaggs Pay Less DruG Stores and Albei.-tson's, Inc. be and they are hereby granted variances to the'provisions of Section 504, Table 5-A, Section 1103, j Section 506(b) and Section 509 of the F-laneda County Building Code in j connection with said proposed Mblin Plaza Shopping Center located at Rc`ional Street and Amador-Valley Boulevard in Dublin, California; 'subject, however, to the following conditions: -" ' ?' _._ ...... _1....A 60'.-clear yard be maintained ¢rolmd the buildings "as indicated in green on the site plan labeled Exhibit B on file with this Board of Supervisors. 2. That no openings be permitted in the exterior walls of the buildings as indicated in black on said Exhibit B. 3. That all the buildings on Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 be provided with automatic fire sprin:serr. . - 4. That the use of the buildings be limited to "E".Occupancies as defined in the Alameda County Building Code (Drinking or Dining' Establishment) with an occupant load of more than 100 not pei;itted. 5. That parcels-2,-:3, 4 a '-'.d 5 be :erict crcd by In agrc_:::e CcccOtab1^ to the Ala::-,cda County County'C:)unscl'which wil.1 assure comoliance - :with the.foregoinG conditions.; :said at,TeementAo:be recorded and ,_. run with the land.-: - ? .. _. , and BE IT F"J::TMR RESOLV= that the Co,lnty Building Official be and he is hereby authorized and directed to issue the necessary permit or per,.iits accordingly, subject to the fore3oing conditions. ( G I CERTIP( TH.1T --+-_ RECT COPY OF , • v0f` IN. C:C 1 FEiOLOTION ADCp-,ED By THE BOAaD OF SilP"c?'(I+U :S AWJEDA COLIMY, CALIFORNLI.._.._. ATTEST: JACK K. POOL, CLERK OF THE COARD OF SUPERYISORs + ?9,J _ r 0 < II- 1.8359 ,ICORDM.atl REQUEST OF Ac...ZZ- ra Gt BE:2190 11i;422 FEB 19 1197 AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION Or ENCUMBRANCES Index the A reement and the Consent OFFICIAL' RECORDS OF. 7JVA.1EDA COUNTY, CALIFORNWN UACK G. BLUE THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this ,0UNT.Y. RECORUER day of 19 7/, by and between ALBERTSON'S, INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Albertson's"), SKAGGS PAY LESS DRUG STORES, a California corporation.(hereinafter referred to as "Pay Less"), and SUTTER HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation (hereinafter 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 DecembE:r 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. 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. 11 Subject Property. The property subject to the provisions of this Amendment consists of Parcels 2, 3,,4 and 24 00 ?I Ca.,1?? ?o lFr'tc;.l - c sao ?Q10 A00 k ?[:2 ju (li;i/ 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 Aroa.ind 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,.4 and 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 or. 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 the boundary lines of Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 in those areas indicated in red on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. Automatic Fine 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 (comrercial 2. 71- 1.8939 q 1 s i PE:27901MA? or otherwise) situated withir premises located on Parcels 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 shall be limited to "Type 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 provisions of such Building Code as presently' in effect is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part 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 Assigns. This Amendment and all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein provided are intended to create privity of contract and privity of estate with and aRong each of the parties hereto. said covenants, conditions and restrictions are intended to connI--LLuLo oqui(-.nlA.o norviLuelos and covonnnLn running with the respective properties of each of the parties as described 3 II- :1 80511) RE:2700 IMA-25 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. The undersigned owner of i Parcel 2 hereby joins in the foregoing Amendment to Declara- tion of Encumbrances and agrees to be bound by the terms thereof. SEVENTH CHELTENHAM ASSOCIATES,. a New York partnership. A Partner The undersigned Trustees under that certain Indenture of Mortgage and Deed of Trust dated as of October 15, 1970 covering Parcel 2 hereby joins in the execution of and consents to the foregoing Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances. THE NATIONAL SHAWMUT BANK OF BOSTON; s'Trustee. %'IUt PILE. IDEffl' W. B. Wadland, As Trustee ALBERTSON' S , INC . By T c? `L2 W. ?'I ??%' Vice President,, Y. By ? Ilk/ Secretary SKAGGS PAY LESS DRUG STORES By io By SUTTER HILL DEVELOPM-'NT CORPORATION B C? Y By,A`4 ? ?CZ ? t ?Ss7?- eCn, 4. '1!- :18915D