Resolution 13700CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.13 7 0 0
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT PDA03 -0006 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR03 -0096 TO ALLOW A 150
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT 3241 GARFIELD AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on August 1, 2003, by Thomas Means, Inc. for
Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett of 3241 Garfield Avenue, requesting a Planned Development
Amendment, PDA03 -0006 and Major Design Review DR03-0096, to allow a 150 square foot single
story rear addition; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on September 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1 PD (One Family Residence Planned
Development District; and
WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet
requires Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30- 37.2 (a); and
WHEREAS, a Planned Development Amendment is required for additions to the building,
pursuant to Condition #3 of Planning Board Resolution PB- 97 -38, which approved the Planned
Development overlay on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on this
application on January 12, 2004, and examined pertinent documents and conditionally approved the
application; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City Council of the City of Alameda held a public
hearing for the appeal of the Planning Board's prior approval and examined pertinent documents as
well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal and
finds that there are no merits in the bases of appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal and relative to the Planned Development Amendment application:
1. The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan, which specifies low - density residential uses for this site, because the project
does not alter the residential density of the development.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the Planned Development, PD- 97 -01,
because it does not change the use or density of the property, nor the intent of
providing affordable home ownership opportunities through the creation of small
subdivisions on older properties with small homes. The proposed addition also
complies with provisions in the underlying R -1 District, and the findings pursuant
to Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) & (1) can be made.
3. The Planned Development Amendment would allow for a more effective use of the
site than is possible under the regulations of the Planned Development and the
underlying district with which the Planned Development District is combined.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal and relative to the Major Design Review application:
The project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity. This
finding can be made because the project is an attempt to improve the use of space on the
property. The shade from the addition is not significant to cause adverse impacts to
surrounding properties. The proposed addition also complies with provisions in the
underlying R -1 District, and the findings pursuant to Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) & (1) can be
made. Therefore, the project will have minimal adverse effects on persons or property if
it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of
surrounding properties. This finding can be made because the design of the addition
utilizes architectural elements that are in keeping with the original style and appearance
of the building. Since the neighborhood consists of buildings belonging to the same
style, the project is preserving a building that is compatible and harmonious with the
surrounding neighbors.
3. The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. This
finding can be made because the project improves the existing residential use on the
property, and it preserves the character of the neighborhood as recommended in the
City's Design Review Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, under Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines - Existing Facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the
Planning Board's approval of Planned Development Amendment PDA03 -0006 and Major Design
Review DR03 -0096 to allow a 150 square foot single story rear addition.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
* * * * **
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting of the City Council
on the 4th day of May, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, and
Mayor Johnson - 5.
NOES: None.
AB SENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
5th day of May, 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City le
City of Alameda