Resolution 12444CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12444
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD DETERMINATION THAT A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED AND THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
IS NEEDED TO MAKE COMPLETE THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR
MODIFICATIONS OF A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 2901 JACKSON STREET.
WHEREAS, a Design Review application was made on August 5,
1992, to allow a 196 square foot addition to a single family
residence under construction at 2901 Jackson Street; and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed incomplete on August 6,
1992, September 29, 1992, January 6, 1993 and February 4, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1993, the applicant has appealed the
Planning Director's determination that a Planned Development
Amendment was required and that the Design Review submittal is
incomplete; and
W-IEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 28,
1993 and determined the modification to the second story of a
residence under construction at 2901 Jackson requires a Planned
Development Amendment and that the Design Review is incomplete; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board upheld the Planning Director's
determination that a Planned Development Amendment was required and
the Design Review application is incomplete; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1993, the applicant has appealed the
Planning Board's decision regarding the requirement for a Planned
Development Amendment and the incompleteness of the Design Review
application; 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 Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303(a) new
construction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this
appeal on August 17, 1993, and has examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised by the City
Attorney, as noted in the staff responses to the bases of appeal,
that the Design Review and Planned Development Amendment process
are not unconstitutional and therefore determines that certain of
the applicant's bases of appeal as set out below, are not within
their purview:
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 regular meeting assembled on the 17th day of
August , 1993, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Appezzato, Lucas, Roth and
President Withrow 4.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilman Arne.rc
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said{City this 18th day of August , 1993.
Diane B. Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda