Resolution 12919CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12919
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION (ZC-97-5) REGARDING
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2607 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, 1500 AND 1506
BROADWAY STREET, ALAMEDA
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 6, 1997 by Edward J.
Murphy requesting a zoning compliance determination to allow the
demolition of all existing structures on the three separate parcels
and construct a fourplex in their place; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are designated Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are zoned R-4 (Neighborhood
Residential); and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1997, the Planning Director provided a
written determination advising that the density provisions of the
R-4 Zoning District require 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit;
that these properties are separate parcels and none of them has
sufficient area to support more than a single dwelling unit; and,
that in order to consider any development proposal, the parcels
must be combined together in order to meet the density provisions
which could be done through a Lot Line Adjustment; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1997, the applicant appealed the
Planning Director's determination; and
WHEREAS, by mutual agreement, the appeal was scheduled more
than three meetings from the date of the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on July 14, 1997 to
consider this application, and examined pertinent maps, drawings,
and documents; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 1997, the Planning Board unanimously
upheld the Planning Director's decision that the three parcels
lacked sufficient square footage to have any additional dwelling
units; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 1997, the applicant appealed the Planning
Board's decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 19,
1997 to consider this appeal, heard all public testimony, and
considered all pertinent information; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal (in bold):
Mr. Murphy states the Planning Director established unnecessary and
discriminatory conditions for consideration of his development
proposal. The Planning Director informed Mr. Murphy about the
procedures required for further development on his property since
each of the individual parcels was developed to the maximum extent
possible under the R-4 Zoning regulations. Mr. Murphy's request
noted the combined square footage of the three parcels, but did not
specifically state that he was aware of the fact that the combined
square footage was less than the Zoning Ordinance density
provisions. Rather than assume that Mr. Murphy was aware of the
Zoning density provisions, the Planning Director provided Mr.
Murphy with the density provisions and the requirement that each
unit must have 2,000 square feet of lot area.
Mr. Wood asserts that the Planning Director's decision must be
clarified. The Planning Director answered Mr. Murphy's question
regarding additional development. Any discussion about additional
units and in what form those units were to be constructed was
premature. Whether the potential units were in the form of a
fourplex or four single family residences was not relevant when no
further development could take place on the properties. However,
it became apparent with Mr. Murphy's second request regarding
construction of a fourplex (ZC-97-9, the subject of a separate
appeal before the City Council), that his interest had less to do
with the actual development and how to accomplish it, than with
obtaining a determination regarding construction of a multiple
family structure (in this instance, a fourplex) and Measure A. The
Planning Director has issued a Zoning Compliance Determination
regarding development of a multiple family structure on the three
lots if they were combined on May 29, 1997, no additional
determinations are required nor is reversal of this determination
appropriate on that basis.
Mr. Wood further asserts that Measure A limits the local housing
supply and that the Planning Director must show that it is required
for the health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Wood is incorrect about
the responsibilities of the Planning Director to provide the
substantiation of the legality of the zoning provisions as part of
the decision on a Zoning Compliance Determination. The Planning
Director assumes adopted City Crdinances are valid and does not
question City ordinances each time they are applied because it
would lead to a time consuming and unproductive process. The
responsibility alluded to by Mr. Wood is proof required in a court
of law. The purpose of a Zoning Compliance Determination is to
provide specific information to people where they require
assistance in applying zoning provisions to their property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda hereby upholds the Planning Board's decision and
denies the appeal filed by Edward J. Murphy.
NOTICE. This decision by the City Council regarding an appeal
is final as of the date of the Resolution unless judicial review is
initiated pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.5. Any such petition for judicial review is subject to the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
after the date of this decision.
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 19th
day of August , 1997, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr, Lucas and
Acting President DeWitt - 4.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Appezzato - I.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 20th day of August , 1997.
/2
e /1'
//,'/ ,
Dianejelsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda