Resolution 12952CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12952
DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S
DENIAL OF USE PERMIT 97 -32, TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION
AND TO ADD A FOOD MART AT AN EXISTi1 O LEGAL NON-
CONFORMING SERVICE STATION FACILITY AT THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1310 CENTRAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on June 18, 1997 by Pritpaul Sappal and
Shivcharanjit Lal requesting a Use Permit, UP- 97 -32, to allow the hours of operation to be extended
to 24 -hours a day, seven days a week and for the addition of a food mart at an existing legal
nonconforming service station facility located within an R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the application was filed and accepted as complete on July 14, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density Residential on the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on September 8,
1997 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board denied Use Permit, UP- 97 -32, based on the findings in the
Planning Board Resolution PB- 97 -81; and
WHEREAS, Pritpaul Sappal filed
action on September 16, 1997; and
appeal to the City Council for the Planning Board
WHEREAS, Leslie A. Levy, Attorney for Pritpaul S. Sappal requested in writing that the
appeal be heard before the City Council meeting of January 20, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal on January 20, 1998 and
has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal:
1. The extended hours of operation and proposed food mart would be incompatible with the
predominate residential uses in the vicinity. Traffic, parking and noise resulting from the
increase in hours of operation and from the addition of a food mart would result in an
intensification of the existing nonconforming use that would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
2. The parking that would be generated by the customers would affect the surrounding residential
uses. There is potential that the on- street residential parking would be displaced by customers.
Further, the extended hours of operation and food mart would generate additional impacts for
the neighborhood such as noise, traffic, and parking into the late evening and early morning
hours.
The extended hours of operation and proposed food mart would adversely affect residential
properties in the vicinity because that would mean that commercial activity would extend into
the late evening and early morning hours. The extended hours of operation and the proposed
food mart would create traffic, noise, litter, parking and the potential traffic impact on the
safety of school children. Therefore, the extended hours of operation and the proposed food
mart would result in an intensification of an existing nonconforming use that would be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
4. The site is located within an area designated by the General Plan as Medium Density
Residential. The present use does not conform with the General Plan nor the present R -4
(Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District. Further, the extended hours of operation and the
proposed food mart do not favorably relate to other properties and uses in the vicinity. The
proposed modifications to the use also conflicts with General Plan policies for residential uses,
such as the following:
2.4a Maintain and enhance the residential environment of Alameda's neighborhoods.
2.4h Control nonresidential development on sites adjoining residential neighborhoods
to minimize nuisances.
5. The Bases of Appeal provided by the appellant are not valid, because they do not show that the
extended hours of operation and addition of a food mart would be of the same intensity or more
restrictive than the existing nonconforming use, or that the change in use would not have a
detrimental impact in the neighborhood. The Planning Board used its discretion in considering
all available testimony and found that the proposed change in use and extension of operating
hours, whether 24 -hours or from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., represents an intensification of a
nonconforming use, which is not allowed under Section 30 -20.2 of the Alameda Municipal
Code. The findings were consistent with the evidence that the proposed change in use would
have adverse impacts on the neighborhood from increased traffic, noise, litter, and the potential .
traffic impacts on the safety of school children.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby denies the appeal of Mr. Pritpaul Sappal, and upholds the action of the Planning Board and
the denial of Use Permit, UP- 97 -32.
NOTICE. This decision by the City Council regarding an appeal is final as of the date of this
Resolution unless judicial review is initiated pursuant to 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 20th
day of January , 1998, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWit
and President Appezzato - 5.
Kerr,
ucas
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 21st day of January , 1998.
Diane elsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda