Resolution 14729CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 14729
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
UPHOLDING PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION PB-12-04 PLANNING BOARD
ACTION TO DENY MODIFIED USE PERMIT PLN10-0153 TO ALLOW THE SALE
OF ALCOHOL AT A CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED AT 1716 WEBSTER
STREET
WHEREAS, an application was made by De long Liu, requesting a Use
Permit Amendment to remove a condition of approval on Use Permit, PB-95-57,
that restricts the sale of alcohol; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within a C-C, Community Commercial
Zone; and
and
WHEREAS, the project site is designated Community Commercial on the -9
General Plan Diagram; and
cr.o
WHEREAS, the existing service station building was constructed in 1955 and
the convenience store is permitted under an use permit, UP-95-23, Planning Board
Resolution PB 95-57; and
WHEREAS, Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on April
9, 2012; and
WHEREAS, after considering all materials submitted and all comments made
by all parties, including staff, regarding this application, the Planning Board made
the requisite findings to unanimously disapprove the modified use permit application
to remove the restriction on the sale of alcohol; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal code provides that decisions by the
Planning Board may be appealed within 10 days of the date of a Planning Board
decision; and
WHEREAS, Daniel Hoy on behalf of the applicant filed an appeal on April 13,
2012 appealing the Planning Board's action to deny the project; and
WHEREAS, this Council held a de novo public hearing on the use permit
application at which all materials submitted and all comments made by all parties,
including staff, regarding this application were considered; and
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that:
(1) The location of the proposed use is not compatible with other land
uses in the general neighborhood area, and the project design and size
is architecturally, aesthetically, and operationally harmonious with the
community and surrounding development. The site is immediately
adjacent on both sides to residential buildings. Granting of the use permit to
allow alcohol sales would create an over-concentration of alcohol sales in
the neighborhood and would not be compatible with the adjacent residential
uses. The area already has a number of stores that sell alcohol, and
residents in the area have reported problems related to late night noise,
fights, and litter that may be attributed to alcohol use in the area.
(2) The proposed use will adversely affect other property in the vicinity
and will have deleterious effects on existing business districts or the
local economy. The addition of alcohol sales at this gas station that is
immediately adjacent to residential homes on two sides could adversely
affect the adjacent properties. The sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site
consumption is plentiful in this vicinity. Increasing the number of retail outlets
that sell liquor may cause problems for adjacent businesses and residents.
Residents at the public meeting provided testimony of existing police activity
in their neighborhood and problems such as litter and late night noise that
are attributed to the sale of alcohol in the area.
(3) The proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan. Permitting
additional outlets for alcohol sales would over saturate this area which is
adjacent to residential zoning districts and residential uses and cause
conflicts between commercial and residential land uses in conflict with
General Plan policies to minimize conflicts between adjacent land uses.
(4) The Appellants have failed to demonstrate in any way that the conclusions
by the Planning Board are not supported by substantial evidence.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the project is Statutorily Exempt from additional
environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, Section 15270 — Projects Which are Disapproved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council
denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Board's adoption of Resolution PB-12-
04.
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 assembled on the 4th day of September, 2012, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore — 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 5th day of September 2012.
Lara Weisiger, Cit C er
City of Alameda