Resolution 14081CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO4 081
UPHOLDING PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION PB-07-03 DENYING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD-05-0002) FOR 2241 AND 2243 CLEMENT
AVENUE (BOATWORKS PROJECT)
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2005, Phillip Banta and Associates submitted
an application requesting approval of a Planned Development project to construct
242 dwelling units on property located at 2241 and 2243 Clement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project site is within the Specified Mixed Use-5
(MU-5) General Plan designation; and
WHEREAS, 4.6 acres of the site are located within the M-2, General
Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning District and 4.8 acres of the site are located in the
R-2/PD, Two-Family Residence/Planned Development Combining Zoning Districts;
and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development is not consistent with the.General
Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements and is not consistent
with the General Plan's mixed use policies that apply to the site; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda adopted a revised Housing Element in
2003 in accordance with Government Code Section 65588; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development project is inconsistent with the
zoning ordinance because it includes residential units on 4.6 acres of land zoned
M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing), which does not permit residential use; and
WHEREAS, the portion of the property in the Planned Development that is
zoned M-2 is not required to meet the City of Alameda Housing Goals as identified in
the City of Alameda Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan requires that the City identify, zone, and
preserve land for non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on
February 12, 2007, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby upholds the Planning Board Resolution PB-07-03 denying the
proposed Planned Development (PD-05-0002) based upon the following findings:
1. The proposed Planned Development is not consistent with the General
Plan, and is not consistent with the zoning for the site. The project site is
within the General Plan's MU-5 Specified Mixed Use Area, which specifies
a mix of land uses including 300 housing units, 40,000 square feet of office
use, and up to 10 acres of open space. The site's zoning applies the
General Plan's mixed-use policies for the larger MU-5 area to this specific
property within the MU-5. The project site, as rezoned, includes a
combination of residential zoning and non-residential zoning. The project's
proposal to develop both the 4.8 acres of residential property and the 4.6
acres of manufacturing property for residential use is not in consistent with,
and is not in compliance with, the zoning for the site. Specifically, the M-2,
General Industrial (Manufacturing) zoning on 4.6 acres of the site does not
allow residential development. Additionally, the project's proposal to
develop the entire site for residential use is not in compliance with the
General Plan's mixed-use policies that apply to the site, as well as the
General Plan policy to create an Estuary Park. The portion of the property
in the Planned Development that is zoned M-2 is not required to meet the
City of Alameda Housing Goals as identified in the City of Alameda Housing
Element. Furthermore, the Alameda zoning ordinance requires that
residential projects within a Planned Development not exceed one dwelling
unit for every 2,000 square feet of lot area. The applicant is proposing one
unit for every 1,692 square feet of gross land area.
2. The Planned Development is not a more effective use of the site than is
possible under the regulations for the district with which the Planned
Development District will be combined because a Planned Development
allows for a comprehensive development of the site. Specifically:
• Circulation and Access: The project's proposed internal circulation system
is contrary to city policies and practices to extend the Alameda street grid
pattern to the waterfront. The proposed internal circulation system provides
extremely limited public access to the waterfront, and does not provide for a
more effective use of the site than would normally occur under the R-2 and
M-2 Zoning districts.
• Open Space: The R-2 zoning district requires a total of six hundred (600)
square feet of usable open space per unit, not including roadways and
driveways. The proposed Planned Development provides substantially less
usable open space per unit than would be provided under the R-2 Zoning
District. The lack of open space on the plan does not provide for a more
effective use of the site than would otherwise occur under the City's zoning
ordinance.
• Parking: The zoning code standard for dwelling units up to 3,000 s.f. is two
parking spaces per unit. The project provides less than two parking spaces
per dwelling unit and no guest parking. Several of the proposed dwelling
units would only provide a single off - street parking space. The project's
parking does not provide for a more effective use of the site, and would
likely result in overflow parking into the adjacent neighborhoods.
3. The Planned Development may have a significant adverse effect on
adjacent land uses. The proposed Planned Development could result in
significant adverse effects on adjacent residential areas, as well as nearby
non- residential uses. Because the project cannot be approved without
General. Plan and Zoning designation amendments, and because the City
Council has rejected some of those amendments, a full environmental
evaluation of the proposed project has not been completed under the
California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Board cannot
find that the project definitely would not result in significant adverse effects
on adjacent land uses.
4. The Planning Board's denial is consistent with the City's Housing Element,
which requires that all land use decisions consistent with the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Open Space and
Conservation Elements.
5. The Planning Board's denial of the application is consistent with State
Planning and Housing Law because the proposed project is not consistent
with the City of Alameda General Plan or the City of Alameda Zoning
Ordinance.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda during the Regular
Meeting of the City Council on the 3rd day of April 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this 4th day of April, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda