Resolution 13676CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 6 7 6
DENYING MAJOR DESIGN REVTRW, DR02 -0161, AT 1510 ENCINAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on December 17, 2002 by Li -Sheng Fu for Tam
Nguyen, requesting a Major Design Review to allow for the partial demolition of a two -story single -
family dwelling/daycare facility and the construction of two duplexes. The newly created dwelling
units would consist of three two - bedroom units and one three - bedroom unit. Eight off - street parking
spaces would be provided for the housing complex, in conformance with the parking standards of the
Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on June 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium - Density Residential in the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 28, and
continued to November 10, 2003, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents and
conditionally approved the application; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2003, John Faris filed an appeal to the action of the Planning
Board; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing and examined
pertinent documents as well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered staff responses to the bases of the appellants'
appeal as set out in the staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and finds that there is
merit to the appeal based the inability to make all of the required findings for this Design Review
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Design Review application:
The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
This finding cannot be made. The proposed design does not incorporate the same level of
architectural detail of the adjacent and abutting residential structures.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
1
This finding cannot be made. The proposed two - duplexes are compatible with this mixed -
use neighborhood. However, the level of architectural _ detail of the proposal is not
harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area. Specifically, the massing of the
buildings on the site is inconsistent with the massing of the adjacent residential structures and
the proposed architectural details are inconsistent with the abutting Victorian residential
structures.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding cannot be made. The proposed addition would propose massing which is
inconsistent with the abutting residences and would not maintain the same level of
architectural detail of the adjacent Victorian residences.
4. The project will be consistent with the City's Infill Guidelines.
This finding cannot be made because of the following:
1. The proposed structures do not have the same level of architectural detail as the
adjacent Victorian residences; and
2. The project is not similar in scale and site layout to the existing abutting residential
properties, where the building in the front portion of the property is the major (larger)
structure and the building in the rear is the smaller structure.
5. The project complies with all zoning development requirements as set out in the zoning
ordinance.
This finding can be made. The proposal complies with Measure A, development standards
for building height, lot coverage, parking, and open space.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the appeal and
denies Design Review, DR02 -0161 for the construction of two duplexes at 1510 Encinal Avenue.
NOTICE. The time in which to seek judicial review of the appeal of this resolution is
governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 and Government Code, Section
65009 (c).
G: \PLANNING \CC \RESO\2003 \4DR020161 CRd
2
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 26h
day of January, 2004, by the following vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 3.
Councilmember Gilmore — 1.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
7th day of January, 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda