Resolution 12907CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12907
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 2607 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, 1500 AND 1506 BROADWAY
STREET, ALAMEDA
WHEREAS, an application was made on February 7, 1997 by Edward
J. Murphy requesting a zoning compliance determination to allow
demolition of three single family structures on three separate
parcels and construction of a fiveplex; 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
)-
LuResidential); and
CC
0 WHEREAS, on March 3, 1997, the Planning Director provided a
written determination that the three parcels lacked sufficient
<square footage unless combined with an adjacent parcel to have any
›-additional dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 1997, the applicant appealed the
Planning Director's determination; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on April 28, 1997 to
consider this application, and examined pertinent maps, drawings,
and documents; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 1997, the Planning Beard unanimously
upheld the Planning Director's decision that the three parcels
lacked sufficient square footage unless combined with an adjacent
parcel to have any additional dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 1997, the applicant appealed the
Planning Board's decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 1,
1997 to consider this appeal, heard all public testimony, and
considered all pertinent information; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appellant's bases
of appeal as contained in a letter dated June 3, 1997 from Joseph
Wood on behalf of Edward Murphy, each of which is set out in bold
in the following paragraphs and the City Council makes the
following findings regarding each bases of appeal:
Built Form
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Wood assert that the Planning Director's
Determination must include a determination regarding the
construction of a fiveplex. Mr. Murphy's request involved three
parcels, each of approximately 3,000 square feet. Since none of
the parcels can, in their present configuration, support more than
a single family residence, any discussion about additional units
and in what form those units are constructed is premature. Whether
these potential units are in the form of a fiveplex or five single
family residences is not relevant when no further development can
take place on the properties. As was stated in the Zoning
Compliance Determination, five units could only be constructed if
there were a parcel created with at least 10,000 square feet in
area, based upon the Zoning regulations for the R-4 (Neighborhood
Residential) Zoning District which require 2,000 square feet per
dwelling unit. Since the parcels are not combined, no additional
information is appropriate at this time. Mr. Murphy received a
complete answer to his question - there is inadequate area for any
additional dwellings.
Density Provisions
Mr. Wood asserts that there needs to be clarification regarding the
density provisions. The density provisions cited to Mr. Murphy are
in the Zoning Ordinance. These density provisions are in the R-4
(Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District as that is the zoning of
the three parcels. This information was provided-to Mr. Murphy in
his Zoning Compliance Determination and again in person on March 5,
1997 in his discussion with Planning staff. No further
clarification is necessary.
Lot Line Adjustment and Parcel Recombination
Mr. Wood asserts that Mr. Murphy did not request a determination of
"what might happen if he.combined the subject properties with
other, undesignated property." While it is correct that Mr. Murphy
did not request combining the subject parcels with any additional
parcels, the suggestion of adjustment of parcel boundaries was not
with "undesignated property." Since the parcels about which he
requested information, in and of themselves contained less than the
Zoning Ordinance requirements for five dwelling units, the most
reasonable approach was to inform him of the Lot Line Adjustment
option and to suggest that the option include adjacent property.
From Mr. Murphy's other numerous Zoning Compliance Determinations,
staff has knowledge that he is the owner of the adjacent parcel.
As this parcel is contiguous to the three parcels in his request,
the suggestion was made that he consider including in his Lot Line
Adjustment the adjacent property which he owns.
Variance
Mr. Wood asserts that Mr. Murphy requested a determination of
whether or not five units "could be constructed on a combined
parcel having a total area just 350 square feet (i.e., 3.5%) less
than what the Planning Director has cited . . . " Mr. Murphy's
request (see Attachment 1) 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 and was requesting some
adjustment to them, 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. Additionally, as stated above, Mr.
Murphy is owner of an adjacent property which could be combined
with the subject properties, thus avoiding the need for a Variance.
Until the recent correspondence from Mr. Wood, there has been no
mention by Mr. Murphy of a request for a Variance; therefore,
whether or not a Variance would or could be granted was not part of
the Planning Director's Zoning Compliance Determination. The issue
of a "variance" was not in his original request, his discussion
notes with Planning staff, nor a part of his appeal. Therefore,
Mr. Wood's assumption that a Variance is impossible to obtain is
not based upon any request by Mr. Murphy nor any statement made or
implied to be made by the Planning Director.
Health, Safety and Welfare Determination
Mr. Wood asserts that the Planning Director must make a
determination that the 2,000 square feet per living unit
requirement of the R-4 Zoning district is necessary for the health,
safety or welfare of the population of the City and to not make
this determination is arbitrary and unlawful. 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 Ordinances 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. Mr.
Murphy is not seeking any new information over what was provided by
the Planning Director in 1986. Based upon previous actions by Mr.
Murphy, this request for a Zoning Compliance Determination is
nothing more than an attempt by Mr. Murphy to gain standing in a
legal challenge against the City.
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 1st
day of July , 1997, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas
and President Appezzato - 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 2nd day of July , 1997.
//A
aane4relsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda