Resolution 13225CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 1 322 5
DENYING THE APPEAL OF MARTHA CARON AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT, UP-99-32, TO CONVERT A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A LAW OFFICE, VARIANCE, V-99-20,
TO PERMIT EIGHT OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES WITH TWO TANDEM
PARKING SPACES, AND A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW TO CREATE OFF-
STREET PARKING AT 2058 CENTRAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, applications were made on September 1, 1999, by Martha Caron requesting a
Use Permit to allow the conversion of a single-family residence into a law office, a Variance to
permit a total of 8-parking spaces which includes six conforming off-street parking spaces and two
tandem parking spaces, where 10-parking spaces are required. A Minor Design Review is requested
for the development of off-street parking; and
WHEREAS, the applications were accepted as complete on December 27, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density Residential on the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R-5, General Residential Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the conversion of the residence to an office use requires a Use Permit in the R-5
Zoning District, pursuant to AMC, Subsection 30-4.5(c)(1); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on April 10, 2000
and has considered all available testimony and information, reviewed the administrative record and
all pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board denied Use Permit, UP-99-32, to permit the conversion of
a residence into a law office, Variance, V-99-20 to permit eight off-street parking spaces with two
tandem parking spaces, where ten conforming off-street parking spaces are required, and Minor
Design Review for external parking, based on the findings in the Planning Board Resolution PB-00-
32; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board found that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines, Class 3 -
Conversion of the use of small existing structures; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed on April 20, 2000 by Martha Caron to the City Council for
the denial of Use Permit, UP-99-32, Variance, V-99-20, and Minor Design Review for external
parking; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal' on June 20, 2000, and has
considered all available testimony and information, reviewed the administrative record and all
pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is no merit to the bases 'ofthe appeal based on
Staffs response to the bases as set out in the Staff Report prepared for the June 6, 2000 City Council
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda is unable to make the following
findings with respect to the appellant's bases of appeal, relative to Use Permit, UP- 99 -32, to permit
the conversion of a residence into a law office:
1. The location of the proposed use is compatible
neighborhood area.
ith othe
land uses in the general
This finding cannot be made. The proposed use is not compatible because it intensifies the parking
demand, removes a residential unit, and intensifies the potential to create similar conversions in this
neighborhood.
2. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities.
This finding cannot be made. The conversion to office use results in a parking deficit, inadequate
circulation to allow all vehicles to enter and exit the site in the forward position, and the only access
driveway is located on an adjacent residential property and is narrower than the minimum required
8.5 foot wide driveway. The use of the adjacent property would compete with vehicle use and
circulation on the adjacent property. However, the site is approximately one block from Santa Clara
which accommodates AC Transit, Route 51 (serving Oakland and Berkeley).
3. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made
contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
This finding cannot be made. The proposed use would adversely affect the on- street parking demand
in the neighborhood, would permanently remove a residential use, would be a detriment to the
appearance of the site by removing the landscaping which is consistent with a residential use, would
compete with the use of the driveway on the adjacent property, and would increase the commercial
demand for continued similar conversions within this neighborhood.
4. The proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan.
This finding cannot be made. As stated above, this use is inconsistent with General Plan Policies,
numbers 2.4.a, 2.4.b, 2.4.h, 2.4.1, and 2.7.b.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda is unable to make the following
findings with respect to the appellant's bases of appeal, relative to Variance, V- 99 -20, to permit eight
off - street parking spaces, where ten off - street parking spaces are required, pursuant with Subsection
2
30 -21.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code:
1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, relating to the physical
constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings.
This finding cannot be made. There are no property related constraints which prevent this property
from being used in its current form as a single - family dwelling unit.
2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary, hardship such
as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners
of the property in the same district.
This finding cannot be made. There are no extraordinary circumstances associated with this proposal
because the applicant is proposing a self - imposed hardship. The right to install law offices within
the residential Zoning District requires a discretionary Use Permit. Therefore, this proposed change
in use from a residential use to a law office cannot be assumed as a property right because the City
is not obligated to grant the requested Use Permit. Alternatively, the applicant is not prohibited from
using the property as a single- family residence as other property owners have done in the same
district.
3. The granting of the Variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.
This finding cannot be made. There would be the following detriments:
a. A detrimental visual impact resulting fro
1 the increased paving of the property for parking.
b. A detrimental impact from the demand for additional on- street parking.
c. A detrimental impact to structures on both sides of the narrow driveway because of the
potential damage arising from vehicles hitting the structures when forced to back down the
long driveway. This inconvenient access may also deter use of the parking area to the rear,
resulting in further detriment to the neighborhood.
d. There would be a detrimental impact by creating competitive vehicular use of the driveway
on the adjacent property.
e. A detriment to pedestrians and other vehicles may result from cars backing onto the street.
f. There would be a potential long term impact upon this residential neighborhood from the
conversion of residential uses to office and other commercial uses.
WHEREAS, the City Council is unable to make the following findings in respect to the
appellant's bases of appeal for the Minor Design Review for the parking improvements:
The project will have significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity
because;
The location of the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, would have detrimental effects to
the adjacent property, neighborhood, and pedestrian/vehicular circulation, creating neighborhood
on- street parking demands, and compromising the future stability of the residential neighborhood.
2. The project will not be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of
surrounding properties because;
The project proposal would cover approximately 75- percent of its existing landscaped area to
provide parking which is inconsistent with the design and use of the surrounding residential
properties. The increased parking impact would also adversely affect adjacent residential properties.
3. The parking alterations will not be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines
because;
a. The site layout is not consistent with the historical residential streetscape of the
neighborhood; and
b. The proposed front yard parking is not an attractive visual element in conjunction with this
site and consistent with front yards in the neighborhood.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines that the proposal
is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15303
of the Guidelines, Class 3 - Conversion of the use of small existing structures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and
upholds the Planning Board's denial of Use Permit, UP- 99 -32, to permit the conversion of a
residence into a law office, Variance, V -99 -20 to permit eight off-street parking spaces with two
tandem parking spaces, where ten conforming off - street parking spaces' are required, and Minor
Design Review for external parking.
G: \CC\RESO\2000 \4UP9932a. apl
f:UP-99-32/V-99-20/MDR
4
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 6th day of June , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, ,DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and
Mayor Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
AB SENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this 7th day of June , 2000.
D . e Felsch, City Cle
City of Alameda