Resolution 13280CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 2 8 0
DENYING THE APPEAL OF AMIR SOHRABI AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE, V -00 -14 FOR 2200 OTIS DRIVE
WHEREAS, an application was made on June 1, 2000 by California Sign for Burger King,
Incorporated, requesting a Variance, V -00 -14 to permit more than one freestanding sign per lot and more
than two signs per street frontage, in the C -2 -PD (Central Business Planned Development) Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on June 27, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Co
Diagram; and
munity Commercial
n the General Plan
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 24, 2000 and
has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2000, by Amir Sohrabi, filed a
requesting that the City Council conduct an appeal hearing; and
imely appeal
ith the City
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing and examined pertinent
maps, drawings and documents, as well as the record of the Planning Board hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the staff responses to the bases of the appellants'
appeal as set out in Attachment 2 to the staff report, which attachment is hereby incorporated by
reference, and finds that there is no merit in the bases of appeal; 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 Variance to the proposed sign requirements pursuant
to Subsection 30 -6.3.a of the Alameda Municipal Code:
1. There are no extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical
constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings
because;
There are no extraordinary property related constraints because the lot is not unusual in any
respect and the signs of the site are consistent with signs of businesses in the vicinity.
2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance
standards would not 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 because;
There is not an extraordinary circumstance which results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship because the applicant has sufficient signage for the commercial site. The denial and
subsequent removal of one freestanding monument sign at this site would not represent the
deprivation of a substantial property right.
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
because;`
Staff does believe the finding can be made. The granting of the Variance would not likely
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, under Section 15311(a) of
the CEQA Guidelines, On- premise signs; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Alameda hereby determines
that one of the existing freestanding monument signs at the property addressed 2200 Otis Drive is
to be removed, at the applicant's discretion, within thirty (30) days of the City Council action, or
unless an extension is approved by mutual agreement with the City and applicant, so that the signs
of the site will be in conformance with Section 30 -6.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and upholds
the Planning Board's denial of Variance, V- 00 -14.
NOTICE: No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6.
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 3rd day of October , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES: Councilmember Johnson -
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and a
4th day of October , 2000.
Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt and Kerr - 3.
Mayor Appezzato - 1.
Revised 10 /10 /00
xed the official sea
Di re Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda