Resolution 13318CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 318
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT A
PROPOSED INCREASED FLOOR AREA FOR AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING AT 1835 OAK STREET WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN, APPELLANT:
ARCHITECTURAL GLASS AND ALUMINUM COMPANY
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2000 Joseph Brescia, President of Architectural Glass and
Aluminum Company, began preapplication discussions with the City of Alameda for a window
manufacturing business to locate in an existing 44,000 square foot industrial building at 1835 Oak
Street, with a concept of adding adjacent industrial space in the parking area; and
WHEREAS, the preapplication project description includes converting approximately 5,200
square feet of existing industrial building to office use, as well as construction of 5,200 square feet
of second level office in the existing building and construction of a new 4,600 square foot two -story
building at the front of the property along Oak Street, which would total approximately 15,000
square feet of office space of which approximately, 9,800 square feet would be new construction,
with a maximum of 50 employees on the property; and
WHEREAS, this requested 9,800 square feet of new floor area would be partially offset in
the applicant's proposal by demolition of 6,730 square feet of buildings since 1990; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2000 by Architectural Glass and Aluminum Company (AGA)
requested a Planning Director's written determination regarding the compliance of a proposal to add
floor area to an approximately 44,000 square foot industrial building at 1835 Oak Street, in the M -2
General Industrial Zoning District and within the M -U -5 Mixed Use designation of the General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2000 the Planning Director provided a written determination
that the proposal could not all be constructed in compliance with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2000 AGA filed an appeal of the Planning Director's
determination; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2000 the Planning Board considered the appeal and examined
pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony and after finding no merit to the bases of appeal,
upheld the Planning Director's determination; and
1
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2000 AGA appealed the determination of the Planning
Board to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001 the City Council considered the bases of appeal and
examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony, as well as the record of the
Planning Board hearings; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda
upholds the Planning Board's determination that the proposed additional floor area for an
industrial use at 1835 Oak Street, within the M -U -5 Mixed Use General Plan area, is not
consistent with the Alameda General Plan and denies the appeal, based upon the following
findings:
The property is located within the General Plan Specified Mixed Use Area M -U -5 which is
subject to Implementing Policy 2.6.i, page 33 of the General Plan, which states that in the
Willow Street to Oak Street (Northern Waterfront) area, the City should:
"Rezone existing nonresidential parcels to a residential - industrial mixed use
district that would allow industrial use not more intense and not occupying
more floor area than the 1990 use or residential development consistent with
Measure A."
2. The City Council finds that the City's General Plan identified sites for development and
conservation for housing, in order to balance jobs which generate demand for housing with
the amount of housing planned for the City. As an island, Alameda does not have
opportunities to acquire additional sites for housing and needs to protect its housing
opportunities.
3. The appellant has requested the City Council to determine that an increase of industrial floor
area on the site would conform to the General Plan. The City Council finds that increasing
industrial floor area on this site would remove a site which would contribute a portion of the
300 housing units which the General Plan assigns to the M -U -5 area, without amending the
General Plan and identifying where replacement housing opportunities will be provided.
4. The City Council finds that permitted use includes manufacturing of windows and glass
curtain walls, equivalent to and consistent with the previous intensity of industrial use may
continue within the 44,000 square foot existing building, with up to 50 employees, because
the car repair facility had a series of offices related to the repair and parts operation and
because the engineers and designers for the appellant work with large scale plans which
require relatively large work areas per person which should result in approximately the same
intensity of use as the previous automotive occupant.
2
5. The City Council finds that where there has been demolition since 1990, or additional square
footage is proposed for demolition, this square footage may be replaced with new
construction.
6. The City Council finds that within the approximately 15,000 requested for office space,
approximately 11,930 square feet may be permitted and approximately 3,070 square feet
would not be in compliance with M -U -5 General Plan policies because of planned additional
construction in excess of existing floor area.
7. The City Council finds that additional demolition of approximately 2,610 square feet of
building area along the northern rear of the site, planned for use as document storage, would
reduce the nonconformity with the General Plan to less than 400 square feet. The City
Council finds that, if the appellant removes the document storage area and stores documents
elsewhere, this small remaining amount of 400 square feet can be addressed once the
appellant submits an application by minor adjustments to the project.
8. The City Council finds that the appellant's first and second bases of appeal, that the General
Plan provides for up to 40,000 square feet of office space in the M -U -5 Specified Mixed Use
Area, is not valid because the applicant is requesting design, engineering and administrative
space which is an integral part of this industrial operation. Therefore, the proposed
expansion is industrial, not office, and cannot be allowed as office space within the M -U =5
area.
Further, the office space provided for in the M -U -5 area is clearly subordinate to the
priorities of providing housing and the park (see General Plan Guiding Police 2.6.3 and
Implementing Policy 2.6.i) and even if the Council considered the proposed expansion to be
office, it still would not comply with the General Plan because it precludes the adaptive reuse
of the site for housing in the future, contrary to the General Plan.
Further, had the Council found that it was appropriate to allow the office, this proposal
would require a disproportionate share of the maximum 40,000 square feet of office provided
for in the M -U -5 area. The Architectural Glass and Aluminum proposal of 15,000 square
feet of office represents approximately 38% of this 40,000 square feet of office, while the
Architectural Glass and Aluminum site occupies only approximately 15% of the M -U -5 land
minus the planned park. This would deprive other M -U -5 properties of the opportunity to
provide office uses on an equal basis.
9. The City Council finds that the appellant's third basis of appeal, reference to Page 14, Table
2 -1 of the General Plan, that "Some or all of these replacement units may be located at one
or more of the mixed use sites, or in any area of the City where residential units are
permitted," actually refers to an exception under the City Charter allowing up to 325 units
of multi - family replacement housing to be built City -wide and does not limit Mixed Use sites
as housing sites, as the appellant implies.
3
10. The City Council agrees that the appellant may apply for a General Plan Amendment
regarding the property. The City Council encourages the appellant to participate in the
General Plan Update currently underway, as an alternative to a General Plan Amendment as
part of a development application. In the Update, policies for the site may be reconsidered
or changed.
11. The City Council finds that the determination regarding the consistency of the proposal with
the General Plan does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
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 a regular meeting assembled on the
20th day of February, 2001, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor
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
21st day of February, 2001.
4
ne'Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda