Resolution 13548CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13548
APPROVING VARIANCE, V02 -0018 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR02 -0121,
AT 1318 CLINTON AVENUE, ALAMEDA
WHEREAS, an application was made on September 9, 2002 by Robert & Diane Blackwell, requesting
the approval of two Variances and a Major Design Review for the proposed reconstruction of a nonconfoi ming
garage /accessory structure, in the R -1, One Family Residence Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on October 9, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low - Density Residential in the General Plan Diagram;
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1, One Family Residence Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 25, 2002 and
has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and acted to deny the requested Variances and Major Design Review;
and
WHEREAS, Robert Blackwell appealed the denial on December 2, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing and examined pertinent maps,
drawings and documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the staff responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal as
set in the City Council memorandum, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and fords that there is merit in
the bases of appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda can make the following findings relative to the
approval of the Variance to the setback standards, pursuant to Subsection 30- 5.7(h) 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 can be made. The accessory structure is proposed at this location to benefit the adjacent
property by continuing to provide a privacy screen for their home and garden.
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 applicants of a substantial
property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district.
This finding can be made. The literal enforcement of this Zoning Ordinance would result in an
unnecessary hardship because it would prevent the property owners from constructing a safe structure within
the same building footprint that the existing structure has existed in for approximately fifty (50) years.
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 can be made. The proposed alterations would have beneficial results in making the
building safer without altering the use of the structure or without affecting how the property is used The
adjacent property owner has also stated publicly that the proposed structure benefits his property given the
proximity of his house to this driveway.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda can make the following findings relative to the
Major Design Review:
1. The project will not have significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
This finding can be made. Because the layout and design of the new structure would be similar to the
garage /accessory structure that has been located at the site for approximately fifty (50) years, the proposal
would have no significant effect on persons or property in the vicini
2. The addition will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding properties
because;
This finding can be made. The proposed design and use of the garage /accessory structure would be
compatible and consistent with the design and use of other detached garage /accessory structures maintained
throughout the R -1, One Family Residential Zoning District.
3. The addition wi11 not be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines because;
This finding can be made. The proposal would have no significant effect upon adjacent properties nor
alter the design or use of the existing accessory structure. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Design
Review Guidelines.
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 Guidelines,
Section 15303(e) - New Construction of Accessory Structures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves the
requested Variances, V02 -0018, and the Major Design Review, DR02 -0121, for the proposal, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plans submitted for the Final Design Review and Building Permit and construction shall
be in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Hank Rivera, dated October 22, 2002,
consisting of three sheets, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning
Department, subject to and as modified by the following conditions:
2. The final plans shall be in compliance with the applicable Uniform Fire and Building Code and
shall meet all requirements of the Alameda City Public Works Department.
3. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final Building Permit approval. The
applicant shall notify the Planning Department at least four (4) working days prior to the requested
inspection date.
4. Final plans shall indicate a parapet height of no more than ten (10') feet in height at any po
5. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
approval shall be obtained prior to July 7, 2003, unless the applicant applies for and is granted a six
(6) month extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one (1) extension maybe
granted.
6. The Variance approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by January 7,
2004, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed prior to the date of
expiration.
7. The City of Alameda requires that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside,
void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this Variance and Major Design approval, which
action is brought within the time period provide for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City
of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
8. The applicant/property owner shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval
and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable
provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this Variance and Major Design
Review to be exercised.
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.
NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement
of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is
hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other
exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest
within this 90 day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally
barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
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 7th
day of January, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Matarrese, and Mayor
Johnson - 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
8th day of January, 2003.
Lara Weisiger, City
City of Alameda