pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 2 | None of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply Deirdre McCartney, Permit Technician III, Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item and gave the staff report. The staff report and attachments can be found at tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4989274&GUID=450ACD54- DA3A-49DD-AB51-22F4A7BD76BB&FullText=1. President Teague opened board questions. Board Member Ron Curtis asked if by setting back the second story they had opened up then the view from the second story for the house next door. Staff Member McCartney said the existing garage massing, roof height, and roof style were being rebuilt in the same footprint. The two-story portion of the house would then start past the house at 908 Centennial. Board Member Curtis asked so essentially the view coming out of the upper story windows of the house at 980 Centennial would be the same as what it is right now. No additional blocking of light or destruction of the view other than what they were looking at originally. Staff Member McCartney if you were to look straight out the window then yes. If you were to look at an angle you would see the two-story portion of the house. Board Member Curtis asked if she thought a one-foot setback from 908 and the look of that housing looming on them destroyed the ambiance of that room. Staff Member McCartney explained that the two-story portion of the house stepped back three feet from the house, they varied it to make room for windows. Staff Member Tai clarified the view from different points and explained that the garage would have the same footprint as the existing garage. Board Member Hom asked if the parking also served the adjacent multi-family home. He wanted to know if there was a requirement for that parcel to maintain parking so they could eliminate the garage and still be compliant with the City's zoning standards. Staff Member McCartney said they were not required to maintain any parking. The new garage would provide two spaces for the new home only. Board Member Hom clarified if the adjacent units were currently using the two-car garage for tenant parking. Staff Member McCartney said some of the neighbors had indicated they were using the driveway to park two cars. Board Member Hom wanted to know who was currently using the garage. He also wanted to know if the owner owned the adjacent parcel. He hoped the applicant could clarify how the parking was being used. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 2 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |