HomeMy WebLinkAbout1468 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportMap ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation
Site
MAP FINDINGS
SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MARRIOTT (Continued)
Transfer Facility Activity:
Recycler Activity with Storage:
Small Quantity On-Site Burner Exemption:
Smelting Melting and Refining Furnace Exemption:
Underground Injection Control:
Off-Site Waste Receipt:
Universal Waste Indicator:
Universal Waste Destination Facility:
Federal Universal Waste:
Active Site Fed-Reg Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility:
Active Site Converter Treatment storage and Disposal Facility:
Active Site State-Reg Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility:
Active Site State-Reg Handler:
Federal Facility Indicator:
Hazardous Secondary Material Indicator:
Sub-Part K Indicator:
Commercial TSD Indicator:
Treatment Storage and Disposal Type:
2018 GPRA Permit Baseline:
2018 GPRA Renewals Baseline:
Permit Renewals Workload Universe:
Permit Workload Universe:
Permit Progress Universe:
Post-Closure Workload Universe:
Closure Workload Universe:
202 GPRA Corrective Action Baseline:
Corrective Action Workload Universe:
Subject to Corrective Action Universe:
Non-TSDFs Where RCRA CA has Been Imposed Universe:
TSDFs Potentially Subject to CA Under 3004 (u)/(v) Universe:
TSDFs Only Subject to CA under Discretionary Auth Universe:
Corrective Action Priority Ranking:
Environmental Control Indicator:
Institutional Control Indicator:
Human Exposure Controls Indicator:
Groundwater Controls Indicator:
Operating TSDF Universe:
Full Enforcement Universe:
Significant Non-Complier Universe:
Unaddressed Significant Non-Complier Universe:
Addressed Significant Non-Complier Universe:
Significant Non-Complier With a Compliance Schedule Universe:
Financial Assurance Required:
Handler Date of Last Change:
Recognized Trader-Importer:
Recognized Trader-Exporter:
Importer of Spent Lead Acid Batteries:
Exporter of Spent Lead Acid Batteries:
Recycler Activity Without Storage:
Manifest Broker:
Sub-Part P Indicator:
Handler - Owner Operator:
Owner/Operator Indicator:
OwnerlOperator Name:
Legal Status:
Database(s)
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Not reported
Notreported
Not reported
Not reported
N
Not reported
No
Not reported
Not on the Baseline
Not on the Baseline
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not repoRed
Not reported
No
No
No
No
No
No
No NCAPS ranking
No
No
N/A
N/A
Not reported
Not reported
No
No
No
No
Not reported
2018-09-06 17: 00:42.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Operator
MARK BONTEMPI
Other
EDR ID Number
EPA ID Number
1024833920
TC6362151.2s Page 87
'l:
� • � _
- 11 `
_�_ ... '.� x..'. -_ ..,, -
- � � .� i �'- _
_ ' -- F
� CITY
�r� �1
��_.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
August 18, 2015
Planning Commission
Catherine Barber, Senior Planner
A��V��
� ��
�
� �.�-�� �
Director's Report
Meeting Date: August 24, 2015
FYI — REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 1460 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED
R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a major renovation including a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1460 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, was
approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 (see attached June 22, 2015 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). The applicant applied for a building permit on July 28, 2015 and that
application is currently under reviewed, but a building permit has not yet been issued.
During the design review meeting the Planning Commission inquired about landscape upgrades,
however at the time the property owner had not yet retained a landscape architect. Therefore the
Planning Commission approved the project with a condition of approval requiring that the applicant
submit landscaping plans for review by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to
building permit issuance.
Please find attached the landscape plan for 1460 Cabrillo Avenue along with the approved
plans for reference. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be
placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the
applicant.
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect
Attachments:
Letter submitted by the project architect, TRG Architects, dated August 13, 2015
June 8 and June 22, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Conditions of Approval
Landscape plan, date stamped August 13, 2015
Arcl�itects
August 13, 2015
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 1460 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Commissioner,
The second story addition and remodel at the above address was recently approved. At the
meeting, a landscape plan was requested. Attached is the proposed landscape plan to accompany
the remodeled house.
We hope you will find these changes acceptable.
Sincerely,
Randy Grange AIA LEED AP
��������
Au�_� � �1 �o��
�ITY UF BI.�RLINC;AME
�r.7n_PL nntNING n!`i
205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010 • vc: 650.579.5762 • fx: 650.579.0115 • admin@trgarch.com
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2015
> Does not think moving addition
> Will eliminate balcony at back.
> Only one bedroom proposed/r
right solution.
Chair DeMartini closed t�blic hearing.
Commission
> Ho �ts neighborhood, and there are precedents for second stories in
> convinced by variance, doesn't see unique circumstance�
tions that could work without variance.
> Wou/d like to see it come back but without the variance.
> Lot size is not a sufficient justification for variance.
there are other design
> Iron�c that porch is a benefit to the house, but uires variance. Second floor comes down and
touches ground, which improves design buf cau additional lot coverage. However not sufficient
exceptional circumsfances for variance.
> Storage shed cannot be counted since it wa t permitted.
> The variance is not causing the co with the neighbors, but has a problem with justifica ' for
the variance.
> Second floor addition is greater t the minimum setback.
> Extraordinary circumstance i at it is a courtyard house.
> Front porch is not elegan ems jammed in the corner.
> Stairwell windows se oo big for the size of the house.
> Should upgrade / scaping, does not match a two-story house.
> Should share ns with neighbors.
Commiss�o Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commi ner Gum, to place the item on
the Re ar Action Calendar when plans have been revi as directed. The motion carried by
the owinq vote:
Aye: 7- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Ter�, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
c. 1460 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance for a major renovation including a first and second floor addition to an
existing single family dwelling (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Raymond Han,
property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject
property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum reported he had met with
the neighbor to the left. Commissioner Terrones met with the neighbor to get access to the rear yard.
Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the neighbor and fhe applicant.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Yossi Zinger, TRG Architects, represented the applicant.�
> Maintaining sty/e of the house.
> Refaining existing Living Room portion as it is.
> Wants to add porch facing front rather than side.
> House is further forward than others on the street. Porch would project no further than existing
sefback.
> Landscaping will be retained.
> Rep/ace tandem parking with side-by-side garage.
Commission questions:
City of Burlingame Page 10 Piinfed on 8H8/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
> Landscape plan is sparse. There is a lot of existing concrete. Understands plan is to work on
landscaping after the work on the house is completed? (Zinger.� Correct.)
> Has a landscape p/an been prepared yet? (Zinger.� No, focus has been on the house.)
> The existing house has clipped corners on the gab/e end and on the new garage, but why not the
additions. They would continue the style of the existing house matching up with the garage, would give it
a different f/avor compared to others on the b/ock.
> Vent over fronf window is architectural but also probably functional. Could include that over the new
front Living Room window as well. (Zinger.• Attic over Living Room has been reduced. Wants to have
high ceiling over Living Room. Clipping gable would impact interior space.)
> Apparently this house is at low portion of the block; there are problems with water collecting. Any
mitigation to runoff? (Zinger: Has not had a civil engineer or professional io look at it. Will need to
reconstruct sidewalk as part of the project, can level it better.)
> Will applicant be coming back with landscape plan later? Shows some new landscaping on the plan .
(Zinger: Minimal, related to garage and front walkway changes. Otherwise does not affect existing
landscaping.) Wou/d be preferab/e to consider landscaping now at same time as house.
> Second story window in front seems too low. (Zinger.� Rendering shows it raised, will be fixed.)
There were no further questions of the applicant.
Public comments: None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
> Should drainage issue be addressed to the Stormwater Division? (Barber: Will notify Engineering
Division.)
> Well-done addition, cleverly massed, captures upstairs space without adding a full second floor.
> Well composed and asymmetrical, does not seem forced.
> Right side gable element is very nice/y composed.
> Porch is better than existing but not sure variance can be supported.
> Cannot support exacerbating condition that is already out of compliance.
> Porch cou/d be too c/ose to the street.
> Building could be better with porch moved back. Only needs to be pushed back 2 1/2 feet Existing
facade is nice because of the different planes.
> Difference could be absorbed through rest of floorplan.
> Porch af 19'-4" (block average) would not require a variance. Could reduce front porch, foyer, and
maybe a bit of the bedroom.
> Project should return but without the variance request.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye: 6- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
Recused: 1 - Sargent
d. 988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Environmental scoping and Design R� an
application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design , onditional Use
Permit for building height, and Setback Varian ar ing Variance for a new
3-story commercial building (Dimit ' s, applicant; Robert Lugliani, property
owner; Toby Levy De ' ers, architect) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Barber
City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 8H8/2015
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
June 22, 2015
There were no comments from t lic.
Acting Chair Gum the public hearing.
discussion:
> Can support the requests, including the variances and the d � g height envelope request.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, sec by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve
application with the following additiona dition that revisions to the windows shall n to
the Commission as an FYI. Acti air Gum called for a voice vote, and the carried by
the following vote:
Aye: 4- , errones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
A�/iRr3 - DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent
d. 1460 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major
renovation including a first and second floor addition to an existing single family
dwelling (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Raymond Han, property owner) ( 58
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior P/anner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.�
> Requested clarification regarding the lack of a water conservation plan. (Hurin - noted that the City
Arborist didn't fee/ that if tripped the threshold for requiring such a plan.)
Acting Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
> Requested clarification regarding the revisions to the front elevation. (Grange - pushed back the
entire front of the house.)
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application with the conditions in the staff report. Acting Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and
the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 4- Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
Absent: 3- DeMartini, Loftis, and Sargent
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 1149 Cambridge Road - pp ication for Design Review for a first and
secon ion to an existing single family dwelling (Andrea Van Voorhis,
City of Burlingame Page 5 Piinted on 8/18/2015
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1460 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective July 2, 2015
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped June 10, 2015, sheets A1.1 through A4.3;
2. that the applicant shall submit landscaping plans, to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as an FYI item prior to building permit issuance;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staffl;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Building Division's May 26, 2015 and April 8, 2015 memos, the
Parks Division's April 7, 2015 memo, the Engineering Division's April 8, 2015 memo, the
Fire Division's April 8, 2015 memo and the Stormwater Division's April 8, 2015 memo
shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1460 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective July 2, 2015
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the
approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.