Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout702 Crossway Road - Approval Letterif Map ID Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number MAP FINDINGS G43 WSW < 1/8 0.095 mi. 503 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 8 ft. WEST COAST VALET CLEANERS (Continued) Facility Has Received Notices of Violations: Violations: No Violations Found Evaluation Action Summary: Evaluations: No Evaluations Found FINDS: Registry ID: Click Here: 110001164203 Environmental Interest/Information System: AIR EMISSIONS CLASSIFICATION UNKNOWN California Hazardous Waste Tracking System - Datamart (HWTS-DATAMART) provides California with information on hazardous waste shipments for generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT MAJOR STATE MASTER ECHO: Envid: Registry ID: DFR URL: Name: Address: City,State,Zip: C:lirk this h pezlink while viewing on your computer to access additional FINDS: detail in the EDR Site Report. 1010314114 110001164203 http://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110001164203 WEST COAST VALET SERVICE, INC 855 MALCOLM ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 WILKA GROUP THE 855 MALCOLM RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Site 4 of 10 in cluster G EDR Hist Cleaner Year: 1985 1986 1987 1988 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Name: WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WEST COAST VALET WILKA GROUP THE WILKA GROUP THE SERVICES INC SERVICES INC SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 1010314114 EDR Hist Cleaner 1018701474 N/A Type: Garment Pressing And Cleaners' Agents Garment Pressing And Cleaners' Agents Garment Pressing And Cleaners' Agents Garment Pressing And Cleaners' Agents Laundry And Drycleaner Agents Drycleaning Plants, Except Rugs Drycleaning Plants, Except Rugs Drycleaning Plants, Except Rugs Drycleaning Plants, Except Rugs Drycleaning Plants, Except Rugs TC6362151.2s Page 123 rfrt, (t-1.0 l Ziff L tt iE fl urlitr utrr.e CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 March 24, 1988 Ms. Joanne Bogan 1250 Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Bogan: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the March 14, 1988 Planning Commission denial of your application for a parking variance became effective March 22, 1988. This application was for conversion of a garage to a second dwelling unit at 1250 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-2. Because your application was denied the improvements to the garage must be removed within 30 days and the garage returned to its off-street parking use. An inspection of your property will be made on or before April 25, 1988 to ensure compliance. If you have any questions concerning this requirement please contact me at 342-8625. Sincerely yours, luktedak6 Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Victor Bogan (Tampa, FL and Burlingame) City Attorney Chief Building Inspector City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 3 March 14, 1988 Commission/staff discussion: size of the redwood tree and its 'expected growth; concern about doubling the size of the house and not providing covered parking; could the tree be replaced with another tree somewhere else; this 200 year old tree would be difficult to replace, there are exceptional circumstances in terms of parking, applicants could get one car inside the garage, this project blends with the area, would be willing ''to move for approval; a carport seems feasible, then applicant could have access to the backyard and there is room in the/driveway, suggest that a carport be added as a condition of thi,,, 'project. Based on his previous statements in supp6rt of the application, C. Harrison moved for approval of the,, -variance request with the two conditions in the staff report and condition #3 that a carport be added as a part of the project designed to retain a 4' separation between the carport ar d the house. Second C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: carports, are unsightly; would prefer to allow applicant to park in the driveway. Several Commissioners agreed the driveway is long enough and they would prefer no carport. Another Commissioner stated he favored a carport, this will be a four bedroom house and should have two covered parking spaces, he would prefer a carport to noth'i\ng. C. Harrison deleted his third condition from the motion, C. H.Graham acceted this deletion; motion to grant the variance without a carport was approved on a 7-0 roll call_ vote with the following ,.conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning'. Department and date stamped February 16, 1988; and (2) that this,, parking variance shall be in effect until the time that the 7'± diameter redwood tree would be caused to be removed, at which time within one year a two car garage to current parking dimensions shall be built. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT A TWO CAR GARAGE TO A SECOND DWELLING AT 1250 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to retain the garage converted to a second dwelling unit, this is an enforcement item. She discussed details of the request, staff review, Planner's memo reviewing history of enforcement action, applicant's letter. A March 9, 1988 letter in support from Victor Bogan, property owner, was noted. Letters in opposition were received from the following: Sau F. Chin, trustee of the property at 701 Neuchatel Avenue (March 10, 1988); W. N. Eib, 753 Neuchatel Avenue (March 10, 1988); Roland J. and Margaret M. Wynne, 1225 Oak Grove Avenue (March 9, 1988); and Mr. and Mrs. Howard D. Hoops, owners of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 4 roperty at 1240 Oak Grove Avenue (March 11, 1988). oncerns: traffic and on -street parking in the area; ligh n•'se problems for the property next door. CP note re•uirements for variance approval. - Two conditio sug•-sted for consideration at the public hearing. Their and code were Chm. •.iomi opened the public hearing. Joanne Boga., applicant, was prsent. Her comments: she planned the conversion because she had an opportunity of a tenant who was able t do the work on the garage and some work on her house as well .3s landscaping of the site .t little cost in exchange for rent she has no future plans for -nting out the garage but would 1 e there herself and let her fat and brother live in the hou- they have only two cars and can park in the front setback; the on -street parking problems on Oa Grove are caused by larg=" apartment houses. Applicant/Commis covered parking parking becomes st the area, merely c that a building pe friends had advised if the work were don appeared and the cit Commissioner commented the common good, she had a rea long enough. ion discussion: a ne aces; applicant f age; she has no verted a gar it was re h- she mi to be duplex would require four t that many times covered added an apartment house to ge. Regarding her awareness ired for such a conversion, t be able to do without permits de, then the newspaper article an enforcement proceedings. A c ty has laws and regulations for the concern because the driveway is not There were no audienc commen following spoke in opposition: resident at 740 Cross ay Road; Rob a resident at 728 Crossway Road. parking situation the area, approv the situation woe, the on -street p from Oak Grove most to Palm Drive, t with children, oncern for safety, where this be contra led or will the city let control the ituation; in opposition beca providing a•-quate parking, cars now park ac front of a 'uplex on Crossway, applicant does park in front but who knows what will happen in another enant/owner of this property, think a build a econd story and use the garage for parkin a thro gh street and heavily used by residents of applicant might sell in a few years, what will happe genera1 contractor would like to see this request denies: Gr le Jones, 1245 Oak Grove Avenue spoke in favor: have ved'on O Grove for many years, traffic has increased, apartment rouses h ve caused parking problems, cars are towed away, understawe must live by the laws of the city but this lady is an 1al in favor at this time. The hur Ryan, 732 Crossway Road; a t Booth, 728 Farringdon Lane; Their concerns/comments: of this project will make king problem has spread 's is a residential area will guests park, will nvestment properties e applicant is not ss the sidewalk in ve enough room to uture years with licant should Oak Grove is 'llsborough; then, as a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 4 March 14, 1988 property at 1240 Oak Grove Avenue (March 11, 1988). Their concerns: traffic and on -street parking in the area; light and noise problems for the property next door. CP noted code requirements for variance approval. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joanne Bogan, applicant, was present. Her comments: she planned the conversion because she had an opportunity of a tenant who was able to do the work on the garage and some work on her house as well as landscaping of the site at little cost in exchange for rent; she has no future plans for renting out the garage but would live there herself and let her father and brother live in the house; they have only two cars and can park in the front setback; the on -street parking problems on Oak Grove are caused by larger apartment houses. Applicant/Commission discussion: a new duplex would require four covered parking spaces; applicant felt that many times covered parking becomes storage; she has not added an apartment house to the area, merely converted a garage. Regarding her awareness that a building permit was required for such a conversion, friends had advised her she might be able to do without permits if the work were done to code, then the newspaper article appeared and the city began enforcement proceedings. A Commissioner commented the city has laws and regulations for the common good, she had a real concern because the driveway is not long enough. There were no audience comments in favor at this time. The following spoke in opposition: Arthur Ryan, 732 Crossway Road; a resident at 740 Crossway Road; Robert Booth, 728 Farringdon Lane; a resident at 728 Crossway Road. Their concerns/comments: parking situation in the area, approval of this project will make the situation worse, the on -street parking problem has spread from Oak Grove almost to Palm Drive, this is a residential area with children, concern for safety, where will guests park, will this be controlled or will the city let investment properties control the situation; in opposition because applicant is not providing adequate parking, cars now park across the sidewalk in front of a duplex on Crossway, applicant does have enough room to park in front but who knows what will happen in future years with another tenant/owner of this property, think applicant should build a second story and use the garage for parking; Oak Grove is a through street and heavily used by residents of Hillsborough; applicant might sell in a few years, what will happen then, as a general contractor would like to see this request denied. Grace Jones, 1245 Oak Grove Avenue spoke in favor: have lived on Oak Grove for many years, traffic has increased, apartment houses have caused parking problems, cars are towed away, understand we must live by the laws of the city but this lady is an ideal City of Burlingame Planning Commission March 14, 1988 Page 3 Commission/staff discussion: size of the redwood tree and i-s xpected growth; concern about doubling the size of the house -nd t providing covered parking; could the tree be replaced with a •ther tree somewhere else; this 200 year old tree w••ld be di icult to replace, there are exceptional circumstces in to of parking, applicants could get one car inside t'- garage, this •roject blends with the area, would be willing 'o move for appro 1; a carport seems feasible, then applican could have access`'o the backyard and there is room in the dri eway, suggest that a rport be added as a condition of this project. Based on 's previous statements in support o the application, C. Harrison moved for approval of the varian•- request with the two conditions in the staff report and ndition #3 that a carport be ad as a part of the project d igned to retain a 4' separation betw:en the carport and the hou--. Second C. H.Graham. Comment on the mot'.•n: carports are sightly; would prefer to allow applicant to p;rk in the drive ay. Several Commissioners agreed the driveway long enougand they would prefer no carport. Another Commi<sioner sta-d he favored a carport, this will be a four bedroom h•.se and ould have two covered parking spaces, he would prefer a .rpor, to nothing. C. Harrison deleted his th condition from the motion, C. H.Graham accepted this dele, n; motion to grant the variance without a carport was appro -d a 7-0 roll call vote with the following conditions: (1) that he project as built shall be consistent with the plan submitt d to the Planning Department and date stamped Februa- 16, 1988 and (2) that this parking variance shall be in e ect until the time that the 7'± diameter redwood tree would be aused to be remed, at which time within one year a two car g age to current pa .ing dimensions shall be built. Appeal proc: ures were advised. 4. PARKING V •; ` IANCE TO CONVERT A TWO C • ` GARAGE TO A SECOND DWELLING, T 1250 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONE R-2 Reference st-- f report, 3/14/88, with attachme s. CP Monroe reviewed th* .= request to retain the garage conver -d to a second dwelling it, this is an enforcement item. e discussed details o the request, staff review, Planner's me o reviewing history f enforcement action, applicant's letter. March 9, 1988 1 ter in support from Victor Bogan, property •,ner-, was noted. Letters in opposition were received from the fi lowing: Sau Chin, trustee of the property at 701 Neuchatel Avenue (Mar h 10, 1988); W. N. Eib, 753 .Neuchatel Avenue (Ma .h 10, 19::); Roland J. and Margaret M. Wynne, 1225 Oak Grove venue arch 9, 1988); and Mr. and Mrs. Howard D. Hoops, owners o:, the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 5 March 14, 1988 neighbor. Applicant acknowledged Oak Grove is getting overgrown, she felt it would be more detrimental if she did sell and someone put up a larger structure, keeping it a single family dwelling should help. CP noted this site is zoned R-2, the only way more than two units could be placed there would be to change the zoning. With the statement she felt any changes in structures should meet parking code, this proposal might work for the present residents but could become a problem with a new tenant or owner, C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance request. Second C. S.Graham. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A STORAGE ROOM OVER A GARAGE F RECREATION AT 1136 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 / Re -rence staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP/Monroe reviewed this request to use an existing storage room with balcony... over the garage for recreation. She discussed staff review,N,Planning staff comment regarding history of code enforcemen on this site, applicant's letters, /Study meeting questions. 've conditions were suggested for /onsideration at the public heating. CE advised he had\pot been aware of the aundry on the first floor of the garage -td had no objection.,fo allowing plumbing to the laundry area; he reGuested all plumbing to the second floor of the garage be removedX, CP believed''the second floor storeroom was part of the original pnstruction of the garage, conversion of the storeroom to living",quarters was made later. CP also noted storage area is allowed.1n a garage, it was only the conversion which was illegal. r' s, *, Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Herman Bustamante, applicant, addressed Commission: he 'advised they recently moved to Burlingame, he has a large family tat present only himself, his wife and one son:live on the site; they have many interests and would like to use" the second floor of the garage for computer equipment, weight and exercise equipment and additional storage. It is a small .house, they hope to add a 'bedroom and sewing room/den upstairs later. They will not use the room over the garage for living quarters; the exterior will `not be changed; they merely: wish to clean up this upstairs room and are willing to meet all UBC and UFC requirements. He specifically requested he not be,judged by previous illegal uses of the garage by other ownershe removed the kitchen in that structure himself after buying -"the house. Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised cars' -.are parked in the driveway along the side of the house generally, -the City of Burlingame Planning Commission March 14, 1988 iveway is very narrow and it is difficult to maneuver o the garage, if there is concern about parking in the streethey will pa.k in the driveway, if forced to widen the driveway ey would hav- to remove part of the house. He had an inspect'_ n made for stru,tural stability of the garage prior to pj,#rchase, the inspe.tor found the basic structure to be sound;ie understood this i'spector was highly qualified. There -re no audience comments in favor: Speaking in oppositio Charles Abrahamson, 1145 Cortez venue: he commented that a num per of people presently live in this house, there are six to seve cars parked on the street in ront overnight and on weekends; he had concern about the seco d floor of the garage being used fo living quarters. In ;uttal applicant stated there are fou people living in th house presently as his daughter is the temporarily; there re five automobiles, his, his wife's, his s4n's and two which long to his daughter one of which will be so • a son visits., with the sixth car once in awhile but does not •ark overnigh A Commission concern .s expressed about five cars and a two car garage which was not •eing =ed. Applicant stated there are always at least two ca s p.•=ked in the driveway. CA advised there is no parking re • i.-ment for a recreation room, this application is unrelated parking. A Commissioner suggested review in one year be ma• condition of approval to make sure the facility was not •el : used for anything other than recreation. With -the statement s would sup••rt approval as long as parking is not an issue and he suggested onditions are met, the garage area was used as a iving unit at on time but applicant has been straightforward a•ut his intentio , C. S.Graham moved for approval of the pecial permit and adoption of Commission Resolution App.`oving Special Permi s with the following conditions: (1 that the conditions . the Chief Building Inspector's Fe • uary 8, 1988 memo shall be •+et; (2) that the 363 SF storerr'om as remodeled shall include •nly electricity and shall never +e used for dwelling purposes; ) that the second floor balco area shall never be enclosed in .. y way or used as storage or abitable area; (4) that the entire s ucture shall be brought u to current Uniform Building Code and U'form Fire Code standard- (5) that the ground floor of the ga age shall be cleared and made usable for parking the family vehic es; (6) that water and sewer shall be allowed in the lower por ion of the gara•- but shall not be extended to the second floo ; and (7) tha this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance with it conditions in one year's time (March, 1989). otion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.