The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1544 Westmoor Road - Approval LetterMap ID Direction Distance Elevation F50 NW < 1/8 0.116 mi. 613 ft. Site HOBARTCORP 1801 BAYSHORE HWY BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Site 7 of 8 in cluster F MAP FINDINGS Relative: SAN MATEO CO. LUST: Higher Name: HOBART CORP Actual: Address: 1801 BAYSHORE HWY 8 ft. City,State,Zip: BURLINGAME, CA Region: SAN MATEO Facility ID: 660075 Facility Status: 9- Case Closed GloballD: T0608100845 APN Number: 024401350 Case Type: BURLINGAME, CA EDR Link ID: BURLINGAME, CA LUST REG 2: Region: 2 Facility Id: Not reported Facility Slatus: Case Closed Case Numbec 660075 How Discovered: OM Leak Cause: Unknown Leak Source: Unknown Date Leak Confirmed: Not reported Oversight Program: LUST Prelim. Site Assesment Wokplan Submitted: Not reporied Preliminary Site Assesment Began: Not reported Pollution Characterization Began: Not reported Pollution Remediation Plan Submilted: Not reported Date Remediation Action Underway: Not reported Date Post Remedial Action Monitoring Began: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number LUST S102431492 Cortese NIA CERS LUST: Name: Address: Ciry,State,Zip: Lead Agency: Case Type: Geo Track: Global Id: Latitude: Longitude: Status: Status Date: Case Worker: RB Case Number: Local Agency: File Location: Local Case Number: Potential Media Affect: Potential Contaminants of Concern: Site History: HOBART CORP 1801 BAYSHORE HWY BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SAN MATEO COUNTY LOP LUST Cleanup Site http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/prof le_report.asp?global_id=T0608100845 T0608100845 37.6028992 -122.3730143 Completed - Case Closed 12/06/1996 BG 41-0917 SAN MATEO COUNTY LOP Local Agency 660075 Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water) Not reported Not reported LUST: Global Id: T0608100845 Contact Type: Local Agency Caseworker TC6362151.2s Page 137 i ' 1 i (�.�e Lz�� a.� ��txZr��rr� SAN MATEO COUNTY GTY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA (J-4010 TEU(4I5) 342-B931 September 20, 1983 Mrs. Catherine Cimarello 1544 Westmoor Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mrs. Cimarello: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we �•�ish to advise the September 12, 1983 Planning Commission approval of your Variance application became effective September 20, I983. _ This application was to allow a second floor addition to your home at 1544 Westmoor Road. The September 12, 1983 minutes of the Planning Commission state the Variance was granted with the following condition: 1. that the project be built according to the plans submitted and date stamped by the Planning Qepartment August 16, 1983. A11 site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely, 11'�u��.� �� `°� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/ s cc: Chief Building Tnspector Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 21, B�ock 3, Burlingame Village; APN 025-24?-250) U. Howell [). Winders . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLA�dNING COMMISSION SEPTEh16ER 12, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, September 12, 1983 at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, �arcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the August 22, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOLJ A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1544 WESTMOOR ROAD, BY MRS. CATHERINE CIMARELLO CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 762 SF second floor addition without providing two off-street parking spaces. Reference staff report dated 9/2/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/16/83; "no corrments" memos from the City Engineer (8/29/83), Chief Building Inspector {8/18/83) and Fire Marshal (8/24/83); August 16, 1983 letter from the applicant; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped August 16, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the fact that the project is presently under way and the contractor's neglect in not first obtaining a building oermit; applicant's desire to add a bedroom on the second floor so that her granddaughter can live with her; there is no space on the property to put the additional required parking space; applicant advised there would be a total of two cars in the household; applicant is the original owner of this home. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the original placement of the house on this lot; that to bring the garage forward and expand it would encroach into the front setback and would cause substantial remodeling cost to rep�ac2 or move the kitchen; that this is a quiet residential street and the area does not appear to have a severe on-street parking problem; that the variance is needed for the c�eservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner to maintain residence in this home; • Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1983 that the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city, the site will remain P,-1. C. Giomi then moved for approval of the variance with the following condition: (1) that the project be built according to the plans submitted and date stamped by the Planning Department August 16, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STP,UCTURE AT 341 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BY AfdA,STASIA COLE CP Dlonroe reviewed this request to allow reconstruction of a carport/garage which exceeds the requirements for accessory structures. Reference staff report dated 9/2/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/17/83; staff review: City Engineer (8/29/83), Chief Building Inspector (8/29/83) and Fire Marshal (8/30/83); letter from the aoplicant dated August 17, 1983; photographs of the site; August 18, 1983 letter from Lou Janakos, Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor, San Mateo County HCD; single line elevation; aerial photoqraph; and plans date stamped August 24, 1983. CP discussed details of the application, code requirements, city staff review, apolicant's explanation of her request, San Mateo County HCD funding for the project as discussed by the Housing P,ehabilitation Supervisor. CP further advised that the Fire and Building Codes define this structure as a garage because it is closed on three sides. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Lou Janakos, San Mateo County HCD, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: existing garage will remain as is, feel this structure needs some upgrading also; NCD funding is strictly limited to storm damage and the carport did have severe storm damage, the garage is technically sound; Fire Marshal found no problem with this three sided construction; property is extremely deep and front of carport would be set back from the front property line and sheltered by large trees. C. Giomi moved for approval of this special permit with the following condition: (1) that the proposed carport/garage be built according to the plans submitted and as corrected by staff and date stamped August 24, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. CONDOMINIUf4 PERMIT FOR A PJINE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE, BY DOMINION-STOPPA FOR SARTI AND SARTI, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 9/6/83; Project Apolication & CEQA Assessment received 7/20/83; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (8j31/83), Fire Marshal (7/20/83), City Engineer (8/29/83), Director of Parks (7/20/83) and City Attorney (7/20/f33); study meeting minutes of August 22, 1983; aerial photograph; plans date stamped August 10, 1983 with revisions date stamoed September 1, 1983. CP discussed common open area provisions; project's compliance with all other zoning requirements; staff review; questions raised at the study meeting. Two conditions were suggested for consideration in the staff report and a third condition added by the City Planner: (3) that all landscaping including the planters and pots in the common open area be sprirklered. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Luciano Stoppa, architect representing the applicants, was present. He discussed further details on the landscaping and indicated common open area landscaping would t,e sl�ghtly over the 50% required in the Condominium Guidelines. There we.re no audience commer.ts and the public hearing was closed.