One of the most contentious issues in town right now is the reopening of Hoover School. We've covered it before here and a bit about the lawsuit here. As you all know I take a few photos around town, but I cannot recall anyone stopping in the middle of the street to comment on my photo-taking before. That happened while I was snapping these two photos of the work on the building and the four trees that are likely to come down to make room for the new drop-off area.
The lady commenting was coming down the hill on Summit Dr. from H'borough and her position on the reopening couldn't have been clearer--opposed. But from the looks of this shot, things are moving right along in spite of the neighborhood opposition.
Two black acacias and two coastal oaks, I think.
Update: Here is an old photo of the original structure
The site, from your photo's sure looks small for a school.
Those trees look like they are about to fall in the street.
Is it a private school?
What are the requirements in order for a child to enroll in this school?
What will be the ratio of teacher/student?
This is a very unusal project.
Posted by: Holyroller | June 21, 2013 at 06:36 PM
Hi Holly,
Hoover is a public elementary school designed by well-known architect Willliam H. Weeks. It closed in 1979 due to declining enrollment (much like Roosevelt Elementary that would also close in 1980). It was purchased by Shinnyo-En and used for temple and educational functions until 2007. The school was re-acquired in 2010 due to increasing enrollment. Ground-breaking for renovations and the addition took place this year in April.
Posted by: jennifer | June 22, 2013 at 02:11 PM
FYI, two upcoming Hoover lawsuit hearings, per the San Mateo County Court website:
07/03/2013 10:00 AM DEPT. 2 HEARING: MOTION RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD, CHRISTINE C FITZGERALD, DIANE HAGGERTY, ELIZABETH VORSATZ
-----
07/29/2013 2:00 PM DEPT. 2 HEARING CEQA TRIAL.
Posted by: Account Deleted | June 25, 2013 at 02:51 PM
Those neighbors certainly seem commited to see their POV addressed.
Right or wrong, good luck to all.
The palcement of the school seem very unusual.
It appears to be a "Special Rich People & Children School."
- If you do not have a car, you can not get to the school.
Posted by: Holyroller | June 25, 2013 at 06:55 PM
I wonder if the School is Haunted?
Anne?
Posted by: Holyroller | June 27, 2013 at 07:32 PM
As kids, we enjoyed creeping around the building and grounds when the school was vacant. No ghosts, as I recall.
Posted by: Anne | June 27, 2013 at 09:22 PM
This was the only site left in Burlingame to put a school for expanding enrollment. The school district has grown by close to 1,000 students, since Roosevelt re-opened in 1997 (our largest elementary school, Franklin, has over 600 students, from just over 300 students several years ago). It is a good example of why school districts should never give up or sell land or buildings when enrollment drops. If enrollment increases again where do you put the children? EVERY school in Burlingame has portables on valuable playground space. And contrary to comments made, many children can safely walk to Hoover, on sidewalks, from the houses BELOW the school.
Posted by: Mike | July 01, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Curious Holly: where would you put a school? I don't know too many Blgm kids who take public transportation to school. We are lucky to have ours walk to school and I think many of those that will attend Hoover will be lucky enough to do the same. Beautiful parcel and I am glad it's still a school vs. a few monster houses.
Posted by: JROC | July 02, 2013 at 05:52 PM
July 2, 9:00 am. BSD cut down the perfectly healthy 100 year old oak trees that formed a beautiful canopy over the street. At a hearing the night before at the Burlingame City Council, BSD received a 5-0 vote from the city council members to chop the trees. BSD presented a bogus argument that the trees were diseased. go look at the stumps and you will see they were perfectly healthy. BSD presented a 1/2 page report that was disputed by "real arborists." In short -- they fabricated the argument. Was there an urgent need to chop them the day after the hearing? No! They shifted the argument away from their non- argument on the health of the trees to the drop off zone on Summit drive. They do not have an actual plan for this -- so why do they need to chop the trees. City Council Members stated that the drop off zone, ( which if completed, will be a mere bulge in the road )-- was supported by the community as it was "Widening the road." Crazy! Could anyone who has ever walked down Summit Dive in terror of getting run over support pushing more cars on this street?
Now, we have a buzzed hillside where these beautiful trees used to shade. It looks terrible, the neighbors are traumatized. Rains will come. Shame on BSD. You misinformed the community on the trees, so what else are you fabricating? Call your city council member and ask they how will they explain the cutting of these trees to the kids. Poor show! People, go to the Hoover site and look at the destruction and the perfect oak tree lumber that has been cut down. They were healthy trees. They did not need to be cut. Neighbors are furious and even the ones who were blindly supporting the school to date are awakened. Something really mean, and evil is going on at "Hooverville."
Posted by: Thomas J. Payne | July 03, 2013 at 06:47 AM
I feel bad for those neighbors because they never learned the Law of Unintended Consequences. If they had left almost well enough alone to begin with this terrible chop-chop would never have happened.
Posted by: Anne | July 03, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Has anyone seen how many trees were in front of Hoover school in 1932? There is a photo on this blog. Look above the postings. The answer is zero. As Ann noted, the felling of the trees was related to the HILLSBOROUGH neighbors request for a better drop off zone.
Evil and mean? Really? Since the safety of children is the premise of the lawsuit, has anyone thought about the safety of the additional 250 children who will have to be packed into other school sites if Hoover is not opened? Many of them could safely walk to Hoover. Anyone drive on Trousdale or Quesada during school drop off and pick up? Or by our other schools? Will these additional 250 children be safer at another school, particularly since most will need to be driven to the other school(s)? And what about loss of playground space to accommodate the additional students? How will the neighbors of those schools feel?
The Burlingame school district has grown by 1,000 students since Roosevelt was re-opened in 1997! Roosevelt was closed, but fortunately not sold, around the same time Hoover closed (along with Pershing school, now a City park, and Coolidge school, now covered with houses). Given the other schools are long gone, where would another school get built? Although Hoover was closed, it has always been zoned as a school site.
SAD is the word I would use, because, as often happens in this world, children are used as cover for the wants and needs of adults.
Posted by: Mike | July 03, 2013 at 03:38 PM
Answer to above question: Two large California oaks were on the front of the former Hoover School grounds at the time it was built in the area outside of the above photo (south). They were estimated to be more than 100 years old at the time they were cut down yesterday. The front shown in the photo is a steep grade and has always been devoid of trees, as is the whole frontage to the south now that it has been clear cut by the School district.
Posted by: Thomas J. Payne | July 03, 2013 at 04:24 PM
Here are the minutes from today's injunction hearing (from the Court's website); looks like the petitioners were granted their motion - at least until the upcoming CEQA hearing:
---------
Minutes
HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: THERESA MARAGOULAS COURT REPORTER: RHONDA GUESS
ATTORNEY KEVIN HAROFF APPEARING WITH/FOR PLAINTIFF(S).
ATTORNEY PHILIP HENDERSON APPEARING WITH/FOR DEFENDANT(S).
MATTER ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.
AFTER HEARING ORAL ARGUMENT FROM COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, THE COURT GRANTED PETITIONERS MOTION
FOR INJUNCTION LIMITED TO ANY FURTHER CONSTRUCTION, EXCAVATION, AND OTHER RELATED WORK
FOR THE PROJECTS PROPOSED PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF AREA. THIS AREA AND RELATED PROJECT ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT TO THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ARE REFERENCED IN THE DECLARATION OF RICHARD
TERRONES AS "THE FRONTAGE AND THE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP AREA", AND DELINEATED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION HOOVER BASELINE SCHEDULE AS "ACTIVITY ID NUMBERS 31250 THROUGH 31900." THE
INJUNCTION WILL BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND REMAIN UNTIL THE COURT ISSUES ITS DECISION ON
THE PETITION, PRESENTLY SET FOR TRIAL ON JULY 29, 2013, OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.
** **.
THE COURT FINDS THAT ONE OR MORE PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING, THAT PETITIONERS HAVE DEMONSTRATED A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS, AND THAT INTERIM IRREPARABLE HARM TO PETITIONERS
AND THE PUBLIC OUTWEIGH THE INTERIM ECONOMIC HARM TO RESPONDENTS. PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 529, PETITIONERS WILL PAY TO RESPONDENTS ANY DAMAGES, NOT EXCEEDING $32,000,
THAT RESPONDENT MAY SUSTAIN BY REASON OF THE INJUNCTION, IF THE COURT FINALLY DECIDES THAT
THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE INJUNCTION.
** **.
THE COURT SUSTAINED PETITIONERS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION NO. 4, AND OVERRULED ALL OTHER
OBJECTIONS BY PETITIONERS. THE COURT SUSTAINED RESPONDENTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS NO.2 TO THE
HAROFF REPLY DECLARATION, AND OVERRULED ALL OTHER OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS.
** **.
COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES WAIVED NOTICE OF THE RULING AND WAIVED THE FORMALITY OF A WRITTEN
ORDER. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT AS SERVICE THE COURTS
ORAL ORDER ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
ENTERED BY TERRI M ON 07/03/13.
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 03, 2013 at 05:08 PM
To:JROC
From: Holyroller
The City of Burlingame has about 100 acres of land at the Bayfront.
Next to the freeway, diverse racial communities nearby filled with plenty of children in need of an education.
Public Transportation would be easy.
Access to parks and paths too.
Simple Solutions.
Why does everything in Burlingame have to be so complicated?
Especially School District issues?
The Bayfront land has been vacant for at least 25 years.
100 Acres.
In my opinion, and I am sure that "Critical Thinking," and statistic's will back me up...
The City of Burlingame is economically, culturally, historically, a Racist Community.
The City of Burlingame has to fight "tooth and nail" to bury the simple opportunities to create simple solutions to things like Hooverville.
In my opinion, by the time that school is up and running, a better school could have been built at the Bayfront to serve a larger communities needs.
As well as support the Bio Tech industry in SSF, and the Hi Tech industry in Silicon Valley.
There is plenty of Capitol available from the Bio Tech Industry in SSF, and Hi Tech in Silicon Valley to have possiblily financed the entire project.
A project/school to fill the needs of the lack of people to fill positions that we hear/read about everyday that are unable to be filled by US Citizens.
However, we are faced with City of Burlingame Elders, and Managment that do not have the education,experience, or desire to consider the long term benefits.
Due to the Botique, economic,cultural, and historical Racist mind set prevalent in every single long term decision made by City of Burlingame Elders respond to people who want to keep this community in the 1950's.
I get it. I understand the comfort of the past.
It is just not possible or right to do that anymore.
No one City of Burlingame Elder is capable or educated enough to look into the needs of the future.
The benefits of a large Campus out at the Bayfront should have been Paramount when considering a new Public Educational Facility
Remember the quote that Jim Jones made?
Hoover School is Shameful.
I am looking forward to the Grand Jury Investagation.
The fact that the reopening of the Botique School balanced on the removal/non removal is ridiculous.
Anne?
JROC?
Posted by: Holyroller | July 03, 2013 at 06:30 PM
The Bayfront????? Where are all these racially mixed kids by the bay? You can't be serious!!
So building a school in an industrial/commercial area far from any residential neighborhoods makes more sense than rehabing a neighborhood school? Really??
Racisim...My kid went to Lincoln Elementary and it was very diverse with perhaps African Americans being underrepresented. We had many ethnic backgrounds. Many move here because of our wonderful neighborhood schools.
I can't say that I agree with a single comment you made above. You accuse these "Elders" of racism but you are the first to rant about all the foreigners coming to take your job. I suggest that you look in the mirror before you point fingers.
It is curious that we have so few minorities in leadership roles in the City or BSD. Hey Holly-why don't you go through the list of commissioners and tell us how many minorities are represented? Council, Trustees?
Posted by: JROC | July 04, 2013 at 11:21 AM
I have been retired from public service 11 years now.
My observation and views have everything to do with my education, and experience working with the WHO for 27 years.
I have ZERO patience for ignorance, and being all around the world have little or no patience for people that refuse to see the Big Picture-Based on the inability to Think Critically.
It usually has an economic base in the contries I have lived and worked.
Again I must present the facts.
-Lots of open space @ the Bayfront
-Lots of Capitol available in the Bio Tech Industry and High Tech Industry.
However, due to you JROC,. and people like you JROC, you folks have created little things that keep our City Elders "Handcuffed" from looking at investing in the future of our community, and Nation.
I seriously doubt that any City of Burlingame Elder has the background to manage a project that could have an international impact regarding Bio Tech, and Hi Tech.
Nevertheless, I commend your input.
Next...
Posted by: Holyroller | July 04, 2013 at 04:46 PM
Burlingame Wants A Mail Order Jail- Civic Unrest Caused by Hillsborough’s Aspirations Leads to Demand
(Special Dispatch to SF CALL)
BURLINGAME- January 2, 1911
Burlingame is to have a mail order jail. Not that it needs such a place, for there are few malefactors in the vicinity of Burlingame who need the corrective influence of steel and stone; but simply because it looks well for a town to have a jail. Then what town can resist the alluring advertisements of the mail order houses?
Burlingame’s social and civic unrest began when the town of Hillsborough incorporated last year and the town trustees announced that they would build a city hall and jail. In fact, they started with a jail, a vine-clad institute conducted on the Clark estate by Town Marshal Jerry Conens.
Burlingame became envious. So it wrote to Milwaukee, which has been made famous by its jails, and asked the manufacturers to send along something quaint in the way of a jail, a sort of mission effect that would harmonize with the railroad station.
While the Burlingame people have their clothes made by a tailor, they were willing to get their jail made by a plebian mail order house. They asked to have it wide at the hips, with well-padded shoulders and French cuffs on the trousers, or the architectural equivalent of those sartorial peculiarities, but still it will be a ready-made jail. As yet Town Marshal George E. Jones has received no request for reservations.
The town has not decided what it will do with the trading stamps that will come with the mail order jail.
Posted by: jennifer | July 04, 2013 at 04:50 PM
Actually, in this case, its the "interests of the children" being used as a cover for an ill-conceived and unsuitable location for a school that will destroy the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Apparently schooling our children is way higher on the value scale than preserving property rights or our way of life. So I ask: What about the interests of the neighbors and their families, some who have worked their entire lives and continue to work to be able to afford to live in such a wonderful area. Property values are some of the highest in the nation - why aren't people's property rights being valued in this situation? Why isn't quality of life an important value to be protected? Seems as though the interests of children override every other value we cherish. BSD's philosophy seems to be this: because we provide a public benefit, the neighborhood should be more than willing to bear some of the impacts created by our school; after all, its for the children. Sorry doesn't fly with me.
Posted by: EPC | July 04, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Something else worth noting. Looks like BSD may be facing declining enrollment. According to the District, elementary enrollment for the upcoming 2013-14 year is 2302; projected elementary enrollment for 2014-15 is 2257, a decrease of 45 students. Could this be a trend? ...
Posted by: EPC | July 04, 2013 at 09:04 PM
BSD continues to spin the facts on "Hooverville." Like the "urgent" need to cut down the oak trees. Note they recently hired a PR consultant fix-it firm to help manage the fiasco.
>The "traffic" study they performed was just a count of cars and did not take into effect the narrow roads and hills. I walk daily on all of the streets in the area and can tell you they are dangerous. I have been almost run down several times, and have met other walkers who have expressed similar experiences. The notion that students will walk is not valid.
>Speaking of "students." Who are they. BSD has not identified where the kids will come from. How can they say there will be no traffic impact when they do not even know what routes will be taken. You will not see kids from the overcrowded schools in the flat lands walking to "Hooverville."
>Further speaking of students. I understand that the total of BSD students includes more than 250 out-of-district students. Isn't that about the same number of students that are supposed to attend this small boutique school in the hills.
"Hooverville" does not make sense. Didn't Burlingame residents vote for repair and upgrade of schools? What you are getting is a small boutique school which will certainly be a "money pit" in the hills at the expense of the public. The name is ironic: "Hooverville."
Posted by: Thomas J. Payne | July 05, 2013 at 08:11 AM
Measure D, passed by the voters in November 2012, explicitly cites the re-opening of Hoover in the bond language. Repair and upgrades of the other schools is still progressing as approved and planned. McKinley school will be celebrating it's 100th anniversary this September 22. The first school built in Burlingame and designed by the same architect, who designed Hoover.
Posted by: Mike | July 05, 2013 at 01:15 PM
It is the position of the community association in Burlingame Hills that we support the efforts of Burlingame School District to open Hoover School on time and without traffic delays on Canyon Road and Summit Drive.
We are working closely with BSD leadership to achieve these goals. The lawsuit only serves to delay the opening of the school -- perhaps permanently -- and is, therefore, not in the best interest of Burlingame Hills homeowners.
Sincerely,
Steve Epstein,
President
Burlingame Hills Improvement Association
Serving the Hills since 1959
http://www.burlingamehills.org
Posted by: Steve Epstein | July 16, 2013 at 04:50 PM
Do y'all get to vote for school trustees. I know you cannot vote for council members because you aren't legally in Burlingame but what is the situationwith the school district?
Posted by: hillsider | July 16, 2013 at 09:20 PM
The flaw with the concept of "support for the school without traffic delays on Summit and Easton" is that it's just simply not possible unless there is a major design change in the school; in other words, the only way to alleviate the bottleneck and associated traffic back up into the streets is to actually place the drop off pick up area onto the campus itself, something BSD is unwilling to do - why? Because they can't - the site is just too small. Ergo a completely unsuitable location for a school. Doesn't anyone get this?? Or maybe they do but they just don't care because the "intersts of children" override any other consideration. Narrow minded thinking in my view.
Posted by: EPC | July 31, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Besides the potential traffic problems (that were previously declared non-existent by the BSD), I am concerned with the huge cuts into the hillside and deforestation including the native oaks. The hill contains many artesian springs and they surface during major rain storms. Walk down Summit drive about 100 feet from where BSD clear cut their potential drop off zone and you will see a huge water tank that has been placed behind the sight barrier. BSD has hit one of these major springs and it is running fast. We are very lucky that the hillside has held. BSD has portrayed the proposed drop off zone on Summit as a major widening of the road. According to the plans they presented, they planned to deforest the hillside (already done), then cut into the hillside further to create room for their drop off bays. Instead of the green hillside and magnificent century old oak trees, we will have a seven foot or higher concrete retaining wall. (The Berlin Wall was 12 feet tall) Their solution to the removal of the trees was to plant four oak trees on a planter area above the retaining wall. They may as well paint oak trees on the wall. Glad there will be a full EIR of the drop off zone and all environmental problems will be addressed.
Posted by: up-the-street-neighbor | October 17, 2013 at 02:00 PM