HomeMy WebLinkAbout2220 Summit Drive 2 of 4 - Staff Report, ITY
. d `� A�I'� �n.
� BUR NGAME
� ��;.
TO:
DATE:
r�
C. �, ``�J'��, .
STAFF REPORT
HONORASLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
MAY 10, 1988
CITY PLANNER
SUBMITTED
BY
AGENOA j (�
ITEM A
""T�. 5-16-88
D>TE
FROM: BY �f�� 6.i/�=
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
��a,E�*: FOR A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WITH CLASSES AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE�
ZONED R-1
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council hold a public hearing and take action on the negative
declaration first, then on the use permit. Both actions should be by
resolution.
In their action the Planning Commission recommended the following
conditions:
1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector�s March 21,
1988 and April 4, 1988, Fire Marshal�s March 21, 1988 and April
4, 1988 and City Engineer�s March 10, 1988 and April 4, 1988
memos shall be met and all the standards of the Uniform Fire Code
and Uniform Building Code required by the use and remodeling
shall be met;
2. that improvements
submitted to the
1988;
on the site shall be consistent with the plans
Planning Department and date stamped March 30,
3. that the Shinnyo-En use shall be consistent with the letters of
their representatives dated March 1, 1988, March 21, 1988 and
March 31, 1988 including that religious services would occur
eight times each month in the hours of 10:00 A.M. to Noon, 1:00
_ P.M. to 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. with a maximum
attendance of 75 people, that classes for a maximum of 30 members
of the religious community shall be held on weekends two times
each month, that an annual meeting attended by a maximum of 420
people for about two hours shall be held once each year in the
month of July or August, and that the amphitheater shall be used
by the choir on three occasions during the year during daylight
hours only;
4.
5
that the use permit of Hoover Children's Center shall be
continued on this site as approved on November 4, 1980 until this
type of operation has ceased at this location for six months;
that none of the facilities on the site, including the
amphitheater, shall be leased or rented for use by those other
than Shinnyo-En without an amendment to this use permit;
Y
�
E,
6. that Shinnyo-En shall be responsible for preparing and
implementing a traffic management program as approved by the City
Engineer addressing the traffic and parking problems of the
annual meeting and failure to do so will result in review of this
use permit;
7. that the location, soil stability, design and sight lines of the
driveway widened to 18� shall be approved by the City Engineer
and the driveway shall be posted as a fire lane with no parking
allowed;
9.
10
11
that the property owner shall take appropriate action, as
recommended by a licensed soils/hydrolic engineer and approved by
the City Engineer, to correct the drainage problems on site
including those contributing to the surficial slides, the
drainage on the southerly side of the site in the swale and
resulting from the driveway widening, the property owner shall be
responsible for regular long term maintenance of all of these
improvements;
that the drainage improvements in the swale area shall be
completed before October 1, 1988;
that the property owner shall provide 63 improved and striped
parking spaces on site and shall maintain these spaces in
suitable condition for safe, off-street parking use;
that the portion
adjacent to the
maintained;
of the visitor parking improvements designated
Hutnick property and on the easement shall be
12. that a survey by a city approved licensed expert shall be made of
the buildings on the site to identify the presence of toxic
materials, the report should identify the nature of the problem,
the items to be removed consistent with the legal requirements
_ for the proposed uses within the building and on the site as
approved by the Burlingame Fire Department, the methods to be
used in removal and the disposal site, in all of these activities
the property owner shall coordinate with and be approved by the
city�s Fire Department;
13
14
that any change in the use of facilities or the site beyond those
as described in these conditions shall require an amendment to
this permit; and
that this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance with
its conditions one year following occupancy of the site.
Action Alternatives:
1. The City Council can uphold the Planning Commission�s action,
finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project
�
3
will have a negative environmental effect (accepting ND-404P) and
approving the project with 14 conditions. The negative
declaration action should be taken with the finding that there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a negative
environmental effect as proposed with the mitigations included.
Action on the conditional use permit should be taken by
resolution and the reasons for the action clearly stated for the
record.
2. Council can reverse the Planning Commission and vote to deny the
conditional use permit. Council should state clearly their
reasons for such action. A denial of the use permit would
include no action on the negative declaration.
3. Council can deny without prejudice the request, returning the
application to the applicant with the direction that they
consider certain items further before asking the Planning
Commission to review the request again. Council should be very
clear in its direction as to what particular items require
additional study or consideration.
BACKGROUND:
Shinnyo-En, a sect of Buddhism represented by Makoto Kobayashi,
secretary of Shinnyo-En, California, is requesting a conditional use
permit in order to use the Herbert Hoover Elementary School building and
site for religious and educational activities (Code Sec. 25.28.030-2).
The interior of the existing main school structure will be remodeled to
provide a living area for three people and in order to make necessary
repairs to comply with current codes for the proposed religious use.
There will be no changes to the outside of the structure beyond normal
maintenance and painting.
The activities proposed for the site would include eight religious
services a month on the 4th, 6th, 8th, 15th, 18th, 20th, 24th and 28th.
Weekday services would be held from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon and weekend
services from 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. Each month two of the services
would be held at night between 7:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. A maximum of 75
people would attend each service. Once each year in July or August the
group would hold an annual celebration of its founding in California.
This one _day event would be attended by about 420 members from around
the country. Twice each month they would hold more secular classes like
flower arranging for members on the premises. These classes would not
exceed 30 people.
The use includes the use of the amphitheater two or three times a year.
This use would be limited to religious purposes or a supervised class
like painting.
The asphalted area now on the site and used for parking will be
maintained and used to park 63 cars. The driveway access will be
regraded, widened and improved to provide better, safer access. The
proposed plan also shows continued use of the additional six or seven
parking spaces off Summit on the Hutnick easement. Members propose to
van pool or drive to services except for the annual meeting when they
will meet at a common location and be bused to the site.
Present Use
Presently the city has approved two uses of this leased public school
site. One tenant is the Chinese Bible Evangel Church. This use permit
active on the site since 1980 allows for five students to live on the
site, for an unlimited number of people to attend weekly church services
from 11:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. Sundays, and weekday students of up to 30
with evening programs any night up to 30 in attendance (action letters,
September 22, 1981 and November 4, 1980). Also permitted on the site
since 1980 (action letter, November 4, 1980) is the Hoover Children's
Center, a weekday day care center serving 60 children daily. The
children arrive beginning at 7:30 A.M. and are all gone from the site by
6:00 P.M. A staff of four operate the day care center in the separate
kindergarten rooms and in one room located in the main school building.
Neqative Declaration
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-404P is a part of this application.
An environmental document is intended to be a disclosure document
identifying any negative environmental effects which would occur as a
result of the change of use on the site and from the change of any
existing facilities, parking area, fire lane, paving, etc. The negative
declaration identifies a number of possible environmental effects which
can be reduced to acceptable levels by specific mitigation. These
potential environmental effects include surficial landsliding, repair of
existing drainage, traffic and toxic material removal as required for
the proposed use. These mitigations necessary to reduce the potential
impacts of this use on the site and structures to acceptable levels have
been included in the conditions (numbers 6-12) suggested for the use
permit action. Affirmative action on the negative declaration should
include the finding that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment with the
mitigations as proposed.
Plannina Commission Action
At their meeting on April 11, 1988 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and voted 6-1 (Commissioner H. Graham dissenting) to recommend
the negative declaration to the City Council and to approve the
conditional use permit for the use of 2220 Summit for religious purposes
as described by the applicant with 14 conditions (Planning Commission
Minutes, April 11, 1988). The Planning Commission�s discussion reviewed
the present use of the site and the number of people now alTowed to live
there,.the parking on the Hutnick easement (six to seven spaces) and the
proposed use of the amphitheater in light of past problems of abuse;
applicant�s desire to police site, to maintain it and to limit access
and use of the amphitheater in some reasonable and safe manner; the
5
desire to see the property returned to residential use was expressed by
one Commissioner; size of site and capacity relative to small size of
applicant�s group was discussed as well as financial ability to maintain
the site; proposed user would correct existing drainage problems on
site, maintain property, have a low intensity use, and there are many
churches now in the existinq residential areas; could be more beneficial
in church use than in residential use since the use would be quiet, low
intensity; Commissioners tightened up Condition #6 by requiring
implementation of a traffic management program and added a 14th
condition requiring one year review of the use permit for compliance.
Two residents in the area objected to th
site better used for three or four home
traffic impact. Noise was also expressed
EXHIBITS:
e proposed use. They felt the
s because there would be less
as a concern about this use.
- Monroe letter to Makoto Kobayashi, Secretary, Shinnyo-En,
California, April 19, 1988, setting appeal hearing
- Appeal of Planning Commission decision, April 12, 1988
- Planning Commission Minutes, April 11, 1988
- Planning Commission Staff Report, April 11, 1988 w/attachments
- Dennis Chuang letter to City Council, April 26, 1988, regarding
application
- Harold and Joanna Combs letter to Mayor, May 4, 1988, regarding
Shinnyo-En
- Steve Atkinson letter to the Mayor, May 6, 1988, reqarding
Shinnyo-En
- Citizens for Residential Development of Hoover School Property to
City Council, May 7, 1988, regarding use of property, signed by
six people
- Public Notice of Appeal Hearing, mailed May 6, 1988
- Resolution for Negative Declaration
- Resolution for Special [Jse Permit
- Project Plans
MM/s
cc: Makoto Kobayashi, Secretary, Shinnyo-En, California
Lori Wider, Attorney
Burlingame Elementary School District
I �'
P
-�;: ('e_____
\.Y.`I.Q V'.YMV .V.1� �A�4�.4414AANJ+L4
V ) .✓
GITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010
April 19, 1988
Makoto Kobayashi, Secretary
Shinnyo-En, California
1400 Jefferson Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Dear Mr. Kobayashi:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(415) 342-8625
At the City Council meeting of April 18, 1988 the Council scheduled
an appeal hearing on your Special Permit application for a
religious institution with classes at 2220 Summit Drive, zoned R-1.
A public hearing will be held on Monday, May 16, 1988 at 7:30 P.M.
in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road.
We look forward to seeing you there
any questions.
Please call me if you have
Sincerely yours,
11c�c��,�-�'l��e
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Lori Wider, Attorney
Burlingame Elementary School District
City Clerk
:�
r
,�April 12r 1988
_ � ,�
.
���"�r
� ,
� ,:
,.,.,,�`.n,.
� `i�,
,,:: � �
. , :,, , �?,:
,4
� �
i�'
,3 ::
�
s�
N
� �h RECEFVED
�. ;F;^.,s"`r �,._;."'. : ,.�.:; �•_:; . �..�.. _ - .. .,.���. '.{;
,'`•�ibn Frank Pagliaro, Niayor APR 1$ �988 '
' �Burlingame �ity CounCil cinoFeuauNcaME j?�
01 Primrose ROSC� �IAVNIN60EPT. g
;�q �,
H urlingame, C'alif. 9�+010
t
��k�ear Mayor/douncil Members: " . . yyr�
}��e appeal the decision of the City of Bixrlingame �"�
�;`�Planning Commission to allow a Special Permit for
•,'educational and religious purposes at 2220 Summit �
�::'Drive (APN 027-271=090) to 5hinnyo-Eh, California.
s;�<The decision was:;made at a hearing on April 11�.1988. .
- SincerelYr , _ - ,
r.�V /" "
��� ��� ,
,.. ;
�� @�,./. /�8i �2��
.,, ,�
_ zr ,
l�1 ! L����=c�G/ �*— u��
�r.1, =�� ,
�in ����
,, ; ± �//v/�% (/-�Z��
�J. �{/
� N � � � � rn N-"`.'
'� ' , ``�
t. i.. . ,- , .
1 ���J2CL�, , i
,�/ / �:
. �/,�2�'�•' .Qy�� ;'.��
���`�f'�"�
�
��:�,�.�, ����, . .
��.� �C�2r,t,c��
. '/rJ�% r'-//L-C:rGi.z� GfZ�-
� �.����
\3 � .
�� v�T-''-' � �
((\`�f .�� !
V� /�J �, . ' },�.
,
. . ��.C.J (J�' ��1/�� sl���.
l�%���� �/�� 4 '
� ���_ /� u W �.(r�-(i¢+� �cc.,C/ �. `-c.: L��.�;�..
�l�GLQ.l.il-�
�
'v' �� i� �� �
� i�%//,c�. �„Z�l_ i-� �-
��3
� .�- �(/1�i�j
t� �,,<,/,✓1�,?,��<-. C� p� � I �
�,y., 7n � C U �d�-�(���
� �
.:;:a ► Q��-� � �- ��,�,,e�.�.,�� �
��6 c b
�.�i,,� �-�.I �-�--�—
��G�� SL'�'W'I�%��� .
WE ALL WISH TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY�HEARINGS OR MEETINGS IN THIS
MATTER. _ _ - � '
��
�,', .�„ .
,:, ,
�i ... .�� . J.. -
�} .:`/ � '�'.' 1�.'( . ,. . ' ' ,
:� ., Hon. Frank Pagliaro, Mayor/Ifurlingame �ity:Council Page 2
' .�!'t�G� � ' ,��� �—
,
,
� s � �'e' � , :,',� ,l�i,�,,,ti, a 7 �'S � -
� � ,
,
��, , C�'�s ; ,
��� . .7�}�'�%��,��,���%j
�1� �%GI1�.0 4 k �� • � ' } '�` `��/1.��/L�/µ/ "' "�/`i"_,//K,(J�� `. ^.; u d�:...
�S � 3 ��e�. ���,e � � -
u ,. f; �;: �` a 70 5 r�r�� ��7 _ w.
� � Z
���
1 `�� �� i �Z 'Y ° : � � ��� �
n. • �+ *0
��n.�� 1 : �j :� ; � .
�
���;, �.�� � ;:; ��� � ,R
,
,a
� �. �;., � ; � � K
��'�� �
`� 4? ��Z�%i��i"�'� ci""�1 � ' �`
� �/ � �, , , �
y '!' � � � / � � ' . . ' .
' 2 �� `Z =G�2d�� � � '�� �
r�i � - � , ✓ � Y . � . � v
7 1� ' .. , .,' , , k;. :. . . �
a
7�� ���.� i �. . � .. � �Q� �/(/�� � .. ,
.�� �
�� . ��,...� ... ;:.. . ,� � . . _ . . �;s�; . . :
��`/�o C���� C��, ,:- .
�.,:.; � � .:,z:;`,
< <?; •
-- � .
� � . ��c.-c. • 9 �{o� � a 7 r � -
�;
�.�, ��;._�`�
„: �'yua 7� � � �
. .
� � . �� � f c.�
�'� r • • . 4`3`��' �"� ils�d� C��
- io
,
1'. �°. ,
_ / � � ' �
� /
/. � . •
�5; ; ,; J " '
��
, ��
2%2/ 1�A� � ,� �d2� �y
, ��—
�._��8��
���
z � � o �� ��
��
��
��ti\,a:�G.,kc � •�`{o
� .,�� ' �f �
�� �✓L L , t � .
, � ` , / � , 4, G. •�
r ��,� //.� .�y / ���� .. �
/��'L f :� Z---��-�-2.,
i�
, 1� �„ : .
4 � } ')',
�� i
t ��x �
,�
. ,
,:�,., , ..
n,
"f �' � � � C'��N�-vz��eT
� ..,- .�
- (,i/'/ o �// ( .i,e�C,
/Y �cr I`��/SiG�e.
,�utiC �JG�_. . 3y�1-S� S �
�
We all wish to be notified of any meeting� or he_-r�_:�;;+ �.�i �_ii.s
matter. -
a
•Hon. Frank Pagliaro, Mayor/Burlin�ame City �ouncil Page 3
�
�= � � - ��"G�-��
� �%!�� ���
l c�Gl;c�' ) � � � f lG �/
�
��.
2� ��
1 �
����� ;
�„�,,,M, �
�,� ,,.n,l w„_,� �f y, � � o
� �� .r�--
�����
z-��� e,�� �'�(
fJ' ��a.w�C `�' nf �� � °
� ����ti ���-�-.
� � �.� � ��-� �(
��C�-�-�~--Q-- � �° ` °
�y� �✓i�-
�- ? � ��,, /fL,�/
�
U'��"-� �
�� ��
�.��i� r �i.�
?
z
�
�
���-- �%
% a.," ,
e���.
�
�� ��
���y���� �.
���,, c� , ��0,6
� / � �
' ���
�, ,
. �
; � � ''
� �' �.
/ �.
,! � �� � � �
� � r
�G�2lr L �
�
;
(''/�fGr'O
/I�,n.:A�e� �a$'S - �a,�, �
/ 3 / .(� � ..Gu c�-�-a...d o �rc-.
Pv w,- G•�,.� �.e_ G4 9 r o� o
-��/- S�>c���
%�3a� ��
�
-�
.�.-�, �� y ya�a
Vde all wish to be notified of any hearings or meetings in this
matter o - - -
�rj;
��;,' �� : Frank Pagliaro� Mayor/Burlingame City Council Page 4
Y a
', 4✓ . . . . . . . �
�
'� { '', .-� � � , \ .. .. . . .
( 1� .. ' . . ..�. :. �
� � . � 1
I L ( ( _
Ir
��'� x
tk ������� ��.� � �j /� � A
,'o�i5 � M1�,., _l.Lww� , l l ��� '�C.... ,. ,�, � ,;,.
n;i�tl.G 1�'"''
,' � � � !���121%� � ''� ; ��0.- fay�vy+(h-1�,,
v' . �„ � ; : � ,
�. '� �� = a.�Os {�i<<siD�-.D� ` � ,
�2?i3' � �i�l�l/� � ' . `�
!t ,
(Iq .f , �
��,s ' fsicP.i �� ' V� � � 1t�rnN�� r
�
F�,����Bl �^�� '�. : �� ��z�
��_�� �
5� �� � ��
� �� _, l 3 � ?
�ja (r.;:', y I � > � -;'. i :r
,' . ' >
.Z:,80 � � �ct�� ,�r . � .
�(('���� yL c l.l a�) ,,�4 . .
��'%y�. ��AN/�.�%�'NA/II .. .. r'.� ��.� .. . � . . . .. . .
� �
��,��,� 4- �✓�'1-0: u� ''%��'�%�cJrhQ.�,G
, �_aSa� �-atU�t,`��� .
; �?c�� q �.-oz.
��' � �
e�-�.e.�.� � ���,
��'l�- �'��
�;� �'G�
a. 8�C �.�5 �� f��
��� -=\:. , . . . � ., -;.�i . �',ly�,;
�.-.:�. . , . , .
� � � �V : . . � . � . . �. . . , . . _ . _. . � �. �
� V -� `� . 4n i � � .
/� (e ( �.,T-f�;e�.� �t�`-2—� .
::;
We all wish to be notified of any hearings or meetirigs in this
,. .
matter.
.�
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April il, 1988
permit. A
control./
�lotion was a
were advised.
sior�er also noted the condition
on a
call vote.
Page 10
ting trash
Appeal procedures
`/ 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE OF THE
k EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history of the site, mitigated
negative declaration ND-404P, staff review, applicant�s letters,
study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Commission/staff discussed present uses on this site, number of
people living there now and applicant�s request to allow three
people ot live on site, parking on the Hutnick easement, use of the
amphitheater.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Lori Wider, attorney
representing Shinnyo-En, California, applicant, addressed
Commission. She noted their letter outlining the proposed use in
detail; regarding the Hutnick easement, generally an easement would
run with the property, she believed Shinnyo-En would have the right
to use that easement; regarding use of the amphitheater, applicants
intend to use it for choir practice three times a year maximum, on
occasion for sketching or contemplation, very rarely would a class
be held there.
Ms. Wider introduced Makoto Kobayashi, secretary of Shinnyo-En,
California as well as the project architect and consultants for the
project. Mr. Kobayashi spoke to Commission: Shinnyo-En,
California, a Buddhist sect, was established as a nonprofit
corporation in 1980, they have a branch in the Marina district of
San Francisco, the parent branch is located in Tokyo, Shinnyo-En
has been recognized by religious leaders around the world; members
come from all over the Bay Area, they are quiet, unassuming,
compassionate citizens of their communities. Shinnyo-En feels
Burlingame would be a good place for their sect, conveniently
located with a responsive local government; the site itself, a
lovely natural landscape, is suited to their needs. He introduced
several members from the church who were present in the audience.
Comission/applicant discussion: Attorney Wider advised that
basically the use as proposed is for religious and educational
purposes, services are not held on specified weekdays, classes are
held only on weekends twice a month, these include art and flower
arranging with no more than 30 people; the exterior of the building
will not be altered, the grounds will not be altered but rather the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
April 11, 1988
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING �I
eference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments.
r viewed details of the request, staff review, applic
st dy meeting questions. Five conditions were :
co ideration at the public hearing. ,
:P Monroe
s letter,
�sted for
Nick Armanino, representing his father, Willia Armanino, was
prese t. He stated they bought the business abou a month ago and
are in the process of upgrading the store. They do not expect the
busines to increase to the point it will quire 1-1/2 or 2
employee they are merely improving a servi , at their present
business evel they do not require anoth r person; regarding
signage, t ey will meet code requirements ith any new signage;
there are s veral other businesses nearby which sell sandwiches,
they plan to provide this service at a very competitive price;
there will be n 8' work area behind an an 8� deli counter; they
sell prepackage foods now, will add a slicer and microwave; the
465 SF loft area 's used for storage, here is only one access to
that space now, th would need a fr t stair if it were used for
sales space. The were no audi ce comments and the public
hearing was closed.
With the statement she th}s
not very different from�
particular location only t�
there is a nearby parking
and people shopping in this
the special permit and
Approving Special Permits �
no ob' ction to this application, it is
.he p esent use of the site, at this
0 o er sandwich places would compete,
L it would be convenient for workers
a a, C. S.Graham moved for approval of
doption of Commission Resolution
ith e following conditions: (1) that
the conditions of the F re Mar al's March 8, 1988 and Chief
Building Inspector�s Marc 8, 1988 mos shall be met; (2) that the
deli/sandwich/food prep ration area shall occupy 60 SF of the
business premise at 2 Primrose Roa , be operated seven days a
week from 11:00 A.M. 0 3:00 P.M. with no more than one full time
and no part time em oyees on site; ( 3) that food sales shall be
limited to take-ou foods and no tables or chairs shall ever be
added for custome ;(4) that the deli o erator shall provide a
trash receptacle o a standard and at a lo tion in front of the
store acceptable to the City Engineer and sha 1 be responsible for
its daily main nance; and (5) that if trash r refuse from this
site becomes identified problem in the Burl game Avenue area,
or any condit ons of this permit are not met, th permit shall be
reviewed for revocation by the Planning Commission
C. H.Graha�f seconded the motion, stating he had no o'ection, there
is a big,/difference between this use and a restaur t which has
seats. The Chair called applicant�s attention to th conditions
limiting hours of operation and number of employees an noted any
change in the conditions would require amendment of th special
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
April 11, 1988
landscaping will be upgraded, the amphitheater will be cleaned up
and the entire property maintained. Church services do not include
a lot of singing, they sing at three services per year; there is no
loud noise, it is similar to a Catholic service, with prayers and
meditation; when the choir does sing they sing only for a few
moments. Mr. Kobayashi confirmed choir use of the amphitheater on
only three occasions during the year was an acceptable condition.
Commission/applicant discussion continued: regarding the nature
trail on the site and continued use by the public, Ms. Wider said
applicants would not want to actively exclude people from the trail
but there would be potential liability of an owner, this use might
be somewhat more limited than it is now, she felt their attorney
might recommend excluding people from the property, particularly
large groups at night, but did not think applicants would take
active measures to exclude people from the nature trail.
Further comments: have no objection to this group, but would prefer
to see the property go back to residential use; would like to see a
residential atmosphere here, no signs, no parking on street, with
the site under private ownership this kind of thing could impact
the area making it look like a public use. Attorney advised the
facility in San Francisco is in a single family home in a
residential area, it is subject to a conditional use permit, they
have good neighbors in the Marina district and she did not believe
the church had any impact on the residential neighborhood, the
church maintained the property and were quiet.
A Commissioner stated he was interested in a subdued use of this
site, attorney assured him it would be, it might be less intensive
than the childcare center and less noisy; she was not aware of any
complaints from people in the San Francisco neighborhood.
Regarding church services, they will be held on specific days of
the month, it is estimated no more than 30-40 people at the start,
in two years perhaps 40-55 and in five years up to 75 people; since
the San Francisco facility may remain open some members may attend
there rather than come to Burlingame. Responding to a question as
to why such a large site for a relatively small number of people,
Ms. Wider stated Shinnyo-En was shown this site and were very
interested because of its open space character and the natural
vegetation; if they should develop a much larger membership from
another part of the Bay Area they would open another facility in a
community near these people, they do not intend to expand their
operation here, the site is what appeals to them; they will use a
relatively small number of people to maintain the building and
landscaping. Mr. Kobayashi stated they receive financial help from
their headquarters in Tokyo.
Applicant�s architect advised the fence on the southerly portion of
the property does run up the hill, he did not know how far; CE
stated it disappears about 100" or so above the parking lot, there
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 1988
some
lly
Page 12
private fencing there also; architect commented ey are
iting on the lower portion of the property hich is
being used, if there is a problem in the futu they will
continuing the fence.
Th re were no audience comments in favor. The fo owing spoke in
opp sition. Waldo Perry, 2804 Easton Drive: h lives below the
sit , this site was always for a school, c tainly not for a
chur h, with new homes in the area traffic is ' creasing, Easton is
beco 'ng an arterial, a church use and a kin rgarten bring in more
peopl which the area doesn�t need, three t four homes on the site
would e the best use, this church could ow. George Heckert, 15
Kenmar ay: he lives above the site, no convinced this is a good
use, ar is known as 95 dBA canyon, no' e would be a real problem,
with thi amount of temporary traff'- there will be congestion,
could ne a traffic light at the intersection, this use would
deteriorat and negatively affect �e whole area, when the school
was built t was on the edge of eveloped Burlingame, now it is
surrounded b homes. There were o further audience comments.
In response A torr
Shinnyo-En to omp
transportation la
Easton and onto H
survey of the San
carpooling is hea
annual celebration
vanpool.
Wider s ted one of the conditions required
with t mitigation measures proposed by the
er one f which was to encourage traffic off
lside; regarding regular services, a traffic
incis o facility showed 2.5 passengers per car,
ly sed, Shinnyo-En does own a van; at the
em rs will be transported from their hotel by
Discussion continue : he San Francisco site is small, a single
family home; there are 0-40 members at present, they project the
same figures for urling e; San Francisco is their only location
at present in t e Bay Ar ; it would be the same membership but
with two facili ies open. Commissioner noted the Burlingame site
is a more remo e location, i San Francisco members could use mass
transit; enco raging people t use Hillside is somewhat different
than actuall doing so. Attor y advised they have no plans to use
street par ng, they believe th on-site parking will be more than
adequate nd they will use o y 20 parking spaces on site.
Shinnyo-E would agree not to use the seven spaces on the Hutnick
easement as a condition of appro al, they do not plan on any
signif' ant signage on the property; between services and classes
only e three staff inembers would be on the site. There were no
furt er audience comments and the publi hearing was closed.
Commission comment: have a concern, nor ally when public school
propoerty is taken off the public roll it i returned to R-1 and it
should resemble residential area in all res cts even if the seven
spaces on the Hutnick easement are legal; his has not been a
school for over eight years, think it would be restrictive to take
away the seven spaces and this is a matter between the applicant
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
April 11, 1988
is some private fencing there also; architect commented they are
concentrating on the lower portion of the property which is
actually being used, if there is a problem in the future they will
consider continuing the fence.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Waldo Perry, 2804 Easton Drive: he lives below the
site, this site was always for a school, certainly not for a
church, with new homes in the area traffic is increasing, Easton is
becoming an arterial, a church use and a kindergarten bring in more
people which the area doesn�t need, three to four homes on the site
would be the best use, this church could grow. Georqe Heckert, 15
Kenmar Way: he lives above the site, not convinced this is a good
use, area is known as 95 dBA canyon, noise would be a real problem,
with this amount of temporary traffic there will be congestion,
could need a traffic light at the intersection, this use would
deteriorate and negatively affect the whole area, when the school
was built it was on the edge of developed Burlingame, now it is
surrounded by homes. There were no further audience comments.
In response Attorney Wider stated one of the conditions required
Shinnyo-En to comply with the mitigation measures proposed by the
transportation planner one of which was to encourage traffic off
Easton and onto Hillside; regarding regular services, a traffic
survey of the San Francisco facility showed 2.5 passengers per car,
carpooling is heavily used, Shinnyo-En does own a van; at the
annual celebration members will be transported from their hotel by
vanpool.
Discussion continued: the San Francisco site is small, a single
family home; there are 30-40 members at present, they project the
same figures for Burlingame; San Francisco is their only location
at present in the Bay Area; it would be the same membership but
with two facilities open. A Commissioner noted the Burlingame site
is a more remote location, in San Francisco members could use mass
transit; encouraging people to use Hillside is somewhat different
than actually doing so. Attorney advised they have no plans to use
street parking, they believe the on-site parking will be more than
adequate and they will use only 20 parking spaces on site.
Shinnyo-En would agree not to use the seven spaces on the Hutnick
easement as a condition of approval, they do not plan on any
significant signage on the property; between services and classes
only the three staff inembers would be on the site. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: have a concern, normally when public school
propoerty is taken off the public roll it is returned to R-1 and it
should resemble residential area in all respects even if the seven
spaces on the Hutnick easement are legal; this has not been a
school for over eight years, think it would be restrictive to take
away the seven spaces and this is a matter between the applicant
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 1988
a
med
only
Page 11
scaping will be upgraded, the amphitheater will be cleaned up
the entire property maintained. Church services do not include
t of singing, they sing at three services per year; there is no
noise, it is similar to a Catholic service, with iayers and
ation; when the choir does sing they sing on�y�for a few
s. Mr. Kobayashi confirmed choir use of the phitheater on
ree occasions during the year was an accept�le condition.
Commiss'on/applicant discussion continued: re arding the nature
trail o the site and continued use by the p lic, Ms. Wider said
applican would not want to actively exclud people from the trail
but there would be potential liability of owner, this use might
be somewha more limited than it is now she felt their attorney
might reco end excluding people from e property, particularly
large group at night, but did not ink applicants would take
active measur s to exclude people fro�''�the nature trail.
Further comment : have
to see the prope ty go
residential atmos here
the site under pr vatE
the area making it o<
facility in San F r
residential area, it
have good neighbors in
the church had any i:
church maintained the z
no objectio /to this group, but would prefer
back to re idential use; would like to see a
here, no signs, no parking on street, with
� owners ip this kind of thing could impact
�k lik a public use. Attorney advised the
cisco is in a single family home in a
s s ject to a conditional use permit, they
t Marina district and she did not believe
n ct on the residential neighborhood, the
o erty and were quiet.
A Commissioner stat he w s interested in a subdued use of this
site, attorney ass ed him i would be, it might be less intensive
than the childcare center and ess noisy; she was not aware of any
complaints fro people in the San Francisco neighborhood.
Regarding chure services, they will be held on specific days of
the month, it ' estimated no mor than 30-40 people at the start,
in two years rhaps 40-55 and in 've years up to 75 people; since
the San Fran isco facility may rema open some members may attend
there rathe than come to Burlingame. Responding to a question as
to why suc a large site for a relati ely small number of people,
Ms. Wider stated Shinnyo-En was show this site and were very
intereste because of its open space aracter and the natural
vegetati n; if they should develop a muc larger membership from
another part of the Bay Area they would op another facility in a
commun' y near these people, they do not tend to expand their
opera on here, the site is what appeals to hem; they will use a
rela vely small number of people to mainta'n the building and
land caping. Mr. Kobayashi stated they receive inancial help from
the'r headquarters in Tokyo.
Ap�licant�s architect advised the fence on the sout�erly portion of
ttfe property does run up the hill, he did not knovi+ how far; CE
stated it disappears about 100" or so above the parking lot, there
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13
April 11, 1988
and the property owner of the easement; this is probably the best
use, conditions require maintaining the property and correcting
drainage problems, the property will be better taken care of than
it is now; live near a temple but would never take away their
parking spaces in front, all of us have lived near churches. There
was a concern expressed about the findings in the negative
declaration and the fact that if a parking lot is allowed in a
residential area there is an impact.
Further Commission comment: think this use will be more beneficial
to the neighbors than any other use, it could be developed with a
larqe number of houses, rock music and noise is a known quantity in
residential areas, if there are changes in the proposal the special
permit can be reviewed, would like to add a condition for review
one year from date of occupancy; can understand the concern about
parking on the easement, it will have an effect, but can accept the
response in the negative declaration document, have no problem with
the mitigated negative declaration. A Commissioner pointed out
that when the school was there there were always cars parked in the
seven spaces on the easement.
C. Jacobs found that there is no substantial evidence the project
will have a negative environmental effect and moved to recommend
Negative Declaration ND-404P to City Council for approval. Second
C. Garcia; motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham
dissenting.
C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the special permit and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with
the 13 conditions in the staff report and a condition addressing
review in one year. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham.
In discussion on the motion it was suggested condition #6 be made
more specific to require implementation of a traffic management
program. C. Jacobs accepted a more specific condition #6 as
phrased by the City Planner, this was accepted by the seconder, C.
S.Graham. Conditions of approval follow:
1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector�s March
21, 1988 and April 4, 1988, Fire Marshal�s March 21, 1988
and April 4, 1988 and City Engineer�s March 10, 1988 and
April 4, 1988 memos shall be met and all the standards of
the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code required by
the use and remodeling shall be met;
2. that improvements on the site shall be consistent with the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
March 30, 1988;
3. that the Shinnyo-En use shall be consistent with the letters
of their representatives dated March 1, 1988, March 21, 1988
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page, 14
April 11, 1988 ;'
� and March 31, 1988 .including that religious servi' es would
occur eight times each month in the hours of l0e'00 A.M. to
Noon, 1:00 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9,:"00 P.M. with
a maximum attendance of 75 people, that c�lasses for a
maximum of 30 members of the religious comn(unity shall be
held on weekends two times each month „� that an annual
meeting attended by a maximum of 420 pewpple for about two
hours shall be held once each year in t,Ke month of July or
ugust, and that the amphitheater shal.��r'�be used by the choir
three occasions during the year.,i�3uring daylight hours
o ly; ,!°
4. tha� the use permit of Hoover ildren�s Center shall be
cont'�.nued on this site as appro d on November 4, 1980 until
this°`ytype of operation has ce sed at this location for six
months,;
5. that no�e of the facili es on the site, including the
amphithe°ter, shall be ased or rented for use by those
other th�� Shinnyo-En ithout an amendment to this use
permit;
6. that Shinny�
implementing
City Engineer
the annual mE
review of this
h�ll be responsible for preparing and
,itic management program as approved by the
ssing the traffic and parking problems of
� and failure to do so will result in
permit;
7. that the loca ion, soil stability, design and sight lines of
the drivewa widen to 18' shall be approved by the City
Engineer a the dr veway shall be posted as a fire lane
with no p king allow ;
8. that t� property owne shall take appropriate action, as
recomm ded by a lice ed soils/hydrolic engineer and
approv d by the City En 'neer, to correct the drainage
prob ms on site includi those contributing to the
sur cial slides, the draina on the southerly side of the
si in the swale and resulti from the driveway widening,
t property owner shall be r ponsible for regular long
rm maintenance of all of these 'mprovements;
9. /that the drainage improvements in �e swale area shall be
completed before October 1, 1988;
10." that the property owner shall prov, de 63 improved and
striped parking spaces on site and s�hall maintain these
spaces in suitable condition for safe,� off-street parking
use;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14
April 11, 1988
and March 31, 1988 .including that religious services would
occur eight times each month in the hours of 10:00 A.M. to
Noon, 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. with
a maximum attendance of 75 people, that classes for a
maximum of 30 members of the religious community shall be
held on weekends two times each month, that an annual
meeting attended by a maximum of 420 people for about two
hours shall be held once each year in the month of July or
August, and that the amphitheater shall be used by the choir
on three occasions during the year during daylight hours
only;
4, that the use permit of Hoover Children�s Center shall be
continued on this site as approved on November 4, 1980 until
this type of operation has ceased at this location for six
months;
5. that none of the facilities on the site, including the
amphitheater, shall be leased or rented for use by those
other than Shinnyo-En without an amendment to this use
permit;
6. that Shinnyo-En shall be responsible for preparing and
implementing a traffic management program as approved by the
City Engineer addressing the traffic and parking problems of
the annual meeting and failure to do so will result in
review of this use permit;
7. that the location, soil stability, design and sight lines of
the driveway widened to 18' shall be approved by the City
Engineer and,the driveway shall be posted as a fire lane
with no parking allowed;
8. that the property owner shall take appropriate action, as
recommended by a licensed soils/hydrolic engineer and
approved by the City Engineer, to correct the drainage
problems on site including those contributing to the
surficial slides, the drainage on the southerly side of the
site in the swale and resulting from the driveway widening,
the property owner shall be responsible for regular long
term maintenance of all of these improvements;
9. that the drainage improvements in the swale area shall be
completed before October 1, 1988;
10. that the property owner shall provide 63 improved and
striped parking spaces on site and shall maintain these
spaces in suitable condition for safe, off-street parking
use;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13
April 11, 1988
and the property owner of the easement; this is probably the best
u e, conditions require maintaining the property and correcting
dr 'nage problems, the property will be better taken care of than
it 's now; live near a temple but would never take away their
park g spaces in front, all of us have lived near churches. There
was concern expressed about the findings in the negative
declar tion and the fact that if a parking lot is allowed in a
residen ial area there is an impact.
Further ommission comment: think this use will,,�e more beneficial
to the ne'ghbors than any other use, it could��be developed with a
large numb of houses, rock music and noise,3s a known quantity in
residential areas, if there are changes in �e proposal the special
permit can reviewed, would like to a5i�a condition for review
one year fro date of occupancy; can uiYi3erstand the concern about
parking on the easement, it will have�,� effect, but can accept the
response in the negative declaration flocument, have no problem with
the mitigated n ative declaratio � A Commissioner pointed out
that when the sch ol was there thg�e were always cars parked in the
seven spaces on th easement. ,y+�"
C. Jacobs found that there i no substantial evidence the project
will have a negative nvir ental effect and moved to recommend
Negative Declaration N 40 to City Council for approval. Second
C. Garcia; motion was ap ved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham
dissenting.
C. Jacobs then moved,,/for a roval of the special permit and for
adoption of Commissybn Resol tion Approving Special Permits with
the 13 conditions��n the sta report and a condition addressing
review in one yea Motion was econded by C. S.Graham.
In discussion o the motion it wa suggested condition #6 be made
more specific o reguire implemen tion of a traffic management
program. C. Jacobs accepted a m e specific condition #6 as
phrased by t'e City Planner, this was ccepted by the seconder, C.
S.Graham. onditions of approval follo
1. th the conditions of the Chief Bu ding Inspector�s March
2, 1988 and April 4, 1988, Fire Ma hal�s March 21, 1988
d April 4, 1988 and City Engineer� March 10, 1988 and
pril 4, 1988 memos shall be met and a 1 the standards of
the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Buildin Code required by
� the use and remodeling shall be met;
2. that improvements on the site shall be cons tent with the
plans submitted to the Planning Department an date stamped
March 30, 1988;
3. that the Shinnyo-En use shall be consistent with the letters
of their representatives dated March 1, 1988, March 21, 1988
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 1988
Page 15
11. that the portion of the visitor parking improvements
designated adjacent to the Hutnick property and on the
easement shall be maintained;
12. that a survey by a city approved licensed expert shall be
made of the buildings on the site to identify the presence
of toxic materials, the report should identify the nature of
the problem, the items to be removed consistent with the
legal requirements for the proposed uses within the building
and on the site as approved by the Burlingame Fire
Department, the methods to be used in removal and the
disposal site, in all of these activities the property owner
shall coordinate with and be approved by the city�s Fire
Department;
13. that any change in the use of
those as described in these
amendment to this permit; and
facilities or the site beyond
conditions shall require an
14. that this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance
with its conditions one year following occupancy of the
site.
The Chair spoke to the audience noting Commission is aware of the
concerns of residents; these concerns have been addressed by the
conditions of approval.
Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL -
DECLARATION ND-405P FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE
� PARKING LOT A BETWEEN BELLEWE AND DONNELLY AVENi7�
ON
�
�,
Reference ff report, 4/11/88, with a chments. CP Monroe
reviewed her s f inemo: Council's st of providing additional
public parking in Burlingame Ave e commercial area, its recent
examination of alterna 'ves for sign of a parking structure on
Lot A and Council�s re that an environmental review be
completed. Staff complet a'nitial study of the environmental
impacts of a parkin structure, identified possible areas of
concern and dete ' ed there will no significant (negative)
environmental im cts from this project ould it be built and a
negative de ration was appropriate. Staff responses to
environment issues identified are attache to the negative
declarat' /initial study. CP advised the Plan ' g Commission
should act this evening on the completeness of negative
decl� ation as a disclosure document; the appropriatenes of any
project is not an issue at this time. ,.
lingame Planning Commission Minutes
il 11, 1988
Page 16
C.� S.Graham stated she would abstain from discussion and action
si e clients of the law firm in which she works own property
adj cent to the site. i'
��,
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The following members of the
audie ce spoke. r�
Arthur Bredenbeck, resident and president of t�e homeowners
associa ion of the condominium at 1233 Bellevue Av ue: he stated
his rem ks were related solely to the addition�of a two deck
parking ructure, if the project was only with p�he deck he would
not be h re and the negative declaration wa� adequate. He
discussed our items in the environmental docu�iient which he felt
have not en fully addressed for the two� deck alternative:
substantial ir emissions, exhaust fumes wou�d carry to properties
to the east; ovement of noise to the east�'through open sides of
the structure; traffic, document should re�pond to the area around
the traffic ci le, there is poor traffi¢' circulation now and the
impact will inc ease; aesthetics, multi��,jamily units look onto the
parking lot now, seven of these units ,,olook across the lot, a two
story structure wo ld block air and li�fht; the walls of a two story
structure would cut off views to the liiills to the west.
Carroll Schmitz, 123
site, an open two dec
will have extreme nois
top deck next to his be
path of the cars, he t
library where there
environment of his prop
up/one-half below grad�
level and going up wi:
should have chosen for
lot closer to the bus'
all light on that sid,,�,i
Lannis Lewis, 121
health, effects
should be an EI1�
There were no Y'ux
closed. /
Bellevue Av�ue: he lives next door to the.
structure ext to the bedrooms in his house
e impact;�+�ne plan shows a stairway from the
,.,
�o ght
is
rty
a
L impa
he f
�sses
his o�
��ople using the stairway would enter
this stairway should be next to the
walkway, the design ignores the
He stated he could accept a one-half
for this lot but starting at grade
:t those living next door; the city
st parking structure in the city a
h'ch will use it; his lot will lose
�pe ty will be devalued.
ellevue Avenue: he was opposed on the basis of
carbon monoxide and soot, and thought there
�rt on the health azards of carbon monoxide.
r audience comment and the public hearing was
Commission/ taff discussion: hours of opera on and management of a
parking s ucture have not been discussed by ouncil at this point,
therefor� the document does not address this; oise was a concern,
staff ked if Commission wanted additional inf mation on existing
ambie t noise levels. Commission comment: thi is a residential
nei borhood on one side, feel noise levels shoul be investigated,
rhaps measured on the lot line in the R-4 ar s on Bellevue;
regarding aesthetics, the condominium across the street will be
impacted, with a two deck structure there will be°,�a significant
�
�
P.C. 4/11/88
Item # /O
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RELIGIOUS INSTZTUTION WITH
CLP.SSES AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE ZONED R-1
Shinnyo-En, a sect of Buddhism represented by Makoto Kobayashi,
secretary of Shinnyo-En, California, is requesting a conditional
use permit in order to use the Herbert Hoover Elementary School for
religious and educational activities (Code Sec. 25.28.030-2).
Shinnyo-En plans to make no external structural changes to the
existing school site; however, the interior will be remodeled
including creating a living area for three people as a part of
their use. Activities on the site would include religious services
eight times a month on the 4th, 6th, 8th, 15th, 18th, 20th, 24th
and 28th of each month; weekday services would be held from 10:00
A.M. to 12:00 Noon and weekend services between 1:00 P.M. and 3:00
P.M. Two of the religious services would be held at night each
month from 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Each service would be attended
by a maximum of 75 people. Once each year in July or August the
California community would hold an annual celebration of its
founding. This one day event would be attended by about 420
members. Twice a month they will hold more secular classes for
members, such as flower arranging, on the premises.
The group has no plans to use the separate kindergarten building,
but would allow the present daycare center to continue if they
wish. They plan occasionally (2 or 3 times a year) to use the
outdoor amphitheater for religious purposes.
They will provide 63 parking spaces on site in the ballfield area
which is now being used for parking. Paving in this area will be
maintained and striped. In addition they plan to improve and widen
the fire lane/driveway from Summit to this parking area. The
proposed plans show a continuation of use of the visitor parking (6
or 7 spaces) off Summit at the entrance to the Hutnick property.
Members will vanpool or drive to services except for the annual
celebration meeting in July or August when they will meet at a
common location where parking and/or lodging is available and will
be bused to the site.
With this application the use of this site would change from public
school to church, parish house, religious school and, for the
daycare center, school. Therefore the entire site, not just the
structures, is involved in this change.
a
2
History of the Site
Public elementary school use of the Hoover School site ceased in
the 1970's. Since that time the city has issued several use
permits to different tenants. Presently there are two tenants of
the school district on the site. The Chinese Bible Evangel church
uses all but one room of the main school building as a church and
school. The use permit for the Chinese Bible Evangel provides for
five students to live on the site and for an unlimited number of
people to attend weekly religious services from 11:00 A.M. to 12:30
P.M. Sundays and weekday visitors or students of up to 30 with
evening classes or programs with up to 30 in attendance (action
letters, September 22, 1981 and November 4, 1980).
Also permitted on this site is the Hoover Children�s Center, a
weekday daycare facility for 60 children. These children begin to
arrive at 7:30 A.M. and leave between 4:30 and 6:00 P.M. A staff
of four run the daycare center. The daycare center uses one room
in the main school building and the separate kindergarten room and
cafeteria (action letter, November 4, 1980).
Neaative Declaration
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-404P is a part of this
application. This document is intended as a disclosure of the
environmental impacts (negative) of the change of use on this site
and of any changes to the existing facility (main building),
parking, fire lane, paving, etc. The negative declaration
identifies a number of possible environmental effects which can be
reduced to acceptable levels by specific mitigations. These
mitigations are included in the conditions on the use permit action
and affirmative action on the project should include them.
Planning Commission�s action on the negative declaration should
include findings that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment with
mitigations proposed; and a recommendation to Council. A public
hearing on the negative declaration is required.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building
Inspector (March 21, 1988 memo) notes the need for more accurate
plans of the kindergarten building, the need to stop using
electrical heaters and provide for permanent fixed heat and, if the
kitchen on the second floor is to be used, installation of a hood
system which meets the code as well as a rated separation between
the kitchen and exit corridor. His second memo of April 4, 1988
notes additionally that Title 24 handicapped requirements shall be
met in specific areas.
,
3
The Fire Marshal (March 21, 1988 and April 4, 1988 memos) notes the
need for hard wired smoke detectors in the living area, one hour
construction in the boiler room, removal of apparent asbestos
insulation by approved method and one hour separation between the
new living area and the rest of the building. He also discusses
the need to designate the driveway as a fire lane with appropriate
painting and posting. The City Engineer (March 10, 1988 and April
4, 1988 memos) comments on the site plan dimensional control and
parking layout. (Note: Subsequent plans are enclosed with the
required corrections.) The City Engineer recommends a number of
improvements including new curb, gutter, sidewalk and half street
paving to facilitate access and overflow parking along Summit Drive
from this location in its new use. These improvements including
signing need to be prepared by a civil engineer. A grease sump and
waste discharge permit are required from the kitchen areas. The
sewer lateral must be tested.
Planning staff would note that the proposed use is similar in
intensity to the existing permitted uses except for the annual
meeting whose impact is probably similar to that of the sckiool when
it experienced full enrollment. The applicant is willing to let
the existing daycare operation continue, but will not solicit
another provider should the present tenant leave. At the moment
the present tenant is planning to move the operation to Millbrae;
at the time of the relocation there will be only one use on the
site. As a single use the Shinnyo-En�s daily and monthly use
levels will be very consistent with the existing levels.
It should be noted that the visitor parking off Summit on the
Hutnick easement is available as a result of the easement agreement
between the school district and the Hutnick�s predecessors.
Annlicant�s Letter
The applicant has submitted two letters of explanation, March 1,
1988 and March 21, 1988 and a geotechnical reconnaissance report.
In the letters they describe their organization�s history and their
plans for using the Hoover School. They note that they intend to
bring the building and its systems up to current code to meet their
needs or as required by law. However, they do not intend to change
the footprint of the building.
They go on to describe their use of the building including
classroom use, religious services, anniversary celebration, three
residents, office use and occasional use of the amphitheater.
These activities will take place during the day and in the early
evening (to 9:00 P.M.). They expect reqular service attendance to
start with 30-50 people and increase to 50-75 people in five years.
They point out that although they have 1,500 to 2,000 members only
100-150 are active members. They expect members will drive to the
site or take public transit. The group in San Francisco owns a van
<
4
and they intend to use a vanpool system in Burlingame as well as to
encourage carpooling.
They also discuss at length the annual celebration. The annual
celebration will be held one day in July or August, about 420
people are expected to attend. Members from out of town will
congregate at one hotel and be bused to the site. This busing
should reduce the impact on local streets of this event. The
number of active members of the religious group in the six counties
served is 83; there are 193 inactive members. They point out that
many of the active members reside too far away to attend services
on a regular basis. People who live closer may not attend because
services are not at convenient times for them.
The geotechnical reconnaissance submitted (March 18, 1988 by
Geoengineering, Inc., Robert Settgast) identifies problems of
localized surficial landsliding and problems which occur from past
disruption of the natural drainage swale on the southerly.property
line. The investigator notes that properly engineered additional
drainage would address the localized sliding conditions along with
appropriate revegetation. Slope maintenance, not defined, may be
required in the steeper areas. Minor seepage may occur in the
driveway (fire lane) area. He notes that corrections to the
drainage swale (southerly property line) should be corrected before
the next wet season and discusses these corrective measures.
Study Ouestions
The Planning Commission studied this use request at their meeting
on March 28, 1988 (Planning Commission Minutes, March 28, 1988).
The Commissioners asked for additional information on several
items.
The Superintendent of Schools told staff that the property was in
escrow, due to close in late May. Escrow has a clause in it that
provides for a slight increase in the sale price for each month of
waiting. The applicant has made a deposit with the school district
which becomes nonrefundable during the escrow period.
On March 30, 1988 the applicant submitted revised plans including a
dimensioned parking layout. These plans show 63 parking spaces on
the site, accessed by an 18� wide driveway from Summit. This
represents an increase in the width of the existing driveway. All
parking spaces now appear to have adequate backup areas (City
Engineer�s memo of April 4, 1988).
Only a very small part of the seven visitor parking spaces shown on
the site plan are on the school property. The bulk of this parking
is on the adjacent property owned by the Hutnick family. The
family who owned the property before the Hutnicks granted an
easement to the school district which allows this area to be used
for parking.
5
In her letter of March 31, 1988 the attorney representing Shinnyo-
En states that they will use the amphitheater for choir practice
(10 members) about twice a year. Practices will normally be held
on weekends for one-half hour during the day after services.
The letter goes on to address potential traffic conflicts with the
childcare center. They note that most of the traffic for the
childcare center is between 7:00 A.M.-9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.-6:00
P.M.. Since Shinnyo-En�s peak daytime hours are 10:00 A.M. to Noon
and 1:00-3:00 P.M. there will be little conflict. Moreover the
present daycare provider indicates that she intends to move. The
applicant has no present plans to lease this space to another
provider.
The design of the intersection with Summit at the widened driveway
including sight lines.will be required to meet the approval of the
City Engineer. Therefore specific analysis at this time is not
necessary. The Fire Marshal has noted that the widened driveway
will need to be posted "no parking - fire lane" to ensure fire
access is maintained at all times.
With the sale of the property by the school district the site
becomes private property. Anyone using the amphitheater area
without permission of the owner is trespassing and subject to
police action. Further, as private property, the owner is
responsible for maintaininq the area. Only if the amphitheater
area becomes a public nuisance (e.g., fire hazard, etc.) would the
city become involved in enforcing maintenance. The only authority
the city has through the use permit is to regulate the level of
use. Therefore, based on the present application, use, without
amendment to the use permit, can be limited to levels proposed by
the applicant in their letter of March 31, 1988.
The applicant also submitted a report from Jon Twichell Associates
regarding traffic generated by Shinnyo-En. Based on their
experience in San Francisco, they project that auto occupancy for
those attending major religious services is 2.5 persons per
vehicle. Other members arrive and depart by vanpool, mass transit
or by being dropped off and picked up. Based on this experience,
they feel 63 parking spaces will be more than adequate for the
typical service and class use at this site. The annual
meeting/celebration will present a special problem and he suggests
a number of particular programs that the applicant can institute to
address this annual event. These include vanpooling, encouraging
the congregation to use Hillside rather than Easton for access,
coordinate service times with CalTrain weekend schedules and
provide pickup at the station, and provide a centralized hotel
location and bus and vanpool service from the hotel to the site for
that occasion.
3
Plannina Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on the
negative declaration and use permit together. The first action
should be on the negative declaration. A recommendation to Council
is required. The finding would be that with the proposed
mitigations as included in the conditions on the project there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. A negative finding would result in an
EIR being prepared. Affirmative action on the use permit should be
taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly
stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector�s March
21, 1988 and April 4, 1988, Fire Marshal�s March 21, 1988
and April 4, 1988 and City Engineer�s March 10, 1988 and
April 4, 1988 memos shall be met and all the standards of
the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code required by
the use and remodeling shall be met;
2. that improvements on the site shall be consistent with the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
March 30, 1988;
3. that the Shinnyo-En use shall be consistent with the letters
of their representatives dated March 1, 1988, March 21, 1988
and March 31, 1988 including that religious services would
occur eight times each month in the hours of 10:00 A.M. to
Noon, 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. with
a maximum attendance of 75 people, that classes for a
maximum of 30 members of the religious community shall be
held on weekends two times each month, that an annual
meeting attended by a maximum of 420 people for about two
hours shall be held once each year in the month of July or
August, and that the amphitheater shall be used by the choir
on three occasions during the year during daylight hours
only;
4. that the use permit of Hoover Children�s Center shall be
continued on this site as approved on November 4, 1980 until
this type of operation has ceased at this location for six
months;
5. that none of the facilities on the site, including the
amphitheater, shall be leased or rented for use by those
other than Shinnyo-En without an amendment to this use
permit;
6. that Shinnyo-En shall be responsible for implementing a
traffic management program as defined in the March 29, 1988
report prepared by Jon Twichell Associates including
7.
addressing the traffic and parking problems of the annual
meeting and failure to do so will result in review of this
use permit;
that the location, soil stability, design and sight lines of
the driveway widened to 18' shall be approved by the City
Engineer and the driveway shall be posted as a fire lane
with no parking allowed;
8. that the property owner shall take appropriate action, as
recommended by a licensed soils/hydrolic engineer and
approved by the City Engineer, to correct the drainage
problems on site including those contributing to the
surficial slides, the drainage on the southerly side of the
site in the swale and resulting from the driveway widening,
the property owner shall be responsible for regular long
term maintenance of all of these improvements;
9. that the drainage improvements in the swale area shall be
completed before October 1, 1988;
10. that the property owner shall provide 63 improved and
striped parking spaces on site and shall maintain these
spaces in suitable condition for safe, off-street parking
use;
11. that the portion of the visitor parking improvements
designated adjacent to the Hutnick property and on the
easement shall be maintained;
12. that a survey by a city approved licensed expert shall be
made of the buildings on the site to identify the presence
of toxic materials, the report should identify the nature of
the problem, the items to be removed consistent with the
legal requirements for the proposed uses within the buildin
13.
9
and on the site as approved by the Burlingame Fire
Department, the methods to be used in removal and the
disposal site, in all of these activities the property owner
shall coordinate with and be approved by the city�s Fire
Department; and
that any change in the use of facilities or the site beyond
those as described in these conditions shall require an
amendment to this permit.
Marg ret Monro�
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Makoto Kobayashi, Shinnyo-En
Lori Wider, Attorney
Burlingame Elem. School District
�
Additional Contact:
Lori Wider, Esq.
Law Offices of Timothy A.
Tosta
785 Market Street
14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 957-1031
PROJECT APPLICATION 6c'TM ��' 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE
£r CEQA ASSESSMENT �"""°"'� �Pr°;e�t address__
��� ;� project name - if any
Apptication received ( 3�2�$$ )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Shinn.vo-En, California 346-0209
name telephone no.
1400 Jefferson Street San Francisco CA 94123
app icant s address: street, city, zip code
Makoto Koba�ashi, Secretary 346-0209
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Perr.iit (X ) Variance'' () Condominium Permi� () Other
`Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Co e Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION �PE�{AL.PERMIT for� u$e of tt�e e�xistjng �chool
aci ities for re igious an e ucationa purposes.
Uses�would include classes such as flower arranging for about 30 people twice a month on
weekends. Religious services would be held 8 times a month as well as a once a year anniversary
celebration. Religious services would be attended 6y 30-75 aeople. Services which fall on a
weekday would be held between 10 AM and noon, services which fall on a weekend would be held
between 1 PM and 3 PM and two of the eiqht monthly services would be held in the evening from
7 PM to 9 PM. The annual anniversary celebration will involve approximately 420 members
attending from all around the countrq for approximately 2 hours.
� (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.28.030 ) (
4. PROPERTY I�ENTIFICATION
( 027-271-090 ) ( ) ( )
APN lot no. block no.
( R-1 ) ( 272,860 SF±.
zoning district land area, square feet �
Burlingame Elementary School
land owner's name jStP1Ct
( Acreage, City of Burlingamd
subdivision name
2303 Trousdale Drive
a�ur�ingame, CA 94010
city zip code
Reouired Date received
(3�es) (no) ( - )
(yes) f�� ( 3/2/88 >
5. EXISTIPIG SITE CONDITIONS
Hilly site improved with a main school building
Church), a smaller ancillary structure (used by
an amphitheatre and vegetated open space areas.
Reo,uired Date received
(ves) (am) ( 3/3�/88)
(ves) (�) (3/30/88 )
(.9�) (no) ( )J
(other) ( 3�p�gg )
Proof of ownershi�
Owner's consent to a�plication
currentl.y used by the Chinese Bible Coll
areas for parking,
Site plan shov�ing: property lines; public sidewall:s and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
'Land use classifications are: residential (show fl dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. aaoaECT PPovosn� (NO NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED--INTERIOg„p�TERATIONS
Proposed censiruction, 3eloo-i orade ( _ SF) Second flobi� _ SF)
gross floor area First floor ( - SF) Third floor ( - �`)
Project Cod� Project Code
Pronosal Requirem�nt Proposal Requirement
Front setback Lot covera,�e
Side setback Rui16?n� hei9ht
Side yard Landscaoed area
Rear yard ^^�site ok� snace�� 63
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full time employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends'
Trucks/service vehicles
�Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent lots; this use conforms to
the �eneral Plan.
Required Date received
(3Fe�) (no) ( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(3�s) (no) ( - ) Other tenants/firms on praperty:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( X) Other application type, fee $ ()
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ()' Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts 8 75 () Negative Declaration $ 25 (X )
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ (;
TOTAL FEES $ 15�.0� RECEIPT N0. 0390 Received by L.Freitas
I hereby certi
true and carre
EXISTING IPI 2 YEARS
after ' after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
of perjury that the information given herein is
' � knowledge and belief.
IN 5 YEARS
after
STAFF USE ONLY �
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
19
_ SEE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-404P
Signature of Processin� Official Title Daie Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the A�te posted, the detemination shall be final. �
DECLRRATIQ4 OF POSTIPIG Date Posted:
i declare under penalty of perjiary that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I oosted a true rnpy of the above Negzti��e Ceclaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Chambers.
cxecuted at 6urlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o
19
JUD T�H ll. M�LFAYTI, CITY CLERK, LITY ('F oURLINGAhiE
.�
�' STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCOLATION OF APPLICATION �-
� Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by:
. date circulated reply received
City Engtneer ( 3/4/88 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( �� ) (yes) (no)
Fire Marshal ( �� ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( _ ) (yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MFASURES
Concerns Mitiqation Measures
Does this request comply with Request comments from the Fire
all Fire and Building Code Marshal and Chief BuiTding
requirements? Inspector.
Is the use compatible with the Review site; make determination
neighboring uses in the area?
Is there sufficient parking Review parking needs and
on site to meet the needs of site conditions; make
this use? determination.
3. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: .
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Spp NP,�ative Declaration ND-404P
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study comoleted
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR accepted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Study by P.C. �
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.0
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Cd�l Date first received (�3/2/88 )
Accepted as complete: no(X ) RB�tADCto applicant advising info. required ( 3�11�88 )
Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 3�2g�gg )
Is application ready for a public hearing? tyes (no) Recomnended date ( /I/ g4 )
Date staff report mailed �to aoplicant (1}I $�') Date Commission hearing (�/l�r�8)
Application approved (y ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council yes) (no)
�ate Council hearing ( �//(Q /�8 ) Application aporoved ( ) Denied ( )
�
��
signed date
�� � NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
EXHIBIT C - INITIAI STUDY
F, c�rr
A,I' �'�
BURl1NGAME
T�:
�� r.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 - lOth Street
Sacramento, CA. 95814
2220 SUMMIT DRIVE
Project Address ar Location
File No. ND-404P
Project Title� Use of Hoover School Site
Type of Permit: Special Permit
Legal Description: Two parcels total about 7 acres• one 6.26 acre parcel APN 027-271-090,
as well as a 40' x 500' parcel recently annexed to the City of Burlingame from the Town of
Property Owner:
Name: Burlingame Elementary School�
District
Applicant:
Name: Shinnyo-En, California
- . - Address: 2303 Trousdale Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
Contact Person: Dr. James Black
. Area Code: 415 Phone: 692-0914
Address: 1400 Jefferson Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Contact Person: Makoto Kobavashi
Area Code: 415 Phone: 346-0209
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: -
Proposed use of a�7 acre hilly scFrool site no longer used as a public school surrounded
by detached single family residential development. A portion of this site was in the
Town of Hillsborough and has recently been annexed to the City of Burlingame. The
project involves retaining the existing school building for use for educational and '
religious purposes. The site was ariginally used as an elementary school and is '
currently heing used by the Chinese Bible Church and school which has a permit for
five students to live on site as well as the Hoover Preschool, a day care center. The
project will not involve demolition or footprint expansion of existing buildings.
Minor interior alterations are planned as well as updating structural, mechanical and
electrical systems as required by the Fire and Building Codes for the proposed use.
Project also involves painting the exterior of the building, restriping the parking lot,
regrading and repaving the existing driveway and widening it to 18' as well as
providing additional landscaping around the existing buildings.
Uses on the site would include holding classes such as flower arranging for about 25-30
people t�iice a month and only on weekends> as well as reli9ious services eight times a
month and a once a year anniversary celebration. The amphitheater would be used
occasionally for choir or similar functions. The Reverend plus two employees will live
on the site. There are no plans for use of the ancillary building other than to continue
the operation of the existing preschool.
Religious services will take place on specific days of the month (the 4th, 6th, Bth,
15th, 18th, 20th, 24th and 28th). When services fall on a weekday they will be held
between 10:00 A.M. and Noon and services which fall on a weekend will be held between
1:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M., with two of the eight monthly services held in the evening
from 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. It is expected that during the first year religious
services would be attended by 30-50 people at one time, this number increasing to
40-50 people in two years and 50-75 people in five years time.
The annual anniversary celebration will involve approximately 420 members attending
from all around the country for approximately two hours. This celebration generally
takes place on a weelcQnd in July or August.
c
v
'2-
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: �
The school site is on the northeasterly face of the coastal range. The site was graded
sometime in the 1930's to bench out an area on which to build the school and playfields.
The original grading created cut and fill slopes steeper than 2:1. The steeper portion
of the site also includes a drainage channel with natural slopes in this area ranging
from 2:1 to 3:1. On more gently sloping land at the westerly property line there is
a graded utility easement which serves an existing subdivision at the top of the hill
in Hillsborough.
The site is densely vegetated with native grasses and live oaks as well as other plant
material. In one more isolated area there is an amphitheater and a trail leading to it.
Public access to the site is from Summit �rive by way of stairs or a fire lane which
extends to the paved play area adjacent to the school building about a third of the way
up the site. Landslides are visible on the site and on lands iimnediately adjacent to it.
Utility service will be from Burlingame. There has been past history of natural drainage
problems occurring on this site which have created stability problems for adjacent
properties. -
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT:
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided at the conclusion of this .
section.)
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
. or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of peaple or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes> landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of surface
water runoff?
Yes Maybe No
X
_ _ x
_ _ X
_ _ X
x
_ _ X
_ X _
z
_ _ X
_ X
x
X
-3-
- -,- -- - - - � - - ---..._—_.
.
-�--- � -=-.:_ _:-:_�.'.� ..:
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? �
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters> or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
�including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception
, of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount af
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops> and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plantsl .
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including�reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. LIGNT AND GLARE. Will the proposal pnoduce
new light�or glare? .
8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned use of an area?
Yes Maybe No
X
x
X
�
X
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ x
X
X
�
X
_ _ X
X
x
x
X
x
0
-4-
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset contlitions?
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, ar growth
rate of the human population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal
result in: '
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestriAns?
14. PUBLIC SERYICES. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for, new
or altered governmental services in any
of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental serv9ces?
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems> or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
— — �L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
_ _ X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
-5-
b. Coimnunications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of peoole to potential health
hazards?
18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aestheticalty offensive
site open to public view?
19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object or building?
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endan9ered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistary?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief> definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well
into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
_ _ X
X
X
X
X
_ X _Y�
x
X
_ _ X
— — �—
�
�
X
X
X
-6-
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:
EARTH
la. Landslides are visible on and adjacent to this site which could threaten
existing buildings and parking areas. A licensed soils engineer should identify
the causes of the landslides on the site as well as evaluate the site to see if
landslides occur elsewhere on the site and identify means to be undertaken to
correct this condition.
1g. The site is within a mile or so of San Andreas fault. Other hill areas in the
city are riddled with fault traces. There is visual evidence of landsliding and
land instability on the site now. A third to a half of this site was extensively
graded in the 1930's. There is no evidence that the fill, if any, placed at
that time was engineered. A71 of these items need to be addressed in evaluating
the proposed use of the site.
WATER
3b. The drainage channel on the property plays an important role in draining the
developed area above the site and the open hillsides. The impact of any grading
for the proposed driveway widening needs to be carefully evaluated. In the past
there has been some evidence poor drainage of this site has led to slumps in
the land and problems for adjacent property owners. A hydrolic engineer needs
to study the site and make recommendations to be implemented to improve drainage
conditions on the site. A long term maintenance program for drainage facilities
installed also needs to be identified and implemented.
,�� -.-� -. -_.- 13a. The vehicular trips generated by the proposed uses need to be compared with the
-- -- . trips generated by the site when used as a public school and with those generated
� �� � � by the site in its present use.
. 13b. The parking demands of the prposed use need to be compared with the parking demands
of the present uses as well as when used as a public school.
HUMAN HEALTH
17a. Since the existing school facilities will be retained and remodeled, a survey for
�- the presence of toxic materials such as asbestos should be completed. If any
- .-- toxic materials are identified they should be listed along with how and where
-� - � -- -� - disposal will be handled. It is known, for example, that there is asbestos in
._ _ =' _ .. ' � . - . the boiler room.
Ini[ial S[udy
The ini[ial study prepared for the project indicates the need to address the
following cortcerns: ear[h, water, [ransporta[ion/circulation, and human heal[h.
Since the site is currently developed and only minor interior alterations are
planned including bringing [he building up to current Uniform Build3ng and
Uniform Fire Code s[andards for the proposed use, the project should no[ have
any significant environmental effects on air, plan[ life, animal liFe, light
and glaxe, natural resources, eneigy or utilities. The proposed use of the
site is similar to [he existing uses of the site as well as past uses, therefore
ehere will be no su6stantial change in land use, noise, population or housing,
nor will public services be affected.
On the basis of the Initial Study, no substantial evidence exis[s that the project,
if designed to include [he mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration,
will have a significant effect on the environmen[.
Earth
This is a hilly si[e currently developed with a main and ancillacy school
buildings, playground equipment and paved parking area. Landalides are visible
on and adjacen[ to this site, and the site is within a mile or so of the San Mdreas
faul[. The proposed use does not involve any exterior changes to the buildings
other than painting along with res[riping the parking lot, regrading and repaving
[he existing driveway and widening it to 18', as well as providing additional
landscaping around the existing buildings. The proximity of the site to [he San
Andceas faul[ as well as the evidence of surficial land instability on the site
could pose a threat to existing buildings and parking areas. Potential impacts
may be mi[igated to acceptable levels by incorporation of the following conditions:
1. The causes of landslides as well as potential landslides on the site shall
be identified by a licensed soils engineer, and a program shall be established
and implemenCed to correc[ this condition.
2. A licensed soils engineer shall identify potential geologic hazards on the
site rela[ed to fault zones and a program shall be developed and implemented
to reduce potential hazards to acceptable levels. ,
3. The proposed regrading and repaving of the driveway shall be reviewed by a
licensed soils engineer for stability of soils and drainage before a city
permi[ is issued for [his woxk.
Water
The site has a history of drainage problems which appear to have resulted in
slumps in the land and problems for adjacent property owers. Although the
proposed use of the site does not involve any new construction or changes to
the site other than widening the existing driveway which will involve regrading
and repaving, [he dxainage problem may pose a threat to existing structures in
the area. Potential drainage problems on [he site may be mitigated to acceptable
levels by adoption of the following conditions:
1. A study by a licensed hydrolic engineer shall be prepared identifying
means [o improve drainage conditions on the site; property owner shall
implement suggested drainage improvements.
2. A long term maineenance program for existing drainage facili[ies shall be
prepared and the properey owner shall be responsible for implemen[ing [his
program.
Transpor[a[ion/C3rculation
This site was originally used as a public school for grades k-6. During 1963 [o
1964 the school reached a peak student enzollment of 319 with 15 [eachers on [he
premises. By 1979 when [he school closed, student enrollment had dropped to 149.
The achool operated during [he hours of B:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with evening
activities on the site approximately three nights a week.
In 1980 City Permits were approved Eor the Chinese Bible Church and College as
well as the Hoover Children's Center to opexate from this site. The Hoover
Children's Center operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with 5 full-time and 4 part-
[ime staff and City approval for up to 60 childcen, wi[h actual enrollment ranging
around 35. The applicant is proposing to allow the child care use [o coneinue co
operate from the site as a cownunity service.
The Chinese Bible Church and College permit included permission for five students
to live on the premises. Church services take place four times a month on Sundays
between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., wi[h 70 to 100 church members attending. Classes
ace held weekday mornings between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. and evenings from 6:00 p.m.
[0 10:00 p.m.. Morning classes are attended by 10 students and 4 staff, and evening
classes consist of 25-30 students and 2-4 staff inemhers.
----- - The proposed use will involve fewer on-site residents, three instead of [he five
"�� . existing. Church services would be held eigh[ times a mon[h instead of the existing
foue times a moneh, and would be held on specific days of the month (which may fall
�� on a weekday or weekend), inseead of the Sunday church services of che current use.
It is expec[ed church services would be attended by 30-75 people, whereas current
services are attended by 70-100 people. Classes are planned ewice a mon[h, only on
weekends, for approximately 25-30 studen[s.
A one day annual Mniversary Celebration (generally held in 7uly or August) is also
proposed as part of this use. Approxima[ely 420 people would attend this event, most
of [hem from out of town. A vanpool system from a central off site location is
proposed which would [ransport the people to and from the site, thus reducing che
number of vehicles in the area and [he number requiring parking. The annual meeting
is expected to last approximately two hours.
Given the proposed use, the number of vehicle [rips which wi11 be generated by this
use overall will be approximately [he same as those of the existing church and school
on the property, and less than the number of trips generated when the site was used
as a public school. The annual meeting is the only major event, and the number of
trips for this single occasion should be about the same or less than the school
when it was at its peak enrollment. However withou[ van pooling�these trips would
be concentrated into a four hour period.
Approximately 67 parking spaces are proposed on site. Church services, it is
expected, will be at[ended by 30-75 people. The existing church on this property,
which is attended by 70-100 church members, has a parking demand of 30-50 spaces.
Since the proposed use would involve fewer people attending church services, the
parking demands of the proposed use should be no greater than those of [he existing.
The major differences between the existing use and the proposed, in terms of trafFic
generated and parking demands, will be the fact that church services will be held
S times a month and on random days of [he week instead of 4 times a month on Sundays
only. Al[hough Che level of activity should be no more Chan that of the existing use,
[he frequency of activity will increase. The other major difference will 6e the
annual anniversary celebration.
�
__._ _.. . _ _ _.'_ _ _ _'.______.
i .
My po[ential efEec[s on transporeation and parking may be mitigated by adoption
of the following condition:
1. that a van pool system approved by the City shall be organized for the
annual anniversary celebration to transport people to and from the site,
so that Che on-site parking is not exceeded during [his event.
Numan Health
There is evidence of asbestos in the boiler room of the main school building.
The proposed use oE the site will involve some interior alterations, which
could result in exposure of additional asbes[os or other toxic materials in the
building. Any potential health hazards resul[ing from asbestos or other such
material may be mitigated to acceptable levels by adop[ion of the following
wndition:
1. A survey undertaken by an appropriately licensed individual for the presence
of toxic macecials such as asbestos shall be completed, identifying po[entially
toxic ma[erial and explaining how and where disposal will be handled; a
licensed firm, approved by the Fire Depar[ment, shall be hired for removal
and disposal.
u
a
a
a
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there wilt not be a significant effect in this case
because of the mitigation measures which have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. .
( ) i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
MARCH 23, 1988 �r�yr� }'�
Signatur�
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
For CITY OF BURLINGAME
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date Posted: MARCH 23, 1988
DECLARATION OF POSTING Deputy
I declare under penalty of perjury that I a�Gity Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative �eclaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to the Council Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on MpRCH 23 1988
Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No •
��c�r-�c-ti C ���.E�
Vio a Yosch , Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF BURLINGAhIE. ,
I J�
/ `
OY
�`R ��
J� \
�
,�.:�,�.,>.
`/
�/
,�.e,o
.P+:o+l. en.eea
a�r.cn.nn.i,e ,
�hPK: ai+.x+rvme
♦
f..iN.vf.' .
� ��n��.i�6��
♦Pn�.emwv.na
� W„ /
\ 9�
��,\v'`p�
: �
I. Su���IA¢Y �F ARE4S . �
_�� -
r.cs v+.�L aeii �v.�a >,. n� ..�z / / '
arR�� _ _ �rta 10 ArN..a:�.an.�eo �
� fan fv/ IA� eT/ Vm f]
• 1�» - Iih - p :
. iiw MI I.w - � i
��v w ..
...... .iw � � i
u IN - P�xtO:l.li1.0A0 .�W
Aum'�v.r IY� W � .
.Ter.•_ vv ...m r+
1. LGVOSCPPEO A � �
ryvi roc • 4L�dee. �
�: ler v�s.c*G- .
.uwx. . � (a✓Jp/-0
T1L p+. . If ✓.I Y. ' •
1.a^t Y.
��—'\ �
\.
\ __ �r _
ry��i�:i r�ut
.�. r� n'^
O`� '1T. P�%�
S!(' p P� • V E
1 -
6 V M N �
� �:.
S',T= P-A\
,�.
\
�G'�:s0
_ __. � i
/ . •
\'.. � \ .
r. ,E
�i
�
�/ T+'
�i=
'.•;'/ o-c
... �
.G P ��
FtECEIV�O
MAR 181988
CITY Of BURLINGAME
V' A'•l:,IMr QFP7,
���
���--�—� w �IIlI�➢��,r.1
'� ` ° `a '` -r
� �
hre�' �!�' �. .•• ...
t..
, � J'C ;�M. �
� ai+•
Q t �
/ U
y �
— _�
M 1
� PARKIN.�r PLAN
:.a. � . �. .� - a • ^
t/ � ��..� i.� . i
�" '
.� �r°
n-w.-. ,
� � ->
"' ,: . - �
� uu p
M1.�
s.
r
\ ` � • ' �^ , � .. � y
�...... C i""' :
�
o x \
� � e
� li
�
n,v�..,... 'i ' ' I ..... r�.�: �
-��—a"'_ `� � i :�, �,��
—';.. ,. •�- -
� �' �z=„ _ �,.,�� .1 � � =`�
e�am.. . �.... . — _c-
�E.� ��_ .•• � _ � i-�
'��v 9v vliaSl� ayI
3 � I � C:�R�[i
.i--� T ' 1
L
r �a; GROU\D , G�J�2 ?L.AN i„,` �: -
��..
\ i e :, =�� �— �
_1 Y< �`I
; �,�
. °' ' �� �r ��
�. .
i �. . r
i;� -�_� ;::-=-��=1 �„�„ -� °,=�. -
� �,
R
� .
�YR ScGO\D =L092 ?�A\
I�GcN�J�
o -s<�.c
G . IX: Y� 3 fd"M� . .
�� � �S'J
R€��IV6D
MAR 181988
CITY Of BURLINGAME
a n��rain�r, nvn.
S �
��'M�� . \/ n• \
. �� I
.. �
• ..�.. ...
`�' . +u' �.. nc � . , � � �
� Lr.
• • . .VM�x��p�Y0f1 .. �_ '. .... ._ _.— ..... _ .. IN uV�`• re�� ,.
��_� '� ./ ..�r _ _ .. ._ . . .
of �� ,-./ ]5 101 �eu� . _ a..w_r _. . ___ `�\.' +q
_ _ _ � MIARIM n o..� "l 11 � a<- ] 8 � � (/ .� a s .� � a� / ?i�...e .
Cl Y • GouxTr ••s •'•" E� n'w. � .au • •n ^ 1 / °�� � �� N 6er / � M�n 8 �.
Y, "T. 1:. ,�,s,' r, a.""�".. 'JC'�' ""� a': •,_5.;�... "i \ J �_ "t� 26! .
•I •i _��: a' �:�"-til'"..��e' n .......� _'I _ �o' nM. ��� �� , `
i:+, �'n
ui
...../! .o.0 + � 101.. y' �": •• P�Fi� n..�,c � �` � `u'w`'•'
' �� •IRESIOIO 1��� �y� 9 :.1.� �1; 2.3 �
.�v.a'^'
. � � �) Y + ,,, r S° , ' �'��w�?.
- C e,�,.. r � � _
�..a.e� "_i' �"'_ -�� � �^'� ui.w.�v�au� �` '
..,��•�� �.m. j �cartn,� " f < ' � i..n "r. i . ,..�ur�.urEw i, �
��� ._ 4w. F q�n ra oc � � � n� •'�,, � 3 ` � �.
• � �. ° ""�.w� � y ',�." �.r. - � \ :
� .a...m 1 � f � f n. ° �•,3 m� . � . . . .
. .. . 8i u,a � n.p z> i.� y�: �? �
� 'J OOtttx OI1f I�Nt ••� � 4C ^ :d� _ . . �` � __ _
Sao o�'�,� � s., - ,.. �,,� v;. .� ; a � �,b,. n _� \- :
�i ' 5 es �
3 �.��.
Francisco1 .��,u n. ��_ � � tt z., �.a _
� y \
� • i\ F ' ¢n 6�AP f�. .�1 31.' � �
ZI � l�V W . �� � . � • • D11. y YYf ' n �` C .
. .� ' � ���.f �1� I� ��pt' \�> _
. %NAt��' SIUR • '�� , y,� ` Y,� o •
' ' o. ` � v 4` �mm �w. 6,�� ±; ri %'..�Y \
� 4F q. . � �_: 3. ��'• ' \
� r3 °Y iit� � �' ,Z, xuxrru. _
�� `�1. . ei_ ' `1 LS avn.. ;' � j � 1.� � �� .'�.^��y!�n�.(r �. '
; 3.8• � ' � '. � uxoun.u". me . � I
, �«1'` $� - .qe � � � otyH. � =S� unR•O : %���
9
� 1_ � wC?Y ^ J�� f ���I,`j fOUNTY� �,�-• - O£ S.IN FRAMClSCO '
` '• r�'�� S�N � � HATEO wr'� 1, �K -I-O '" --- - -- COUMY
•. 1 � a M u.�.�. ; v.�. .
�I -�'t ey ... v
� rna+..a.� � oM�^� 3� �9 �°;u Trr. t '�
.�.�, 4 �� Ualy � ; � , o <.,� � �
�.�
'� �I� o+ ,, s..^' s� toi C�
1 z: r ^ ti�. �.� ,
^°. ;'� ; �_ ��' Brisbant }
' '� _3 ~ 3 ,. ^ �. v,, a �
z , _ i • Caima + �, ss r' �""O ' — �
i ' °' �'"' '
....,aa . � .a,�� 'yYK � s � "Mae .o a,.�...
,n� Li S ` nr.. �-; f�` .
� � Y�ro .8 " ' qw � f1q � �. � � "' .
� °:� °^�• g?� /South San
F'- E � ^ �� ' ' "" Fraoeisco ..,,, '
� � � � °� � 3 `�o�" ,s�: ,., .A. �,�, , ,�, 4wo PROJECT
., � ��,��`. ..�. z.5 • ��, u. SITE
.. ,,. +b e +� � �
5 `" ..�: , z �,r, : .
_ N R >, — 1983 : " • v.; ; ' 4' � �"
w�... Paeifca' � t..4o.r ;r ,. � - �- V` �``
�.� ; .
� 'y�
...0 � : na �� ...�:. R i.a "�� � 1 4«:
i ,..�w
Cl OF BURLINGAME -�i � urt S 2 ••�„�,e:fea�4. a ` • . . e�� • ��.:�''� �
"--�,..r _..� _a-.`� ..� fis^ •vI'�.p p .a
• o s.l.... , .�+r�.. �' °s9 .7g .. .e Jan .. �.l � �irrenx ��
� e 1��• . n'w-""rt=....��..�
' i ..�+ gN�O unronr
� ^ ! � ... �.. ..,`` (b,..' i � �..c� ' .s :.�. ,��% .
� . . . . ' ' .��" ? � \}4 8 '.e°J';' i.e `� `"""`� i .�/ '
Wu�+rBua.Un vnimvr � en � ..
.? P4. �1 � 4' •n y�' %
e�..� ,,...,� � . ,. �tcPr ia
.:.,. . ;, �' '� � :a , '�, � Millbrae s •_ �.
,..,. � p , . � ,� " � � �> . , a �,. .� �•� "^�, :
yPeee+� �.y un ''d ab .`:�w��..'�°`.. L� .1.� �.4 .� �� i mrerr �.....ro..
� �m.mm�'
. � e ��'+- : �•� ` � 'y�ro� �SLe •f.. ,h,�''e .,.� ' ..'°'a:.��
'" �^� !�. � inLW� .v: yO � q •4 ' • y
/� Q� � Ont t 9;.c� '' oY� 1.] o� sli� 1.9 .' p:..� .o+��rs .
� J a .' Ba . .e non. i.a C � i s•�.
� , ; \\ d �. B rlingame ,�
',%'\�, ----1 \ :3'=v � w. .] fJ�' , . r L]
- � �S � S44f011 • d �+ '�—.
04� �.I µ `
CO+( YCn a.� . iwvw�\ fL. Mr J \ \��� � � •F 'v , �'� ti � ♦ jr �b .
��y 3TATE ��� IW �MO l t � bt � .:.
� ^ � �.� = � � ^ >> ." \� :'. ♦ f�'� ��. . • `� I S �a i
-e---"� �-'•��; 4y��lb O�LE 11EfU0f . ] 6 p' �.� •�\San
i \ 6Y� ♦ �.� .. s
. � v 1 �'+y .�,�� '� �'�. �r d� d �P�^� e°'.e �F,�Mateo b� 9
' ` • � �
1� 1""_"'_"'_' Pib.a�� \ t � .a : +4 \ ' � '. �5�
r<� � �� s i `�e� .e . �� �.�o.�
.b.....' Nanhr� �! / --- ; � ..� � i.e
. `q� � ,a J 4 t.a �' I:
� . ...c. .y` , i .:E � '�" - i.� � t Pc 1�p��
� . �'n� / /" �4 \^c r `'i 1'` . ��w � � IA +
• t % � _\ 1B fi" �
< % / _"__ _ _ ]\" ic5� bj .�..,`� "S . YA+`t.:r"
� W �,,� �^' . / �4 ' . ...... � .. �\ ... _•'�Zk... . `' �..... "ce o�w.
2220 Summit Drive
Attachment to Project Application � (
� y'S �;. / �% � �
MAR 2 - )988
6. Project Proposal cr;•o�
P'; �;:i�'�'��'r:.;rr,�
G DE�i '
Trip Ends to/from the Site
Based upon the current activity at our San Francisco
facility (30-50 people attending services at any one time)
there will be approximately 12 automobile and one (1) vanpool
trips to the site (double for trips to and from the site,
for a total of 26 trips).
This calculation is based upon 2.5 members per automobile,
with the remaining members arriving and leaving by vanpool.
The services are held from 10:00 a.m. to noon and`from 1:00
to 3:00 p.m. so there will not be any peak period trips.
In two (2) years, with an estimated increase to 40-55
people, there will be approximately 16 automobile and one (1)
vanpool trips to the site (doubled for a total of 34 trips).
In five (5) years, with an estimated increase to 50-75 people,
there will be approximately 26 automobile and one (1) vanpool
trips to the site (doubled for a total fo 54 trips).
Trucks/Services Vehicles
We do not anticipate having any regular deliveries to
the site. We generally pick up supplies and other materials
as needed by automobile.
u
,�+�5:.
,'a1.3 �'.r.
�:�(��
.`"�i�:.
SHINNYO-EN
2-13, 1-chome, Shibazaki-cho,
Tachikawa City, Tokyo, Japa�
March 1, 1988
HAND DELIVER
Ms. Margaret Warne Monroe
City Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
SHINNYO-EN CALIFORNIA
1400 Jefferson Street
San Francisco, CA
94123
(415) 346-0209
� � ^� �..3'� � M�
Prl���,'� '.l, � i:1Lii
r.;-:;, ..
� . �;>:-.`:':^�:.;_
Project Application and CEQA Assessment
Herbert Hoover School Site
Dear Ms. Monroe:
Enclosed for your review is a completed Project Application
form, with the required plans and a check in the amount of
$150.00 for the required filing fees ($100.00 for Special Permit,
$25.00 for Project Assessment and $25.00 for Negative Declaration)
This lebter is intended to supplement the Project Application and
provide more detailed information with respect to our proposed
use of the Herbert Hoover School site.
Shinnyo-En is a sect of Buddhism which was founded in the
late 1930's by Lord Shinjo Ito. Shinnyo-En received recognition
as an independent Buddhist sect in the early 1950's. As you are
probably aware, Buddhism is a religion which antedates Christianity
and is widely followed in India and Asia, and has substantial
followings in Europe and the United States. Moreover, Shinnyo-En
is unique in that its doors are opened to persons of all religious
faiths and is not limited only to those of Buddhist origin.
With respect to its plans for the Herbert Hoover School
site, Shinnyo-En intends to use the existing main school building
for educational and religious purposes. Our proposed use does
not involve any exterior alteration to the building, and we plan
only minor alterations to the interior of the building to update
structural, mechanical and electrical systems as needed to meet
our needs or as required by law. The exterior of the main
Ms. Margaret Warne Monroe
March 1, 1988
Page 2
,.�,�� ,
� ��i�l'�F�ii'
SHINNYO-EN
2-13, 1-chome, Shibazalci-cho,
Tachikawa City, Tokyo, Japan
u : �. .. . � i�.'. EJ
1'71; 1� r� �� 'S
re " ��%0�
L�.": �'::'lr.:.;),I� _
, �:�. ..,. .
building will be painted and a few additional trees will be
installed along the street frontage.
-= There is a separate ancillary building that we believe
- currently is being used by the on-site childcare center. This
building will-not be altered. We do not have any present plans
to remove' the childcare center. However, a final decision
reqarding this matter has not yet been made.
As we discussed at our meeting last week, Shinnyo-En's use
of the site will include the following activities:
1. Classroom services (flower arrangement and art classes;
_ choir practice): two (2) times per month;
2. Religious services: eight (8) times per month,
generally on the following days of each month: 4th, 6th, 8th,
15th, 18th, 20th, 24th, and 28th;
3. Anniversary Celebration of establishment of the
California Church held once a year (one day only), generally in
July or August, with approximately 420 members attending;
4. Reverend plus two employees will live at site;
5. Two (2) or three (3) rooms will be used as office
space; and
6. Occasional use of the ampitheater for choir or a
similar function.
Activities at the site will take place on weekdays between
10:00 a.m. and noon and on weekends between 1:00 p.m. and
3:00 p.m., with two of the eiqht religious services in the
evening from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Classroom activities occur
only on weekend days. Based upon attendance at our San Francisco
facility, we expect that between 30 to 50 people will attend
services at any one time, with an estimated increase to 40-55
people in two (2) years and 50-75 people in five (5) years.
Although we have 1500 to 2000 registered Church members in the
Bay Area, only 100-150 are active members. Active members are
those persons who attend at least 30� of the services held by the
Church. In addition, if only one person in a household becomes a
member of the Church the entire number of people in the household
are considered members.
�
Ms. Margaret Warne Monroe
March 1, 1988
Page 3
�"r ��`� .
�';��,; .
'�r,'�'i�:
�Y�F'k �
SHINNYO-EN
2-73, t-chome, Shibazaki-cho,
Tachikawa City, Tokyo, Japa�
_ '!.� _ _ . c ��
�''i'In� ,.�i ��l:l�,�
c: � . �.:r,_
We expect that members will either driye to the site or take
public transportation (i.e. Sam Trans). Shinnyo-En owns a van
and currently provides `a van pool system for members in San
Francisco. We intend- to use a van pool system in Burlingame. We
also intend to encourage car pooling.
I hope this letter
review our application.
mation is needed.
provides the necessary information to
Please let me know if additional infor-
Sincerely,
�G- /� �-2�O��L ���" `�--.
Makoto K�<bayaslvi, Secretary
Shinnyo-E�Ca'Tifornia
MK/dr
11:d08
��w oFFtcr-.s or- rnio riiv ��. 'rc�sr,�
:\ Prulos�ional C'urporaiiuu
I'um'tcenlh Floor
73� \IxrAet Strect
San franci>ru. c'nlilurnia `)JIIIS
�il?19i7-10;1
FAX I31?1ri32-1580
March 21, 1988
HAND DELIVER
Ms. Adriana Garefalos
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, 2nd Floor
Burlingame, California 94010
2220 Summit Drive
Aerbert Hoover School Site
Dear Ms. Garefalos:
RECEIVED
MAR 211988
CITY OF BURLINGAME
�.' e•.I1.fINf: pFPT.
Our File
SITYE-5
The purpose of this letter is to provide additional informa-
tion on the Annual Celebration that will be held by Shinnyo-En
at the school site if its use of the property is approved by
the City. In addition, this letter will provide requested
information regarding the membership of Shinnyo-En, California
by county.
As Mr. Kobayashi indicated in his March 1, 1988 letter
to Ms. Monroe, Shinnyo-En will hold a one day Annual Anniversary
Celebration at the site, generally in July or August. Approxi-
mately 420 members will be expected to attend this event. It
is anticipated that in attending this event in Burlingame,
members from out of town will arrange to congregate at one
hotel. The.peninsula area has many hotel facilities capable
of accomodating groups of that size.
The vanpool system used in San Francisco also would be
used in connection with services held in Burlingame, including
the anniversary cel.ebration. Because many people attending
the annual celebration will be coming from out of town and
will not have access to an automobile, Shinnyo-En intends
to provide vanpool service to transport people from the hotel
to the site. Thus, the annual celebration should not result
in any significant impact on the street system in the area
during this one day of the year.
The following list provides by Bay Area county the number
of active and nonactive members in California. This list was
Ms. Adriana Garefalos
March 21, 1988
Page two
compiled based on membership fees paid to March 1988.
County
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Alameda
Marin
Contra Costa
Totals
Active Members
53
5
9
9
2
5
cic7
Non Active
Members
97
24
35
22
7
13
193
As you see, there are only 14 active members in San Mateo
and Santa Clara counties. Many of the larger memberships are
in counties too far from Burlingame for those members to attend
services on a regular basis. Moreover, even those active members
who live in close proximity to Burlingame will not attend all
services bacause services are held on specified days of the
month, which may fall on weekdays when people are unable to attend
because of work.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or
if you need additional information.
S'ncerely,
( �'�' �
Lori Wider
LAW:db
r
i.r,�� uri;rr� � �i�
r,��n�in � �.,r>
,�:\���� :.-
�".. � ��,��
� -�� .. �.,
� .��
�urli��ar�� �cr�a�� �i��r���
2303 TRCL'SDALE DaIVE
BURLINGA6!E, CA 31J70
TELEPHONE �3:5) 692�5037
BOARD CPTAUSTEES
MF. JAA!ES CANNON
IdR. CLIFFGRD CR�AN
IdRS. �AARILYNN "MARTI" KNIGHT
MR. DAVID PLYER
MR. JOHN ROOT
february 29, 1988
DR. JAh1'cS 'c. 6U1CK
DISTflICT $U7=RINTENDENT
{���G�����
Ms. Margaret Monroe
City Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Meg,
MAR 2 -198�3
ci-v o: :,u; u� c.,r�.
�" � "r:in�C 7�.�r.
At a special Board Meeting held February 22, 1988, the Board of Trustees of the
Burlingame School District voted to assign the Hoover School Property from Chui
Partnership tc Shinnyo-En California.
Shinnyo-En will be submitting applications for permits in the near future. The
anticipated close of escrow is May 22, 1988 and is contingent upon Shinnyo-En
obtaining municipal approvals.
If you re4uire any information from us, please do not hesitate to contact my
office.
Thank you.
JEB:br
cc: Robert Dean-Turner
Sincerely,
J s.E. Black
�� erintendent
i/
a
GEOENGINEERING, ING.
—Soils and Foundation Consultants—
134 PAUL DRIVE, SUITE 102
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903
(415) 492-1747 Robert Settgast
March 18, 1988
Our Reference 8314-se
Shinnyo-�n California
1400 Jefferson St.
San Francisco, CA 94123
GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISANCE
HOOVER SCHOOL
HOOVER SCHOOL PROPERTY
SUMMIT DRIVE
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
��c�rv�p
�l�t� 3 U 1988
01;. DFBURLIi�GAWiG
��,:.r:�^!r.. nE.�,.
1. INTRODUCTION
Our firm has been retained by the project architect, Mr. Robert Tanaka, on
behalf of the addressee to perform the entitled services. The information
and recommendations contained herein are based on a review of a preliminary
geotechnical investigation for this property prepared by Baidwin-Wright,
Inc. of Pacifica, California (their reference 1138.01.00) and an on-site
evaluation with Mr. Tanaka, Mr. Ronald Castro of Newland Engineering of San
Rafael, California (who has been retained as the structural engineer), and
other involved parties.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 SETTING AND SURFICIAL FEATURES
This development is sited on a bench formed into a hillside that slopes east-
erly at about 25 degrees. The upper segment of this bench, on which the main
two story structure and westerly portion of the parking lot lie, appears
to have been formed by cutting into the hillside while its downslope portion
(which includes the playground and outer parking area) was formed by fill
placement. A single story annex building lies on the downslope below this
bench and is presently used as a day care center.
Page 2
Our Reference 8314-se
The hillside above this development is heavily vegetated with trees and thick
shubbery, and includes an amphitheater. A drainage swale follows the approxi-
mate southerly property line and discharges into a drop inlet about 50 feet
upslope (westerly from the parking area). Its natural flow pattern has been
altered by placing minor quantities of fill and it is presently blocked by
debris and fallen trees.
2.2 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
---.... _..- --- _ '
Our evaluation revealed a general geological pattern typical ito £his
area. This hillside is overlain by 2 to 5 feet of colluvium (slope depo-
sited soils typically formed from the parent bedock). Within the lower por-
tion of the property, which generally includes the building areas, the col-
luvium is underlain by the Merced formation, which can be described as a
weakly cemented sandstone. The remaining portion of the property is under-
lain by the Franciscan assemblage, which can be described as non-uniform
weathered and fractured siltstones and sandstones.
The cut slopes above the parking area have developed surficial sliding and
erosion due to oversteepening during excavation. These are most apparent
above the parking area to the south of the main building. Such features
are common in hillside cuts and we found no indication that this movement
extended below the soil mantle--this view was also expressed in the refer-
enced geotechnical report. Smaller scale surficial sliding is apparent
along the drainage swale to the south and to a lessor degree on the amphi-
theater slopes. Signs of minor soil creep also appear on the fill slopes
below the building pad (above Summit Drive)--such features are common on
many slopes this steep and we found no indication that this movement en-
croaches onto the existing structures.
3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The previously cited obstruction within the drainage swale should be cor-
rected before the following rainy season. The slide features (also dis-
cussed above) can be mitigated by surficial drainage improvements and re-
GEOENGINEERING, ING
Page 3
Our Reference 6314-se
vegetation this might involve concrete lined "V" ditches just upslope from
these cuts to intercept the surface water during periods of heavy rainfall.
Drainage from these ditches should be carried to a storm drain or paved
area already designed for drainage. Re-vegetation might include the appli-
cation of erosion resisting jute netting or comparable product--the plant-
ing scheme should be planned by a landscaper with local experience in slope
restoration. For conceptual cost estimating, we suggest a figure of $15,000 '
for the above recommended drainage and slope restoration improvements.
As for most steeper hillsides in this region, the requirement for periodic
slope maintenance can be expected. Debris and surficial soil slippage might
occur within the driveway area during heavy rain falls although we do not
expect this to.pose a major problem.
Indications are that the foundation systems for the existing buildings are
adequately designed and will perform satisfactorily. Our evaluations are
based only on our visual observations and an inspection of the subfloor area
within the main building. We did note, however, that the subfloor area with-
in the utility passage was wet from leaky water and/or drainage pipes.
The San Francisco Bay Area, which includes this property, lies in seismic
design Zone 4, which is the most severe designation in the Unified Building
Code. Although we Found no indication that this property is more suscep-
tible to earthquake action than other nearby sites, standards for earth
design have progressively become more stringent. Consequently, it may be
appropriate to upgrade these structures for closer compliance with current
earthquake requirements and, this determination should be made by a struc-
tural engineer.
GEOENGINEERING, ING.
a
Page 4
Our Reference 8314-se
We trust that this letter provides the information required at this time.
Feel free to contact the undersigned if any questions arise.
Respectfully submitted
RHS:ceb �
�
/���O�o ��S SETTC9s?.'�\
/ �
c� z
� No, GE0007G4
ExP• 6/30/89 ,�
� v
sr F�rECHN`° ����
qTE OF CA��F�
GEOENGINEERING, INC.
/��ei�( /
Robert H. Settgast
Professional Geotechnical Engineer
GEOENGINEERING, ING
i�
MEMO T0:
FROM:��'
SUBJECT:
CITY ENGINEER
GHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR Of PARKS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2Zz0 f .�,.n.,'f
��%.y
�v
C I�GrJ�
An.application has been received for the above project r"cr review by the
Planning Commission. The applicu�;on will be scheduled for S'fU�f
s11 �i 2� / ya�r� -�---
at their W meeting. We would appreciate having
'your comments by��� /98� �` ��
Thank you. �O•` �/d h n,•: j��-%�/ 3^
p /Q i ,
�/IOIn• ,Du�lo""ewf �i��S��N
/
� �
i /�
�D 1a�1/� �'� S' / � �
,f' ��.1 y. O �%� Q vr /i� /C�l H OT !�n i..CX �u � l�� `6 �lG'�l.w..t/
� /'k'OUr` f l ,� ��/ .
� /vio�cG �-'cua/`C GtJ'1' D� /�c' ff/'Tc� � �
� ,� � ,� ��� �,� �� � . � /,����o �
a ,�, s L'n� ,H u! �r Lr.SG' o /
�.e .c� �' /�E f � y C'o �c�e �u . ��w y c.� ".Ce �/.6 � /�Gd �`f � � y �
l� �C �� X � ����' �
.
�G� %Ww.ti�+w , . _ .
H /I �� G�a/'C ! / /1 � �cht.s l N h1d in /vu� /�ys y cf�Co•co�f' ��a•G
�� � ' nP�
� � ,�sy s�� ��� �o��E�� ,
.� s f.�� u.s F� �x,`,r �� j�,
� , �/G�H D� `iG I ��'O.�I�i �K obf'.i /(/n /iicfL'/
�'p: e.cd /'� �,� �� �i� «K
� �
`.. ` G'o ��:Y � . � .
�
e
�. �• --�- "
� MEMO T0: �
FROM :'T ,- .:. .
,
CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR�
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
PLANNIN6 DEPARTtdENT
SUBJECT: Z2ZO J U� n,,� j� — /�i!/i:t'p� �Ir'/�J
, X� c �r v7 /�-Qr' /��'� ,
v1 vo-�_ f o�-� � 9
-�ri<a h•o�� �� a-a�, .
An appl.ication has been received for the above project for review by the
i
� �Q��
_4�
' Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S%LG�f
at their_/`��p/1�[ // //��'rQ meeting. We would appreciate�
,-,;,;.;c':_,, .
your comments by Jt'%�.C� /9�g 5/_�� ��
� .
,n p�
TG i /" / n ., �... �
Thank you. /J � ,-
�� /J /!/! / .c 9 � I d � S �O .w
�?Om t u� /
,:;:<.' . �� . . .
� ( O'� M�.../ f.. ��i�ct/�OL �ns�/< �/ ` � /JLci (!/'/"��
�G d � /1 �d �✓1 /
. ../. �G2%"1dN C�•�-� � . / L�
/ r x/ '/ � " 7��i rS �i a ��fr
�"r� .. i� GhLN �'�i�f V/dl�G Wcl �+�idi�n �c�i(o7/�+-y /T/6R ,/
, - a- � � � o � �Q '
'. � � /D r C' o� /u ,-ee,��k/'s,
I. . ... . �` �G H I /I'1 / w /
/x�E� %��il G1��, � �z � J .[
: �1������
.., . �j, �j� '/ �/ � /� ` � w� l' .�. /�
'���� � � /'/ri..� n�`d /�/ � a7 /Td.td'i L'J�/� /����t,�C
3 s %�� o� �d , , / �C %
, �it. c� sz C � � �if d ✓ �id �/L/
S�a�� ��' %'� /�On /�2/ �+r..cy G`�n /
� �t" �� / � � � S /
c� n �
,..
�� ��j��
.d% "
r a�.�
0
March 21,, 1988
T0: Planning Department
FROM: Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: 2220 Summit Drive
After reviewing the plans submitted for educational and religious pur:=
poses, we have the following requirements:
1. Provide smoke detectors for the living area. Detectors to receive
their primary power from the building wiring.
2. Boiler room to be of one (1) hour construction. The apparent
asbestos insulation to be removed by an approved method..
3. Living area to be separated from the rest of the building by one (1)
hour construction.
Bill Reilly
BR:b
MEMO T0:` CITY ENGINEER
r <�CHIEF BUILDIN INSPECTOR
�FY FIRE MARSHAL
t .} �', „ :'. . , ; DIRECTOR OF .PARKS
�
, ,�
°'FROM:"" '.' PLANNING DEPARTMENT — '
"� , :• ` (� �o
�� SUBJECT: 22 ZO J v�'it n,,i7� — /Ct.!/il'e� ��G�J
. �.
� y� .
i ! �; . � /Y c �i v7 � /dwe�
, -�v�a fi'vrl� �� �� .
An appl.ication has been received ior the above project for review by the
� Planning'Commission. The application will be scheduled for .S}710��
at tlieir_jY%/4� // //r�� meeting. We would appreciate�
� ..your comments by X%�.C� /9��
T-
� Thank you.
'�-�f-g8
' � � �Cl-W N � N G
�-c?�, ;, �� (� l�'►aZsw�. � �
�. , � - _ � -
� �_ �-�.. . .
, ' �--. j� � � �-�a., ,� D
�� � •
i
� - , R, ��.��y To �r���,�aC� �n�*� yE s
�� A : F�r� �,�.►� � e,.�s � /'� P�,.�,.� 2� �,
: �l�P� �-� S � �.� s �,.� s,�r � �.
�("f-t� s � s r r.l /�,D �, � o-.� T-v
T v Tlf� Go J�}-� F-�TS
� ,�F� M�H 2� ����.
:.,,;::.,, , ,
� ,
. ��
,
. � ���
MEMO
TO: PLANNING
FROM: ENGINEERING
DATE: MARCH 10, 1988
RE: 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE - SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE OF EXISTING
SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES
1. Site parking plan does not have any dimensional control and
cannot be used.
2. Parking plan does not provide a turn around for those in the
circulation pattern to ever get back out o£ the driveway without
using a parking space or some other back up maneuver.
3. I assume that the 420-person annual celebration does not need to
provide parking. —
4. I believe the visitor parking off Canyon Road is in other
ownership.
5. I suggest that new curb, gutter, sidewalk and half street paving
improvements, including installation of street lighting, to the
City Engineer's approval be made as a condition on approval o£
this action. Detailed layout plans may require added roadway/
pedestrian easement dedication to provide a parking lane on
Summit Drive that could be used for the overflow parking. A
Civil Engineer needs to be employed to prepare the topography and
design of these improvements, including signing.
6. Wastewater discharge permit may be required because of the
commercial kitchen. A grease sump must be installed in any case.
7. Sewer lateral testing in accordance with Ordinance 1329 will be
required at time o£ sale and i£ kitchen operation or bathroom
changes are made.
I suggest that no action be taken until the in£ormation needed on
parking layout is provided.
Frank C. Erbacher
dj
h J
�
.,,..' F . . .
� DATE ` , �G9 /� Iqd��
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
" GHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM:"�'' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
' SUBJECT: ZZZO JU rhm.i�f ,
�� o�a-v�c, G
�
%7: /�/2s>rii�l
.
� �� ����
An application has been received for the above project ror review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled fior __���
at their /r[lr� 2� /yd'�_meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by�f�� /q8�
Thank you.
t�i�
;;�
r �i � ,, �, . , ,
i � ��/ .�� '
/' / �'
r � .�
i/ / � i � i
. ,
.
u���� �
� ����� ���
-�
�� ���
i
i / ��
�,.�- „ _ -, �
��� -i
/ �
,. . ,.
,,
���
/� � /
. �
�
u.�t� Lit�r af ��.xrli�tz�nme
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HAIL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA94010 ' TEU(<1513a2-B931
Sen Wong, Director and Pastor
- C�imese�*BMbel�e-*Evan�ge�7�,,,:.Fnc;^
2220 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA. 94010 .
Dear Pastor Wong:
September 22, 1981
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise
the 3eptember 14, 1981 Planning Corrunission approval of an..amendment•to-your
spee�i�a��per-mit granted November 8, 1980 became effective September 22, 1981.
This amendment was to allow Chinese Bible Evan9el, Inc. to have five (5) on-site
resident students rather than the three previously requested and approved at
Hoover School, 2220 Summit Drive. The September 14, 1981 minutes of the Planning
Commission state this amendment was approved with the following conditions:
(1) that all code requirements of the Building and Fire Departments be
met to the respective department's satisfaction.on the site prior
to occupancy by the two additional students; and �
MM/s
cc: Chief Building Inspector
(2) that the residency increase be reviewed with the next six month revisw
(November, 1981) to ensure a continuation of compliance with codes,
particularly as they affect the safety and welfare of the resident
students and other tenants.
Burlingame School District
2303 Trousdale Drive
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Sincerely,
�Gr���Q
Margaret Monroe
Acting City Planner
C�h.1�� C�z��r v.� �ax�.1�t��rr�re
SAN MATEO GOUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010
November 4, 1980
Sen Wong, Director and Pastor
Chinese Bible Evangel, Inc.
Po-st Office Box 22038
San Francisco, CA. 94122
Dear Pastor Wong:
U�-G��I
TEL:(<IS) 342-B93i
We wish to advise that at their November 3, 1980 meeting the City Council sustained
the Planning Co�nission's approval of a special permit to allow the Chinese Bible
Evangel, Inc. to operate a church and bible college at Hcover School, 2220 Summit Drive.
City Council approved your application with the following conditions:
1
2
3.
L!
that the permit be approved to the Chinese Bible Evangel, Inc. and be
nontransferable;
that the operation of the church and bible college be consistent with
the July 28, 1980 letter from Sen Wong, Direcior and Pastor;
that the number of students who will live on the premises be limited
to a maximum of three;
that no parking be allowed on the Hutnick easement on the north side;
5. that all staff and student parking be on-site in parking spaces 1-8/42-64,
such spaces to be marked by either pavement striping or signs, the plans for
which shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works;
6. that the center of the playground be kept free of vehicles (except for
evening parking, Sunday church services or special events);
7. that a system of markers or paving
parking, the plans for which shall
Department of Public Works;
striping be prepared for peak event
be subject to the approval of the
8. that a 20' fire lane across the playground be kept clear at all times, such
fire lane to be identified on-site to the satisfaction of the Fire Department;
9, that Sumnit Drive and the approach road from Summit Drive to the playground
be posted with "no parking" and "no stopping at any time" signs, and that a
sign be posted on the schoolyard gate: "Fire Lane - no parking at any time"
and "no stopping at any time";
� . �• r
Sen Wohg, Director and Pastor
Ch,inese Bible EvangeT, Inc.
-2-
November 4, 19II0
10. that the conditions of the September 26, 1980 letter from the Chief
Fire Inspector and October 6, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector
be met satisfactorily; and
�11. that this permit be reviewed in six months, and be subject to amendment at
that time if problems have been observed.
Any site improvements or construction work will require separate application to the
Building Department.
JRY/s
cc: tLC-f y Clerk
Chief Building Inspector
Department of Public Works
Fire Department
Licensina Department
Dr. James E. Black
Burlingame School District
2303 Trousdale Drive
$urlingame, CA. 94010
Sincerely,
��. R. fi
John R. Yo,�
City Planner
Assessor's Office, Redwood City
(Acreage, City of Burlingame; APN 027-271-090)
a
..:
5� ��t ���� �i�,tir65G
I�i��r L'VAn1GEl t'02 Fw2TNtl'�
Iti�o -- kPPucn--noNs �c��
CGAIGU /Zr2EI� 1 Ly .
L1j e J� z�� �F �a.czl�z��cmc
SAN MATEO COUNTY �
� CITr HALI-501 PRIMROSE RO/D
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 - TEL:(<IS) 342-8931
November 4, 1980
Mrs. Marjorie A. McCarthy
3111 Rivera Drive
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Dear Mrs. McCarthy:
We wish to advise that at their November 3, 1980 meeting the City Council sustained
the Planning Commission's aoproval of a special permit to allow the Hoover Children's
Center to operate a preschool program at Hoover School, 2220 Summit Drive.
City Council approved your application with the following conditions:
1. that the permit be approved to Marjorie A. McCarthy dba Hoover Children's
Center, and be nontransfierable;
2. that the operation of the preschool program be consistent with the
September 15, 1980 letter from Mrs. McCarthy filed with this application;
3. that no parking be allowed on the Hutnick easement on the north side;
4�. that the Project Application be amended to exclude drop-off/pick-up of
students on Summit Drive;
5. that all staff parking be on-site in parking spaces 1-8/42-64, such spaces
to be marked by either pavement striping or signs, the.plans for which shall
be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works;
6. that the center of the playground be kept free of vehicles;
7. that a 20' fire lane across the playground be kept clear at all times,
such fire lane to be identified on-site to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department;
8. that Summit Drive and the approach road from Summit Drive to the playground
be posted with "no parking" and "no stopping at any time" signs, and that
a sign be posted on the schoolyard gate: "Fire Lane - no parking at any
time" and "no stopping at any time";
9. that the conditions of the September 26, 1980 letter from the Chief Fire
Inspectpr and October 6, 1980 memo from the Chief Building.Inspector be
met satisfactorily; and
Mrs. Ma�rjorie A. McCarthy -2- November 4, 1980
10. that this permit be reviewed in six months, and be subject to amendment
' at that time if problems have been observed.
Any site improvements or construction work will require separate application to
the Building Department.
JRY/s
cc: City Clerk
Chief Building Inspector
Department of Public Works
Fire Department
Licensing Department
Dr. James E. Black
Burlingame School District
2303 Trousdale Drive
Burlingame
Sincerely,
�� P`. �fi
John R. Yos,t J
City Planne?�
Assessor's Office, Redwood City
(Acreage, City of Burlingame; APN 027-271-090)
."I. i
� PROJEC7 APPLICATION ,�=�"" �. 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE
� euxii�;7:�,,.,,�e.� yn.re�.
. tf I,CUH HJJCJJIVICIU I' .:, �
, . p_:, r -;HOOVER CHILDREN'S CENTER
� °'� �` pra,7ect name - t any
Fpplicaf5on receiv=d ( 9/15/80 )
Stnff revier/acceptance ( 9/16/80 � ) � �Y�. ��µ�1
� 1. nerucfwr Marjorie�A. McCarthy • 697-1083
- ^a^= telephone no.
' 3111 Rivere Drive. Burlinname CA. 99030
' appT c� s a res�f'id 5. sireet, city, iip code
Same '_"
contact persm, lf G fferent telephone no.
j 2. TYGE OF pPP�I[ATiON
. '� ipecial Pemit ( X) Variance" O Londoni�iwn Pemit O O:her
Attach letter xhich addresses each of the 4 findings requireE bY COCe [ apter 5.54.
. SPECiAI PFRMIT to ooerate a preschool program for up
, 3. PRWECT OESCRIPTION to 60 Ch{7dFE11 (fPom 2� t0 6 yEdYS Of'aoe) dt HooVEY
School_. .Program activities will be lotated in the 2,872 SF "media tenter", whi�ch is somewhat
seoarate froin the riro story r.iain buildinq. The media center has 2 rooms fornerlv used bv
kindergartenl�dass
small office�. 5�
Hrst children at
by their par�nts b
poolin9 by ptrents
I
a.
5.
�
i.
6e
althouah car
(attach letter of explanatian if additional space is needed) irom L�E pdVEa pldy-
ground adjacent to the
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.28.030 )( 25.56.030 ) media center or frrom �
Sumnit Drive.
PROPERTY IOENTIiIU1TI011
( 027-271-090 ) ( - -.) ( - � ( Acrea9e, City of Burlingame �
APN . lot.no. block no. subdivision name �
(�� R-1 . ) ( 272,860 SF ) ' ,
zaning Eistrict � land area, square feet .
Burlinoame E7e�ntarY School �istFict 2303 Trousdale �rive
an�E mvner's name . . address �
� � Burlinqame, CA. 94010
Requtred Date received c ty � ��x1p cOEe
dyesk �no) ( - ) Proof of ownershSp . '
(yes) xo� ( 9/12/80 ) Umer's consent m apvlfcation
E%ISTING SITE LONDITIONS '
�Vacant school buildinq and�playing�fieids on�approximately 6.3 acres
Required . Date receive0
(yes). (�¢j ( 9/12/80 ) Site plan shoe�ing: properiy lines; public sidevalts and
turbs; a11 stru<tures and Smpravements;
� paved on-site parking; landscaDing.
�(yes) (�{ ( 9/12/80 ) Ftoor plans of all bullEings showin9: gross floor area
.�) ��o� by type of usd'on each f7aor plan.
� ( j Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
�yes no ( - ) SSte crois sectton(z) (if relevant).
(other) ( 9/15/80 ) Letter of explanation and School District's
"Guidelines for Leasing Hoover c oo '"
'Land use classifications are: residential (show 8 Awe111ng units); o£fice uze; reta51
sales; restaurant/cafe: manufacturing/re0air 5hop: uarehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJiCT PROPoSAL NO nEW COnStYu[tion�.i5 pY0poS2d.
� Proposed construc[ien, Below grade ( SF) Second floar ( SF)
gross floor area %rst floor ( Sf) Third flaor (� � SF)
- Proj?ct Code Proje<t Code
Proposal Requircment . Propasa�
Front setback Proposed re5ch Lot coveraye
��°�' �_•°° ^ ciasses be ������..= ;-�y: �
Side yard ` held ' e istina Landscaped area
Rear yard Uo-site pk9.spaces 70-05 �
6�. PROJECT PftOPOSOI (<ontinueC)
EXiSTING I11 7. YEnRS 1N 5 YEARS
af[er .afte� after
� 7-6.� 6 rM 7-6 6 pn 7-6 6 rn
Fu71 Nr.m emoloyees on site ' S p
Part ttue employees nn site 4 0
Yisitors/customers (�ueekday) Vdedn a 60 0 00 Ch n
Visitors/custoners (Sat.Sw.) pPE t 0 0 l5 pl n2d
Residents on property ' 0 0
Trip enes to/fran site` 100-12 0
Peak hour trip ends` 30-40 0
Trucks/service vehiNes 1 0 '
'Shaw calculattans on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. RQIACENT BIl57NE55E5/LANO USES
Single family homes are adjacent to the school site.
M air photo
will be provided
for the public
hearing.
� 8,
I _
Reqvired . �ate received �
(yes) (� ( 9/15/60 I Locattan O�an af adjacent properties.
(yes) (xwj ( 9/12/80 ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( 1) no. empioyees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
. no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. campany vehicles at this locxtion ( )
FEES Spectal PermiQ all districtt E100 ( X) Other apP>i�ation type, fee S -( )
Vartance/R-1,R-2 d55trfctr S 40 () Project RSsessment 5'�( X)
VarSance/other districts S)5 () Negative Oeciaration 5 25 (%)
Condominivm Peimit . E 50 O EIR/City 8 cansultant fees E_( j
TOTqL FEES 5 150. REGEIPT N0. 1546 ReceiveA by H. TOwber
__' ._ _—_.__—__ . _ . .. —___._._._. _
I hereby certify unEe� penalty af perjury that the information qiven herein is
true and carrect to the best of � knowletlge anE belief. , ,
' ST11FP USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ",e "°. "0-258'
The ttty af Burlingame by �ohn R. Yost o� September 16 , 3g 80,
campleted a review of the proposed Project and tletennined that:
(% ) tt M11 not have a signSficant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environrcntal Impact Report is required.
2easons for a Conclusion: The Hoover Children's Center pr000sed preschool program
fic will occur through the adjacent neigh
will be generally spread over a 90 minute
ng will occur; staff parkinq (with a max.
� �+ �• � LITY PLANNER 9/16/BO
Signature o Pro essing u�a T t— 1� p3�a
� Unless appealed Hithin 10 days hereof the date poste th.e�-dete/mination shall he final.
. OELIARATION OF PoSTING � Oate Posted:�/�,�.!/J,R �/�H�Q
�' I declare under Denalty of perjury that I an Lity Cle�k of the Lity of B�ingame and that
�.� . I posied a true copy of the ahove Negative Oeclaration at the City Ha11 of said City near
the dour5 to the Coincil Chambers. �/ /
' Execute0 at Burlin9aim, CaHfo ta an ��iL.�,-.✓�GiJ .2 % , 19�0 ,
llppealed:. ( )Yes ( � �
.. . . ��/✓. �J�i�/
� EV L X H. NJ l, CITY CLERK, CITT OF BU0.1.[NWME
�
{
- � .
0
mer,o attached
�;esp (na)
(ycs) {ms)
(ves) �)
fYes) (no)
#yes) (no)
3. CEdp REWIREMEtf�S ' �
If a Negative Declaratim has not been posted for this project:
Is the vroject su6Sect to cEQR review7 See Neaative Declaration ND-258P
i
I
1
" I
'
STAFF REVIEW
]. Crpfln aTifw nc qpp� v.pitnN �
� Project propasal/planz have been circulated for review by:
date circulated reply received
LitY En9i�er ( 9/17/80 ) �9esp (no)
Building Inspectar ( 9/17/80 ) (yes) (md
; ' Fire insce�tor ( 9/17)80 J �(yes) f�')
� vark oepartment ( __ ) - (yes) (no)
� City Attomey � ( g/ll/80 > (yes)�� (��)
2. SUPW�ARY OF ST0.FF CONCEFNS/POS4BLE HITIWTIC�; MEASORES
i
IF AN EIR [S REQUIREO: �
Initial Study completed (- ) Study by,P.[. � ( )
Oecisian to prepare EIR ( ) Review period ends ( )
Notices of preparation mailed (� ) Public hearing by P.C. ( )
RFP to consultantr ( ') �Final EIR received by P.[. ( )
Contract auarded . ( ) Certificatian Ey Council ( )
Ndmin.��draft EIR received ( ) Decision on project ( )
Draft EIR a<cepted by staff ( - ) Notice of Det¢rmination ( )
p rculation ta.other agencies ( )
4. APPLICFTION STATIIi pat¢ first receiveA ( 9/15/80 )
Accepted as canplete: no tetter ta applicant advising info. required ( )
Yes ,X eate 9/16/80 v.C. study ( 9/22/80 )
Is app75cation ready for a public hearing7 (yes) _(� Recammended date ( 10/15/80 )
Oate staff report maited to applicant QO/10/80 )�te tommission hearing ( 10/15/80 )
ApD�i<atim approved (X ) Oe�1ed ( ) Appeal to Cancil yes -{ne�
Oate Co�mcil hearin9 ( ��•3•8� J RpplScatian approved ( Oenfed ( )
� R.l�s�� ioi9�so .
r ne daie
�!
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 28, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, March 28, 1988
at 7:31 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
Commissioner Ellis
Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer;
Bill Reilly, Eire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 14, 1988 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Item #10 withdrawn. Study items were taken first.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A 6 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT - 113 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3
Requests: clarify the statement in applicant�s February 17, 1988
letter, ". .. if Mr. Larry Nelson would not shut it down ...";
will there be a security gate; height of fence on the wall,
maximum height allowed. Item set for public hearing April 11,
1988.
10. PARKING VARIANCE - 20/20 RECYCLE CENTERS - 1825 EL CAMINO
Item withdrawn.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 224 PRIMROSE ROAD
Requests: how will the deli be advertised; reevaluate number of
customers weekdays and Sundays. Item set for public hearing
April 11, 1988.
x12. NEGATIVE DECLARATION/SPECIAL PERMIT - USE OF EXISTING
SCHOOL FACILITIES - 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE
Requests: status of sale of the site; information on parking
layout; ownership of visitor parking area, will there be an
arrangement with this owner; how often will the amphitheater be
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
March 28, 1988
used, by how many people; where will participants park, will
there be an overlap with use by the on-site nursery school; will
sight lines be O.K. with widening of the driveway; can anything
be done about cleaning up the amphitheater. Item set for public
hearing April 11, 1988.
1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON CITY PLANNER'S INTERPRETATION
OF CODE SEC. 25.42.030-h REGARDING RESTAURANTS IN THE M-1
ZONING DISTRICT
Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
discussed the request of Robert M. Blunk, architect that
Commission review the intent of the conditional uses requiring
special permits in the M-1 zone as they relate to large,
freestanding restaurants. She noted his position is that CS
25.42.030-h addresses specific criteria for small pedestrian
oriented eating establishments, he felt larger freestanding
restaurants would be addressed under CS 25.42.030-g
establishments for goods and services at retail and perhaps CS
25.42.030-i retail sales of alcoholic beverages. It was the City
Planner�s position that the code is unclear and CS 25.42.030-h
could be interpreted that large freestanding restaurants are
prohibited.
Commission comment: Gulliver�s restaurant, also in M-1, was
constructed prior to the code section 25.42.030-h establishing
limitations on retail food establishments in M-1; Commission has
always been concerned about protecting the M-1 zone and retaining
wholesale in this district; delis were approved by special permit
for the use of people working in the area; if it is determined
that any type of restaurant in M-1 is a conditional use, think
the code should be studied and revised for clarity; have
understood that small coffee shops were allowed in M-1 to cut
down on traffic in the area, with no advertising, discreetly
available to employees in the area, and should be separated by a
certain number of feet.
CA stated Commission is being asked to determine if CS 25.42.030-
g or -i allows large, freestanding restaurants in the M-1 zone;
the restrictions in CS 25.42.030-h were adopted to limit
restaurants in this zone. Further Commission comment: have
understood it was never intended to allow a large full scale
restaurant in this district; concur with this statement, the
limitations on restaurants were intended to regulate small
restaurants, preserving the M-1 area; we have been protective of
M-1, perhaps there could be an overlay zone. CA commented the
issue this evening is what is the meaning of the language in the
code.
LAW' OFFICES OF TINIOTHY A. 'i OSTA
e-• � a 7^ A Prolessinnal Curpor:won
6� ��,u i� '� l� L� Founttnth Rnur
������ '� Q 1�Q 785 Marke� Svcct
J �" I"�" SanFrancisco.Calilomia91111i
rrc� au�:�:,c-;'-
. � r. c•r J•_o-�.
� (JIS) yi7-1031
FA;C 14151 NN2_15fi0
March 31, 1988
HAND DELIVER
Ms. Adriana Gare£alos
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Second Floor
Burlingame, California 94010
9
fl���� -;�i�;f�''��
, ��.� ��
iG�:.:r�r; : ��;� 1,+.�:r,�
:a' i: ; � �?, , Di'wiY;'�
t. h,' l� ur.
Our File
SITYE-5
2220 Summit Drive - Herbert Hoover School Site
Dear Ms. Garefalos:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the additional
information that you have requested to respond to comments and
questions of the Planning Commissioners at their March 28 meet-
ing. In addition, enclosed with this letter is a memorandum from
Jon Twichell/Associates, a transportation planning firm, outlin-
ing the results of a transportation survey conducted by his firm
of the modes of transportation used by members attending a recent
service at the San Francisco facility.
1. Use of Amphitheater and Choir Activity. Shinnyo-En
intends to use the amphitheater on a limited basis. On occasion,
perhaps two times a year, choir practice may be held in the
amphitheater. The choir practice normally would be held on
weekends, generally £or one-half hour a£ter a service. The
amphitheater may be used on a limited basis for contemplation or
sketchinq and, on rare occasions, Shinnyo-En may hold a class in
this area.
The choir, which is comprised of approximately ten (10)
members, would sing during services on only three (3) occasions
per year: (1) March 28, the birthday of the founder of
Shinnyo-En, (2) one day in May, which is celebrated as a day of
appreciation, and (3) the annual Anniversary Celebration. The
services held on these days are considered special services, and
the choir may sing one or two songs, lasting only a few minutes.
As you can see, any singing at the site would be nominal.
It is not a part of every service, only three special services,
and the choir does not practice on a regular basis.
0
Ms. Adriana Garefolas
'March 31, 1988
Page 2
2. Overlap of Shinnyo-En Related Traffic and Child Care
Center Traffic. Shinnyo-En's use of the site wi11 involve
activities takinq place on weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and noon
and on weekends between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., with two of the
eight religious services held in the evening from 7:00 p.m, to
9:00 p.m. Religious services wi11 be held eight times per month,
with classroom services held (only on weekend days) two times per
month.
In speaking with Ms. Hutchins, the Director of the Hoover
Children's Center, she informed me that the Center is open from
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. She indicated
that the majority of.children are dropped off between 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 A.M. and picked up between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. Parents
park in the parking lot above the Center and walk the children to
the Center.
It appears that any overlap between Shinnyo-En tra£fic or
parking demand and that of the Chi1d Care Center would be minimal,
as members attending morning services during the week would
arrive after the majority of children have been dropped off and
would leave the site by noon. The only afternoon services held
by Shinnyo-En would be during the weekends when the Center is
closed.
In response to your question regarding the Center's use of
the parking area, Ms. Hutchins informed me that, although children
may occasionally go through the lot if they are taken for a wa1k,
they do not use that area as a playground.
Finally, Ms. Hutchins stated that the Center has made
arrangements to move from the site in response to a notice from
the School District advising them that they must vacate in late
May. Shinnyo-En does not have any present plans to lease that
space to another entity.
_ 3. The Vanpool System. As we previously have indicated,
Shinnyo-En intends to use the vanpool system for the once a year
Anniversary Celebration that wi11 be heLd at the site. Shinnyo-En
is willing to coordinate reservations at a centralized hotel
where the members can be picked up and dropped off. Therefore,
this one-day, once-a-year event should not create any significant
impact on parkinq or traffic in the area.
In his report, Mr. Twichell discusses the results of a
survey taken at a recent, very special service (50th Anniversary)
held by Shinnyo-En. The survey reveals that only 36� of those
members responding to the survey (73 members) drove to the
site, while the others qenerally were either auto passengers or
i.:oc orrici�s �n�
� uwnry e. rusr.>
� � ,,..,�,.�.� ..,r,,.,�
.. i �,.,, ��ni�i.,.�.
Ms. Adriana Garefolas
° �March 31, 1988
• Page 3
carpoolers, or were dropped off.
car was 2.5, which is consistent
provided to the City.
The total passengers per parked
with the information previously
This special event reflects a worst-case scenario. Thus, as
Mr. Twichell concludes, the proposed number of parkinq spaces
generally will meet the demands generated by the use. With
provision of a vanpool system for the Anniversary Celebration,
there should be minimal parking and traffic impacts.
The current vanpool system in San Francisco is used qenerally
on a request basis, except for the Annual Celebration where it is
heavily utilized. Shinnyo-En will agree to use the vanpool
system for the Annual Celebration in Burlingame, as suggested by
Mr. Twichell.
Please let me know if you have any comments and/or questions
or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
��,,���`-'� -�
Lori Wider
LW/nd
11:n23
��.��� urru'r.sur
,��i„inrn in�rn
, • • i�'ECr9;?�:::,�
� Pi14r� 31 198II
� ��n Twic���� �,�:��.,,��:,:�;r,�:�
ASSOCIATES P.O.Box2115 SanFrandsco,Califomia94128 (115)5224378
Project Approvals • Transportalion Planning & Problem Solviny
March 29, 1988
TO: Ms. Lori Wider, atty.
FROM: Jon Twichell
RE: Transportation Impacts, Proposed Shinnyo-En Facility in
Burlingame
In order to test the Shinnyo-En estimates of the number of
members apt to drive to services, versus those apt to utilize
carpooling and vanpooling, a survey of inembers attendinq services
in San Francisco was undertaken on Sunday, March 27th. This
was a special, 50th anniversary service, with a maximum number
of inembers attending.
Of the 86 who attended, 73 answered the survey. Of these,
36 percent drove to the service. Another 40 percent were either
auto passengers or carpoolers, while 14 percent were dropped
off. Transit use was five percent, as was other (walking and
taxi). of particular interest was the fact that 26 drove, while
39 were either passengers or drop-offs; this works out to 2.5
passenge;g.per parked car.
Applyinq the drive percentage yields a parking demand of
20 spaces, which is a small portion of the proposed 67 spaces
within the present parkinq plan.
Therefore, it is_my conclusion that Shinnyo-En is proposinq
sufficient parking for all occasions on-site, with the exception
of the annual meeting.
. paqe 2, Shinnyo-En
�
Suggested Transportation Program
There are a number of transportation approach�-s that Shinnyo-En
could utilize to further lessen its impact on its residential
neighbors, in aadition to providing off-street parking:
'l. Continue the pooling program now in effect at the
San Francisco facility. This program is extrememly
effective, by transportation standards, and should
be transferred to the Burlingame facility. This
should be relatively easy, since the great majority
of those surveyed on March 27 indicated that they
would utilize the same method of transportation to
Burlingame that they presently use to San Francisco
(80 percent).
2. Encourage their membership to utilize Hillside Drive,
rather than Easton Drive, to access the site. Hillside
is a major thoroughfare with a wide street width,
traffic signals, bus service, and a higher level of
traffic use. Using this street would lessen traffic
throuqh residential areas.
3. Coordinate services with CalTrain service to Burlingame.
For instance, Sunday CalTrain service from San Franciseo
arrives at the Broadway station at 12:26 p.m., in plenty
of time for a vanpool connection to the site.
4. Provide a centralized hotel location and direct vanpool
and mini-bus service for the annual meeting. This
way, the impacts of this annual meeting of about 400
members would be minimized in terms of traffic and
parking.
It is my observation that Shinnyo-En is very responsible
about their traffic and parking impacts; the program as prcposed
above should serve to further reduce any negative transportation
impacts they might have on their residential neiqhbors.
� � . ..�. _.?�'.,.
�f ' ���:
% JJ�y` $� }`
� iJ;���'�R..'R-
y M� �
i:�at�^Sa` .. -.
J
�SC�� .
h ' � �
. � � - � � � .
l�''1 yi
._
�.
�1�f
1i
F �
. �/1' ..._. x.`�.. .
f ^ ' � '
f�. �r
„� Ad �-,@�
��� _
M1 Z
/ �� L�
..,' - 4 [�',P
� ��,�,� <' o
� ,.�,'��. <�
3
3
--� . •L 2�
�
b
��L
�_ �
�RSTi°M DR�vE.
F?
�,
r,.
-,�..
J'
J; �
� .�
;�
�. � 9�
,�
� �. r,
1 '
��, , ..
�� ,y;
< � �/ :
Iy �y� ,� �
ry �� '
:q ,'•�?,
��� ' •
� YI '���
� � /
ie
. y.r. \�� �i�
r� �
- /
� `, �
� � �`
�t.
i ] r. �j
A � ...
�
,
M1'
W;
C V�-'
� , /
i�� ��
'_F•�
;_� ,.;.
, � �; ���� ,
1 . ' . �
;'
��
�f:-
1'���`•� �`��` .�',
,. �
� C� � � ,�Y• ..�
i �
�
�o�
�: �i
�hr C�itu uf �urlin�ttmP
�
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HAIL- 501 PRIMROSE ROA� T[L:f41'.0 942-693�
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF HEARING
SPECIAL PERMIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the llth day of April, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Comnission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application for the use of existing school facilities for
reliqious and educational purposes (church services 8 times a month classes twice a
month and an annual anniversarvi celebration) at 2220 Summit Drive Zoned R-1
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Pianning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
April 1 1988
RESOLUTION N0. ��
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMITS
that:
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame
WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit for
a reliqious institution with classes
ac 2220 Summit Drive (APN 027-271-090 �,
and
WHEREAS, this Comnission held a public hearing on said �
application on April 11 , i9a 8
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this
Planning Comnission that said special permit is approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution I
be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo.
I
i ,
%
�^I
NANNETTE M. GIOMI I
CHAIRMNN i,
� �
i
I� I, HARRY S. GRAHAM, Secretary of the Planning Comnission
� of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution I
'� was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Co�nission �
neia o� tne llth day of April , ly$ 8 , by �I
the following vote: I�
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS� ELLIS,GARCIA,S.GRAHAM,GIOMI,HARRISON,
.IAC(1RS
coMMisstoneRs: H.GRAHAM
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
L. WHAT IS TNE BEST OSE FOR SIIBJECT PROPERTY ?:
Although subject property was used as a public school before and is cucrently occupied
by a Children's Center and the Chinese Bible School, i[ does not necessarily
mean subject property is suitable for religious and educational use in the futuce.
-� Because time changes, people's idea changes, the surrounding enviroment changes,
it is a good idea to have a public hearing to listen to people's opinion or hire
a professional eo conduct EIR to see [here ia any negative effect.
The issue I would like to emphasize is " What is [he best use for aubjec[ property ?"
If the answer is residential development as the property is zoned for, then,
[he Council should reject or reconaidex this applicat3on.
F3 � C� � 0 �d' �: I�
MAY 2 -19�38
CI i Y OF iIURLIi �G�M=
�,'.'kl��r n"`T.
U
� e c, e�, e�-, e.f
Burlingame City Council Apr:l 26, 1988 D PLl%
501 Primrose Road � � �
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
^_" �..,.:.
�� `i. �.. c. n... . 1 I:.. J
Re.: Special use premit for Hoover School Property.
MAY 2 1988
Honorable Mayor Pagliaro and Council Mambers: C�iy �GFnK
�[ry a� r:: r; :;...: -.�
The Followings are my concerns about Planning Co�ission's granting special use permit
[o a par[y who is going to use this property for religious and educational purposea:
Several yeais ago, the property owner - Butlingame School Distiic[ closed down
� � Hoover School. Property was vacant then, it created a scene of vandalism, so the
-"- ��' -�"�' "' �-- �- '- Dis[rict decided to lease subject property [o current tenants for "temporary use"
. , . - this declsion is not only stopping the property to stay vacant but also generates �
-� . ....� some revenue for the School District. This information and history showe
�-`� ���" '�'-�� "� -�- --� in the School District Minutes. This fact shows that the current use of
��� �� � School and Church is not because the Mstrict or City liked it, it'a because �
� . they did not have any other bet[er choice at that time. Now you have a choice,
' because school district is selling subject property. The Dis[rict does not care if
� it is for residen[ial use or educational use so long as they can sell [he property.
This is the right time for the City to express your preference.
�
2. ACCE55: There is only one accese to subject property. It is very difficul[ to
dcive into subjeet propezty from the lowex pact of Summit Drive, the curve is too
sharp and narrow. It is a highly po[ential car accident area. I suggest mitigation
measures shall be required.
3. EROSION: Subject property has errosion problems, I suggest [he City request applicane
to furnish a soil report and provide a correction plan.
4. ASBESTOS MATERIAL: There is asbestos material in the main building. As it's dangerous
to people's heal[h, this material should be properly removed. I understand there is
_ a big heating boiler in the main building. This boiler has been explored la[ely and
asbestoa material is all over [he boiler room. I suggest the City to have either
the District or purchaser to take care of this problem i�ediately and cautiously.
5. PLAYGROUND FACILITY: Condition (d) as contained in the resolutioa No.30-85 approving
special permits For an a£terschool Childcare Program by Peninsula Family YMCA indicatea
"........... the playground facilities will continue to be available to the
residents of the adjacen[ area.". I wonder if Chis conditiort will remain. ,
6. TRAFPIC PROHLEM: I understand the applicant has 750+ members in this area. Will
[his cause traffic and [ranspotation problems ? Condicion (c) of the abwe mentioned
resolution clearly indica[ed its concern: "[hat the majority of the childzen
shall arrive at site by bus, and carpooling shall be actively encouraged by
YMCA for homebound [rips.". I suggest [hat a Traffic Study should be ordered in
order to evaluate the poteneial [raffic problems.
7.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: Condieion (a) of the above mentioned resolution indicated: "[hat
[he condi[ions of [he Fire Marshal's July 19, 1985 memo and [he City Engineer's
AugusC 8, 1985 memo shall be me[". I wonder if chat includes a fire sprinkler
syseem for che main building, because che main building is over 15,000 sq. ft.
I underscand cha[ the Burlingame Fire Code requires any building [hae is over
7,500 sq. f[. to have fire spcinkler system insealled.
CONCLl7SION AND SUCGESTION: RE.IECT THIS APPLICATION OR RETURN THIS APPLICATION
� BACK TO PLANNINC COIMIISSION FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Thank you foi your consideracon. ..�
��/p�"—
Dennis Chuang of an Pacific
_ Real[y,Inc., a Burlinqame Corp.
, P.S. This is a part of Preliminary Title Report issued by First American Title
. Insurance Company dated Feb. 26, 1987
� Order xo. 328118
5. CONllITIONS AS CANTAINED IN Tii� RESOLOTZON N0..30-85 APPROVING
�SPECIIIL PERMITS FOR AN 11FTERSCHOOL CHILDCARE PROGRAH BY PENINSULA
F7�MILY YMC7�
Uated: August 26, 1985
RecorQe3: $epter�ber 12, 1985
Document No.: 35093487 oE Ofiicial Records of 3an Mateo County,
Californi�.
(a) that the conditions of the Pire Marshal's J�ily 19, 1985 mem�
and the City Enginee.r's Auqust B, 1985 memo shall be met;
(b) that the daycar=_ facility shall be operatei from 7:00 A.M.
to 9:30 A.M. and from 11:00 A.M. to 5:J0 P.M.. ,Konday throu�h
Fri3ay, Se�tember throuqh June to serve a maximum_, of. 30 chil3ren
... _ ..__._
�+ith a ataff_of thre� a3ults;
(c) that thP majority of tha children ehall arrive at the site
by bus, and carnooling shall bs actively encour3ged by the Y;9C�
for homebourxi trips;
(ft) that thP joint use of the playgroun3 and bathroom facilities
shall be satisfact�rily worked rnit with the other tenants on the
site and the la ^mun.d facili,`.ieG_ wi_ll conti�u� to bP available
�---�y--�----- - -- -- ------ -----__-__
to. the _resi�Ant_s_of the adjacant area; and
(e) that this us� o�rmit shall be reviewed for com�liance with
all con3itior.s an3 r�view of any complaints received in June, 1986.
6. CONllZTIONS AS CANTAINED IN THE
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ]1N OFFICE OSE AT
Dated: August 4, 1986
Recor3e3: August 11, 1986
DocamenC No.: 86095236 0£ Ofiicial
California.
Rk�SOLUTION NO. 89-86 APPROVING
HOOV�R SCHOOL
Reaords of San ."Iateo County,
(a) that the area leased for office us� shall not exaeed 939 Sr_�
an3 shall be limite3 in use t� 9:00 _A.M, to SeJO_..P.�t., Monday
thx'ouqji_Fri3ay, with a maximur.m of two. full tim� an3 one part .tim+ .
_ .._ _ _.._
employPes: -
(h) that all parkin� sT�ll be provide3 in marke3 spacPs on site,
�n�i no staff or visitors shall use the parking on the Hutnick
easement;
(c) that the joint use of the bathroom facilities shall be
satisfactorily worke3 ont with other ten�nts o� the site; an3
(d) that this usP per.nit shall 2r_ amende3
o±�eration, amount of Gpac� lease3 or nunbsr
shall he reviewPa for compli3nc� with rAquired
yAar (July, 1987).
for any changes ;n
of employees an1
conditions in on�
Pag� 3
C C�
� '�hv,..%2 ! [cc n-�J
e �A1�' �° �1 ��.,�i-.- ci,.,.t-
s�� /��-�� ��
. �.n�i�.-� � �J �FO (O
�`"`�"�� `� .�„�
����
� -�-
���«��
�y ��,���� RH6LIVED
MAY 9 1988 MpY� 8*�9�8
Ci7Y OF BURUNGqME
CITY GIERK �NNING DEPi.
C%GTY OF BURl,kNC:NME
1/ /��
C�
c1�-' p
�.�j o-..d s� .�v—a.. a�- �fLid ��-��+�, c�. Q.S.-r,�--'�`,`'`�, .o-.a.n/.�u.�� c%�'J'""�'""'"'"
p l � A �LI.
c+�" <SLoo ' ;.� el�� -�j �.-.-��1 � .a�-�-- �'---�'r"^'""✓ ""' '
G. cp--,--d-�, S'.y�a� G-�, ..,�-2.-.. �/�"�'-�Pu��c..�e..;.,a.Qwc� cv,.�l�i.eya..�'�o-�-�-�
U
: �.u. �'.� -��-.,�� �.� � ��.�.,�.�.. kP�..,.� ..G-��G,..� �.�c �
c��.�, � -�.�— .��-.-.,� �� ,�.e.�-� w� �� �� ��. .�...� z� �.�.�c
irw�.l5-v�-.✓ ' c/, �T-n d N-u...i ,.Jrn.a� ac a.,..:,..�,� XK�w�?c�.v�./
�on^a GtSa..-c l� C�`�� �". �� es.-s.-e-'�X.!(R.t�.� B-,GGc'�Jct�'`.c�^/ _e.e�e�i
Q/ �/�
� il.C�9/!'CEt �uJr+-v �f.�i� � ,�'�y/1 . GY'� �`e�^��" ��'( � .�Cbr�
2r.cQ �ie..;.' � .Oct�cY .�e-cJa..c�.QU� C�o . �R GJ-o�,t-. l%�
a-�-o..���j�,�,�Ua,,�e J�c��.� � �`'.-v,.r.. �c���[�,_o-� .5� �C'.��Z,.o-��.
� � J(l o�.�-�-._
Wz wA-u o-P.ao �e-m-wto-���- a�Q+-m-.�-'fZ �J- - ' ^ � �/ ca-,�� •-o.r-�u�---°-" -- =• ' '
i � / /
Cu� � n �.ww �� kza� � cc'Cl� LO�� �-� �Ca-C� � .B eJ -�-W
.
.G' �,v�tb-.,,,,i �
lX-u-�� �d-C�[J✓T-�f-o /I' ' ' .-_. c� -CL��„s-c.."-7.¢ru-CL �a—l�Lt✓! � CLo ..�f�( i —u`�-�i �n / � o -
r /_ '
� �'J � ..(.J� �-4-� cY�r.t ��yt.O.J�. Gl�'.c.�u-�--�' 6-rt.C.E... r2L✓ Gc!�4..� -eGtl , �
.�,�,�. �-u.. , �c������� �u.�',,C��' �C .��2u..a..�/�� cF.�„��
uMo�rc�,c �,n.�+-a. ` .c���.r.e.... �°� _.�,....�a� r.�- m.� .� � aLu.�.Ca-��a�(
� °�'""Q , ✓N-o-�u� � m-�.`'$ e""v��*-w✓ �G�v .P�ea�J��ila.ur'�i a""'�_
�-e-4 " ^'—.w�c-r..9_ y�l �� �� iG-er i�G� �i/
�_���i_�� n "-�`---x�- . "�.� �'Y �-G��, �C.et¢ �e�--iw f7�LP�7�"'%%U�
�(„e�y..E� - CX_ .
U - `'
�-,-�er �-�'-� �r��. ���>.��- ,
;
,
���� �
�� ���,
� �iv '` .����.,-�a�-, ,��,
�� �, «,��, ��� . �i ti� z 3
�
�
Y
LAWOFFICGSOFTI\10TH1'A. il)SIA
A Prol'cssiunal Curpnr:uinn
Fuurlcenlh Runr
7ft5 i\IarAcl SI:ce1
Sun Fmncisco. Culifornia 9JIU3
131i1957-IU31
FAX I1151Sfi?-1580
May 6, 1988
RECEIVED
MAY 9 -1988
CItY OF BURLINGAME
PIANNING DEPT.
The Honorable Frank Pagliaro
Mayor
City Hall
502 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Shinnvo-En, California
Dear Mayor Pagliaro:
Our File
SITYE-5
�,-__ �� .
�,-u: �� ,.�. ��,m:�
MAY g �,ggg
r; �. ,.I.Fp,,�'
-�.�
� . _. . �..� �.��C
As a follow-up to your recent discussion with Kay Wilson,
we are enclosing the following:
- Shinnyo-En's letter to the Planning Commission.
- Minutes of April il, 1988 Planning Commission hearing
on Shinnyo-En's application.
During the next week, we will be providing you and the
other members of the City Council with additional information
a3dressing some of the issues raised before the Planning Commis-
sion, or which we have identified in meetings with concerned
citizens.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any addi-
tional information.
Best regards,
r —�
<=-���e Atkinson
Attorney for 5hinnyo-En,
California
CL
C�
��
ESA:db
Enclosures
G�
G�'
C�
� RECEIVED
MAY 8� 198$ Citizens For Residential
��WAYNINGDE�ME Development of Hoover School
May 7, 1988
RECEIVED
MAY 9 -1988
PrOPertY �TYOFBURUNGAME
FLANNING DEPT.
Hon. Frank Pagliaro, Mayor, and Burlingame City Council
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame,CA 94010
Deaz Mayor / Council Members:
We the residents of Burlingame and particularly the
School area, are overwhelmingly opposed to the sale
use of the Hoover School property. We oppose
purpose than residential use. To our knowledge
properties that have been closed down have reverted
or residential use.
� �C�;G�,u�
i °u . ., `.. .. _... ,i'�.a „u
MAY g �ggg
CRY CLepK
:t`N, �F �URI,lPt�R.'f:�
Hoover
public
and
any other
all school
to a park
Hoover school "is in perhaps the most environmentally sensitive
location of any school in Burlingame with ingress and egress
hampered by narrow streets and increasing traffic due to
residential development. Easton is only 16' 6" wide, Canyon 18'
8" wide, Summit 18' 11" wide and Hillside Circle 20' wide.
When cars are pazked on both sides, no moving vehicle can
pass through, this could be critical in an emergency if the
streets were more transiently travelled. The configuration of
streets surrounding and adjacent to the school are not the
normal neighborhood street patterns, they are winding and
difficult to traverse.
When Hoover School was built there were very few residences
in the area. It was mostly open space. In fact, almost all the
homes on Easton, Summit, Canyon, and Hillside Circle
surrounding the property were built subsequently. If the
Hoover School property was vacant at this time and a pnblic
use for a school or church was contemplated, there is no way
the residents of this area would approve under present
conditions.
0
We are not opposed to churces or any religion. The maj ority of
people here attend a church in Burlingame. Normally the
churches of all denominations in Burlingame are parish
churches, they are attended by people in Burlingame, many
within walking distance of their church. How many members
of Shinnyo-En, California do presently reside in Burlingame?
We doubt more than a handful, if any, which means that just
about all the members will come from other parts of the Bay
Area; resulting in more traffic, etc., to what benefits to
Burlingame? Churches do not pay property taxes. This could be
a tremendous loss of revenue over the years, especially when
compared to the class of homes that would be built on the
Hoover Schaol property.
The present temporary use of the property and the operations
of Shinnyo-En in San Francisco or any other place is irrelevant
to the proposed permanent use in Burlingame. A public facility
of any kind is not the proper use of the property.
We respectfully urge the Burlingame City Council to oppose any
other use of the Hoover School property than residential.
Sincerely,
�� ' ��
;'��._
---aq�:dp ,�� o��in ,
/3�i '
----------�?�i�u__�'�___�_L__�__.--- ��
--�/.�CL%`-- " ""L f�' r� -----
� �O i� �c�t-,S t ui�!/�
(3 ✓ i{ �-, � c ,3-�.r ,c �i-F..�'
--�=- -----
�,��
----
17?)i 2'AirA�.•�+�
�""".� �.i2 � i n-C.a ih.C-'7"_C SYGi 0
------- -------
---` _ �
�--_ _ �'�� _ �
LiNO/i 2CSS- c'-c;�u��
/31� 19�VAQr-►Oc Avc=.�va,r.�r/��9M�
��''�.=-'� -i1 J�LG2�_ .
27.25 JUYnry�,�% l�r'V�
_�t ll S bor_v_� �,_.y CJi9_ `! �°�v
2c°au� �p �--�
� �yv , /�ctl«.G�/�'i4Kl�
i� _
"_�``��uc�i+y . r�'
��---- -----
Citizens For Residential Use Of Hoover School Property
( Signers aze a partial list of inembers )
� A
0
�hP (�i�� af �uriin��xm�
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HA�L- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,GALIFORNIA 94010 TEL(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
SPECIAL PERMIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that tdonday, the 16th day of May, 1988 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a
public hearing on the appeal of an application_ for the use of existinq school facilities
for reliqious and educational purposes (church services 8 times a month classes twice
a month and an annual anniversary celebration) at 2220 Summit Drive, zoned R-1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
May 6, 1988
� ,
„
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-404P
AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
USE OF THE HOOVER SCHOOL SITE FOR RELIGIOUS
AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame,
California that:
WHEREAS, a Project Assessment and Responses to Identified
Environmental Effects has now been prepared for the proposed use of
the Hoover School site for certain religious and educational
purposes, which report analyzes possible impacts, and
WHEREAS, said City Council held a noticed public hearing on
May 16, 1988, and accepted the Negative Declaration with the
finding that, on the basis of the Initial Study, Project Assessment
and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the
project with proposed mitigations will have any significant effect
on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Negative
Declaration designated above as the same, was prepared and filed
with the Initial Study and Project Assessment which constitute
ND-404P.
�� Mayor
I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,
do tterEby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of
May. 1988, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
City Clerk
.�
�,.
�r
x
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES
HOOVER SCHOOL SITE
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME
that:
WHEREAS, application has been made for.a. special permit
for educational and religious purposes at the "Fioover School
Site" at 2220 Summit Drive (APN 027-271-090), and
T�VHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said application on April 11, 1988, at which time said applicat-
ion was approved; and
WHEREAS, this matter was called up by Council and a heari:
thereon held on May 16, 1988; and
WHEREAS, this Council has considered the Staff Report and
all other submitted written documents and all oral comments made
at said hearing,
NOW, THEi2EFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERAIINED by
this Council that said special permit is approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is and shall be
subject to the time limitations of Section 1094.6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of
San Mateo.
Mayor
I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of
Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of ,1988, and adopted thereafter by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILM�N:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
u
ABSENT: COUNCILP4Ev:
City Clerk