City Schools Want Exemption From Protective Zoning Rules

In the latest skirmish over how to dispose of San Diego’s closed school sites, school officials are asking the City Council to exempt school property from controversial protective zoning regulations that the council will consider Jan. 13.

The proposal has angered proponents of the so-called “institutional overlay zone,” who see the school district’s plan as a new attempt to sell off its property without allowing residents to comment on or propose alternatives to long-term leases of the schools.

The controversy has erupted in part because the proposed exemption is scheduled to come before the school trustees today as part of their consent calendar--the routine items of governance that are traditionally approved en masse without discussion.

“The school district is doing the same underhanded, dirty tricks that they did in the past,” said Claudia Engstrom, chairwoman of the Community Coalition for Dana, which is seeking to block the leasing of the former Dana Junior High School in Point Loma.

Engstrom said that, when school officials decided to offer the 13-acre Dana site for a 99-year lease last year, they also put the proposal in the consent calendar in an attempt to hide the move.

But Supt. Tom Payzant said that the district’s opposition to a city-enforced institutional overlay zone, which would in some cases allow almost a year’s delay before action could be taken on such properties, has been public for months. The exemption proposal needs approval by the trustees at today’s meeting so that it can be brought to the City Council on Jan. 13 and considered along with the institutional overlay zone proposal, he said.

School board attorney Tina Dyer, who did not know why the proposal was put on the consent calendar, said she would suggest that the item be considered separately to allow for public comment.

The proposed “memorandum of agreement” between the school district and the city is sure to draw criticism at today’s school board meeting and at next Tuesday’s council meeting, if it is approved by trustees.

The proposal is part of a long-running, three-way controversy over how to dispose of six closed schools, including Dana and the former Farnum Elementary School in Pacific Beach. The San Diego Unified School District, desperate for money to build schools in areas where rapid growth has led to overcrowding, last year took steps to lease the Dana and Farnum sites to residential developers for 99 years.

Community members opposed to losing public land and buildings to new housing halted the plan with lawsuits that were settled out of court in August. Under the settlement, the school district will not proceed with the two leases until after it holds hearings and conducts an environmental impact assessment of each lease.

Community groups have also pressed for the institutional overlay zone, which would add a special zoning designation to public institutions such as schools, churches, parks, libraries and museums. Under those regulations, the City Council could delay any change of use for as long as 360 days while community members attempted to devise another institutional use for the site.

In March, a task force of three City Council and two school board members was formed to determine how to dispose of Dana, Farnum and the board’s four other closed schools--Cleveland elementary in San Carlos, Muir elementary in East San Diego, Grantville elementary in Allied Gardens and Scripps elementary in La Jolla.

Under current plans, which are not final, the city would buy Farnum and convert it into a park and library; buy three of Dana’s 13 acres for use as parkland and buy about three of Grantville’s seven acres for use as parkland. The other three schools could be leased or sold by the district.

The task force’s meetings also led to the memorandum of agreement scheduled to be considered by school trustees today. The plan has the backing of Councilman Mike Gotch, a task force member, but it has not been reviewed by council members Bill Cleator or Gloria McColl, the task force’s other two members.

Cleator said Monday that he is inclined to vote against any plan that exempts schools from the institutional overlay zone.

School officials want the exemption because removing the special zoning would be a cumbersome, time-consuming process that would delay property disposal, said Dyer, the school board’s attorney.

“We think that we should be treated like other property owners. . . . It would take two to three years to get the overlay zone off of your property, to get permission to demolish a building that needs to be demolished and to get the zoning on your property,” she said.

Church groups and the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce oppose the overlay zones because they would lower property values, she said.

The district’s proposal offers the city 60 days to decide whether to buy the property at a fraction of its value--as required by state law.

Before deciding whether to sell or lease the site, the district would also give notice to planning groups and community members that it plans to hold a public hearing, and hold the hearing 20 days later.

But critics contend that such schedules do not give community groups nearly enough time to persuade city officials to acquire the site or to organize a drive to buy it themselves.

“That’s nearly impossible. That doesn’t provide nearly the time necessary,” said Jim Kelley-Markham, steering committee member of San Diegans for Managed Growth.

“They’ll come out and listen, and they’ll walk back and sell the property anyway,” Engstrom said. “How does that give the community group protection?”

Opponents promised to oppose the exemption plan at the school board meeting today, but held out little hope that trustees would support them.