HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-1987 City Council staff reports (2) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL _
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
/ AGENDA ITEM:—3
METING DATE: June 3, 1987
ORIGINATING DEPT. : Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Report from Planning Commission regarding alternative uses at school sites.
Recommended Motion: That the City Council accept the report and recommendations from
the Planning Commission and conduct a public hearing.
Report Summary:
One of the City Council work items on its FY86-87 "to do" list is an analysis
of alternative uses for vacant or underutilized school sites in Saratoga, and
the consideration of possible code amendments to allow for such alternative
uses. The Planning Commission reviewed a staff report on this issues on
February 17, 1987, and finalized its recommendations to the Council at its
April 22, 1987 meeting.
Notice of the Planning Commission meetings was sent to all school districts
with facilities in Saratoga and to interested members of the public. One
letter from the Saratoga Union School District was received and is attached.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Attachments:
1. Report to Mayor and City Council .
2. Minutes and staff report from 4/22/87 Planning Commission meeting.
3. Letter from Saratoga Union School District.
4. Staff report from 2/17/87 Planning Commission Committee-of-the-Whole meeting.
Motion and Vote:
Staff reocmnendation 5-0.
Qq §&M&1xQ)0&
CSI�
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/5/87
COUNCIL MEETING: 6/3/87
SUBJECT: Alternative Uses for School Sites
----------------------------------------------------
One of the City Council work items on its FY86-87 "to do" list is
an analysis of alternative uses for vacant or underutilized
school sites in Saratoga, and the consideration of possible code
amendments to allow for such alternative uses. A staff report on
this subject was prepared and forwarded to the Planning
Commission for review at a study session on February 17 , 1987.
The Commission finalized its recommendations to the Council at
its April 22 , 1987 meeting. Public notice for the Planning
Commission meetings was provided to all school districts with
facilities in Saratoga, and to property owners adjacent to Hansen
School who requested notification whenever the City discusses the
disposition of that school . An additional public hearing notice
for the March 25, 1987 meeting was published in the Saratoga
News.
Planning Commission Recommendations
Following their discussion on this issue and receiving input from
members of the public and school district representatives, the
Commission summarized their recommendations to the City Council
as follows:
1 . The Commission recommends that only uses which are similar to
school uses, in terms of hours of operation, traffic, and
overall impacts, be permitted at vacant and underutilized
schools.
2. The Commission believes that the current conditional uses
permitted in the R-1 zoning district already allow the types
of uses that could be proposed for school sites, and that no
code amendment is necessary in that regard.
1
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
Re: Alternative Uses for School Sites
3 . The Commission believes that applications for alternative
uses at school sites may involve significant impacts to
neighboring properties and, therefore, recommends that the
public hearing process for such use permits be retained. The
Commission also recommends that the fee for such applications
not be reduced, so that the City can recover its costs for
the processing of such applications.
4 . The Commission recommends that the City maintain an ongoing
dialogue with the school districts regarding potential school
closures to ensure that issues of mutual concern, such as
maintenance of recreational uses and open space available to
the general public, are fully discussed.
The Planning Commission acknowledges the concern expressed at the
April 22 , 1987 hearing that the permitted uses may be too
restrictive for a school like Saratoga High School , which is
located on a major thoroughfare. The Commission's primary
concern is for schools that are completely surrounded by
residential use.
uek Hsia
Planning Director
Attachments:
1 ) Minutes from 4/22/87 Planning Commission Meeting
2 ) Letter from Saratoga Union School District
3 ) Staff report from 2/17/87 Planning Commission
Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting
YH/vy/dsc
B:memocc
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
APRIL 22, 1987
PiIBL.I(: H .ARIN('S•
12. School Sites- City of Saratoga,consider report and recommendation to the City
Council regarding alternative uses for school sites. Continued from March 25,
1987.
-----------------------------------------------
Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum of April 17, 1987.
Planner Young recommended that under Item 4 the following be added,to read,"One issue of
mutual concern is the maintenance of recreational uses and open spaces available to the general
public which may be provided by school sites."
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:32 P.M.
Ms. Dorothy Diekmann, Los Gatos/Saratoga High School Districts,noted that the defined
objectives did not appear to be in line with the Council's goal of keeping Saratoga High School
open;on the contrary,these objectives seemed to be a deterrent to the goal. The ability to keep
Saratoga High School open would require maximizing income potential.
She called attention to the original Memorandum noting that professional-administrative and
light industrial uses were already present in the area of Saratoga High School;the limitation of
uses to educational purposes was restrictive and unprofitable. She asked that professional-
administrative uses be allowed for this facility. In the view of Commissioner Siegfried,the
Commission would not support a policy statement favorable to the uses being proposed.
Mr.Dave Burke concurred that professional or light industrial uses for Hanson School would
be a problem;he added that the School was poorly maintained.
GUCH/rUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M.Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Siegfried suggested a change in the draft which would reflect former Mayor
Fannelli's proposal,indicating that at the Public Hearing concern was expressed about being
too restrictive in the proposed uses of Saratoga High School;he noted that the School was on a
main through fare. The greatest concern was for schools which were completely surrounded
by residential.
SIEGFRIED/CALLANS MOVED TO FORWARD THE DRAFT TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
ADDING TO ITEM 4, TO READ, "ONE ISSUE OF MUTUAL CONCERN IS THE
MAINTENANCE OF RECREATIONAL USES AND OPEN SPACES AVAILABLE TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC WHICH MAY BE PROVIDED BY SCHOOL SITES." Passed 5-0.
13. UP-87-002 Novakovich, 14251 Fruitvale Ave., request for use permit and design
DR-87-038 review approval of plans to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. accessory structure
-----------(barn)in the Agricultural zoning district Continued from April 8, 1987.
------
--------------------------
------------------------------
ammng Director Hsia updated the Commission on the status of this Application.
Commissioner Tucker reported on a second site visit which included the interior of the bam.
Chairwoman Harris noted that the barn had already been built in order to clarify the Application
under consideration;pictures of the site were presented. She noted a letter received,unsigned,
in opposition to the proposed Use Permit. Commissioner Tucker received a phone call in
opposition to an approval of this Application.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M.
Mr.George Novakovich,Applicant,stated that the barn was for equipment storage and farm
vehicles; he thought that due to the Williamson Act, a permit was not required. He was
agreeable to clean up efforts discussed at the site visit,including removal of some vehicles.
Mr. Peter Joachim, 14287 Okanogan Dr., Saratoga, stated residents had agreed that if the
Novakovich's would use the barn for the vehicles,they would not object to the Use Permit.
He noted that some efforts had been already been made. Chairperson Harris noted for the
record that the site visit committee had not driven to the western side. Mr.Joachim recognized
that this property was a working farm and had no objection to equipment used on this farm
r
@0 e e J e
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) .967-:3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 17, 1987
FROM: Planning Director FOR APRIL 22, 1987 Meeting
SUBJECT: Alternative Uses for School Sites
------------------------------------
This item was originally scheduled for Planning Commission review
at its March 25 , 1987 meeting. It was continued to the April 22,
meeting to allow additional time for input and comments from
school district representatives. To date only the Saratoga Union
School District has submitted comments (attached) .
Staff would like to add that since the 3/25 meeting we have had
input on this issue from former Mayor. Fanelli. She brought to
staff' s attention that some prior discussion on this issue
focused on ways that school districts and cities could work
together to maintain closed schools as recreation and open space
resources. One method is a joint agreement for the construction
and maintenance of recreational facilities used by both schools
and cities ; Ms. Fanelli provided an example (attached) of such an
agreement from Redwood City. The Commission may wish to amend
recommendation #4 in the draft report to the Council to
incorporate comments on this particular issue.
The draft report from the Commission' s March 25 agenda is again
included in this packet. Only minor grammatical changes have
been made. Staff recommends the Commission make changes, if
appropriate, and forward its report to the City Council.
u huek Hsia
P anning Director
Attachnment: 1 ) Draft report to City Council
2 ) Letter from Saratoga Union School District
3 ) Sample agreement from Redwood City
��� HT06R NOR SCHOOL DISTRIbi �
20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867-3424
April 15, 1987
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Attention: Valerie Young, Associate Planner
Dear Ms Young,
In response to the Memorandum of March 27, 1987---Consideration of
Alternative Uses for School Sites, and in response to the misinfor-
mation circulating in the community, the Saratoga Union School
District Board of Trustees would like the following information
placed on the record.
1. There are no immediate plans to close a school site in the
Saratoga Union School District.
2. Neither the City of Saratoga nor the Saratoga Union School District
will be served by Code changes which would restrict the types of
use for school property.
3. The City has a planning process in place. The community, the City
and the District should depend on the Planning Commission pro-
cedure which has served well in 'the past when it has been necessary
to sell surplus school sites i.e. Congress Springs, the Aloha
property, etc. These transactions automatically fell under the
jurisdication of the Planning Commission and any future transactions
would also fall under its jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees
has no plans to close a school site. We have found the process in
place under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to be most
satisfactory in the past and see no need to change the process. We
emphasize that flexibility is to the advantage of. all concerned.
Sincerely,
Ma,y Julen Comport, President
Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees
MEC/bm
00-
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND JOINT USE OF
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT HOOVER SCHOOL
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this thirteenth day of
Januar,f0181r,.by and between the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, a
munici cooration of the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "City," and the REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
hereinafter referred to as "District;"
WITNESSETH:
. WHEREAS, District is the owner of certain real property
currently used for the purposes of operating an elementary
school known as the Hoover School; and
WHEREAS, District is desirous of affording City the
opportunity.to upgrade and maintain recreational facilities
at Hoover School; and
WHEREAS, City requires additional park and recreational
facilities in the area of the Hoover School site; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the
Government Code (sections 6500 et seq.) authorizes. public
agencies to enter into agreements for the joint exercise of
powers which are common to the parties to the agreement, and
Chapter 10 of Part 7 of Division 10 of the Education Code
(sections 10900 et seq.) authorizes agre.ements between public
agencies for the purpose of organizing, promoting and conducting
programs of community recreation to promote and preserve the
health and general welfare of the people of the State; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into an
agreement for construction'and maintenance of certain community
recreation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience and necessity
will be served thereby; and
WHEREAS, City has heretofore constructed a swimming pool
at the Hoover School site for joint use by both City and
District, and is willing to construct and maintain additional
1 of 7
recreational facilities at the Hoover School site for the
continued benefit of both City and District;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
agreements and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto
do hereby agree as follows:
1. SITE. District agrees to furnish, pursuant to
Education Code sections 10900 et seq. , without cost to City,
a portion of that property known as Hoover School site, for
construction and maintenance of those recreational facilities
hereinafter described. The furnished site shall be of a size
sufficient to accommodate said facilities. The site is more
particularly described in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. The survey necessary to
determine the actual description of the property subject to
this agreement will be done at City's expense.
City acknowledges that this agreement confers upon
it no ownership rights with respect to the school lands or
buildings described herein.
2. FACILITIES. City shall, at its sole cost and expense,
furnish plans and specifications for and shall construct the
following facilities at the site described in Paragraph 1:
a. Two (2) full size softball fields.
b. Two (2) soccer fields.
C. Multi-use athletic/handball court.
d. Parking lot.
e. Picnic area.
f. Toilet facilities.
Plans and specifications for the above described facilities
shall be subject to written approval by District prior to
commencement of bidding and construction.
No facilities will be open to public use until adequate
toilet facilities are available.
Semi-Final Progress Payment reports, as approved by the
City Council, will be attached to this contract and shall be
incorporated by reference.
2 of 7
Jr�
In the future, City may construct other facilities at
the site upon prior written approval of District, pursuant to
this agreement.
City agrees that, upon request of the District, it will
construct a fence or other barrier mutually agreed upon between
the recreational area provided for herein and the school area.
Said construction will be completed within sixty days after
the request.
3. USE OF FACILITIES. City and District shall have
joint use of the recreational facilities described in
Paragraph 2; provided, however, such joint use shall not
interfere with the operation of the school. - District shall
have exclusive use of the recreational facili;ies, except for
the pool, during school hours. When District has exclusive use
of the facilities, District's students shall be supervised b}
District employees.
All recreational uses of the facilities shall be consistent
with applicable provisions of the Education Code, as may be
amended from time to time.
4. MAINTENANCE. Maintenance, including utility costs and
personnel to operate and maintain the site of the facilities
described in Paragraph 2, shall at all times be the sole
responsibility of City, including during those hours when
District has exclusive use of the facilities. Maintenance
shall be a level comparable to other City parks. City shall
arrange to have separate utility meters installed at the site
i
for the utilities used by the recreational facilities described
herein, including the existing swimming pool.
Because use of the recreational facilities provided for
herein has resulted in the past, and may result in the future,
in debris being scattered throughout the entire site, including
the school portion, City will remove debris from the entire site,
including the school portion, after weekends, holidays, and
other periods of heavy usage. Said removal will be accomplished
before the next school day following the weekend, holiday, or
other time of use.
3 of 7
5. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Both City and District shall
provide public liability insurance in the amount of One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence against damage, injury
or death occurring on or about the facilities. Such insurance
may be either by separate policy or by the inclusion of the
other party as an additional insured in existing City or District .
liability policies. Such insurance coverage may be privately
underwritten or part of a self insurance program.
6. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION. It is agreed that District
shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any and all claims for
injuries or damages to persons and/or property which arise out
of the terms and conditions of this agreement and which result
from the negligent acts or omissions of District, its officers,
agents and/or employees in connection with the performance of
this agreement.
It is further agreed that City shall defend, and hold
harmless, and indemnify District, its officers, agents and
employees, from any and all claims for injuries and/or to
persons and/or property which arise out of the terms and
conditions of this agreement and which result from the negligent
acts or omissions of the City, its officers, agents and/or
employees in connection with the performance of this agreement.
In the event of concurrent negligence of District, its
officers, agents and/or employees and the City, its officers,
agents and/or employees, then the liability for any and all
claims for injuries or damages to persons and/or property which
arise out of the terms and conditions of this agreement shall be
Apportioned under the. California theory of comparative negligence
as established presently, or as may be hereafter modified.
7. SWIMMING POOL. City and District have heretofore
entered into an agreement dated October 7, 1965 under the terms
of which City constructed a swimming pool at the Hoover School
site for joint use by both City and District. The parties hereto
do hereby agree that this agreement shall supersede the former
4 of 7
agreement of October 7, 1965. City shall maintain and operate
the swimming pool at its sole expense, it being understood by
both parties that District is no longer using the swimming pool
in its school programs. Should District decide to use the
swimming pool for school purposes in the future, both parties
shall, at that time, determine an equitable reimbursement
schedule for pool maintenance.
8. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall be in full
force and effect for thirty (30) years following the date of
its execution; provided, however, that the terms hereof may be
amended by written agreement of both parties.
Upon the expiration of the thirty (30) year initial
term hereof, the parties hereto may, at their mutual consent,
extend this agreement for joint use for an additional thirty (30)
years for the purpose of providing continuing recreational
services to the community, and upon such terms as both parties
thereto may agree.
9. ASSIGNMENT. City may not sublease any portion of
this property or assign to any other person or entity any
right or privilege appurtenant hereto without the written
consent of District first having been obtained.
10. TERMINATION.
(A) The District may, without penalty, terminate
this agreement within eighteen (18) months of
the commencement hereof, or at any time prior
to the written approval by District of any plans
and specifications described in Paragraph 2,
whichever occurs first.
(B) Either party may terminate this agreement by
written notice from one party to the other at
least ninety (90) days in advance of the
termination.
(C) If this agreement is terminated by District
before the expiration of the thirty (30) year
term hereof, District shall reimburse City for:
5 of 7
the construction cost of the facilities
described in Paragraph 2 in an amount equal to
1/30th of the total construction cost for each
year or fraction thereof still remaining in
the agreement. After the expiration of the
thirty (30) year term of this agreement,
District shall be free of its obligation to
reimburse City for the construction costs of
the facilities described in Paragraph 2.
(D) If District terminates this agreement prior
to the expiration of fourteen (14) years from
the commencement of this agreement, District
shall, in addition to the payments described in
subparagraph 10(C) , reimburse City for the
construction cost of the swimming pool described
in Paragraph 7, in an amount equal to 1/30th
of the total construction cost for each year
or fraction thereof still remaining of the
above referenced fourteen (14) year period.
District's maximum obligation hereunder is
14/30th of the pool construction cost. Said
obligation will decrease by 1/30th for each
year this agreement is in effect. After the
expiration of fourteen (14) years from the,
commencement of this agreement, District's
obligation to reimburse City for construction
costs of the swimming pool shall cease entirely.
10. RECREATION FACILITIES AT TERMINATION. At the end
of the thirty year term described in Paragraph 8, or upon
earlier termination by the City of Redwood City, the facilities
described in Paragraphs 2 and 7, and any additional facilities
constructed hereunder, shall be free of District's obligation
to pay for any part of them and shall be District's sole
property. Said facilities will be delivered in good condition.
6 of 7
�—J
• � � � �� ♦r._. .:yam
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have set their hands
the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, A Municipal
Corporation
ATTEST: By
City Manager
City. Clerk
REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ATTEST: / 1j,
By. P
ecretary, Board of Trustees
Clerk of said Boar
1/22/82
7 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: February 17, 1987
SUBJECT: Alternative Uses for School Sites
------------------------------------------------------
One of the City Council work items adopted for FY 1986-87 involves an
analysis of alternative uses for vacant or underutilized school sites in
Saratoga, and the consideration of a possible code amendment to allow for
such alternative uses. Staff was directed to perform this analysis and
report to the Planning Commission with appropriate recommendations. After
study and discussion , the Planning Commission should then forward its
report and recommendations to the City Council.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Concern about closure of school sites and its impact on open space and
recreational resources in Saratoga was raised in the late 1970's. The
issue continued to be of concern during the comprehensive General Plan
revision which took place during 1981-1983. To address this concern , the
following related policies were adopted as part of the Open Space Element
of the General Plan:
OS-3-0 Strive to preserve open space and recreational resources provided
by other agencies serving the community , when the continuation of
that service is in jeopardy.
OS.3. 1 School sites should also provide open space and recreation
resources for the City.
OS.3.2 The City shall review proposed interim uses of surplus
school sites to determine if the impacts generated by the
proposed uses will have significant adverse effects ,
particularly in terms of noise, traffic , and parking on
adjacent residential areas.
OS.3.2 If public ownership of school sites is not possible ,
restrict the use of the property to residential development
at a density not higher than the surrounding residential
neighborhood and zoning , with the exception of Saratoga
School on Oak Street. Being adjacent to multiple
residential zoning, said site shall have a use with a
minimum impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the
evaluation of the use should be determined at such time
there is a change in ownership.
The following policy was also adopted as part of the Area D (Triangle
North ) area plan: "Vacated school interim uses shall not create adverse
impacts or excessive noise and shall provide adequate off-street parking. "
1
.f
Memorandum to Planning Commission 2/17/87
Alternative Uses for School Sites Page 2
In addition to the adoption of specific policies relating to school sites ,
the sites themselves were all (with the exception of E1 Quito Park School )
designated by the General Plan as CFS-Community Facility , School (Open
Space Resource ); the El Quito Park School property was designated medium-
density residential (4.3S units/acre ).
Since the adoption of the General Plan, there has continued to be an
interest , on the part of the City and the school districts , in possible
uses for closed or underutilized school sites. In 1985 , the Planning
Department prepared and sent a questionnaire to school districts with
facilities in Saratoga. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine
the concerns each district hadcregarding the use of surplus school sites.
The questionnaire and its results are attached as Appendix A.
In response to the questionnaire results , school site planning was adopted
at the Council policy development retreat as a FY 86-87 work item. Staff
was directed to further study the possibility of expanding the scope of
conditional uses at school sites , distinguishing between vacant sites and
vacant rooms within schools still operating , and then report to the
Planning Commission with appropriate recommendations.
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
There are ten ( 10) public school facilities within the Saratoga City limits
( see Table A). This figure does not include West Valley College. All but
two of the schools are currently open as public school facilities; Hansen
School on Prospect Road is closed, and El Quito Park School at the corner
of Bucknall and Paseo Presada is leased to a private interest and is
operated as a day care facility.
ZONING REGULATIONS
All of the school properties are located in the R-1 Single-Family
Residential District . Although the general purpose of this district is to
provide for appropriate locations and standards for single-family
residential development , it does allow for community facilities needed to
compliment residential areas and for institutions , such as nursing homes
and day care facilities , which require a residential environment . All of
these facilities are considered conditional uses and require the granting
of a use permit by the City Planning Commission in order to operate. Those
facilities most similar to school site uses are as follows:
1 ) Community facility - A place , structure , area or other facility used
for and providing fraternal , social or recreational programs or
activities generally open to the public. The term includes parks ,
swimming pools , recreational courts , community centers , libraries ,
museums , and golf courses.
2 ) Institutional facility - A place, structure or area operated by a
public or private organization or agency, used for and providing
educational , residential or health care services to the community at
2
f
Memorandum to Planning Commission 2/17/87
Alternative Uses for School Sites Page 3
large. The term includes residential developments and health care
facilities operating by non-profit organizations , and both public and
private shcools or colleges.
3 ) Police and fire stations and other public buildings , structures and
fac"ilities.
The 1985 School District Questionnaire asked for suggestions on alternative
uses for school sites. Those suggested uses that would qualify as a
conditional use under the existing regulations are as follows:
1 ) rental space to groups for educational purposea
2 ) child care facilities
3 ) private schools
4 ) adult education
5 ) dance , music and art classes
6 ) student day-care centers
7 ) recreational use by youth sport leagues
8 ) educational conference center
9 ) community centers
10 ) develop portion of site with houses and lease remainder as
one of the above uses.
Those that would not qualify are as follows:
1 ) private storage space
2 ) professional and administrative offices
3 ) light industry , electronics
It appears , then, that existing zoning regulations already allow, through
the conditional use permit process , the large majority of alternative uses
suggested for school sites by the district officials. These uses would
also be consistent with the General Plan if they continued to provide or
did not interfere with the provision of open space and recreation, and if
they did not have significant adverse impacts in terms of noise, traffic ,
and parking on adjacent residential areas. The zoning code does not
distinguish between vacant sites and vacant rooms in existing schools where
the use permit process is concerned.
STATE LAW CONSIDERATIONS
School. districts in California are distinct governmental agencies , usually
separate from the governments of the cities and counties in which they
operate. The California Government Code grants certain autonomy to school
districts with respect to the authority a City of County Government can
exercise over them. However, school districts must comply with all
applicable building and zoning ordinances of the local jurisdiction when
the proposed use of the property is for non-classroom facilities. In
addition, there are strict regulations governing the sale of surplus school
sites to allow other public agencies to participate in the purchase of such
properties.
3
Memorandum to Planning Commission 2/17/87
Alternative Uses for School Sites Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because the current zoning regulations already allow a variety of
conditional uses in the R-1 district , it is not really necessary to change
the Code. However , the Planning Commission may want to call out the types
Of, uses they feel are specifically appropriate for school sites and amend
the code accordingly. Such an amendment may serve to encourage school
districts to pursue alternative uses for their vacant and underutilized
sites.
The school districts suggested simplifying the permit process for
alternative uses by making it an administrative rather than a public
hearing item and by reducing the fees for permit processing. While staff
can support the idea of reduced fees , it is recommended that a use permit
for alternative uses be required , primarily to inform surrounding neighbors
of pending changes at school sites and to assess all potential impacts.
4
TABLE A
INVENTORY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
Zoning Total'
Name of School Location District Acreage Status
Elementary
Argonaut 13200 Shadow Mountain Dr. R-1-12 ,500 11 .5 Open
Blue Hills 12300 DeSanka Ave. R-1-10 ,000 10.6 Open
E1 Quito Park Bucknall & Paseo Presada R-1-10 ,000 12. 1 Leased
Foothill Lynde Ave. R-1-12 ,500 11 .0 Open
Hansen Prospect Rd. R-1 -10 ,000 8.7 Closed in
1979
Marshall Lane 14111 Marilyn Ave. R-1-40 ,000 10.0 Open
Saratoga 14592 Oak St . R-1-10 ,000 6. 1 Open
Jr. High
Redwood Fruitvale Ave. R-1-40 ,000 17.7 Open
Sr. High
Prospect 18900 Prospect Rd. R-1-10 ,000 35.0 Open
Saratoga 20.300 Herriman Ave. R-1-12 ,500 22.0 Open
5
***APPENDIX A***
X SAAN EFFORT TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE NEEDS OF YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
RATOGA, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (USE A
SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY ):
NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT:
NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON RESPONDING:
PHONE NUMBER:
I . What uses would benefit the school district if they were permitted on
school sites? What changes in existing school facilities would be required to
accommodate these uses?
2. If you have had experience with the City's use permit process , what
changes would you suggest in that process which would increase your ability to
preserve existing school facilites?
3. What are the advantages to the City which would result from allowing
alternate uses on school sites?
4. What can the City do to make it practical for the school district to keep
its facilities? What are your plans for these facilities?
TO ASSIST THE PLANNING STAFF OF THE CITY IN ASSESSING THE RESOURCES AND NEED
OF YOUR SCHOOL SITES IN SARATOGA , PLEASE FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: S
� • Size of school sites:
Name of School Size ( in acres )
a.
b.
C.
d.
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR EACH OF THE SCHOOL SITES LISTED
ABOVE. USE SEPARATE SHEETS IF NECESSARY.
2. Size and use of existing buildings:
a. Number of existing buildings:
b. Size of each building:
C. Current use of each building:
3. Numbers of employees and students:
a• Maximum number of people employed:
b• Maximum number of students:
c. Current number of people employed:
d. Current number of students:
4• What are the significant physical features -of the site? ( i.e.
topography, vegetation, geology)
S. What existing parking facilites are available?
s• What open space (acreage ) and playground facilites exist on
site?
IF AVAILABLE, PLEASE ATTACH A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING BUILDIN GS,
PLAYGROUNDS, AND OTHER FACILITIES.
SCHOOL DISTRICT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
I. Suggested Alternate Uses for School Sites
A. Rent space to groups for educational
S. Private storage space. (S),(LG) purposes. (S)
C. Low traffic uses limited to available parking: (M) ,(Cu) ,(L6)
1 . P-A Offices (architects , engineers , artists , etc. )
2. Child care facilities
3. Private schools
4. Adult education
S. Dance, music , and art classes
D. For open school site: (Cu)
1 . On-site student care centers
2. Turf use by youth leagues
E. Educational Conference Center (Cu )
F. Community Centers (Cu )
G. Light industry, electronics (LG )
H. Lease to non-profit organizations (LG)
I. Develop portion of site for houses and lease remainder of school (LG )
II. Improvements to Use Permit Process
A. Simplify - adopt ordinances to allow uses to be approved admin-
istratively. (M)
B. Eliminate or reduce fees to encourage more community activities
that have limited financial resources. (M)
C. Should reflect school district needs ( including revenues ) as well
as well as City standards. (Cu )
D. Should be easy to understand and follow. (Cu )
III. Advantages of Alternate Uses to the City
A. Retention of playgrounds and open space. (S) ,(Cu)
B. Money generated by alternate uses vs. sale of school site. (S)
C. Better looking neighborhoods through better maintenance of school
properties with revenues from alternate uses. (M) (Cu)
0. Avoid State penalites for closed schools which force sales of
property resulting in loss of open space. (M)
E. Meet community needs such as child care. (Cu)
F. Taxable activities create revenue for governmental bodies. (Cu)
G. Avoid sale of lands to developers which would be inevitable. (Cu)
H. Insure school remains in Saratoga regardless of enrollment. (LG)
IV. What Can the City Do?
A. Approve sites for other than educational use. (S)
B. Encourage uses noted in topic I abovei broaden permitted uses. (Cu)
C. Create "empathetic' process between City and school districts to
bring productive activities to a closed site. (Cu)
D. Turf care agreement between City and school districts. (Cu)
E. Allow schools to lease to .uses listed in topic I above. (LG)
F. Control traffic by signal at Herriman and Saratoga-Sunnyvale. (LG)
U. School District Plans for Facilities
. A. Plans not yet determined. (S)
B. Lease sites until too difficult or expensive then sell for
"highest and best use" .
Note: (S) - Suggestion from Saratoga School District
(M) = Suggestion from Moreland School District
(Cu ) = Suggestion from Cupertino Union School District
(LG) - Suggestion from Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union H. S. District
No response or minimal responses were received from Fremont Union High
School District and Campbell Union High School District.
I