HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-Development Services
1
RESOLUTION NO.
2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN
3 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65402 WITH REGARD TO GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR A
4 PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE (WILSON II ELEMENTARY SCHOOL).
5
6
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino (the "City") has received a request from the San
Bernardino City Unified School District (the "School District") dated February 8, 2008, attached
7
hereto as page 6 of Exhibit "A", requesting that certain findings and determinations be made by
8
the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council as requested by Government Code
9
Section 65402; and
10
11
WHEREAS, the School District pursuant to said letter dated February 8, 2008, requested
that the Planning Commission make the findings and determinations as required by Government
12
Code Section 65402(a) prior to the acquisition by the School District of any properties m
13
furtherance of the intended Wilson II Elementary School Project; and
14
15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the request of the School District at a
duly held public meeting of the Planning Commission on March 4, 2008, and forwarded a
16
recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed Wilson II Elementary
17
School Project was not in conformity with the General Plan of the City as required by Government
18
Code Section 65402(a) and the staff report of said Planning Commission meeting is attached
19
hereto as pages 3 to 36 of Exhibit "A"; and
20
21
WHEREAS, on July 19,2005, the Planning Commission previously considered the same
issues with regard to whether the proposed Wilson II Elementary School Project was in
22
conformity with the General Plan of the City, as outlined in the staff report attached hereto as
23
pages 17 to 26 of Exhibit "A" and tabled the item, as set forth in the meeting minutes attached
24
hereto as pages 32 to 36 of Exhibit "A"; and
25
26
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council subsequent to the Planning Commission
action of July 19,2005, as set forth in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto, concurred with the findings
27
and recommendation of the Planning Commission staff report and further found and determined
28
d~1SL17dILIl';4') 1
#3
3-/9 _6lr
1 that the proposed Wilson II Elementary School Project was not in conformity with the General
2 Plan of the City; and
3 WHEREAS, on March 17,2008, the Mayor and Common Council considered the written
4 request of the School District dated March 14, 2008, requesting that any further consideration of
5 the prior request of the School District pursuant to the prior letter dated February 8, 2008, be
6 continued to April 7, 2008, and the Mayor and Common Council elected to consider a presentation
7 from a representative of the School District and a presentation from City Staff regarding the issues
8 relative to the request of the School District; and
9 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council directed the preparation of this Resolution
10 and requested that this Resolution be presented to the Mayor and Common Council at an
11 adjourned regular meeting as held on March 19,2008; and
12 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have considered all evidence, facts and
13 other written and verbal presentations, including the staff report attached hereto as Exhibit "A", as
14 made available to the Mayor and Common Council in furtherance of the consideration of this
15 Resolution, and based upon all such evidence, facts and other written and verbal presentations
16 does hereby adopt and approve this Resolution; and
17 WHEREAS, the School District has prepared a certain Draft Environmental Impact
18 Report, SCH #2006111105 ("DEIR"), pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
19 Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), and has duly circulated the DEIR for comment by
20 responsible agencies, including the City, and the City has provided comments to the School
21 District on the DEIR and in the form as attached hereto as pages 7 to 9 of Exhibit "A"; and
22 WHEREAS, the School District has no authority pursuant to CEQA to initiate the Wilson
23 II Elementary School Project until such time as the EIR has been finally approved and certified by
24 the governing board of the School District.
25 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
26 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
27 SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct in all respects and are incorporated
28 herein by reference.
AllHLI7ASLll"d'l1
?
1 SECTION 2. The Mayor and Common Council hereby find and determine that the
2 proposed Wilson II Elementary School Project is not in conformity and is not consistent with the
3 adopted General Plan of the City based upon evidence, facts and other written and verbal
4 presentations, including the staff reports and other supporting documents attached hereto as
5 Exhibit "A" and specifically for the reasons set forth below:
6 I. As stated by the former Chief of Police, Garrett W. Zimmon, in a memo
7 dated July 14, 2005, attached hereto as page 27 of Exhibit "A", construction of an elementary
8 school adjacent to an existing middle school and in close proximity to Highland Avenue, a major
9 arterial street, would expose elementary school students to negative influences of older students
10 and other negative outside influences, potentially including gang members.
11 2. As noted in said memo from the Chief of Police dated July 14, 2005, and as
12 stated more specifically in a letter dated July 15, 2005, from then Deputy Director/City Planner of
13 the Development Services Department, Valerie C. Ross, to School District Facilities
14 Administrator, Wael Elatar, the vacation of segments of 25th Street and Berkeley Avenue
15 necessitated by the proposed construction of Wilson II Elementary School would have a severe
16 impact on local circulation in the area surrounding the site.
17 3. On page 4-12 of the School District's DEIR, SCH #2006111105, the
18 neighborhood of 40 single-family residences that would be demolished to implement the Wilson II
19 Elementary School project is described as follows: "The neighborhood of Period Revival Cottages
20 remains as a cohesive neighborhood of the style and type. As such, the Bonita Gardens tract
21 appears to meet the California Register criteria for local significance as a historic district, with a
22 period of significance from 1922 - 1941. As such, each dwelling constructed during this period
23 was assessed for its historical integrity, and the dwellings determined to have experienced
24 significant loss were removedfrom inclusion. In summary, a total of29 homes were determined to
25 be contributors to this potential local historic district". On the following page 4-13, the DEIR
26 concludes: "Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of the 29
27 homes contributing to a potential local historic district. This impact would be considered
28 significant and potentially unavoidable ".
,fRlIL1'7d!L~U;:d'J 1
,
1 4. On page 4-25, the School District's DEIR quotes the City's July 19,2005,
2 Planning Commission staff report as follows: "The site proposed for development of Wilson 11
3 Elementary School is part of a fully developed, stable and cohesive neighborhood, evidenced by
4 the high level of owner occupancy. It is a fine example of a 70-yr. old neighborhood that has stood
5 the test of time and continues to thrive. Intrusion into this neighborhood with the demolition of 40
6 homes would also eliminate numerous examples of Tudor Revival and California Bungalow
7 architecture that currently enhance the character of the community." On the following page 4-26,
8 the DEIR concludes: "The General Plan lists the proposed project site as an Urban Conservation
9 and Enhancement Area, and the General Plan focuses on 'preservation and enhancement of
10 existing neighborhoods where fundamental changes in the land use pattern are not anticipated or
11 desired.' The proposed project would not be consistent [sic] this portion of the general plan and
12 would cause a significant impact [sic] between the San Bernardino City Unified School District
13 proposal and the City of San Bernardino. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. "
14 SECTION 3. The Mayor and Common Council hereby further find that based upon the
15 statements made by the School District in the DEIR as recited in Section 2 above, the School
16 District itself had found and detennined based upon the DEIR that the Wilson II Elementary
17 School Project is not in confonnity with the General Plan and furthennore the School District has
18 not provided any additional evidence, documentation, facts or other written or verbal presentations
19 that would pennit the Mayor and Common Council to make any finding other than as set forth in
20 this Resolution. No additional evidence, documentation, facts of other written or verbal
21 presentations have been presented to the Mayor and Common Council as of the date of adoption
22 of this Resolution that cause the Mayor and Common Council to in any manner alter, change or
23 otherwise modify the prior actions of the Mayor and Common Council and the Planning
24 Commission with regard to the Wilson II Elementary School Project as taken prior to the date
25 hereof.
26 SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by the Mayor and
27 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino.
28
dlllSL17dSUU;d" t
4
1 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
2 SECTION 65402 WITH REGARD TO GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR A
3 PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE (WILSON II ELEMENTARY SCHOOL).
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
5
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof,
6 held on the day of
7
8 Council Members: Aves
9 ESTRADA
10 BAXTER
11 BRINKER
12 DERRY
13
KELLEY
14
JOHNSON
15
16 MCCAMMACK
, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
Navs
Abstain
Absent
17
18
19
20
21
22
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this _ day of
,2008.
PatrickJ. Monis, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form:
23
24 41/J/
25 By: \,~
26
27
28
.dl:!lILl'7,iSLSI,<;.d') 1
'i
1
2
3
4
5
6
EXHIBIT "A"
Staff Report
(including excerpts from relevant documents)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.4Q1SL1'7.iILQI,;.cl'} 1
(;
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Dept:
Valerie C. Ross, Director
Development Services
Subject: Request from the San Bernardino City Unified
School District for a determination of consistency with
the City General Plan for development of the site
proposed for Wilson II Elementary School.
Date:
March 6, 2008
MCC Date: March 17,2008
Synopsis or Previous Councll Action:
August I, 2005 - The Mayor and Common Council considered the sites proposed for development
of Monterey II, Alessandro II, Burbank II and Wilson II Elementary Schools. The Mayor and
Council determined that development of Wilson II Elementary School as proposed would not be
consistent with the General Plan. The other school sites were determined to be consistent with the
General Plan.
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council find that land acquisition and development of the site
proposed for Wilson II Elementary School would not be consistent with the General Pian.
Y~t.'RH,V'
Valerie C. Ross
Contaet person: Terri Rahhal. City Planner
Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Renort
Ward(s):
7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acet. No.)
(Acet. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
OOOI
Page 2 of2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Request from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination of
consistency with the City General Plan for development of the site proposed for
Wilson II Elementary School.
Applicant:
San Bernardino City Unified School District
777 N. "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909-381-1100
BACKGROUND:
The site proposed by the San Bernardino City Unified School District (District) for development
of Wilson II Elementary School is bOlUlded by 26th Street on the north, Arrowview Middle
School on the south, "F" Street on the east and "G" Street on the west. In 2005, the Mayor and
Council determined that development of Wilson II Elementary School at this location would not
be consistent with the General Plan. Since then, the District has prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (ElR) pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). In a letter dated February 8, 2008, the District subrnitted another request for a finding
of consistency with the City General Plan. The item was presented to the Planning Commission
on March 4, 2008. All pertinent background information and analysis is attached in the March 4,
2008 staffreport to the Planning Commission as Exhibit l. The District's Draft ElR for Wilson II
Elementary School is appended on a compact disk as Exhibit 2.
On March 4, 2008, the Planning Commission referred this item to the Mayor and Council with a
recommendation that the Mayor and Council determine that development of Wilson II
Elementary School at the site proposed by the District would not be consistent with the General
Plan. The vote of the Planning Commission was unanimous, with Commissioners Coute, Dailey,
Heasley, MulvihilI and Sauerbrun present. Commissioners Hawkins, LongvilIe, Muiioz and
Rawls were absent.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION
That the Mayor and Common Council find that land acquisition and development of the site
proposed for Wilson II Elementary School would not be consistent with the General Plan.
EXHIBITS:
I
2
March 4,2008 Planning Commission Staff Report
Draft Environmental Impact Report for Wilson II Elementary School (CD)
~\
0002
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
General Plan Consistency Determination
for the Proposed Wilson II Elementary School
3
March 4, 2008
7
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
OWNER:
Various
APPLICANT:
San Bernardino City
Unified School District
777 N. "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909-381-1100
REQUEST/LOCATION:
A request from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination that
land acquisition and development of the proposed Wilson II Elementary School would be
consistent with the City General Plan. The site is approximately 8.5 acres, bounded by
"F" Street on the east, "0" Street on the west, 26th Street on the north and Arrowview
Middle School on the south, in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
CONSTRAINTs/OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
!if Not Applicable
o Exempt, Previously approved Negative Declaration
o No Significant Effects
o Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation MonitoringIReporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
o Approval
o Conditions
!if Denial Recommendation to MCC
o Continuance to:
0003
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 3/4/08
Page 2
REQUEST AND LOCATION
'1
,1
-~
The San Bernardino City Unified School District (District) has requested a determination
from the Planning Commission that land acquisition and development of the proposed
Wilson II Elementary School would be consistent with the City General Plan
(Attachment A). The subject 8.5-acre site is located at the southeast comer of 26th Street
and "G" Street, adjacent to the northern boundary of Arrowview Middle School in the
RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
SETTING AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site proposed for development of Wilson II Elementary School is located in an
existing single-family residential neighborhood. There are 40 single family residences on
the site, built mainly in the 1920's and the 1930's. 29 of the homes have been identified
as potentially significant historic structures. Land uses surrounding the site include:
North: Residential uses in the RS district.
South: Arrowview Middle School
East: Residential uses in the RS district.
West: Residential uses in the RS district.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The determination of consistency with the City General Plan is not a project subject to
CEQA. The District is the lead agency for the proposed project of land acquisition and
development of the Wilson II school site. The District has prepared a Draft
Environmentallmpact Report (DElR) for the Wilson II project (Attachment B). Staffhas
reviewed the DEIR and submitted a comment letter (Attachment C).
BACKGROUND
State Law requires a local school district contemplating acquisition and development of a
new school site to request a determination from the planning agency with jurisdiction that
development of a school at the proposed site would be consistent with the local agency's
General Plan. If the planning agency finds that the proposed school project would not be
consistent with the General Plan, the district may overrule the finding and go forward
with the school development project with a 2/3 majority vote of its governing board.
The District submitted a General Plan Consistency Determination request to the City for
the proposed Wilson II site in 2005. The Planning Commission tabled the item and the
Mayor and Common Council found that development of Wilson II Elementary School as
proposed would not be consistent with the General Plan. Staff reports to the Planning
Commission and Mayor and Common Council and other materials related to the 2005
General Plan Consistency Determination are compiled in Attachment D.
0004
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 3/4/08
Page 3
iii
;~,1
'I
'1
In the request for a new detennination of General Plan Consistency (Attachment A) the
District calls attention to the new information presented in the DEIR (Attachment B).
Staff does not find any new information in the DEIR that would change the analysis and
recommendations concerning the Wilson II Elementary School project as presented in the
staff reports prepared in 2005 (Attachment D). In fact, the DEIR acknowledges that the
project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and concludes that this contlict with the
General Plan constitutes a significant environmental impact with no feasible mitigation,
requiring the School Board to adopt overriding considerations in order to approve the
project.
:1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning COmmission forward the request for a General Plan
Consistency Determination for the Wilson II Elementary School site to the Mayor and
Common Council, with a recommendation to fmd the proposed school site is not
consistent with the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Ya1JMv (}.fH,v
Valerie C. Ross
Director of Development Services
7~~
Terri RahhaI
Deputy Director/City Planner
Attachment A
Letter dated February 8, 2008 from the San Bernardino City Unified
School District, requesting a General Plan Consistency Determination
Draft Environmental Impact Report (OEIR) for the proposed Wilson II
Elementary School (CD)
City Comment Letter dated February 14, 2008, regarding the Wilson II
Elementary School DEIR.
Background Documents concerning the General Plan Consistency
Detennination of2005.
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
non~
. L
,i
'''''''~~'''''C''i'
SAN BERNARDINO CIlY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
A TTACHMENT A
Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superintendent
j
~
John A. Peukert, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities/Operations
February 8, 2008
Valerie Ross, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street, 3'" Floor
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re: Request for Planning Commission Interpretation
Request for General Plan Conformity Finding based on Additional Technical Reports
The San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) is formally resubmitting the propoSed Wilson
II Elementary School to the Planning Commission having jurisdiction where the proposed school is to be
located. We include supplemental information to our June 9, 2005 previous Notice and to the subsequent
hearing held on July 19, 2005.
As you are probably aware, the District conducted a Scoping Session with the City in early 2007 and held
a formally noticed Seeping Meeting at Arrowview Middle School on February 8, 2007. Comments were
received and considered in preparation of the Draft EIR enclosed herewith. Further, a formally noticed
Draft EIR Public Hearing was held at Arrowview Middle School on January 31, 2008. We are requesting
that the Planning Commission provide written findings to the District stating the site is in conformity with
the jurisdiction's adopted General Plan.
The proposed project site is bounded by 26'" Street to the north, F Street to the east, G Street to the west
and Arrowview Middle School to the south in the City of San Bernardino. The approximately 8.5 acre
project site includes 40 existing single family residential units and an approximately 31,000 square foot
vacant lot. The jurisdiction's General Plan designates the subject site as Residential Suburban (RS).
The enclosed Final Draft Environmental Impact Report includes additional reports including a Traffic
Report and Parking Study that includes a number of mitigation measures for circulation. These reports
also document that parking will be sufficient for the new school and not overlap with demands from the
neighboring Arrowview Middle School. Additionally, the District will modify enrollment at the Arrowview
Middle School by relocating all 6'" grade students to their home schools and the new Wilson II campus.
This will further mitigate traffic impacts in the vicinity due to relocation of apprOXimately 300 students at
Arrowview Middle School.
Your prompt attention to this request for review and recommendation is appreciated. If there are any
questions or need for further information, please contact me at (909) 381-1238.
Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
Attachments: Final Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices.
FACIUTlES/OPERAnONS DMSION
777 North F 5treet . San Bernardino, CA 92410 . (909) 381.1238 . Fax (909) 885.4218
www.sbcusdfacilities.com 0 0 () r;
"
ATTACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
,
~{
,
300 North "0" Street. San Bernardino. CA 92418-0001
909.384.5057 . Fax: 909.384.5080
Public Worlcs Fax: 909.384.5155. www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us
February 14.2008
Jorge Mendez, Project Manager
San Bernardino City Unified School District
777 North "F" Street
San Bemardino, CA 92410
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Wilson" Elementary School
Dear Mr. Mendez:
The Development Services Department of the City of San Bemardino has reviewed the above
referenced DIER, and hereby submits comments to be addressed in the Final Environmt'ntal
Impact Report (FEIR) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Please respond with revisions and additional analysis as requested before presenting
the Wilson" Elementary School project to the Board of Education for a final decision.
I. Tramc Imoact Miti2ation: The DEIR identifies a significant adverse impact of the
proposed project at the intersection of 28'h Street and E Street. The addition of project-
related traffic to this intersection is predicted to degrade the projected 20 I 0 operation of
the intersection to Level of Service F. A traffic signal is identified as being required to
mitigate this impact. The mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR is a 5.45'%
contribution to the cost of a traffic signal. Since the traffic signal is needed to mitigate
"opening day" impacts, it must be installed prior to occupancy of the school site. The fair
share approach identified in the DEIR does not identi(y how the other 94.55% will be
funded. The tair share approach used assumes that all other "new" traffic (growth) added
to this location by other new development in the area will participate in the cost of the
tramc signal. Unfortunately, the area is essentially built out. the District will be removing
houses for the school, and there is scant opportunity for other new development in thc
vicinity to contribute toward the cost of the traffic signal. Other than the project traffic.
all other future new traffic (growth) identified at this location is attributable to futurc
dcvclopment that will mostly occur outside of the area. This makes it impossiblc tor thc
Clly to collect a tail' share trom all other future new development that contributes traffic
to the subject intersection. It is not practical to expect that the City will actually install
the tranic signal aner collecting small tilir share amounts thlJll hundreds of projects that
are outside of the project vicinity. The proposed mitigation tails to adequately mitigatc
the identitied impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 should be "e\'ised to require
installation of a tl'amc signal at the intersection of 28'" Street llnd E Street, prior to
oCl'upanc~, instead of the proposed fIliI' share con!t'ibution.
f){W7
,
>,
\Vi/son II Eh..'IllI.:IHary School DEIR
C\lJ111lll.:11I L~lh:r
Fl.:hrll~IJ.Y 15. ~lJOX
P<lg,,-, 2. uf J
5':'1
;1
-~
,1
:1
,
1
:i
2, Land Use and Cultural Resources; The DEIR correctly concludes that the project would
have significant impacts on the existing neighborhood where construction of Wilson 1/
Elementary School is currently proposed. No feasible measures were identified that could
effectively mitigate inconsistency with the City General Plan or destruction of 29
potentially historic homes. However. these significant impacts could be 3\'oided
altogether by selection of an alternate site. The DEIR anal)'sis of alternatives to the
proposed pl'Oject is inadequate and should be revised and expanded to identifY a
suitable alternative project site to avoid significant impacts to cultural resources
and land use.
3. Alternatives: Please provide the following revisions and additional information:
A. Revise Exhibit 6.3-1: Alternative Sites. This exhibit incorrectly indicates the
location of the existing Wilson Elementary School approximately y, mile north of the
actual school site. The locations indicated for Alternative Sites I and 2 do not match
the locations described in the text of the analysis. Either the text or the exhibit should
be revised to correct this.
B. Add an exhibit to define the Wilson Elementary School Attendance Area. There
are numerous references in the DEIR to the attendance area of the school. For
instance, the proposed site is apparently preferred by the District because it is in the
western portion of the attendance area. The DEIR also notes that alternative sites I
and 2 are located at the southern edge of the attendance area. However, the attendance
area is not defined.
C. Quantify the impacts of the alternatives in comparison to the significant impacts
of the proposed project. The alternative project analysis is too general, and the
conclusions are not supported by empirical data. Instead of making vague statements
about alternatives having impacts "similar" to the proposed project. the analysis of
each alternative should include a tally of the number and type of structures that would
have to be demolished and an assessment of their potential historic value. This
description should be compared to the 40 homes (29 potentially historic) that would
have to be demolished for the proposed project.
D. Anal)'ze potential development of an elementary school campus adjacent to the
existing Wilson Elementary School. The alternatives analysis rejects the concept of
expanding the e.xisting Wilson Elcmentary School due to maximum attendance limits
(or guidelines'?) set by the State. It may be feasible to develop a separate campus
adjacent to the existing school, similar to the plan for construction of Roosewlt II. If
there is any potential for sharing of facilities or amenities like a Illulti-purpose room.
auditoriulll or ball fields. the acreage required to build the new school could be
substantially less than the area required tor construction on the proposed project site.
nons
~j
E. Analyze another alternative site that conforms to the District's basic location
criteria. In Section 2.3: Objectives. the DEIR states that the new school site should
be located in the western portion of the attendance area. and it should not be located
on a major roadway. Assuming that the existing Wilson Elementary School is in the
eastern pOltion of the attendance area, the two alternative sites analyzed in the DEIR
are in the southeast comer of the attendance area, and both sites are located on
Highland Avenue, a major arterial roadway. Neither alternative site meets the basic
location criteria established by the District, so at least one other site should be
considered and analyzed in the FEIR.
WilsonlJ Elolllontary Schonl DEIR
('omm..:nt L\"~Ih.:r
F..:bruary 15. ~O()S
P~lgl: J of 3
:'i'
:~
1
!
j
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. When the Final EIR is completed, please submit it to the City with proper notice of the
public hearing scheduled to consider certification of the EIR and action on the proposed Wilson
II Elementary School project.
Sincerely,
[~9 ~ rTfL-
Deputy Director/City Planner
Cc: Valerie C. Ross, Development Services Director
Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer
1l0n9
.
ATTACHMENT D
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Website: www.sbciry.org
MIIJO' JuditIt VoII"
Coo..il M.illMm
Enhl, EsltrJdo
Susan Long.;/I.
Go""'" McGinnit
N.iI o.rry
CIw K./Ity
Rikk. Van Johnson
wtndy McCammotk
"
MINUTES
MA YOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND THE
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST I, 200.5
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community
Development Cominission, and San Bernardino City Housing Authority of the City of
San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor/Chairman Valles at 1:37 p.m., Monday,
. August 1,- 200.5, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
RoD Call
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the fOllowing being present: Mayor/
Chairman Valles; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark,
AssiSlant to the City Administrator Sassoon. Absent: None.
1. Closed Session
Pursuant to Government Code Section(s):
A. Conference with legal counsel - eXisting litigation - pursuant to
Government Code Section .549.56.9(a):
Mohammed Fawzi Hassan, et at. v. City of San Bernardino, et at. _
United Slates District Court Case No. EDCV 0.5-328 V AP (SGLx);
08101/2005
0010
35.
Resolution of the Mayor and Common
Beroardioo adoptiog the 2005/2006
Improvement Prog~.
Council of the City of San
through 2009/2010 Capital
',J
!;l,
,
Staff requested a two-week continuance.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the MaUer be Continued 10 the
Council/Commission meeting of August IS, 2005.
I
The motion carried by the following vote:
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
36.
Resolution of the City of San Bernardino adopting the Five-year Capital
Improvement Proaram (2005-2010) for Measure "I" local expenditures.
Staff requested a two-week continuance.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to the Council/
Commission meeting of August IS, 2005.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
37. Request for Findings of ConslstencYwlth City's General Plan _ four
proposed elementary school sites. Monterey n, Alessandro II, Burbank II,
&: Wilson n - San Bernardioo City UnIlled School District
Valerie Ross, City Planner/Deputy Director of Development Services, staled
that the staff report provides background information on this matter and explains
the City's responsibility to maJce findings of consistency or conformity with the
City's General Plan based on provisions that are in the Government Code.
She advised that staff had recommended that findings of consistency be made on
Alessandro II, Burbanlc II, and Monterey II-but not on Wilson II. She stated
that staff believes that the proposed site for Wilson II is especially problematic
in that it would disrupt a stable neighborhood between "F" and "G" Streets
around 24'" Street, located just north of Arrowview Middle School. It would
also require the vacation of some streets and, as noted in a memo from the
Police Chief, there are concerns relative to locating a new elementary school
adjacent to a middle school. She stated that the preferred site in staffs opinion
20
0810112005
0011
._~-_._-~-
is south of Highland Avenue, east of Sierra Way. However, the District does'
not agree with the City on this.
A memorandum dated August I, 2005, from the San Bernardino City Unified
School District to the City Council regarding General Plan Consistency of
Proposed Wilson II Elementary School was distributed to the Mayor and
Council. City Attorney Penman stated that the school district would like the
Mayor and Council to read and consider the memorandum before making their
decision today.
Ms. Ross pointed out that the information cited in the memo from the District is
correct; however, it is the Mayor and Council's responsibility to interpret the
General Plan, and staff does not feel that all of the references cited apply to
Wilson Elementary School.
Ms. Ross concluded by stating that staff recommends that the Mayor and
Council find that the development of Monterey II, Alessandro II, and Burbank II
elementary schools is consistent with the City's General Plan, and that
development of Wilson II elementary school is not consistent with the City's
General Plan.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she wanted the
viewing public to know that the Wilson II Elementary School that is slated to be
built behind Arrowview Middle School is not consistent with the City's General
Plan, and this is simply the first step in the City's position of opposition to that
school. She indicated there would be a lot more to come, and she didn't want
anyone to get nervous thinking that they need to be moving tomorrow.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council make the
findings that Monterey II Elementary School, Alessandro II Elementary School,
and Burbank II Elementary School are COnsiSteDt with the General Plan; and
that Wilson II Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan.
The motion carried by the fOllowing vote:
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
McCammack. Nays; None. Absent: None.
Ayes; Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Staff Present: Mayor/Chairman Valles; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada,
Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, Economic
Development Agency Executive Director Van Osdel, City Clerk Clark. Absent:
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson.
21
08/01/200S
n012
;;j
<~
e
..;
~*
:G
~
~
:l
;~
Page 1 of4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COt:NCIL ACTION
From:
Dept:
James G. Funk, Director
Development Services
SubjtCt: Requests from the San Bernardino City Unified
School District for determinations of consistency with the
City General Plan for development of four proposed
elementary school sites.
Date: July 27,2005
MCC Date: August I, 2005
SYDopsls of Previous CouDcll AdloD:
None
RecommeDded ModoD:
That the Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
o That Monterey II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
o That Alessandro II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
e ' 00 That Burbank II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
That Wilson II Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan
. . ~
~ IamesG. Funk
e
CODtad persou: Terri RahhaI. PrineiDaI Planner
'bODe: 384-5057
Supportiag data attaebed: Staff Reoort
Ward(s):
7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: ArnouDt: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
31
3
e
e
Page 2 of4
e
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
Requests from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for
determinations of consistency with the City General Plan for development of
four proposed elementary school sites.
Applieaat:
San Bernardino City
Unified School District
777 N. "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909-381-1100
Represeatatives:
URS Group, Inc.
10723 Bell Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-980-4000
LSA Associates
20 Executive Park Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92614-4731
949-SS3-0666
BACKGROUND:
Section 211SI.2 of the Public Resources Code requires the governing board ofa school district to
provide written notice to the Planning Commission with jurisdiction prior to acquiring property
for expansion or development of a school. Section 6S402 or the Government Code requires the
Planning Agency to respond within 40 days to the school district with a report on consistency of
' the proposed school facility with its General Plan. Failure to respond within 40 days is deemed a
finding of consistency. If the Planning Agency finds that the proposed facility is not consistent
with the General Plan, the governing body of the school district may overrule the finding and
carry out its program.
In late June (June 20 and June 24), the San Bernardino City Unified School District (District)
submitted requests for findings of consistency with the City General Plan for four proposed
elementary school sites:
. Monterey II Elementary School, proposed on the north side of Ninth Street, approximately
SOO ft. cast of Tippecanoe Avenue;
. Alessandro II Elementary SchOOl, proposed at the southwest corner of Baseline Street and
Herrington Avenue;
. Burbanlc II Elementary School, proposed at the southeast comer of Rialto Avenue and Allen
Street;
· Wilson II Elementary School, bounded by 26'h Street on the north, Arrowview Middle School
on the south, "P" Street on the east and "G" Street on the west.
Slaffprepared reports and recommended findings to present to the Planning Commission on July
19, 200S. The staff reports to the Planning Commission (Exhibits 1-4) contain full analyses of
applicable GenCi'a1 Plan policies and objectives. Three of the school sites are recommended for
flDdings of consistency with the General Plan, as substantiated in the Planning Commission staff
reports. Development of Wilson II Elementary School at the site proposed by the District would
conflict with General Plan Objectives 1.37 and 1.6, whieh cite the importance of compatibility
0014
Page 3 of4
e
with surrounding residential areas, maintaining the character of the community and not adversely
impacting the quality of life of City residents. SlalT recommends a finding that development of
Wilson II Elementary School would not be consistent with the General Plan, based on the
following concerns about the proposed sitc:
. The proposal would break up a stable neighborhood with 80% owner occupancy, a mode/the
City is striving to replicate in other areas.
. The proposal would require vacation of a segment of 2Slh Street, making 26th Street the first
available cast-west street nolth of Highland A venue, in a neighborhood where local
circulation is already impeded by Arrowview Middle School.
. The subject neighborhood is already impacted by traffic related to dropping 01T and picking
up students at Arrowview Middle School. Addition of another school site at the proposed
location would worsen these impacts.
. The location of Arrowview Middle School on a major thoroughfare (Highland Avenue)
increases the potential for outside influences on the middle school students, including
exposure to gangs. The Police Department recommends against introducing elementary
school students adjacent to this particular middle school (Exhibit 5).
e
As lead agency for school site development under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the District is responsible for environmental analysis of the proposed actions of site
acquisition and development. CEQA requires the lead agency to provide notice and an
opportunity to review and comment on the draft analysis to all responsible agencies which will
have permitting authority in the future. Responsible agencies typicaJly rely on the CEQA
analysis of the lead agency for their permittina actions. The City wiJl have permitting authority
for right-of-way improvements and extension and connection to City water and aewer services
for all of the proposed school sites in question. Therefore the City is a responsible agency with a
substantial interest in the CEQA analysis for the school sites.
City staff became aware that the District had circulated Initial Studies and proposed Mitigated
Negative Declarations for three of the school sites for which consistency findings had been
requested from the City. These CEQA docUlllents were circulated to the State Clearinghouse in
Sacramento, but they were not provided to the City, a responsible agency, for review and
comment. The City Attorney obtained copies of the documents with a Public Records Act
request, just as the formal 30-day comment period was due to expire.
In a letter dated July IS, 200S (Exhibit 6), staIT requested that the comment period on the subject
CEQA documents be extended, and that the District send notices and copies of proposed
environmental determinations for all cUlTCllt and future projects to the City for review as a
responsible agency. The District responded in a letter dated July 18, 200S (Exhibit 7) that the
CEQA comment period would be extended to August IS, 2005.
e
On July 19, 2005, on recommendations from Development Services staff and the City Attorney's
office, the Planning Commission tabled all four consistency finding requests with an indefinite
continuance, pending further review of the District's development plans and environmental
analysis. In order to meet the 4O-day timerrame as specified in the Government Code, stalT has
scheduled the requested findings of General Plan consistency for action by the Mayor and
e
e
e.
Page 4 of 4
Common Council. After completing a review of the environmental documents, staff will respond
separately to the District within the extended review period agreed 10 by the District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
. That Monterey II Elementary School is consiSlent with the General Plan
. That Alessandro n Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
. That Burbank II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
· That Wilson U Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan
EXHIBITS:
I
2
3
4
5
July 19, 2005 Planning Commission StaffRepon for Monterey II Elementary
July 19, 2005 Planning Commission StaffRepon for Alessandro II Elementary
July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Repon for Burbank n Elementary
July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Wilson II Elementary
July 14, 2005 Memo from Police Chief Garrett Zimmon regarding the proposed
site for Wilson II Elementary School
Letter dated July 15, 2005 from Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner to
Wacl Elatar, Facilities Administrator
Letter dated July 18,2005 from Wael Elatar, Facilities Administrator to Valerie
Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner
6
7
1'. (\ 1. p
',J! "
EXHIBIT 4
e SUMMAR Y CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
e,
e
CASE:
General Plan Consistency Determination
for the Proposed Wilson" Elementary School
9
July J 9, 2005
7
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
OWNER:
Various
APPLICANT: San Bernardino City
Unified School District
777 N. "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909-381-1100
REPRESENTATIVE:
URS Group, Inc.
10723 Bell Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 921730
909-980-4000 .
REQUESTILOCATlON:
A request from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination that
land acquisition and development of the proposed Wilson n Elementary School would be
consistent with the City General Plan. The site is approximately 8.5 acres, bounded by
"F" Street on the east, "G" Street on the west, 261h Street on the north and Arrowview
Middle School on the south, located in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
Iii!I Not AppliC8ble
[] Exempt, Previously approved Negative Declaration
[] No Significant Effects
[] Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation MonitoringiReporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Cl Approval
[] Conditions
~ Denial
Cl Continuance to:
I Ii' 1 ,
~ .J '.J _
f.:
e
I
e.
e
General Plan Consistency Delenninalion
Wilson II Elemenlary School Sile
Planning Conunission Heariog Dale: 7.19/05
Page 2
REQl'EST AND LOCATION
The San Bernardino City Unified School District (District) has requested a determination
from the Planning Commission that land acquisition and development of the proposed
Wilson II Elementary School would be consistent with the City General Plan
(Attachment A). The subject 8.5-acre site is located at the southeast comer of 26th Street
and "G" Street, adjacent to the northern boundary of Arrowview Middle School
(Attachment B) in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district (Attachment C). The
site is proposed for development of Wilson II Elementary School, a 32-classroom facility
that would accommodate 900 students (Attachment D).
SElTlNG AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site proposed for development of Wilson II Elementary School is approximately 8.5
acres in area, located in an existing single-family residential neighborhood. There are 40
single family residences on the proposed site, built primarily in the late 1920's and the
1930's. The properties are well maintained and some of the homes have undergone major
improvements recently. 8oo!" of the homes in this area are owner-occupied. and the only
vacant lot in the area is owned by the adjacent homeowner. Land uses surrounding the
site include:
North: Residential uses in the RS district.
~: Arrowview Middle School
East: Residential uses in the RS district.
West: Residential uses in the RS district.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CIQA)
The detennination of consistency with the City General Plan is not a project subject to
CEQA. The San Bernardino City Unified School District would be the lead agency for
the project of acquisition and development of a school site.
BACKGROUND
Section 211 5 1.2 of the Public Resources Code requires the governing board of a school
district to provide written notice to the Planning Commission with jurisdiction prior to
acquiring property for expansion or development of a school. Section 65402 of the
Government Code requires the Planning Agency to respond within 40 days to the School
District with a report on consistency of the proposed school facility with its General Plan.
Failure to respond within 40 days is deemed a finding of consistency. If the Planning
Agency finds that the proposed facility is not consistent with the General Plan, the
governing body of the school district may overrule the finding and carry out its program.
0018
e
e..
e
General Plan Consistency Oeremunation
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Conunission Hearing Date: 7/t9.'OS
Page 3
Wilson II is one of several sites under consideration by lhe District for land acquisition
and development of new schools to meet the growing demand for classroom space in the
City of San Bernardino. Notification to the Planning Commission for a determination of
General Plan consistency will be required for each proposed school site.
The District has informed the City of its facility needs assessment and has met with City.
representatives to discuss site selection alternatives on various occasions. Despite serious
concerns and opposition expressed by the City, the District's planning process for the
Wilson II facility has advanced to the final steps required prior to site acquisition. The
District has commenced environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and is now seeking a
determination of General Plan Consistency.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
When the General Plan was adopted in 1989, existing public schools were designated PF,
Public Facilities. Potential school sites were not specifically identified, but addressed
through the goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan.
General Plan Objective 1.37 states:
"It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to provide for the
continuation of existing and development of new parks, schools, government
administrative, police, fire, social service, and other public facilities and open
spaces in proximity to and compatible with residential uses."
In accordance with this objective, the San Bernardino City Unified School District
proposes to develop a new school site to serve the needs of elementary school ehildren
residing in the area currently served by Wilson Elementary School. Unfortunately, the
specific site proposed by the District for development of Wilson II is located in a very
stable, well-maintained and cohesive neighborhood. Demolition of 40 existing homes and
vacation of a segment of 25'" Street as proposed would impact the existing neighborhood
adversely. This would not be compatible with the sltlTOunding residential area, and
therefore would contlict with General Plan Objective 1.37.
General Plan Objective 1.6 states:
"It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to control the development
of land uses which may adversely impact the character of the City and quality of
life of its residents."
Although it is often necessary to demolish existing struCtures and displace residents and
businesses from existing neighborhoods to provide much-needed public facilities,
development of the site proposed for Wilson II Elementary School would be detrimental
to the character of the City and the quality of life of its residents. Most of the sites
proposed by the District for development of new schools require displacement of
0019
e
e
e
--.... "--- - ---~. --. _.~ u__ _._____u.__ _. _..___. ._
Oeneral Plan Consistency Delermination
Wllsun II ElemenL'lry School Sue
PJaMing Commission Heari"& Date: 7/19/05
Page 4
residents and other existing facilities. However, these other sites generally exhibit a wide
variety of building types and varying levels of property maintenance, interspersed with
vacant parcels. The site proposed for development of Wilson II Elementary School is part
of a fully developed, stable and cohesive neighborhood, evidenced by the high level of
owner occupancy. It is a line example of a 70-yr. old neighborhood thai has stood the test
of time and continues to thrive. Inlrusion into Ihis neighborhood with the demolition of
40 homes would also eliminate numerous examples of Tudor Revival and California
Bungalow architecture that currently enhance the character of the community.
General Plan Policy 8.7.1 slates:
"It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to monitor the residential
growth of the City and work with the local school districts to expand facilities and
services to meet educational needs."
The City has been a willing and active partner in site selection for various school
facilities planned by the San Bernardino City Unilied School District to meet the
educational needs of the residents of San Bernardino. The site selected by the District for
development of Wilson n is not consistent with General Plan Objectives 1.37 and J .6.
The City has proposed alternate locations for the District to consider, and the City is
willing to continue working with the District to identify an appropriate alternative site,
pursuant to Policy 8.7.1.
CONCLUSION
The gOals and policies of the General Plan support development of school facilities, as
needed to serve the community. The site proposed by the San Bernardino City Unified
School District would serve the student enrollment demand from surrounding
neighborhoods. However, it would have unacceptable impacts on the neighborhood
selected for acquisition, to the detriment of the surrounding community. Staff is
recommending a finding that development of Wilson II Elementary School, as proposed,
would not be consistent with the General Pian, based on the following concerns about the
particular site under consideration:
. The proposal would break up a stable neighborhood with 80".1" owner occupancy,
something the City of San Bernardino is striving to achieve in other areas.
. The proposal would require vacation of 25111 Street, making 26th Street the first
available east-west street between "F" and "G" streets north of Highland Avenue.
Local circulation is already impeded by Arrowview Middle School.
a The existing neighborhood is already impacted by traffic related to dropping off and
picking up students at Arrowview Middle School. Addition of another school site at
the proposed location will increase this traffic.
. The location of Arrowview Middle school on a major thoroughfare increases the
potential for outside influences on the middle school students, inclUding exposure to
e
General Plan ConsislCn<:y Delennination
Wilson" Elemcnr.ry School Sire
PlaMing Commission Hearing Oar.: 7'19/05
Page 5
t;
gangs. The Police Department recommends against introducing elementary school
studenls adjacent to this particular middle school.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a finding that acquisition of the
site proposed for development of Wilson II Elementary School is not consistent wilh the
City General Plan.
Respectfully submitted.
~V'~rJr
James Funk
Director of Development Services
7':1?J~
Terri RahhaJ
Principal Planner
e.. Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Letter received June 24, 2005. requesting consistency determination on
behalf of the San Bernardino City Unified School District
Location Map
General Plan Land Use Map
Conceptual Site Plan
e
0021
URS
I e June 9. 2005
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. James Funk. Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 ~orth "0" Street, 3,d Floor
San Bernardino. California 92418
SubJect;
Notice of Proposed Development of Three Schools and
Request for General Plan Confonnity Finding
(Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 and
California Government Code Section 65402.a)
Dear Planning Commission:
URS Corporation (URS) is presently serving as the environmental consultant to the San
Bernardino City Unified School District (the District) to assist in the District's commitment to
the California Environmental Quality Act and the required environmental analysis, for the three
proposed elementary school sites: Alessandro II, Burbank II, and Wilson fl.
e
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65402.a, and Public Resources Code Section 21151.2, the
District is required to request of the Planning Commission having jurisdiction where the
'proposed schools are located, notice in writing of the school sites acquisition. Accordingly, this
letter shall serve as formal notice of the Proposed acquisitions, as well as a request that the
PlaMing CClmmission provide written findings 10 the District that the sites are in conformity with
the jurisdiction's adopted General Plan, within 40 days of this letter.
I. Alessandro II: The Proposed Alessandro II Elementary School Site is located southwest of
the intersection of Baseline Street and Herrington A venue in the County of San Bernardino,
California. The proposed project consists of 40 parcels, and comprises approximately
601,128 square feet, or approximately 13.8 acres. The proposed elementary school will total
32 classrooms and would provide education facilities for 900 studonls in grades K-6. The
jurisdiction's General Plan designates the subject site as Residential Suburban District (RS)
and Commercial General District (CG-I).
2. Burbank If: The Proposed Burbank rr Elementary School Site is located between West
Ria/to Avenue, South Allen Street, Valley Street. and Waterman Avenue in the County of
San Bemardino, California. The proposed project consists of 43 parcels and comprises
approximately 435,600 square feet, or approximately 10.0 acres. The proposed elementary
school will total 20 classrooms and would provide education facilities for 600 sCUdenls in
grades K-6. The jurisdiction's General Plan designates the subject site as Rcsidontiallow
District (RL) and Office Industrial Park District (OIP).
e
tRS GrC,~.lnc.
10T23 ~lt Court
Rdnr;~f) CIK.wnonca. CA 117.11')
Tel 909.960.4000
F;M: 909.980.1399
[Kj&@&llW&@
JUN H ruC5
0022
~_C?F SAN BEIlN"RO'NO
-....OI'al;:'\IT seRVICES
DEPAlI1MENT
URS
e
Mr. lames Funk, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
lune 9,2005
Page 2
J. Wilson II: The Proposed Wilson II Elementary School Site is located northwest of the
intersection of "F" and 251h Streets in the County of San Bernardino, Calitomia. . The
proposed project consists of 41 parcels. and comprises approximately 370,260 square leel, or
approximately 8.5 acres. The proposed elementary school will total 32 classrooms and
would provide education facilities for 900 students in grades K-6. The jurisdiction's General
Plan designates the subject site as Residential Suburban (RS).
The attached figures show the location and conceptual site plans for each of the proposed
projects.
Your prompt attention to this request for review is appreciated. If there are any questions or
need for further information, please call me at (909) 980-4000.
Sincerely,
URS
e,~~
leffry S. Rice, AICP
Manager, Environmental and Planning
Attachments: Figure I, Regional Vicinity Map - Alessandro II
Figure 2, Project Location Map - Alessandro II
Figure 3, Project Land Vse Map - Alessandro "
Figure I, Regional Vicinity Map - BurbanJc II
Figure 2. Project Location Map - Burbank II
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map - Burbank II
Figure I, Regional Vicinity Map - Wilson II
Figure 2, Project Location Map _ Wilson n
Figure 3, Project Land Vse Map - Wilson II
Cc: Melinda Pure, Facilities Planning and Development, SBCVSD
Wael Elatar, Facilities Administrator, SBCUSD
Terry Gardner, TLG Real Estate/Public Finance
e
. .0023
~'~,. ~~:!I]\,::,'r '._(;)", " ..II:~.I~ .1,.>._'-" ATTACHMENTB
-I'r~ ~t I~" I. ~ 1.1 ~:I U~
.. -- 1/ . G ._~~_~ 'il .:,1 tI~ rd. I ~. ~~ .
'/--'.~i~ -r'-I:~.. I -J;1
l' . .~. .~ BmlOOl It r a
Ilt"',"" = \: ... I / '\1.':" I'rpl-o- _.-~ [--
A~ . ~ t"'-" ~__ _. ~
__ 1\ '" . ....,. Ii. \) ~A~_ ~1.3c-_ ,- - _~,~ L ~.
Ii. !. . . I . - .I .... I!=- ·
t;;-'G:
~-].u.:
- ~:::. r-.:
~ -
_. 14
l,:i; ~ 1,: "_
....~ ~;
'fi~ ='it
~, :~Ij .~_
...... 'I
.. 1r oL I:
II'..... L..- ,_
= !'
,......, . ~
, ~ It - Li, ~ ~ /.. I ~I n .r-
r, - I. .1. ~". . .
.... - , _'I. 'WI.. ~~ I~~
-, Ie, :A ~I-
SehGal.
. . faL..
~.. II
1... .~
".::.
--
-
.
~
II
t;;;;
l-'- -
i
~
..
. .
. I t., lieU1
rM '.-- ~,~,
]Ii'~ ~
-.... I f ~~, -
- '11--
.~ ll'; .- l.:I'
I
I ,~
I
~.
\
I '$-.
.
.'"
I _.....
,b~
. E'""*"-Y_
o MiddIo_
. High-
..-
8 2_rodlus
Clcy atS8n '---
o CClUIlly at Sill Bemo.Ji&.o
Dplllr
I -'-de--,.
· P",*-ao.._t
;, M-.. EIomel....t
.. 0.- E-...ry
l!I w-. E""_,
. '-II IngIQm EIomontary
.. RoaM... E_....,
j
N
,.I'
110- ,-
-.
~~,
~
-
~
8
.
10
I I
us
00
,..
N. T. S.
PROJECT LOCATION
URS ApriI2005
-, r -1'~
I.~IJ ,f j .:~/
~ ~~ ~~
;!p
~
-
AI
'I
,
I
r-
Riley Er.-....t
""'-m ~ EIomontary
RileyE_"-t
- v.nan E*N.IIa,
~V8fIey~
Am>wvtew Middle
s.n Bemll1lino High
Wilson II EIemenlaIy School
San Bernardino Cily Unified School Oisbicl
Figure 2
0024
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: Wilson /I
PLANNING DIVISION Elementary
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 7/19105
LJ
NORTH
~~t::...
0025
-
j
N
-
e
Feet
o 50 100 200
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN
April 2005
Wilson II Elementary School
San Bernardino City Unified School District
Figure 3
002G
Ie
e
e
EXHIBIT 5
City of SaD BeraardiDo
San BerDardlno Pollee Department
Interoffice MemoraDdum
1151D'
\:J 1..:::2 L!:U
.
,.' ult.lO
:,;:,. :CES
," :..:rjIT
To:
Valerie Ross. Senior Planner
From:
t.
Subject:
WIlson 11 Proposed School Site
Date:
July 14,2005
Copies:
Maryanne Milligan, City Attorney's Office
I feel it is important that the Police Department share some concerns this agency has over the
location selected for the proposed Wilson II School. During a previous meeting between City
staff and San Bernardino City School District (SBCSD) staff, it was disclosed that the SBCSD
was planning on constructing Wilson II Elementary School north of the existing Arrowview
Middle School, south of 26'h Street, east of G Street and west of F Street.
The Police Department has concerns with the construction of a new elementary school in that
,area for the following reasons:
· This will build a school next to the middle school, which is located on a main street
(Highland). That school, due to I) its fronting Highland and 2) the age oftbe attendees,
will attract gang members and other suspects who like to hang around schools. Needless
to say, that issue could have an impact on the students attending the elementary school as
well as additional public safety problems for the Police Department.
· This is predominately a residential area. Thus, the traffic patterns created in the
neighborhoods by parents who pick up and drop of kids will significantly impact the
neighborhood. That issue has become a major problem for neighborhoods throughout
Southern California as it really impacts people who live in the surrounding community.
· Finally, it will close the east/west streets north of the existing Arrowview Middle School-
thereby causing residents and drivers to go several blocks before they can access some of
the surrounding neighborhoods or streets.
TIlE S8PO IS co".,rrn:o TO PROVIDING,
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POI.ICE SERVICE;
A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE;
^ RWIK'T10N IN CRL'lE TIIROUGH PltOllLEM RfCtJ<JNITION AND PROBLEM SOL \'/NG
0027
EXHIBIT 6
e
DEVELOPMENT SER\'ICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "D" Street. San BCtnardlno . CA 92418.0001
Plannin. '" Buildin.9G9.JI4.50S7. Fax: 909.384 5080
Public WorkslEnlineerin.909.JI4.5111 . Fax: 909.384.5155
www.sbcilyor.
July J 5.2005
VIA FASCIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
San Bernardino City Unilied School District
777 North "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
, .,
e .Re: Proposed School Sites
Dear Mr, Elatar:
-'..
On June 21, 2005, I sent you a letter requesting copies of the environmental documents for the
proposed Burbank 11 and Alessandro II elementary schools, This letter indicated that I believed
[halthe City .s a responsible agency under CEQA and as a responsible agency has both the right
and the duty under CEQA to review and comment on the environmental documents for these
proposed school sites. To date, I hne not receh'ed a response to my inquiry or the
environmental documents.
I recently became aware from the' CEQAnet database through the Governor's Office' of PI8III)ing
and Research thaI the public review and comment period ends on July J 4, 2005 for the above two
schools I further noticed that the review period for the proposed Wilson II elemenrary school is
from June 2 J, 2005 through July 20, 2005, However, the City has nol received a :'IIotice of Intent
for any of these schools,
Without the opportunity 10 re"iew the environmental documents and comment on potential
environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures, if any. the City as a responsible
agency, cannot represent that we can provide services necessa/')' to these sites,
e
In addition to ihe above, proceeding "'ilh Ihe environmental determination for Wilson" is
especially problematic. The City has repealedly told the Districtlhat it has concerns with the
0028
-
:~
proposed location of this school. Presumabl}. the envlrorunenlaJ document addresses the
vacalion of 2S'h Slreet and Berkeley Avenue to accommodate the school. The City has
repeatedly told the Districtlhalthe Cily cannol support. and strongly Opposes these streel
vacations for numerous reasons, including but not limited to the uruniligable impact on traffic on
surrounding streets as a result of these street closures.
SBCLSD
rroposcd S..;hOi,)1 Sites
July 15. 2VOS
Page 2
;1
.
':',
As it appears that the District failed to follow proper procedures under CEQA by sending any
envirorunental documems to the City who is a responsible agency under CEQA, the City hereby
reserves the right to raise any issues which it could have raised during the comment period in any
future litigation lhat may be filed on behalf of City and/or City MUDlcipal Water Department.
Furthennore, as a responsible agency, the City is again requesting thaI the City be sent all notices
of intent or nOlices of preparation of an ElR as well as any olher envirorunental documents for
any fUlure school sites located in the City of San Bernardino.
-
In closing. the City and City Municipal Water Department are fonnally opposed to the adoption
of Negative Declarations for Burbank II, Alessandro II, and Wilson n elementary schools and are
requesting that the District extend the review period for at least an additionallhirty (30) days to
allow the City and Waler District to properly respond 10 these environmental documents.
Sincerely,
V~ t/.1?HY
~"
Valerie C. Ross
Deputy Director/City Planner
c:
Members oflhe SB.C.U.SD. Board of Education
Arturo Delgado, Superintendent, S.B.C.U.S.D.
Judith Valles, Mayor
James F. Perunan. Cily Atiorney
Fred Wilson. City Adminislrator
James Funk. Developmenl ServIces Director
Henry Empefto, Sr. Deputy City AlIorney
J\'larianne Milligan, Deputy City AlIomey
Slacey Aldstadt. General Manager. San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
'.
e
.--...-----.---.---.
0029
,
I
"
)
Ki
j1
j
"
-
e
-
EXHIBIT 7
July IS, 2005
Arturo Delgado, Ed,D.
SUDerintendent
John A Peukert, Anlltant SUperintendent, FacUiliealOpenltiona
Via Hllld Delivery IIId e-mail
Valerie C. Ross, Deputy Director/City PIIIIIIIer
Development Services Oepanment
City of San Bemsrdino
300 N. "D" Smet
Sill Bernardino, CA 9241S-0001
Subject:
Identified School Sites
Refer to:
City of San Bernardino Development Services Department letter, dated July IS, 2005
Dear Ms. Ross,
Your letter, referenced above, was received at my office via fax on July 15. 2005. In YQur letter, you
refer to an earlier letter ftom you to me, dated June 21, 2005. I and my statr were not aware of this
letter. We have conducted a aeareIt of our fila; CI/1DOl find your letter Qr a record of receiving this
letter; and have not bad !be opportunity to addreaa any requat you IIIIIde In this letter.
In response to your currentleaer, we wanl you ~'know that the District desires the City's engapmenl in
such important matters as the current one. We are pleased to extend the review and comment period for
the City for thirty days ftom the date of your lettertbrough Monday, Auguat 15,2005. We willllSlUllle
that this extension is acceptable to the City of San Bernardino lUlIess we hear otherwise ftom you by the
close ofbusiness on July 21",
Copies of the mitipted negative declaration repoltl for the A1-soo"1dro II, BurbanJc: D and Wilaon II
school sites are attac:hed for yoUr review and comment. We would like to suggelt . meetina within two
weeks to address any preliminary issues or concerns that the City mlaht have identified reprding these
repoItI. One objective of that meeting would be to attempt to resolve most or all of the City's issues, if
any, prior to the end oflhe review periOd. A second objective would be to establish any necessary
follow-up meetings wilbln lbe review periOd.
Please be assured that the School District has always tried to k:;g the City involved in new school
location and construction matters. In fact, as recenlly as June 16 , the City Attorney's office made
various requests includiq a written request for the status on CEQA for two of the three identified new
school sites that you referred to in your letter: Wilaon II and Alessandro U (copy attached). AI part of
our response to. that request, the District made available exclusively to the City originals of the entire
negative mitigation repoltl, ~ipt of which was acknowledged in writing by the City staff. As far as
we know, these originals are stiIJ in possession of the City. It is apparent from your letter, however, that
availability of these originals at Ibe City might not have been brought to your attention.
FAOUTJES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
777 NoIth F Slreel. San 1IemanIno, rA 92410 . (909) 381-1238 . Fax (909) 885-4218
WHI.eIatarOsbcusd.k12.Cll.llS
0030
Ie
-
-
Please also nole that, in compliance with the law, the District also made copies available for review by
the public at both the Board of Education building front counler at 777 F Street and the City of San
Bernardino Public Library located at SSS West 6111 Street. We also forwarded 12 copies of the
documents to the Stare Clearing House for stale-wide notification.
Our actions obviously did not achieve the result desired by both the City and the School District. In
order to llI8ke this process more effective, the School District commits to involving the City IS early as
practicable in each new school construction project. Also, we would like to extend our offer to meet
with the City staff' on a regular basis to include all future new school land acquisition and construction
projects within the city limits.
In order to expedite our response to your letter, we are delivering this letter and the three negative
declaration reports in both electronic fonnat (via e-mail) and in hardcopy (via hand delivery). Please
feel free to use e-mail as well as hardcopy transmittals for future requests and fOllow-up 8Clions. Also, I
and my staff are available by telephone at (909) 381-1238 and by fix at (909) 88S-4218.
I look forward to working with you on this current matter and on all future matters involving the City
and the School District.
Sincerely,
~
Wac) Slaw
Facilities Administrator
cc: Members of the SBCUSD Board of Education
Arturo Delgado, Superintendent, SBCUSD _
Judith Valles, Mayor, City of San Bernardino
James F. Penman, City Attorney, City of San Bernardino
Fred Wilson, City Administrator, City of San Bernardino
James Funk, Development Services Director, City of San Bernardino
Henry Empefto, Sr Deputy City Anorney, City of San Bernardino
Marianne Milligan, Deputy City Attorney, City of San Bernardino
Stacey Aldstadt, General Manaaer, San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
0031
~
Cheryl Brown
John COllie
Kenneth Durr
Alfredo Enciso
Larry Heasley
Jim Morris. Vice-Chair
Roger Powell
Mike Sallerbrun, Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone: (909) 384-5057/5071 . Fax: (909) 384-5080
~
j
.
~
j
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF JULY 19, 2005
1. PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER NO. 05-65 (APPEAL NO. 05-10)
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10296 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 05-01)
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-32
4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-09 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 05-10
5.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDEMENT NO. 05-03, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO.
05-65, & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 05-05
6.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ MONTEREY II
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
7.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION - ALESSANDRO II
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
8.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ BURBANK II
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
9.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ WILSON II
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Page I
0032
7/19/05
.~
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Sauerbrun at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall.
i
1
,
Present: Commissioners Brown, Coute. Durr, Heasley, Morris. and Sauerbrun. Absent:
Commissioners Enciso and Powell. Staff Present: Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner;
Aron Liang, Senior Planner; Ben Steckler, Associate Planner; Brian Foote, Assistant Planner;
Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney; James Funk, Director; Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner;
and Linda Dortch, Development Services Technician.
Commissioner Durr led the flag salute.
ADMINISTRATION OF OATH
Brian Foote, Assistant Planner, administered the oath.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no public comments.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner stated that Items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were
recommended for the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Coute pulled Item 3 for discussion.
Commissioner Brown stated that she would abstain on Items 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Commissioner Durr made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Heasley
seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso,
Heasley, Morris, and Sauerbrun. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioners Enciso and Powell.
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10296 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. OS-ol} _ A
request for a one year extension of time from February 4, 2005 to February 4, 2006 to
subdivide approximately 3 acres of land into 12 lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200
square feet located at the northeast comer of Mill and Macy Streets in the RS, Residential
Suburban land use district.
Environmental Determination:
Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332-InfiIl
Development
Dave & Julie Fitzpatrick
K&C Ventures, Inc.
0142-15]-11, ]2, & 17. and 0]42-361-08
3
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Page 2
0033
7/19/05
,-
Q
.,1
Planner:
Ben Steckler
The Planning Commission approved a one-year extension of time from February 4, 2005 to
February 4, 2006 for Tentative Tract Map No. 10296 based on the previously adopted
Findings of Fact and approved Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements with
revised Public Works Requirements (Attachment E).
6. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ A request from the San
Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination that development of the
proposed Monterey II Elementary School would be consistent with the City General
Plan. The site is approximately 17 acres, located on the north side of Ninth Street,
approximately 500 feet east of Tippecanoe Avenue in the RM, Residential Medium land
use district.
Environmental Determination:
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
Not Subject to CEQA
SB Schools Finance Corp.
San Bernardino City Unified School District
0278-061-72,68
I
Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Monterey II Elementary School indef"mitely.
7. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ A request from the San
Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination that land acquisition and
development of the proposed Alessandro II Elementary School would be consistent
with the City General Plan. The site is approximately 13.8 acres, located at the southwest
comer of Baseline Street and Herrington Avenue in the RS, Residential Suburban and
CG-2, Commercial General land use districts.
Environmental Determination:
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
Not Subject to CEQA
Various
San Bernardino City Unified School District
40 parcels
6
Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Alessandro II Elementary School indef"mitely.
8. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ A request from the San
Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination that land acquisition and
development of the proposed Burbank II Elementary School would be consistent with
the City General Plan. The site is approximately 10 acres, located at the southeast comer
Page 3
0034
7/19105
,
"-f
';;;
~
i
of Rialto Avenue and Allen Street in the RS. Residential Suburban and OIP, Office
Industrial Park land use districts.
'l
.'
.Cj
Environmental Determination:
.
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
'1
j
!
.j
I
Not Subject to CEQA
Various
San Bernardino City Unified School District
43 parcels
I
Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued tbe General Plan Consistency Determination for
Burbank II Elementary Scbool indefinitely.
9. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION _ A request from the San
Bernardino City Unified School District for a determination that land acquisition and
development of the proposed Wilson II Elementary School would be consistent with the
City General Plan. The site is approximately 8.5 acres, bounded by "F" Street on the east,
"Goo Street on the west, 26rh Street on the north and Arrowview Middle School on the
south in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
Environmental Determination:
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
Not Subject to CEQA
Various
San Bernardino City Unified School District
41 parcels
7
Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued tbe General Plan Consistency Determination for
Wilson II Elementary School indef"mitely.
IV. AGENDA ITEMS
I. PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER NO. 05-05 (APPEAL NO. OS-tO) _ An appeal
of the Director's determination that a four-plex apartment structure located at 2194 N.
McKinley Avenue in the PCR, Public Commercial Recreation land use district has lost its
non-conforming status. (Continued from June 21,2005)
Environmental Determination:
Owner/Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
Page 4
Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301-Existing
Facility
Dion Graham
1191-021-29
7
Ben Steckler
0035
7/19/05
-4
-~
j
'i ._
1
,j
i
,
1
1
'~
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, 300
North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
(8:53 p.m.!
Minutes Adopted by:
Planning Commissioners: Brown, Coute, Heasley, Morris, and Sauerbrun
Date Approved: September 7, 2005
Minutes Prepared by:
Linda Dortch
Development Services Technician
Page 13
003G
j
!
I
7/19/05