HomeMy WebLinkAbout53-Resolution
c
11
12
13
C 14
15
16
17
18
19
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
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
Code Section 65402(a) prior to the acquisition by the School District of any properties In
furtherance of the intended Wilson II Elementary School Project; and
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
recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed Wilson II Elementary
School Project was not in conformity with the General Plan of the City as required by Government
Code Section 65402(a) and the staff report of said Planning Commission meeting is attached
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
C. 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
I dllllL17/1ILIl'<;d"J 1
-# S3
Y /7/08
c
9
10
11
12
13
C 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
c
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
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council directed the preparation of this Resolution
and requested that this Resolution be presented to the Mayor and Common Council at an
adjourned regular meeting as held on March 19,2008; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have considered all evidence, facts and
other written and verbal presentations, including the staff report attached hereto as Exhibit "A", as
made available to the Mayor and Common Council in furtherance of the consideration of this
Resolution, and based upon all such evidence, facts and other written and verbal presentations
does hereby adopt and approve this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the School District has prepared a certain Draft Environmental Impact
Report, SCH #2006111105 ("DEIR"), pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), and has duly circulated the DEIR for comment by
responsible agencies, including the City, and the City has provided comments to the School
District on the DEIR and in the form as attached hereto as pages 7 to 9 of Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the School District has no authority pursuant to CEQA to initiate the Wilson
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.
I 411 1 1I.17<111_11'<:<1'"1
?
c
c
c
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 i922 - i941. 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- \3, 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 ".
1ll.gIILl"4.{UU~4,,) 1
,
c
c
c
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 lJ
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 determined based upon the DEIR that the Wilson II Elementary
17 School Project is not in conformity with the General Plan and furthermore the School District has
18 not provided any additional evidence, documentation, facts or other written or verbal presentations
19 that would permit 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
.1~'ILli4!LJl,r;4" 1
4
c
c
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
7
day of
, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
8 Council Members:
9 ESTRADA
10 BAXTER
11 BRINKER
12 DERRY
13
Aves
Navs
Abstain
Absent
KELLEY
14
15
16 MCCAMMACK
JOHNSON
17
18
19
20
City Clerk
,2008.
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this _ day of
PaUickJ.Morris,Mayor
City of San Bernardino
C 1 EXHIBIT "An
2 Staff Report
3 (including excerpts from relevant documents)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
C 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C 27
28
I <l.QHL1"4ILQ~.f" I r;
c
c
c
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 of Previous Council Aetion:
August 1,2005 - 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 Plan.
JdtUvt. KH,V-
Valerie C. Ross
Contact person: Terri Rahha1. City Planner
Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: StaffReoort
Ward(s):
7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Ace!. No.)
(Acc!. Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
OOOI
:c
c
c
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
777N. "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 bounded 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 (EIR) 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 staff report to the Planning Commission as Exhibit I. The District's Draft EIR 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
PIan. The vote of the Planning Commission was unanimous, with Commissioners Coute, Dailey,
Heasley, Mulvihill and Sauerbrun present. Commissioners Hawkins, Longville, Munoz 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
c
c
c
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
General Plan Consistency Detennination
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 detennination 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, "G" Street on the west, 261h Street on the north and Arrowview
Middle School on the south, in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLA YS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
iii 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
iii Denial Recommendation to MCC
o Continuance to:
oon3
r
\,.....
c
c
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 3/4/08
Page 2
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The San Bernardino City Unified School District (District) has requested a detennination
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). Staff has
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 detennination 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 Detennination 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 Detennination are compiled in Attachment D.
0004
c
c
c
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
General Plan Consistency Detennination
Wilson /I Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 3/4/08
Page 3
In the request for a new determination of General Plan Consistency (Attachment A) the
District calls attention to the new infonnation presented in the DEIR (Attachment B).
Staff does not find any new infonnation 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 conflict with the
ucncral Plan constitutes a significant environmental impact with no feasible mitigation,
requiring the School Board to adopt overriding considerations in order to approve the
project.
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 find the proposed school site is not
consistent with the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
YdiWv &fJw'
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 (DEIR) 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
Determination of2oo5.
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
nons
c
,-..
L
c
A TTACHMENT A
~~!"'~~.
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superintendent
John A. Peukert, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities/Operations
February 8, 2008
Valerie Ross, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bemardino
300 North '0" Street, 3'" Floor
San Bernardino, Califomia 92418
Re: Request for Planning Commission Interpretation
Request for General Plan Conformity Finding based on Additional Technical Reports
The San Bemardino 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 Scoping Meeting at Arrowview Middle School on Febnuary 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 26th 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 Bemardino. 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 6th 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 a1.(909) 381-1238.
Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
Attachments: Final Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices'.
FACILmES/OPERATIONS DMSION
7n North F Street · San Bemardino, CA 92410 . (909) 381.1238 . Fax (909) 885.4218
WWW.sbcusdfadlities.com 00 () r;
c
ATTACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTME."IT
300 North "0" Street. San Bernardino. CA 92418-0001
!IO!I.J84.5057 . Fax: 909.384.5080
Public Works Fax: 909.384.5155 . www.ci.saJ:-bcrnardino.ca.ua
February 14, 2008
Jorge Mendez, Project Manager
San Bernardino City Unified School District
777 North "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Wilson II Elementary School
Dear Mr. Mendez:
c
The Development Services Department of the City of San Bernardino has reviewed the above
reti:renced DIER, and hereby submits comments to be addressed in the Final Environmental
Impact Report WEIR) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Please respond with revisions and additional analysis as requested betore presenting
the Wilson II Elementary School project to the Board of Education for a final decision.
c
I. Traffic Imoact Mitilzation: The DEIR identifies a significant adverse impact of the
proposed project at the intersection of 28th 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 identitied 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 identitied in the DEIR does not identity how the other 94.55% will be
funded. The tail' share approach used assumes that all other "new" traffii.' (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 tor the school, and there is scant opportunity tor other new development in th<'
vicinity to contribute toward the cost of the traffic signal. Other than the projeettraftk
all other future new traffic (growth) identitied at this location is attributable to fUlllre
dc\'e/opmelll that will mostly Occur outside of the area. This makt:s it impossiblt: tor thc
City to collect a tail' share ti'om all other tilture new developmt:nt that contributes tranie
to the subject intersection. It is not practical to expect that thc City will actually install
the traffic signal aller collecting small tilir share amounts thl/ll hundreds of projects that
are outside of the project \'icinity. The proposed mitigation tails to adequately mitigatc
the idt:ntitied impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 should be re\ised to reqllh'e
instaIlatioll of a traffic signal at the intersection of 211'" Street lInd E Street, pdor to
occupanc~, inste:ld of the 11I'oposed fllir share contribution.
nOt)';
>,
IVilslln" Ekment"r; School DEIR
('Ollllllt:1lI L:It1..'r
F ~hrllar: 15. 2lJlIX
Pag!'" 2 uf 3
:c
~ Land Cse and Cultural Resources: The DEIR correctly concludes that the project Ilould
have significant impacts on the existing neighborhood where construction of Wilson 1/
Elemel1lary School is currently proposed. No feasible measures were identified that could
effectively mitigate inconsistency with the City General Plan or destruction of 2<)
potentially historic homes. However, these significant impacts could be aI'oided
altogether by selection of an altemate site. The DF.IR analysis of alternathl's 10 Ihe
proposed projL'ct is inadequate and should be revised and expanded to identif~' 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 Yo 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,
c
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 signiticant 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.
c
D. Anal~'ze potential development of an elementary school campus adjacent to the
existing Wilson Elementar~' School. The alternatives analysis rejects the concept of
e,xpanding the existing Wilson Elementary 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 Rooscwlt 1/. If
there is any potential for sharing of facilities or amenities likc a lllulti-pllJl'ose room.
auditorium or ball fields. the acreage required to build the nel\' school could he
sllbstantially less than the area required for construction on the proposed project site,
,
I
0008
;
"
1
'c
c
c
IVilsoll II Elol1101llar)' Schonl DElR
(' OIl1I11~nt L:th:r
F~hru;.lry 15. 11JO~
P..lg.... J uf 3
E. Anal~'Ze another alternatin site that conforms to the District's basic location
criteria. In Section 1.3: Objectives. the DEIR states that the new school site should
be located in the "'estern 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 portion 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 thc bask
location critt'ria c<;lablishcd by the District, .u at least one other site should be
considered and analyzed in the FEIR.
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,
r=~~ ~~
Deputy Director/City Planner
Cc:
Valerie C. Ross, Development Services Director
Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer
;,nnn
'v' J
ATTACHMENT D
c
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Website: www.sbciry.org
M",," JudiIIt YIJJ/.,
CO"lItIl Me_n:
EstM' Est_
Su.rDII u..,.;/Io
Gordon McGillllis
Ndllhrry
CIuu Kelley
Rikk. Yan Johnson
Wtndy McClunmDck
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, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community
Development Commission, 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 I; 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
Roll 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,
Assistant to the City Administrator Sassoon. Absent: None.
I. Closed Session
Pursuant to Government Code Section(s):
A. Conference with legal counsel - eXlstmg litigation _ pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
Mohammed Fawzi Hassan, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, et al. _
United States District Court Case No. EDCV 05-328 V AP (SGLx);
c
08101/2005
0010
35.
Resolution of the Mayor and Conunon
Bernardino adopting the 2005/2006
Improvement Program,
Council of the City of San
through 2009/2010 Capital
Staff requested a two-week continuance.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the maUer be continued to we
Council/Commission meeting of August IS, 2005.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis,
McCammac:k. Nays: None. Absent: None.
Ayes: Council Members/
Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
36. Resolution of the City of San Bel1lardino adopting the Five-year Capital
Improvement Program (2005-2010) Cor Measure "I" local expenditures.
Staff requested a two-week continuance.
,
I
I
t
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 15, 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 Fmdinl5 of Consistency with City's General Plan . four
proposed elementary school sites. Monterey II, Alessandro II, Burbank II,
& Wilson II - San Bernardino City Unified School District
Valerie Ross, City Planner/Deputy Director of Development Services, stated
that the staff report provides background information on this maner and explains
the City's responsibility to make findings of consistency or conformity with the
City's General Plan based on provisions that are in the Government Code.
c
She advised that staff had recommended that findings of consistency be made on
Alessandro II, Burbank 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 "P" 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
08/01l200S
0011
----.----
_".~"'7-
1
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 oul thaI the information ciled in the memo from the Dislrict is
correct; however, it is the Mayor and Council's responsibility 10 inlerprel the
General Plan, and slaff does DOl 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 thaI the development of Monterey n, 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 n 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 fust 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 wanl
anyone to gel 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
fmdings that Monterey II Elementary School, Alessandro II Elementary School,
and Burbank n Elementary School are consistent with the General Plan; and
that Wilson II Elementary School Is Dot consistent with the General Plan.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Eslrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Staff Present: Mayor/Chairman Valles; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada,
Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, Economic
Development Agency Executive Direclor Van Osdel, City Clerk Clark. Absent:
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson.
c
21
08101/2005
nPl?
'.,' j -
~~..
ce
-
e
c
Page 1 of4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COl:NCIL ACTION
From:
Dept:
James G. Funk, Director
Development Services
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 siles.
Date:
July 27,2005
MCC Date: August I, 2005
SYDopsis of Previous CouDcil Adloa:
None
RecommeDded MotioD:
That the Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
. That Monterey II Elementary School is consistent 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 II Elementaly School is nol consistent with the General Plan
. W--
~ James G. Funk
COD tact persoa: Terri RahhaI. PrinciDaI Planner
PlloDe: 384-5057
SUPportillll data attaclled: StaffReoort
Ward(s):
7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: AmauDt: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
IAcct. DescriDtion)
FiuaDce:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
31
ce
c.
e
c
Page 2 of 4
CITY OF SA~ BERNARDI~O. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
Requests from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for
detenninations of consistency with the City General Plan for development of
four proposed elemenlary school sites.
Applicant:
San Bernardino City
L'nified School District
777 N. "F'Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909-381-1100
Represeotatives:
URS Group, Inc.
10723 Bell Court
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
909-980-4000
LSA Associates
20 Executive Park Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92614-4731
949-553-0666
BACKGROUND:
Section 21151.2 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 or the Government Code requires the
Planning Agency to respond within 40 days to the school district with a repon on consistency of
the proposed school facility with its General Plan. Failure 10 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
500 ft. east of Tippecanoe Avenue;
. Alessandro II Elementary School, proposed at the southwest comer of Baseline Street and
Hminglon Avenue;
. Burbank 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 nonb, Arrowview Middle School
on Ihe south, "F" Street on the east and "G" Street on the west.
Staff prepared reports and recommended findings to present to the Planning Commission on July
19,2005. The staff reports to the Planning Commission (Exhibits 1-4) contain full analyses of
applicable General Plan policies and objectives. Three of the school sites are recommended for
findings 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, which cite the importance of compatibility
0014
-'e
.\--
I
I
I
Ie
e
e
c
--. -.._-- - ...--"-..- _.. -..----
Page 3 of4
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 conccrns about the proposed sitc:
. The proposal would break up a stable neighborhood with 80% owner occupancy. a model the
City is striving to replicate in other areas.
. The proposal would require vacation of a segment of 2S'h Street. making 26'h Street the first
available east-west street north 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).
As lead agency for school site development under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). the Dislrict 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 typically rely on the CEQA
analysis of the lead agency for their permitting actions. The City will have permitting authority
for right-of-way improvementa and extension and connection to City water and sewer 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 stalT became aware that the District had circulated Initial Studies and proposed Mitigated
Negative Declarations for three of the school sites for which consistency fmdings had been
requested from the City. These CEQA doc:umenta 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 JO-day comment period was due to expire.
In a leller dated July 15, 2005 (Exhibit 6), staff requested that the comment period on the subject
CEQA documents be extended., and that the District send notices and copies of proposed
environmenlal determinations for all current and future projects to the City for review as a
responsible agency. The District responded in a letter dated July 18, 2005 (Exhibit 7) that the
CEQA comment period would be extcnded to August 18. 2005.
On July 19, 2OOS, on recommendations from Development Services stalT and the City Attomey'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 environmenlal
analysis. In order to meet the 40-day lime&ame as specified in the Government Code. stalT has
scheduled the requested findings of General Plan consistency for action by the Mayor and
oe
,
Ie
,-.,.
"-
e
c
Page 4 of 4
Common Council. After completing a review of the environmental documents, stalTwiIl respond
separately to the District within the extended review period agreed to by the District.
FINANCIAL UIPACT
None.
RECOM)1ENDA TIO~
T:latlhe Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
. That Monterey II Elementary School is consistent 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 II Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan
EXHIBITS:
I
2
3
4
S
July 19, 200S Planning Commission Staff Report for Monterey II Elementary
July 19, 200S Planning Commission StalTReport for Alessandro II Elementary
July 19, 200S Planning Commission Staff Report for Burbank II Elementary
July 19,2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Wilson U Elementary
July 14,2005 Memo from Police Chief Garrett Zimmon regarding the proposed
site for Wilson II Elementary School .
Letter dated July IS, 200S from Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner to
Wacl Elatar, Facilities AdminislrStor
Letter dated July 18, 200S from Wael Elatar, Facilities Administrator to Valerie
Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner
6
7
" (\ 1 ('
,!l, "
'-", . .
~"
'ce
e
e
c
EXHIBIT 4
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
General Plan Consistency Detennination
for lhe Proposed Wilson II Elementary School
9
July 19, 2005
7
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARI~G DATE:
WARD:
OWNER:
Various
APPLICANT: San Bernardino City
Unified School District
777 N, "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
909-381-1100
REPRESENT A TlVE:
L"RS Group, Inc.
10723 Bell Coun
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 921730
909-980-4000 .
REQVESTILOCATlON:
A request from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for a detennination that
land acquisition and development of the proposed Wilson n Elementary School would be
consistent with the City Oeneral Plan. The site is approximately 8.S acres, bounded by
"F" Street on the east, "0" 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:
Ii1J Not Applleable
[J Exempt, Previously approved Negalive Declaration
[J No Significant Effects
[J Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigalion MonitorinWReporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON:
o Approval
o Conditions
Ii!l Denial
o Coillinuance to:
. ,.,
:.J U. ~
ce
e
e
c
Gene..l Plan Consistency Dc:lenninalion
Wilson II Elementary School SIte
PlaMing Comrrussion Hearing Dale: 7. J 9i05
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
(Allachment A). The subject 8.5-acre site is located at the southeast comer of 26tlt Slreet
and "Gu Street, adjacent to the northern boundary of Arrowview Middle School
(Attachment B) in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district (Allachment C). The
site is proposed for development of Wilson" Elementary School, a 32-classroom facility
that would accommodate 900 students (Attachment D).
SETTING 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 neighliorhood. 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 recent/yo 80"10 of the homes in this area are owner-occupied, and the only
vacant Jot in the area is owned by the adjacent homeowner. Land uses surrounding the
site include:
North: Residential uses in the RS district.
fuu!!b: 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 San Bernardino City Unified School District would be the lead agency for
the project of acquisition and development of a school site.
BACKGROUND
Section 21151.2 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. Seclion 65402 of the
Government Code requires the PlaMing 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 linds that the proposed facility is not consistent with the General Plan, the
governing body of the school district may overrule the linding and carry out its program.
0018
ce
e
e
c
General Plan Consistency Dttenrunation
Wilson II Elementary School Site
PlanninS Commiuion Heanng Oale: 7il9,'OS
Page 3
Wilson II is one of several sites under consideration by Ihe 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 c~prcssed by tI,e CIty, the U,Slnct's plamung 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, lire, 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 Cily Unified School District
proposes to develop a new school site to serve the needs of elementary school children
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 2Slll Street as proposed would impact the existing neighborhood
adversely. This would not be compatible with the surrounding residential area, and
therefore would conflict with General Plan Objective 1.37.
General Plan Objective 1.6 states:
"It shall be the objective of the Cily of San Bernardino to control the development
of land uses which may adversely impact the character of the City and qualily 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
C'019
e
e
e
c
_....._u.__.._ ____._____ __~'.__'___'_'_
General Plan ConsIStency De.emunation
Wilson II Elementary School SI.e
Phllminl Commission Hcarina Dale: 7/19/05
Page 4
residents and olher existing facililies. However. these other sites generally exhibit a wide
variety of building Iypes and varying levels of property maintenance. interspersed with
vacanl 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 fine example of a 70-yr. old neighborhood that has stood the tesl
of time and continues 10 lluive. Intrusion into Ihis neighborhood with the demolition of
40 homes would also eliminate numerous examples of Tudor Revival and California
RlIngalow a~chjtecturc that wrrcnlly enhance the character cflhe community.
General Plan Policy 8.7.1 states:
"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 Unified School District to meet Ihe
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 1.6.
The City has proposed alternate locations for the District 10 consider. and the City is
willing to continue working with the District to identify an sppropriate 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 Plan, based on the following concerns about the
particular site under consideration:
. The proposal would break up a stable neighborhood with 80% owner occupancy,
something the City of San Bernardino is striving to achieve in other areas.
. The proposal would require vacation of 25'" Street, making 26"h Street the first
available cast-west street between "F" and "G" streets north of Highland Avenue.
Local circulation is already impeded by Arrowvicw 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 Arrowvicw Middle school on a major thoroughfare increases the
potential for outside influences on the middle school students. including eXposure to
e
c-
e
c
Genera' Plan Consistency Delonninalion
Wilson" Elementary School Site
Planning Commi..ion Hoaring Dlto: 7'19'05
Pago 5
gangs. The Police Department recommends against introducing elementary school
students adjacent 10 this particular middle school.
RECOMMENDA nON
SlafT recommends Ihalthe Planning Commission make a finding lhal acquisilion of the
sile proposed for development of Wilson II Elementary School is nol consislenl wirh the
City General Plan.
Respectfully submitted.
~V'~rJF-
James Funk
Director of Development Services
;;;;1?J~
Terri Rahhal
Principal Planner
Attachment A
Letter received June 24, 2005, ~uesting consislency determination on
behalfoflhe San Bernardino Cily Unified School District
Localion Map
General Plan Land Use Map
Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment B
Attachmenl C
Attachment D
0021
URS
d e June 9, 2005
AlTACHMENT A
Mr. James Funk, Director
Development Services Department
Citv of San Bernardino
J()() :-Jorth "0" Street, J'" Floor
Sal18ernardino. Calilornia 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
pmposed schools are located, notice in writing of the school sites acquisition. Accordin8lr, this
letter shall serve as fonnal notice of the proposed acquisitions, as well as a request that the
Planning Commission provide written findings to the DistriClthat the sites are in confonnity with
thejurisdiction'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 HelTington 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 students in grades K-6. The
jurisdiction's General Plan desianates the subject site as Residential Suburban District (RS)
. and Commercial General District (CG- I).
2. Burbank II: The Proposed Burbank II Elementary School Site is located between West
Rialto Avenue, South Allen Street, Valley Street, and Watennan Avenue in the County of
San Bernardino, California. The proposed project consists of 43 parcels and comprises
approximately 435,600 square feet, or approltimately 10.0 acres. The proposed elementary
school will total 20 classrooms and would provide education facilities for 600 students in
grades K-6. The jurisdiction's General Plan designates the subject site as Residential Low
District (RL) and Office Industrial Parle District (OIP).
e
0022
[2[g@&OW&@
JUN H ~C5
~OF SAn erllN"IIDINQ
-....~NT SERVICES
OU""lMlNT
c
LRS arc'l(). Inc.
1012] S"II COUl1'
~dnr.'~" CUC.wl0111:1, CA 11;.1')
rei 9C9.9804000
f.M' 909.980.1399
URS
Ce
Mr. James Funk, Director
Development Serviccs Department
City of San Bernardino
June 9, 2005
Page 2
3. Wilson II: The Proposed Wilson II Elemental)' 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
"ppruxirnarely 8.5 acres. The proposed elementary school wiJ/ total J2 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~~
C JetTry 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 Use Map - Alessandro II
Figure I, Regional Vicinity Map - Burbank 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 II
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map - Wilson II
Cc: Melinda Pure, Facilities Planning and Development, SBCUSD
Wael Elatar, Facilities Administrator, SBCUSD
Terry Gardner, TLG Real Estate/Public Finance
e
c
. .0023
.~ \~~__~,~;jl~ ~-., r' ..~.! i';UHI'~' ".;-- ATTACHMENTS
~ iiiht" VTA" -." ~.-~.; . '--'!.i ~h. ~"I
"--11:' 0.- ~'II~I' ~~rnl E.~~~
f/-"'.~~ -CQ,ll:~" lr~ -
. . .~-;f-~-, .~ .~ .
....,/..:.. ,~,., '.
'-'\ "', t-lil'~~ V ':.oJ'~' .
. ~ ~- ~~~ - ' 1-
;\' A ~ ,-"'W,I. _ r:. _' '1=,
. r; . I - ~~
~ '~I - - .
. .
c
I
\
1(1\.
,~~
-- '~\ ~
Ii.!' ] ·
. -
..
I
-;-- .
-=
....J:..
.
ff.;;
I~ ~
, t
~.
\
J
.
~
Lea.....
".
"
'"
e f'-"-t) SchoaI
o MiddIo SchoaI
eHighSchoal
..-
t:J 2__
CJ CIlr 01 s.n 8eINnIno
CJ CaunlyolS8n 110m.-
Dp"",
~
IV
N. T. S.
c URS April2005
-................--
.
H
. . .a
,r _.
ill I I i= I U ,-~~~., I 'i J .,; :!to
.--r ...,.' : . I
..J L.......
, , j..'
. J- I """I .
. ~-.t:..
I'L'~' .
II ~I. 1.j .. .
i"-:I~~ e
l., 11~:.; 14
- . i It: ~~
. 1"', L: .....irt
I- "floI:' ::I ,"
-
- - -
. ....Wt: I ,
- ~1\
M . "
.
L.
'.
..
f~.
Il'
-
-'I. ~~ L~
.. ~ -Pw I-' I:
11~ 1'- .1' ...~. ..
~. - yo, -=r ,.
~. - ~' r. .:.1: _ "Lf.t::,,/. .11 n :
I. .. ;,........1 '" l'
Ir! 'If'" -ro ,.. -I~~. ~.- ~~' 7 ::i!i
f
. ,....
I ___1Iry
II --e-...,
3 M..- e-...,
4 ~E_''''''J
I!I WIIIon E--..a.y
. /lOwW Inghram EIernenlary
.. Roooo... EII__1Iry
ScMoIa
" RiIoy E..........,
. Alnhem ~ E_1ary
10 RiIoy e-.ry
I' MaunlIIwnon E......ntary
om Golden V6r MfdcUe
00 .-.-..... Mid<lIe
I 4 s.n IIem8fdino HigIl
PROJECT LOCATION
Wilson " EIementaIy School
San Bernardino City Unified School Dislrict
Figure 2
0024
,.
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: Wilson..
PLANNING DIVISION Elementary
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 7/19/05
11
NORTH
I,
j
~~~.La
0025
0_
j
N
e
c
Feet
o 50 100 200
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN
April 2005
Wilson 1/ Elementary School
San Bernardino City Unified School Districl
Figure 3
002G
I
ce
c.
e
c
City of SaD BerDardiao
SaD BerDudlDo Police Department
Interoffice MemorllDdum
EXHIBIT 5
,J @lQ)
,
~. iJlr~l)
;'::i. ;=ES
." :..:;;;:1"
To:
Valerie Ross, Senior Planner
From:
,-
Sulliel't:
Wllsonll Proposed School Sile
Date:
July 14,2005
Copies:
Maryanne Milligan, City AUorney'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 of the attendees,
will allract gang members and other suspects who like to hang around schools. Needless
to say, that iasue could have an impact on the students attending the elementary school as
welf 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 piok up and drop of kids will significantly impact the
neighborhood. That iasue 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 slIeets 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.
IlIE sapo IS COMMrrrEO TO PROVIDINQ,
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POI.ICE SFRVICE;
A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IIIIPROVE THE QUALITY Of lifE; .
A RWll('TlON IN CRLIolE nlROUOH PROBI.EIII RECIK;NITrON AND PROBLEM SOL VINQ
0027
"e
ce
e
c
EXHIBIT 6
DEVELOPMENT S[R\'ICE.~ DEP"RTMENT
300 Narrn "0" SlrCCt . San Bernardino' CA 92418,0001
Plannin, '" Buildln, 909.314.5057 . Fu 909 384 5080
Public WorkslEn,inecrin,909.314.511J . Fu: 909,384,5155
www,sbcilyor,
July 15,2005
VI.'\ FASCnllLE AND U.S. MAJL
Mr, Wael Elalar
Facilities Administrator
San Bernardino City Unified School Distril:t
777 North "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Re: Proposed School Sites
Dear Mr, Elatar:
On June 21, 2005, I sent you a leller requesling copies of the environmental documents for the
proposed Burbank II and Alessandro" elementary schools. This lelter indicated that I believed
that the Cily IS a responsible agency under CEQA and as a responsible agency has both the right
and the dUly under CEQA to review and comment on the environmental documents for these
proposed school siles. To date. I h3\'e not recel\'ed a response to my inquiry or the
environmental documents.
I recently became aware from the" CEQAnet database through the Governor's O(lice" of PI3I1IJing
and Research thaI the public review and comment period ends on July 14. 2005 for the above two
schools, I further noticed that the reV JeW period for the proposed Wilson IJ elementary school is
from June 2/. 2005 throueh July 20, 2005. However, the City has not received a ;IIotice of Intent
for any of these schools.
Without the opportunity to review the env'ironmcntal 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 necessar)' to these sites,
In addition to the above. proceeding "'ith the em'ironmenta' detenninalion for Wilson" is
especially problematic, The Cit~' has repeatedly told the Dislrict that it has concerns with the
0028
c
-
c
e
c
-
SBClSD
PtoposC'd S,;;holJ' SItes
July I j 2~OS
P3gr 2
proposed location Oflhls school. Presumabl}, Ihe envlrorunental documenl addresses the
vacation of25lh Slreet and Berkeley Avenue to accommodate the school. The City has
repeatedly told Ihe District lhallhe Cily cannot suppo", and strongly Opposes these Slreet
vacalions for numerous reasons, including but not limited 10 the uJUnlligable impact on traffic on
surrounding Slreets as a result of these street closures.
As it appears thatlhe Districl failed to follow proper procedures under CEQA by sending an~
envirorunental documenls to the Cily who is a responsible agenc}' under CEQA, the City hereby
reserves the right to raise any issues which it could have raised during the comment period in any
future Ii ligation that may be filed on behalf of Cily and/or City MUOlcipal Water Department.
Funhermore, as a responsible agency, the City is again requesting thai the Cll)' be sent all notices
of intenl or nOlices of preparation of an EIR as well as any olher environmental documents for
any future 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 Declaralions for Burbank II, Alessandro II, and Wilson II elementary schools and are
requesting lltal the Dislrict extend the review period for at least an additionalthiny (30) days 10
allow lhe City and Water District to properly respond 10 lhese environmental documents.
Sincerely,
V~ (/.~
Valerie C. Ross
Depuly Director/City Planner
c:
Members oflhe S B.C.U.S.D. Board of Educalion
Anuro Delgado, Superintende!lt, S.B.C.U.S.D.
Judith Valles, Mayor
James F. Peronan. City Atiomey
Fred Wilson. City Administrator
James Funic. Development Sen' ices Director
Hel1l) Empeno, Sr. Deputy Cily Allomey
j\"arianne Milligan. Deputy Cily Allomey
Slacey Aldstadt. General Manager. San Bernardino Municipal Water Depanment
'.
--.-...------- .
0029
ce
e
c
. - .... --.---- --
e
EXHIBIT 7
Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superintendent
John A Peukert, A.slatant Superintendent, FacilitiellOpermlons
July 18, 2005
Via Hand Delivery and e-mail
Valerie C. Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner
Developmenl Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
Subject:
Identified School Sites
Refer to:
City of San Bernardino Development Services Depanmenlletter, dated July 15,2005
Dear Ms. ROil,
Your letter, refemnc:ed above, WIS received al my office via fax on July IS, 2005. In your letter, you
refer to an emtier letter from you to me, dated June 21, 2005, I and my statrweR IlOl a_ oftbia
letter. We have conduc:ted a sarch of our files; CIIIIIOI fiad your letter or a record of receiviq tbia
letter; and have nol had the opportunity to address any request you made in this letter.
In response to your cUfrenlletter, we wanl you ~'iCnow that the District desires the City's engapmeot in
such importanl matters as the CIII'I'eIII one. We are pleased to extend the review and comment period for
the City for thirty deys from the date of your letter tIuouah Monday, AUSUSII.5, 2005. We will lIIIIII11e
that this extension is acceptable to the City of San Bernardino unless we hear otherwise from you by the
close of business on July 21".
Copies of the mitigated negative declll'llion reports for the A1-.osa"dlO n, BurbaoIc U and Wibon U
scbool sites are -"-bed for your review and conunem. We would like to suggest a m~ within two
weeJcs to address any preliminary issues or concerns that tile City might have identified reaardina these
reports. 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 of tile review period. A second objective would be to establish any IlOCesSlIly
follow-up meetings within the ",view period.
Please be assured that the School District has always tried to k~ the City involved in new school
local/on and construction matters, In fact, as recently as June 16 , the City Anomey'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: Wibon II and Alessandro U (copy attached). As pari of
our response to. that request, the District made available eXclUSively to the City OJiainaIs of the entire
negative mitigation reports, ~eipt of which was acknowledged in writing by the City staff. As far IS
we know, these originals are still in possession of the City. 'I is apparenl from your Jetter, however, that
availability of these oriainats at the City might not have been broughllo your attenlion.
FACIUTIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
7n North F Street . San IlemInIino, CA 92410 . (909) 381-1238. Fax (909) 885-t218
WlIe1.eIatarOsllcusd.k12.C1.us
0030
6_
r!t
e
c
Please also nOIe 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 counter at 777 F Street and the City of San
Bernardino Public Library located at 555 West 6'" Street. We also forwarded 12 copies of the
documents to the Slale Clearing House for Slale-wide notification.
Our actions obviously did not achieve the result desired by both the City and the School Dislrict. In
order to make this process more etfective, the School District commits to involving the City as early as
practicable in each new school construction project. Also, we would like to extend our olfer 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 expcdite our response to your letter, we are delivering Ibis letter and the three negative
declaration repons in both electronic format (via e-mail) and in h8rdcopy (via hand delivery). Please
feel free to use e-mail as well as hardcopy transmittals for future requests and follow-up actioas. Also, I
and my stalfare available by telephone at (909) 381-1238 and by fax at (909) 885-4218.
I look folWllll to working with you on Ibis current matter and on all future matters involving the City
and the School District.
Sincerely,
~
Wacl Elater
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 Empeflo, Sr Deputy City Anomey, City of San Bernaniino
Marianne Milligan, Deputy City Attorney, City of San Bemardino
Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager. San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
I
'"
0031
c
1.
2.
3.
4.
C
5.
Cheryl Brown
John COllie
Kenneth Durr
Alji'edo Enciso
Larry Heasley
Jim Morris, Vice-Chair
Roger Powell
Mike Sauerbrun, Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 Nonh "0" Street. San Bernardino. CA 92418
Phone: (909) 384-5057/507 J . Fax: (909) 384-5080
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF JULY 19, 2005
PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER NO. 05-05 (APPEAL NO. 05-10)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10296 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 05-01)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-32
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-09 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 05-10
GENERAL PLAN AMENDEMENT NO. 05-03, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO.
05-05, & 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
c
Page 1
0032
7/19105
c
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Sauerbnm at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall.
Present: Commissioners Brown, Coute. Durr, Heasley, Morris. and Sauerbrun. Absent:
Commissioners Enciso and Powell. StatT Present: Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner;
Aron Liang, Senior Planner; Ben Steckler, Associate Planner; Brian Foote, Assistant Planner;
Henry Empeilo, Deputy City Attorney; James Funk, Director; Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner;
and Linda Dortch, Development Services Technician.
Commi~~iollcr Durr led the tlag 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
r-
\..... Commissioner Conte pulled Item 3 for discussion.
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner stated that Items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were
recommended for the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Brown stated that she would abstain on Items 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Commissioner Dnrr 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 Sauerbnm. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioners Enciso and Powell.
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10296 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 05-OI} _ 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 corner of Mill and Macy Streets in the RS, Residential
Suburban land use district.
Environmental Determination:
Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332-lnfill
Development
Dave & Julie Fitzpatrick
K&C Ventures, Inc.
0142-151-1/,12, & 17, and 0142-361-08
3
c
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Page 2
0033
7/19/05
-
.~
~
'-'
c
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 ~ determination that development of the
proposed Monterey fI 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 indefinitely.
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 indefinitely.
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 to acres, located at the southeast comer
Page 3
0034
7/19/U5
. ",-.
.\.-
c
c
of Rialto Avenue and Allen Street in the RS. Residential Suburban and OIP, Office
Industrial Park land use districts.
Environmental Determination:
Owner:
Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
Not Subject to CEQA
Various
San Bernardino City Unified School District
43 parcels
I
T em Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Burbank II Elementary School indefinitely.
9. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINA TlON _ 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 Oeneral 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.
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 the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Wilson II Elementary Sehool indefinitely.
IV. AGENDA ITEMS
I. PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER NO. 05-05 (APPEAL NO. OS-IO} _ 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:
Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301-Existing
Facility
Dion Oraham
1191-021-29
7
Ben Steckler
Owner/Applicant:
APN:
Ward:
Planner:
Page 4
0035
7/19/05
c
c
c
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, 300
North "0" 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
003[;
7/19/05
y
Cil
cn
- W Q 7
c-
Q cx-
co
O co
v V c .� -
C co
O0
L p Q
o
am
o - LM
tt
IZ-
O O o
v UJ
�i
L �
1
a
.. . �
! $ �
0 2
, . . A0 >
Q �
m
_0 N O cn
p cn
• - to
N >—
C/) C/)c > O .
� O O > O
''-' O
42 U a (D U
oC: U) C o ch
�- p -0 CU
>'
4-1
Z O
cu cn cu
�= (n O cn
cn
4-a CU M U o
70 7C) 70 _ - _ Q
a� CL 0 70 CL
CL Q CL o CID
c� '> m
W m W W O C >
.
p Q p p .— >
m Cn m U
M 00 O CO 00 r 1` O CO
N O O N
CO M 00 O O O O O
O O O O O
I
O
co
> cu cn
O > C6 > :3
CL O C6
4) L
CU 70 U) C) Q U)
CM o cu C C: C CL_
Q c E -0 �cn
O C/
FU v 0 cu
> L- _0
cu _ U
O Cll 7 O
(D c C: —
• 'C6
�
O_0 = D
O � �4-0 � � �. p
j C6
W
c -C cn E 70 Q a)
W 'v� •°�
O a) ° a) .cn Q U) a)
� o cfl ti ti ti ti o0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 M Cfl 00 N M Cfl
N N O O
TOM Cfl O N N qq CO r
O O O O O O O O
V O
� v O
LO
4� LO
ci
V u W V cc c Q
All
O O (.0 O
O O O O U
O N N LO
Co o
N a) c6
4� cc: E =3 o
N o- o
• O O p p O N
wC 4-0 p _O-
• �' _ _ 0 � d' � p
O O O O cjj N
0 0 O c6 -0 o0
- _ cm CO
Q v v ,E- cn
O co co p cn
>'
co
L �, >
42% O o 0
4� ) CO M > L-
-0 -0 O Q Q
(1) a) -0
N LLI LV ,y O 0 0 U
y �= � � -0 -0 °
O o o O O
= O n n n A
V > Q 00
U U =
ti
c
>> U-) O y V
1 — O
E
U O 0 O —
• 0 0
c N °'
O U U U
O cn cn cn O O
_ 2:N 2:% a)
m CU
a� L
CO 4--a �.
a a E
w 0 N _0
Ca
o
C;) c
� CV)
y= U
N a cn
0 Co
Lo
c: p c: C: C: > O N
'- O O O O O
U
U U U 2 L
A n n A n n n
O 00
` i
A 1 V P1�,}.1 1 `i 4,�l- 1 }-L..i 1 N/4 �±j, �i�"V E. iu {r'�+iM wf'•�.[i•��-»1[
yi`!: *'". [+.'ll b.jR•'�5,�'$'-'A yr A"
k 4f± { ,�hl 1 yfTFCI * '[y 4 C i F,
it
4
-.cx`.� ,•o--t+.Y- n ° l '. d'''a t +4 A }...a1;•.� =�b;:`r.. ..J ,r '{?"4f" r, _ �.� +ir ..f.
±-'1Y�'�i ■yr 7 'Y}'�s�� a 1,■ ayn,, 4.��
if-il� `-� I�, ��tfi ..x�.il..!°�':��� �` •�,• �- I f4y�r. � 'r.�?9,�.,`.;.��rK'�dl�� l.`:��■ �'i` ���'' L�1-. { 'a_f >f[`� 's
1�fg-E# � i �S' tl�k r•■� e : i► � „1 _ e � ,• � 1�1 � Ufa` 1N �� — _ � � S
1 �- II
WVT
�h l����'1'9"`I IT:�ea r a - t -A.� • F •� l�t C.vl I+ 'M�" �.q� ' t-1�
t : is
ki�y. ak
1 • l ` j. { �1.y.�°'•q� ; ,y=+fir .'� -'�'t�4 '`�� �' -�`7' 471�i1 - '''!.0
{: "S{`� Y��}�� i} 1�l[�'i~r ,7 -■. SS � r I x•, C!1 r �p,�ta� {y�-� lie -
;■ °LL�
*jv 7 1 i „tom g ) ]�,pq��f� y��J., .■7
i 4 'E�� 1�n �■�fr �. CgZ�.( 1 7' ,' l, .f•�-'� i 7�.1i14 Y h
.7� f.�T •r ,' xi ��,A 1 '{• ai l.f J� 4 ' tii}4S t .: i..iT' y l3.
rM .t i r+E +< �?a •y a� ,Rr��ti' ti+1� +z(�il tt:'I ,6,r,. ,i
;' ,� ',. ;. 4 '° ` ,r ter* JJ> xkr�* °`�t ?� `'. E a `k .. E ►x � .;.
At
'3 y���� �xiyt, '�E� �.-,1{ 1 ! �t�f � j , r ,.` :�r}I�r'F�i�`�i Yfi�S9�+m; �►� '}�[i1L v�i � i�i t� .� �.,
•._ I4"'i'�1A` t`-A6}��' �* 41r[,.L Y^!i r l ! 'C ��' t,rf'['C1.�i �,r �4-++� }. tt� .�•yri ..}!a' ■1 C
OWL
NO .i}t� .'" �� 1^➢'r i4�. f..El Y� fl,�" p Y _an,+ -~
�t xal.-'�. i 1 �f J'It Ir.. � ��4P F� f ti �-� T' �-• �f , � '. ��..- t. ■ 'i..
" ' r r s7'`z�ti, } ' ;f, t I R maw ' { • ^'iq I,� .{ 4 a
} aF+ t C q� aTl t 'j
?� •i " ■ l" .aj 1tt.^•-r�fj � »�. 1 r.s ' 1'�4p,�,�n (([ -_'� -�' �' Z•' ,��i ��, yy( -
1 �Y xf �.��,• ., - W T i�S'�:*.�� k �"' �! a��r � ����.: ,� .i qi �o � � p- p,�j-Y`-+t,[ye., ,'° �"
.. v
r J i � 1 .�R L ki I� +V • L� � -.'�e� v`/'1�` �� Q1 }� �•[ iy. k T._' 1,,,.7�_�•..J �..J Y •
�'i 1
yy,,,, CV
WS,
,t:G F
a' •,a 1 "'P y r i :S'� (�t�),� '!�' �1' islt �4s::,: .�,�':-�. .�,, a- '"°�' R,, 1� "�'' 1r ,(i'T
; l
q C M`S' �t (J i i# CR �,. .+-'.16f,y,» �1. (� - il(°Itr.. •i 31 �l
t'� •1
,mod• - R "�hx� : .'T O ,�.. tl4 'k 7c . [ r'�'3 'l ' C ..:'�jW " � Sr� j`R
e ■ ...ss i?i ,•�'' y. r a �, hfi 'L, �r 14! ' w'.r`i l
U'* •£ #��`�-... >I '
.. �ili#n•1 �`y •`•! 'Y�i' m'w * .k 1 q{�f }. i '�ij . y •�''y�~"r Ifl - y�gk. 6' q~ �'.l
. t .'-n}'•-s,1 ,,.,aE� ••� �l � .7c � r_i+ i. "i �, •W� ,tee•—•• �""_ h« _ •.
�y •'1Y.�'pt31� �j� 1 � � � Sa aF. . �t a' -'�� 'J ��., :•�� -`i3 j '�r`r� a '°� �. �..
= .:t �� �i-. '[ tr' 't� ;ys l..a �. !y E'-r�r` tF,•' .7 1-` -�;� ti+;'.•r ►1e-' ":e blrl +r"
1 ,
sff y w4 �� S ` l'ti'° 'y r 4�± �1t j■ r. r o
=a. - 1
1
�. { .:�.;}•y.�,e �.. `s �f_1y ,;,�• ,t [yppt��''���'� � ° -,■��r� � ~? ay�".x
R l N 1 yEtII [ ��AkAif ^t ■
_ •- -r.k n 5:�--• n 4 � -.y?r� f, y _ �� } 1" �:�4i.,a.
r:• ..���sss. 3 y 7 CS �i. t 7 ■.� -.se .i a t -n,[. r ..,..e4tr}R+.� ..r,-..:W... �,,, ""`r' - -
t �. �•-�- YR{`.y4 ' �`.Y-�'4'8El'�'�`,�I�, y r,�.. a �.f,� -1{" ,�'"S7"5=)�'4�,i'�'j�{��'`3� '"a.r.-,s--•- � _�jy y .-.p� _
- ,,,• ��1r, .y '� � f: • Y Y:.��.c 1■ » f.may sf'���' _w•,, 't-q�i '9f} 1{ -t -.f
=
Ni
AI
iP� -r� - � p l�py r I."..�vl�C •t :•t,-t•._ •� :y +"1p4 n�'
-
�
i4 a iF 41% a at-! Cr jlk
�;. , � �t{sr ,I Y-r �1; ?' `1 ��-,�� �• ` , r -�,{4"a' Y rj ,F
IX' +_ Y 1 6 11 f* �■{y� 1,+�1�!`y�,y.� �y fit■"may} { IY
� P � {Pr'•� ���; { �¢i , � �� 1 C�.Ig�IS -Q �� t+i 4♦�} ',Q'�;7�+^�R�� �a 5. Fjl I 'lf . +
1 f
l>— --�iF,?r rr. ,r� �� r ��.� �' �� },. � J. {i ,. r�_. }""..i:•��•'1,?R,�-�3y0..riJ'■{Yf-^1r'4iy� � rr A- -
)'.. � � �, �•rt'' r .-s� f �`-'�. - 6 - byy� ' WO_
"s, yF1Pi� °�'� ^qt"{r,. "/P� .�•
y $
�: ♦f ,,r +• 'a �• r". T [it"1 t�~- ry `!R C
nn
t ; 5 Rey`►
1 fI ��// a
t.• J -n., '^a „•q..:._ {fr- { � .!..,� 7-i:'r.7 �� »!JC A .r,•a .r+.
� O
� � — �
0 U)c
O c6 W O
O = m
O
=3 c
� C: C: L
O 0 - cn cv 0 (n o
U O � C • U 'X O CO
c- Q U 4--j O a. U
OCL U O N Z O
= O U
0 N L co = N c N
cn O �
.� O m m � S .� O m
` (1) to =3 -0 O
4- O O � O N E
� vo � o� c, U)
n n n n n n n n
Q Q
_ J
r:
k-.
�3
J .gym
{:F
a
s -
y yam,
�Z6 ERA
low
�4.
T
4:uc N
77777r7=
1z:Fal.-�-1142 9 r 3A1 a N3 1)N
r,3!'31.a N3 0 N
IrW N irl N
Sa IA
tL
VON
3AV Ax 3 4 N
QY
\e e����£� ƒ � �-00-
uj
a 1 j 7ri 14
U.1
ica N raN
3AVU. -N a;i a-.tr N
13 N
4 A,,A-'KAV E
I°°N \ , �_
9.1,W)3191jg N
2oN
cl
R / \ % § � \ ( ( �
2N N
/ � 2 z « t \ ( ( f � - , . . � » »
lu
i
-t-t 7 rl- N
l
VJ
W
_C
O O —
O p
U _
� � �
O O N
0 C)
•
.I_— C: O c O m
:3 C
O •— cn O O .O O
4b C cn c � CM c
._ cu 75
o •-
c� a� O o 0 o cn
O 4-a�
- O
O - —
>
s O U . O O 0 � -�
� CU
O
` = O > •, � C cu
.- O �--
' Z MO� Q W 0
m n n n n n n
yr
O M
t�
= V �
� v �
Ct a O
cx E
= i
y p O
xft
AD _
LZ —
o W
O
W Z
mot'
Q) E a)
� O U
U C:
cn
C: to
2
I-a C:
0 0
O N 0 O E
cn
cn
C: U O 3:
0
X � _0
cn E o cn
cu a) C:
E m
•> .— c c:v 0 0 0 0 0 0
--2! 2 C:
A n n n n
Now
LO
^♦ cu r
O 'c
L- O
.- CDL E w -�
cn
aa — O i
o �+ o c�
cn cn
cn O 4 ,v cn
cn O 'v E
O
=
CU
cn
E .� .>
OU
O cn cu
cn •-
_ .- O = O E
m co CU 0 CU
cn E
0. C: 0 � tea, � � i CU a)
� O D U) Cn
Q n Q y n n n
N
U)
4-j c
-f-j Ca
cn
VJ
cu
L � L 0L Q.
U) tt N L-
N Cll
> 1
W § � .V Cn
L- >1 C
Q. Cu LLI � j L- — a
4) > .� .4..a CU 00 O W
O C=
V CU CU O (1)
0 E O 0
cu I N o 70 c C: Cl to CL
cu
s= =3 0 Q. 4--
U C, O C O CU
4� c c6 •- _ _
co c :3 C� 0) cn 70
' 0 EF � Q Q Q +� -�
C6 • • • • •
U) 0- 0-
W
A n n
�r u
r�
0
� � O
c� ,p
` O)
ftft
W O
CL
O
• O M
i
a�
16! i 3
Z O �
00
V-
y�
w
O
w
� � O
cn
i E
= O a) cc
cn
a' ^
i. O ■ CD if
E 0
=3 co Co 0 0
LL
�+ n n n n n n
y Q �
t �
C
cu
L -�
cu E
W cu
0—
cn
U
cm O
c
X O L U
0 0
0 -o-o E c
� cum
O p •v �. cn
+�
-p CD :3
o —
o ZD U o >
CL O z a. CD
A n n n n
O
N
12
co lz
4
U) = - p p O
p O O
.0
0
NOW
N CO
"waft
tuft
3
�
� O CL
,L
u
2.�
s
O
a
ct
w 1- -
�r'r it rr3
;. �r-
z
City Council Meeting April 7, 2008 (Comments-B. Bauer)
• Did the earlier Consistency Determination for Wilson II
Elementary School by the Council in 2005 allow for Public
Input?
• What is the basis for Council determination of consistency
with the City G. P.? How are the existing residential land-
uses factored in?
• Because of the existing homes, the Wilson II project is in
reality a redevelopment project or replacement project, not
like Richardson in a vacant field, and needs special attention.
• How does the City Council determine that a new school is
more appropriate than established homes or other existing
land-uses?
• A new school is a major land-use change; why is there no
public notice by the City like for a GPA or zone change?
The school project impact to several neighborhoods is
significant and cumulative and begs serious discussion with
the affected property-owners, early-on.
• The School District review process to establish a new school
is archaic and exhaustive. They indicate that their time line
is now approaching eight (8) years to completion. They
indicate that it is very, very difficult to modify a school
project that is far along, yet they conduct public hearings on
the Draft E.I.R. just weeks prior to a School Board Review
and Approval of a school. At this late date, they express
reluctance to make any changes to their project. How would
a project that was previously deemed inconsistent (Wilson 11)
magically become consistent, without needed changes?
n
t
• fi
{
• How can the Honorable Mayor advocate a "partnership" with
the District when so many of the District operations and
procedures are in-house, clandestine and not public
involvement "friendly"?
r -
aI
Dear City Officials,Honorable Mayor and Council Members
We are the owners and residents of the homes in the proposed Wilson I1 Elementary School Project. We
are also the parents of children and the most affected by the currently overcrowded elementary schools.
Our school age children and their families are the ones most affected because we must drive our children
to and from schools in other neighborhoods each morning,at noon,at evenings as part of or in addition to
our daily commutes.
We are only aware of one or two owners of homes in the Project Area that have expressed concern over
proceeding with the School Project.
WE EXPRESS OUR FULL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WILSON II ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
Our families and other families in the neighborhood would benefit from the proposed School. We would
have pride of ownership in a neighborhood school,more quality time to spend with our families and less
time and money would be spent on school transportation for the children. We also believe that the
environment for learning would be better for teachers and children in the new classrooms and other
facilities that the School would provide. Our children would also have a better opportunity to start and
graduate at the same elementary school.
We trust that you will do what's best for our children and the future children in our community.
Please DO NOT hinder the progress of the proposed Wilson II Elementary School Project.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Albert Camacho 601 W.25th Street Home Owner
Raymond V.Ruiz 641 W.25th Street Home Owner /
Peter Paul Ramos 657 W.25th Street Home Owner J,f
Alice Ramos 657 W.25th Street Home Owner 'J
Miguel M.Ze eda 663 W.25th Street Home Owner
Celia Ze eda 663 W.25th Street Home Owner
Miguel A.Castro 2555 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Eva'elina Castro 2555 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner A11,111(5i.� r r✓`,
Fidencio Macias 2561 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Virginia R.Macias 2561 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Francisco Jacobo 2548 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Gloria Rodriguez 2548 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner i
Stephen J.Brown 2585 N.G Street Home Owner
German Estrada 2560 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Juan Pilola 625 W.25th Street Home Owner
Ricardo Beltran 2524 N.F Street Home Owner
Carla Estrada 2513 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner t i° `--
James Dawson 2525 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Eliasar Parra 2573 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Dion Mc Farland 1512 N.F Street Home Owner
Mary Darden 2585 N.Berkele Ave. Home Owner A.2
Randa Willis 609 W.25th Street Home Owner
Federico Martinez 2584 N.Berkeley Ave. Home Owner
Mario E.Gonzalez 2503 N.G Street Home Owner
jV.
Wilson 11 Elementary School Project
AI
23
L\4 "'.)A
611-4
Moo". 1,1W
4 1 W
37
Wilson_ II Elementary School Pro_ _ject
G .ter./ .� .�
7
L
O
..f
I
J
L& S
D1 `- /
/l
X)
r{�
1.�
:Mfl into ecord a ' U g
RI
CiIsv flock/CDC Secy
SxN BERNARDINO CITE' Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent
March 14, 2008
Valerie Ross, Director
Development Services
San Bernardino City Planning Commission
300 North "D" Street, 3" Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Valerie:
It is our understanding that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation
to the City Council relative to the Wilson I1 Project, and we would like an opportunity to
prepare our rationale for the great need for this school to proceed in this area.
In order to do this we are requesting an extension of the timeframe for the City Council to
respond to our letter of February 8, 2008 written by Mr. Wael Elatar relative to this
project. We also respectfully request a continuance of the City Council meeting of April
7.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ot d ' az&
ARTURO DELG. , Ed.D.
Superintendent
AD:mbg
Cc: Mayor Patrick Morris
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
7 7 North 1 Street • San Bernardino. CA 92410 • (909) X81-12 0 • fax (4)09) 885-b392 •
�� a rturo.delgadoiu_)sbcusd.kl2.ca.us ✓�3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Valerie C. Ross,Director Subject: Request from the San Bernardino City Unified
Dept: Development Services 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 of Previous Council Action:
August 1, 2005 —The Mayor and Common Council considered the sites proposed for development
of Monterey II, Alessandro 11, Burbank II and Wilson 11 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 11 Elementary School would not be consistent with the General Plan.
Valerie C. Ross
Contact person: Terri Rahhal,City Planner Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s): 7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:N/A
Source: (Acct.No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes: 3 17 ,6?' #f 30
31 1910
Agenda Item_
Page 2 of 2
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 bounded 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 (EIR) pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). In a letter dated February 8, 2008, the District submitted 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 staff report to the Planning Commission as Exhibit 1. The District's Draft EIR 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, Mulvihill and Sauerbrun present. Commissioners Hawkins, Longville, Munoz 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 March 4, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report
2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Wilson II Elementary School (CD)
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: General Plan Consistency Determination
for the Proposed Wilson II Elementary School
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: March 4, 2008
WARD: 7
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 Il 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, 26`h Street on the north and Arrowview
Middle School on the south, in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
El Not Applicable
• Exempt,Previously approved Negative Declaration
• No Significant Effects
• Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
❑ Approval
O Conditions
0 Denial Recommendation to MCC
11 Continuance to:
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 3/4/08
Page 2
REQUEST 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 corner of 26h 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
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Wilson II project (Attachment B). Staff has
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.
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 3/4/08
Page 3
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
In the request for a new determination 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 conflict 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.
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 find the proposed school site is not
consistent with the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie C. Ross
Director of Development Services
Terri Rahhal
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
Attachment B Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Wilson II
Elementary School (CD)
Attachment C City Comment Letter dated February 14, 2008, regarding the Wilson II
Elementary School DEIR.
Attachment D Background Documents concerning the General Plan Consistency
Determination of 2005.
ATTACHMENT A
SAN BERNARDINO CITY Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superintendent
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
John A. Peukert, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities/Operations
February 8, 2008
Valerie Ross, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street, 3`d 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 Scoping 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`h 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 61h 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.
1incerely,
Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
Attachments: Final Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices.
FACILITIES/OPERATIONS DIVISION
777 North F Street . San Bernardino, CA 92410 • (909) 381.1238 • Fax (909) 885.4218
www.sbcusdfacilities.com
ATTACHMENT C
DEVF,LOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North`D"Street•San Bernardino•CA 92418-0001
909.384.5057•Fax:909.384.5080
San Bernar inn Public Works Fax: 909.384.5155•www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us
February 14, 2008
Jor�_e Mendez, Project Manager
San Bernardino City Unified School District
777 North "F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Wilson II Elementary School
Dear Mr. Mendez:
The Development Services Department of the City of San Bernardino has reviewed the above
referenced DIER, and hereby submits comments to be addressed in the Final Environmental
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 II Elementary School project to the Board of Education for a final decision.
I. Traffic Impact Mitigation: The DEIR identifies a significant adverse impact of the
proposed project at the intersection of 28t" Street and E Street. The addition of project-
related traffic to this intersection is predicted to degrade the projected 2010 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 identify how the other 94:55% will be
funded. The fair 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
traffic 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 the
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 future
development that will mostly occur outside of the area. This makes it impossible for the
City to collect a fair share from 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 traffic signal after collecting small fair share amounts from hundreds of projects that
are outside of the project vicinity. The proposed mitigation fails to adequately mitigate
the identified impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.15-1� should be revised to require
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 28"' Street and E Street, prior to
occupancy, instead of the proposed fair share contribution.
Wilson II Elementary School DEIR
Comment Letter
February I i. 2008
Pa-e 2 of 3
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 1I
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 avoided
altogether by selection of an alternate site. The DEIR analysis of alternatives to the
proposed project 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 % mile north of the
actual school site. The locations indicated for Alternative Sites 1 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 1
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. Analyze potential development of an elementary school campus adjacent to the
existing Wilson Elementary School. The alternatives analysis rejects the concept of
expanding the existing Wilson Elementary 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 Roosevelt 11. If
there is any potential for sharing of facilities or amenities like a multi-propose room,
auditorium or ball fields, the acreage required to build the new school could be
substantially less than the area required for construction on the proposed project site.
Wilson 11 Elementary School DEIR
Comment Letter
February I;, 2008
Pa_c 3 of 3
E. Analvze 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 portion of the attendance area, the two alternative sites analyzed in the DEIR
are in the southeast corner 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.
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,
Terri Rahhal
Deputy Director/City Planner
Cc: Valerie C. Ross, Development Services Director
Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer
ATTACHMENT D
Mayor Judith Valles
Council Members:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Esther Estrada
300 N. "D" Street Susan Longville
Gordon McGinnis
San Bernardino, CA 92418 Neil Derry
Website: www.sbcity.org org Chas Kelley
San Bern ino Rikke Van Johnson
Wendy McCammack
j r
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND THE
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community
Development Commission, 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; 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
Roll 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,
Assistant to the City Administrator Sassoon. Absent: None.
L Closed Session
Pursuant to Government Code Section(s):
A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
Mohammed Fawzi Hassan, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, et al. -
United States District Court Case No. EDCV 05-328 VAP (SGLx);
i
1 08/01/2005
35. Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino adopting the 2005/2006 through 2009/2010 Capital
Improvement Program.
Staff requested a two-week continuance.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by
Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the matter be continued to the
Council/Commission meeting of August 15, 2005.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
I McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
i
36. Resolution of the City of San Bernardino adopting the Five-year Capital
Improvement Program (2005-2010) for Measure "I" local expenditures.
Staff requested a two-week continuance.
!. Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
s Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to the Council/
Commission meeting of August 15, 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 Consistency with City's General Plan - four
proposed elementary school sites - Monterey II, Alessandro II, Burbank II,
& Wilson II - San Bernardino City Unified School District
Valerie Ross, City Planner/Deputy Director of Development Services, stated
that the staff report provides background information on this matter and explains
the City's responsibility to make 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, Burbank II, and Monterey II—but not on Wilson II. She stated
that staff believes that the proposed site for Wilson I1 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 staff's opinion
20 08/01/2005
1
I
is south of Highland Avenue, east of Sierra Way. However, the District does
not agree with the City on this.
A memorandum dated August 1, 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 I1, 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 consistent with the General Plan; and
that Wilson II Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/
Commissioners Estrada, Longville, McGinnis, Derry, Kelley, Johnson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
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 08/01/2005
'r ------ ---- ------
r Page I of 4
• CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: James G. Funk, Director Subject: Requests from the San Bernardino City Unified
Dept: Development Services 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 1, 2005
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
■ That Monterey II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
• That Alessandro H Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
• That Burbank II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
■ That Wilson II Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan
James G. Funk
Contact person: Terri Rahhal,Principal Planner Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s): 7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
® Agenda Item No. 37
• k
4
t
Page 2 of 4
i
• 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.
Applicant: Representatives:
San Bernardino City URS Group, Inc. LSA Associates
Unified School District 10723 Bell Court 20 Executive Park Ste. 200
777 N. "F"Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Irvine, CA 92614-4731
San Bernardino, CA 92410 909-980-4000 949-553-0666
909-381-1100
BACKGROUND:
Section 21151.2 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 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 If Elementary School, proposed on the north side of Ninth Street, approximately
500 ft. east of Tippecanoe Avenue;
• Alessandro I1 Elementary School, proposed at the southwest comer of Baseline Street and
Herrington Avenue;
• Burbank 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, "F"Street on the east and "G"Street on the west.
Staff prepared reports and recommended findings to present to the Planning Commission on July
19, 2005. The staff reports to the Planning Commission (Exhibits 1-4) contain full analyses of
applicable General Plan policies and objectives. Three of the school sites are recommended for
findings 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, which cite the importance of compatibility
Page 3 of 4
• with surrounding residential areas, maintaining the character of the community and not adversely
impacting the quality of life of City residents. Staff recommends a finding that development of
Wilson 11 Elementary School would not be consistent with the General Plan, based on the
following concerns about the proposed site:
• The proposal would break up a stable neighborhood with 80%owner occupancy, a model the
City is striving to replicate in other areas.
• The proposal would require vacation of a segment of 25`h Street, making 26`h Street the first
available cast-west street north of Highland Avenue, in a neighborhood where local
circulation is already impeded by Arrowview Middle School.
• The subject 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 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).
i
i 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
I opportunity to review and comment on the draft analysis to all responsible agencies which will
have permitting authority in the future. Responsible agencies typically rely on the CEQA
analysis of the lead agency for their permitting actions. The City will have permitting authority
for right-of-way improvements and extension and connection to City water and sewer 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 documents 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 15, 2005 (Exhibit 6), staff 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 current and future projects to the City for review as a
responsible agency. The District responded in a letter dated July 18, 2005 (Exhibit 7) that the
CEQA comment period would be extended to August 18, 2005.
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 40-day timeframe as specified in the Government Code, staff has
scheduled the requested findings of General Plan consistency for action by the Mayor and
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 to by the District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
■ That Monterey II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
• That Alessandro 11 Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
M • That Burbank U Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
That Wilson II Elementary School is not consistent with the General Plan
EXHIBITS:
1 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Monterey II Elementary
2 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Alessandro II Elementary
3 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Burbank R Elementary
4 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Wilson 11 Elementary
® 5 July 14, 2005 Memo from Police Chief Garrett Zimmon regarding the proposed
site for Wilson II Elementary School
6 Letter dated July 15, 2005 from Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner to
Wael Elatar, Facilities Administrator
7 Letter dated July 18, 2005 from Wael Elatar,Facilities Administrator to Valerie
iRoss, Deputy Director/City Planner
i
i
i
•
EXHIBIT 4
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: General Plan Consistency Determination
for the Proposed Wilson II Elementary School
AGENDA ITEM: 9
HEARING DATE: July 19, 2005
WARD: 7
OWNER: Various
APPLICANT: San Bernardino City REPRESENTATIVE:
Unified School District URS Group, Inc.
777 N. "F"Street 10723 Bell Court
San Bernardino, CA 92410 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 921730
909-381-1100 909-980-4000
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, "G" Street on the west, 26`h 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:
® Not Applicable
O Exempt, Previously approved Negative Declaration
O No Significant Effccts
O Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Approval
• Conditions
El Denial
❑ Continuance to:
•
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Comrmssion Hearing Date: 7,19M
• Page 2
REQUEST 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 Il Elementary School would be consistent with the City General Plan
(Attachment A). The subject 8.5-acre site is located at the southeast corner of 26`h 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).
SETTING 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. 80% 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.
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 San Bernardino City Unified School District would be the lead agency for
the project of acquisition and development of a school site.
BACKGROUND
Section 21151.2 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.
General Plan Consistency Deterrrunation
Wilson II Elementary School Site j
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 719.'05
Page 3
• Wilson II is one of several sites under consideration b the t i
y e Dtstnc 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 children
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 25h Street as proposed would impact the existing neighborhood
adversely. This would not be compatible with the surrounding residential area, and
therefore would conflict 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
General Plan Consistency Deternunation
Wilson 11 Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing 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 fine example of a 70-yr. old neighborhood that has stood the test
of time and continues to thrive. Intrusion into this 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 states:
"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 Unified School District to meet the
educational needs of the residents of San Bernardino. The site selected by the District for
development of Wilson II is not consistent with General Plan Objectives 1.37 and 1.6.
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 Plan, based on the following concerns about the
particular site under consideration:
• The proposal would break up a stable neighborhood with 80% owner occupancy,
something the City of San Bernardino is striving to achieve in other areas.
• The proposal would require vacation of 25`h Street, making 26`h 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.
• 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
I
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson 11 Elementary School Site
Planning Cotnrnission Hearing Date: 7119/05
. Page 5
gangs. The Police Department recommends against introducing elementary school
students adjacent to this particular middle school.
RECOMMENDATION
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 with the
City General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
. Rw ir-
James Funk
Director of Development Services
w
Terri Rahhal
Principal Planner
® Attachment A Letter received June 24, 2005, requesting consistency determination on
behalf of the San Bernardino City Unified School District
Attachment B Location Map
Attachment C General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment D Conceptual Site Plan
I
i
c
i
•
ATTACHMENT A
June 9, 2005
•
�ti1r. James Funk, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street, 3`d Floor
San Bernardino. California 92418
Subject: Notice of Proposed Development of Three Schools and
Request for General Plan Conformity 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the required environmental analysis, for the three
proposed elementary school sites: Alessandro 11, Burbank II, and Wilson II.
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
Planning Commission provide written findings to the District that the sites are in conformity with
the jurisdiction's adopted General Plan, within 40 days of this letter.
1. Alessandro II: The Proposed Alessandro Il Elementary School Site is located southwest of
the intersection of Baseline Street and Herrington Avenue 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 students in grades K-6. The
jurisdiction's General Plan designates the subject site as Residential Suburban District (RS)
and Commercial General District(CG-1).
2. Burbank II: The Proposed Burbank II Elementary School Site is located between West
Rialto Avenue, South Allen Street, Valley Street, and Waterman Avenue in the County of
San Bernardino, 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 students in
grades K-6. The jurisdiction's General Plan designates the subject site as Residential Low
District (RL)and Office Industrial Park District (OIP).
t.RS Grc,ip.inc.
10723 Ben Court D
Rarx:t,n Cucanxyiga.CA 91730 JUN 2 41U1,�
Tel 909.980.4000
Fim.909.980.1399 cnti OF SAN eERNARDINO
DEVELOPM:NT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
URS
. Mr. James Funk, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
June 9, 2005 i
Page 2
3. .Wilson 1L The Proposed Wilson 11 Elementary School Site is located northwest of the
intersection of -F" and 25`h Streets in the County of San Bernardino, California. The
proposed project consists of 41 parcels, and comprises approximately 370,260 square feet, 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) 9804000.
Sincerely,
URS
Jeffry S. Rice, AICP
'.Manager, Environmental and Planning
Attachments: Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map- Alessandro II
Figure 2, Project Location Map -Alessandro II
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map—Alessandro lI
Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map—Burbank 11
Figure 2, Project Location Map—Burbank II
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map—Burbank II
Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map —Wilson Il
Figure 2, Project Location Map— Wilson Il
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map—Wilson II
Cc: Melinda Pure, Facilities Planning and Development, SBCUSD
Wael Elatar, Facilities Administrator, SBCUSD
Terry Gardner, TLG Real Estate/Public Finance
i
i
�M
UL IN�I
III If kit
114 LL OL
I all WOMEN as
�-\v..•"i� -145 PEW
is
M IL
to
���e�
�+. RTC .� r•�• � r>se .ems
L FF H "n�CAE7Eg11i��� 1 :111 +.■®IIin
R11
Rc rmr�i�— w,
q F1
Louend
O � er�nie�■es._ �.�
KghSdK)d Schools
Railroad I Arrowhead Elementary 8■i■ ;
u City f San 9,mardino 3 Marshall Elementary 10 Riley Elementary
4 Davidson Elementary I I Mount Vernon Eletmentary
M Wilson u Elemertlary 1'2 Golden Valley Middle
6 Howard Inglyarn Elementary 13 Arrowtew Middle
PROJECT 7. Roosevett Elementary 14 San Bernardino High
• •
• ••
' • 11 •
jot
CITY OF • • PROJECT:
PLANNING DIVISION
ry
LOCATION
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 7/19/OS
lip
JAWK
FJIPI
•
''1t:•-fit � �
■e � � t �..e ..
r •'
�ffTT� ff�■ '� ! ��� ' 11 �i'�
1
vti'LAr::- DRIVE
WOM y ..
log
37 7 ,
� T
FIH � f
Lauen I.
Feet
0 50 100 200 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN
April 2005 Wilson 11 Elementary� ... i.lz .0 � ► - , ��,r,
School
Bernardino San city unified School
EXHIBIT 5
. City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Police Department
^Irlo
Interoffice Memorandum
:f;iT
To: Valerie Ross, Senior Planner
From: Garrett W. Zimmon, Chief of Police,,
Subject: Wilson II 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 disclosdd that the SBCSD
was planning on constructing Wilson II Elementary School north of the existing An'owview
Middle School, south of 261h 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 l) its fronting Highland and 2) the age of the 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.
THE SBPD IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDQVG
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POLICE SERVICE,
A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE;
A REDUCTION IN CRBNE THROUGH PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND PROBLEM SOLVING
E
EXHIBIT 6
DEVELOPMENT SERVIcEs DEPARTMENT
#A
300 North "D"Street •San Bernardino • CA 924180001
Planning k Building 909.394.5057•Fax: 909 384 5080
�aA Berner ino Public Works/Enginwing 909.384.5111 •Fax. 909.384.5155
www,sbcity.org
r.
July 15, 2005
VIA FASCIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
San Bernardino City Unified School District
777 North"F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
• Re: Proposed School Sites
Dear Mr. Elatar:
On June 21, '005, 1 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
that the City is 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, 1 have not received a response to my inquiry or the
environmental documents.
I recentiv became aware from the CEQAnet database through the Governor's Office of Planoing
and Research that the public review and comment period ends on July 14. 2005 for the above two
schools. 1 further noticed that the review period for the proposed Wilson I1 elementary school is
from June 21, 2005 through July 20, 2005. However, the City has not received a Notice of Intent
for any of these schools.
Without the opportunity to review the environmental documents and comment on potential
environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures, if any, the City as a responsible
agency, cannot represent that %%a can pro%ide services necessary to these sites.
• In addition to the above, proceeding with the environmental determination for Wilson 11 is
especially problematic. The City has repeatedly told the District that it has concerns with the
• SBCI'SD
Proposed School Sites
IU1% 15.200 5
Page 2
proposed location of this school. Presumably, the environmental document addresses the j
vacation of 25`" Street and Berkeley Avenue to accommodate the school. The City has
repeatedly told the District that the City cannot support, and strongly opposes these street
vacations for numerous reasons, including but not limited to the unmitigable impact on traffic on
surrounding streets as a result of these street closures.
As it appears that the Distnct failed to follow proper procedures under CEQA by sending any
environmental documents 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 that may be filed on behalf of City and/or City Municipal Water Department.
Furthermore, as a responsible agency, the City is again t re uestin
g y that the City be se ti
q g sent all notices
of intent or notices of preparation of an EIR as well as any other en-vironmental documents for
any future school sites located in the City of San Bernardino.
In closing, the City and City Municipal Water Department are formally opposed to the adoption
of Negative Declarations for Burbank 11, Alessandro 11, and Wilson n elementary schools and are
requesting that the Distnct extend the review period for at least an additional thirty(30) days to
® allow the City and Water District to properly respond to these environmental documents.
Sincerely,
Valerie C. Ross
Deputy Director;City Planner
c: Nlernbers of the S B.C.U.S.D. Board of Education
Arturo Delgado, Superintendent, S.B.C.U.S.D.
Judith Valles, Mayor
James F. Perunan, City Attorney
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
James Funk, Development Services Director
Henry Empeno, Sr. Deputy City Attorney
1%•farianne Milligan, Deputy City Attorney
Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager, San Bemardino Municipal Water Department
I EXHIBIT 7
5.77
AN BERNARDIN OTY O
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superintendent
John A. Peukert, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities/Operations
July 18, 2005 Via Hand Delivery and e-mail
Valerie C. Ross,Deputy Director/City Planner
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D"Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
Subject: Identified School Sites
Refer to: City of San Bernardino Development Services Department letter, dated July 15,2005
Dear Ms. Ross,
Your letter, referenced above, was received at my office via fax on July 15, 2005. In your letter, you
refer to an earlier letter from you to dated June 21, 2005. 1 and my staff were not aware of this
• letter. We have conducted a search of our files; cannot find your letter or a record of receiving this
letter; and have not had the opportunity to address any request you made in this letter.
In response to your current letter, we want you to know that the District desires the City's engagement in
such important matters as the current one. We are pleased to extend the review and comment period for
the City for thirty days from the date of your letter through Monday,August 15,2005. We will assume
that this extension is acceptable to the City of San Bernardino unless we hear otherwise from you by the
close of business on July 21
Copies of the mitigated negative declaration reports for the Alessandro II,Burbank 11 and Wilson II
school sites are attached for your review and comment. We would like to suggest a meeting within two
weeks to address any preliminary issues or concerns that the City might have identified regarding these
reports. 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 of the review period. A second objective would be to establish any necessary
follow-up meetings within the review period.
Please be assured that the School District has always tried to keep the City involved in new school
location and construction matters. In fact, as recently as June 16 , the City Attorney's office made
various requests including a written request for the status on CEQA for two of the three identified new
school sites that you referred to in your letter: Wilson II and Alessandro II (copy attached). As part of
our response to.that request, the District made available exclusively to the City originals of the entire
negative mitigation reports, receipt of which was acknowledged in writing by the City staff. As far as
® we know, these originals are still in possession of the City. It is apparent from your letter, however, that
availability of these originals at the City might not have been brought to your attention.
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
777 North F Street•San Bernardino,U 92410•(909)381-1238.Fax(909)885-4218
wae1-etatar@sbcusd.k12.ca.us
Please also note 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 counter at 777 F Street and the City of San
Bernardino Public Library located at 555 West 6'h Street. We also forwarded 12 copies of the
documents to the State Clearing House for state-wide notification.
Our actions obviously did not achieve the result desired by both the City and the School District. In
order to make this process more effective,the School District commits to involving the City as 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 format(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 actions. Also,I
and my staff are available by telephone at(909)381-1238 and by fax at(909) 885-4218.
1 look forward to working with you on this current matter and on all future matters involving the City
and the School District.
Sincerely,
Wael Elatar
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 Attorney, City of San Bernardino
Marianne Milligan, Deputy City Attorney,City of San Bernardino
Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager, San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
�ERNAR r Cheryl Brown
John Coute
Kenneth Durr CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
r , Alfredo Eneiso DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
3 a� Larry Heasley 300 North"D"Street, San Bernardino,CA 92418
do ' Jim Morris, Vice-Chair Phone:(909)384-5057/5071 • Fax:(909)384-5080
fD IN Roger Powell
Mike Sauerbrun, Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF JULY 199 2005
1. PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER NO. 05-05 (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.
05-059& 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 1 7/19/05
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Sauerbrun at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall.
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 05-01) — 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 corner of Mill and Macy Streets in the RS, Residential
Suburban land use district.
Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15332—Infill
Development
Owner: Dave&Julie Fitzpatrick
Applicant: K&C Ventures, Inc.
APN: 0142-151-11, 12, & 17, and 0142-361-08
Ward: 3
Page 2 7/19/05
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: Not Subject to CEQA
Owner: SB Schools Finance Corp.
Applicant: San Bernardino City Unified School District
APN: 0278-061-72, 68
Ward: 1
Planner: Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Monterey II Elementary School indefinitely.
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
corner of Baseline Street and Herrington Avenue in the RS, Residential Suburban and
CG-2, Commercial General land use districts.
Environmental Determination: Not Subject to CEQA
Owner: Various
Applicant: San Bernardino City Unified School District
APN: 40 parcels
Ward: 6
Planner: Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Alessandro II Elementary School indefinitely.
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 corner
Page 3 7/19/05
of Rialto Avenue and Allen Street in the RS. Residential Suburban and OIP, Office
Industrial Park land use districts.
Environmental Determination: Not Subject to CEQA
Owner: Various
Applicant: San Bernardino City Unified School District
APN: 43 parcels
Ward: I
Planner: Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Burbank II Elementary School 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,
"G" Street on the west, 26`h Street on the north and Arrowview Middle School on the
south in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
Environmental Determination: Not Subject to CEQA
Owner: Various
Applicant: San Bernardino City Unified School District
APN: 41 parcels
Ward: 7
Planner: Terri Rahhal
The Planning Commission continued the General Plan Consistency Determination for
Wilson II Elementary School indefinitely.
IV. AGENDA ITEMS
1. PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER NO 05-05 (APPEAL NO 05-10) —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: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15301—Existing
Facility
Owner/Applicant: Dion Graham
APN: 1191-021-29
Ward: 7
Planner: Ben Steckler
Page 4 7/19/05
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 7/19/05