HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-Development Services (2) o ®
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 11 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 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:
31
Agenda Item No.—3 _
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 11 Elementary School is 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. 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:
1 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 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
w► Middle School on the south, in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
a Not Applicable
• Exempt, Previously approved Negative Declaration
• No Significant Effects
• Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
❑ Approval
❑ Conditions
0 Denial Recommendation to MCC
❑ 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 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
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 11 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,
I�aCr�ivG��
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
SAINT BERNARDINO CITY Arturo 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, 3rd 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 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 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 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 at(909) 381-1238.
incer�ely9,
Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
Attachments: Final Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices.
t
FACILITIES/OPERATIONS DIVISION
777 North F Street • San Bernardino, CA 92410 • (909) 381.1238 • Fax (909) 885.4218
www.sbcusdfacilities.com
ATTACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTME.WT
� I
300 North"D"Street•San Bernardino•CA 92418-0001
[[��
909.384.5057•Fax: 909.384.5080
San Bertha in0 Public Works Fax: 909.384.5155 •www.ci.sar.-bemardino.ca.us
iM
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:
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
(C'EQA). 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 28`h 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 tactic signal after collecting small fair share amounts fi•0111 hundreds of projects that
are outside of the project vicinity. The proposed mitigation fails to adequately mitigate
the identified impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.15-1y should be revised to require
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 28`h Street and E Street, prior to
occupancy, instead of the proposed fair share contribution.
Wilson 11 Elementary School DEIR
Continent Letter
February 15. 2008
Pace 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 lI
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 '/z 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-purpose 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 II Elementary School DEIR
Comment Letter
February I;. 2008
Page 3 of 3
E. Analyze another alternative site that conforms to the District's basic location
criteria. In Section 2.3: Objectives, the DEIR states that the new school site should
be located in the western portion of the attendance area, and it should not be located
on a major roadway. Assuming that the existing Wilson Elementary School is in the
eastern 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
a Susan Langville
300 N. 'D" Street Gordon McGinnis
San Bernardino, CA 92418 Neil Derry
Website: www.sbcity.org Chas Kelley
San Bern lin Rikke Van Johnson
Wendy McCamntack
r
i
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND THE
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1 JOINT REGULAR MEETING
1 AUGUST 1, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, Community
l 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 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.
1. 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
08/01/2005
i
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,
j McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
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
{ Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the matter be continued to the Council/
f Commission meeting of August 15, 2005.
The motion carried by the followin g 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 II is especially problematic
in that it would disrupt a stable neighborhood between "F" and "G" Streets
around 24' Street, located just north of Arrowview Middle School. It would
also require the vacation of some streets and, as noted in a memo from the
Police Chief, there are concerns relative to locating a new elementary school
adjacent to a middle school. She stated that the preferred site in staffs opinion
20 08/01/2005
w
is south of Highland Avenue, east of Sierra Way. However, the District does
vow 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 II, Alessandro II, and Burbank II
elementary schools is consistent with the City's General Plan, and that
development of Wilson II elementary school is not consistent with the City's
General Plan.
Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she wanted the
viewing public to know that the Wilson II Elementary School that is slated to be
built behind Arrowview Middle School is not consistent with the City's General
Plan, and this is simply the first step in the City's position of opposition to that
school. She indicated there would be a lot more to come, and she didn't want
anyone to get nervous thinking that they need to be moving tomorrow.
Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council
Member/Commissioner Estrada, that the Mayor and Common Council make the
findings that Monterey II Elementary School, Alessandro II Elementary School,
and Burbank II Elementary School are 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
Page 1 of 4
-9 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUEST FOR COL;NCIL 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
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 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
Herrington Avenue;
■ Burbank I1 Elementary School, proposed at the southeast corner of Rialto Avenue and Allen
Street;
• Wilson II Elementary School,bounded by 26`" 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 I1 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 II 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 251h Street, making 26`1' Street the first
available east-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).
As lead agency for school site development under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the District is responsible for environmental analysis of the proposed actions of site
acquisition and development. CEQA requires the lead agency to provide notice and an
opportunity to review and comment on the draft analysis to all responsible agencies which will
® have permitting authority in the future. Responsible agencies 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
I 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.
i
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
k
None.
r
RECOMMENDATION
That the Mayor and Common Council make the following findings:
■ That Monterey II Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
• That Alessandro lI Elementary School is consistent with the General Plan
■ 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 I1 Elementary
2 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Alessandro II Elementary
3 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Burbank II Elementary
i 4 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Wilson II 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
j Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner
I
I
I
i
i
EXHIBIT 4
• SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: General Plan Consistency Determination
for the Proposed Wilson 11 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
O "F" Street on the east, "G" Street on the west, 26`" 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:
0 Not Applicable
O Exempt, Previously approved Negative Declaration
O No Significant Effects
0 Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan '
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
❑ Approval
❑ Conditions
0 Denial
❑ Continuance to:
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson li Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 7;19/05
• 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 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
distri ct 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.
r
General Plan Consistency Deterrrunation
Wilson II Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 7r 19.'05
Page 3
• Wilson 11 is one of several sites under consideration by the District for land acquisition
and development of new schools to meet the growing demand for classroom space in the
City of San Bernardino. Notification to the Planning Commission for a determination of
General Plan consistency will be required for each proposed school site.
The District has informed the City of its facility needs assessment and has met with City
representatives to discuss site selection alternatives on various occasions. Despite serious
concerns and opposition expressed by the City, the District's planning process for the
Wilson II facility has advanced to the final steps required prior to site acquisition. The
District has commenced environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and is now seeking a
determination of General Plan Consistency.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
When the General Plan was adopted in 1989, existing public schools were designated PF,
Public Facilities. Potential school sites were not specifically identified, but addressed
through the goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan.
General Plan Objective 1.37 states:
"It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to provide for the
continuation of existing and development of new parks, schools, government
administrative, police, fire, social service, and other public facilities and open
spaces in proximity to and compatible with residential uses."
In accordance with this objective, the San Bernardino City Unified School District
proposes to develop a new school site to serve the needs of elementary school 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 25`h 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
General Plan Consistency Determination
Wilson It Elementary School Site
Planning Commission Hearing Date: 7119105
• 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,
4&v G. Pool
James Funk
Director of Development Services
C u
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
URS ATTACHMENT A `
1
June 9, 2005 i
Mr. James Funk, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street, 3 T Floor
San Bernardino. California 92418
Subject: Notice of Proposed Development of Three Schools and
Request for General Plan Conformity Finding
(Public Resources Code Section 21 151.2 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 1I, Burbank II, and Wilson If.
Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65402.a, and Public Resources Code Section 21 151.2, 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 11: The Proposed Alessandro II 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 Il: The Proposed Burbank If Elementary School Site is located between West
Rialto Avenue, South Alien 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).
D 11e��r..1r11
I,R5 Grc.p.Inc.
10123 Bell Coun D
PlIM!"O CiKamaiga.CA 91730 JUN L i 2n•r
Tel 909.980.4000
F.u: 909.980.1399 ray OF SAN EERNARp+,yp
QEVELOPWAIT SSRviCc
OEPARTi41EN7
i
VRS
• Mr. James Funk, Director
Development Services Department
City of San Bernardino
June 9, 2005
Page 2
3. kvilson IL The Proposed Wilson II Elementary School Site is located northwest of the
intersection of "F" and 25" 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 Locations Map- Alessandro II
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map—Alessandro 11
Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map—Burbank II
Figure 2, Project Location Map—Burbank II
Figure 3, Project Land Use Map-Burbank II
Figure 1, 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 I
or
I
f
s
_ IL
. 1 Zal� grow �v ■■ . "All
■fie :�� =�rA
Mir
ow
��.. s � _
owl
9
.q
mi
I ��
:� - (� ��� ��, _off � � '� :� •'
��1!�
�r ERT'� .�l l•ss a!■ nse. •!q�� R� :r�� �i
wit ��'� !!� �� ■I. ��t!!�� ��� ' ,,, 1 1.
IF�� � , ,� _ •
fin
d r RE
�.IL
Schools LtUend
how
1041 Kill
Middle School mom
High Schooi
Railroad I Arrowhead Elementary 8 Riley Elementary
CZ32 mile radius 2 Parkside Elementary 9 Abraham Lincoln Elementary
City of San Bernardino 3 Marshall Elementary • Riley Elementary
County of San Bernardino 4 Davidson
Park - Wilsoin Elernentary 12 Golden
6 Howard Inighrarn Elementary 19 Afrowvtew Middle
PROJECT 7. Roosevelt Elementary 14 San Bernardino High
• •
� • 11 •
i
t
CITY OF • PROJECT:
DIVISION PLANNING
LOCATION
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 1
oil •
T
_ F11
!!� !!1�;®�
Illn!Al
Sit' , 'IT"
t
wR'L�lrr,; DRIVE
y -
' :CTH STREET tL
- ...
..
V14 •�.� •� , � � ... � •mow..• ♦ Y. w
s R
t •�f j
I 7
srm
giftK
e-y
..7
i \H IMI 1�h1111111
g
t
r a "'Ar.
J ,M
Wx
J f
- HiG"f1AN.D s','iFIVL)F
Leaen
-� ail : � �•� � ti� � '� ..�
r
• ... is .
Feet
�..
1 50 100 200
PROPOSED PROJECT
April 2005
School
San Bernardino City Unified School District Figure
EXHIBIT 5
• City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Police Department
Interoffice Memorandum �`�'°
.......ES
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 disclosed that the SBCSD
was planning on constructing Wilson 1I Elementary School north of the existing Arrowview
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 1) 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.
T'HE SBPD IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING-
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY POLICE SERVICE;
A SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE;
A REDUCTION IN CRIME THROUGH PROBLEM REC(H;NITfON AND PROBLEM SOLVING
EXHIBIT 6
DEVELOPMENT SERVicE.S DEPARTNIF:NT
} ` 300 North '•D"Street •San Bernardino •CA 92418-0001
Planning dr Building 909.384.5057• Fax 909 384 5080
Public WorksEngineing 909.384.5111 •Fax 909 384J155 San BerBar ino
www.sbcity org
July 15, 2005
t
VIA FASCEMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Wael Elatar
Facilities Administrator
San Bernardino City Unified School District
777 North"F" Street
San Bernardino, CA 9'410
Re: Proposed School Sites
Dear Mr. Elatar.
On June 21, 2005, I sent you a letter requesting copies of the environmental documents for the
proposed Burbank I1 and Alessandro 1I 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 reyie•% and comment on the environmental documents for these
proposed school sites. To date, I have not received a response to my inquiry or the
environmental documents.
I recently became aware from the CEQAnet database through the Govemor's Office of Planoing
and Research that the public review and comment period ends on July 14, 2005 for the above two
schools. I further noticed that the review period for the proposed Wilson 11 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 %%e can pro%ide services necessary to these sites.
In addition to the above, proceeding «ith the environmental determination for Wilson 11 is
especially problematic. The City has repeatedly told the District that it has concerns with the
. pact.s1)
Proposed S.hool Sites
Jule 15.2U0s
Page 2
proposed location of this school. Presumably, the environmental document addresses the
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 unmttigable impact on traffic on
surrounding streets as a result of these street closures. I
As it appears that the Distnct failed to follow proper procedures under CEQA by sending any
ienvironmental documents to the City who is a responsible agency under CEQA, the City hereby
reserves the night 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 requesting that the City be sent all notices
of intent or notices of preparation of an EIR as well as any other environmental 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 11 elementary schools and are
requesting that the Distnct extend the revie%v penod for at least an additional thirty(30) days to
allow the City and !Eater District to properly respond to these environmental documents.
Sincerely,
Valerie C. Ross
Deputy Director/City Planner
c: Members 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 EmpeAo, Sr. Deputy City Attorney
�lananne Milligan, Deputy City Attorney
Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager, San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
EXHIBIT 7
I
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Arturo Delgado, Ed.D.
Superint_enden_t
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 Berardino, 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 me, 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,CA 92410.(909)381-1238•Fax(909)885-4218
wael.elatarV stxusd.k 12.a.us
Please also note that, in compliance with the law, the District also made copies available for review by
j 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.
I 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 Empefio,Sr Deputy City Attorney, City of San Bemardino
Marianne Milligan, Deputy City Attorney,City of San Bernardino
Stacey Aldstadt, General Manager, San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
i
I
i
O�RNARp� Cheryl Brown
SPA °9 John Coute
o Kenneth Durr CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
' � ? Larn,lo Basle DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
+E a` Larry Heasley 300 North"D" Street, San Bernardino,CA 92418
'`oGN' I_ • ;�o Jim Aforris. Vice-Chair
Roger Powell Phone: (909)384-5057/5071 • Fax: (909)384-5080
en 1N
Mike Sauerbrun, Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF JULY 19, 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.
05-05, & 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 1I
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, Dun, 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
h
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
(fi
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: 1
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
i
Page 13 7/19/05
SAN BERNARDINO CITY 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, 3rd 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 II 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,
078 d G�cQ,
ARTURO DELG , Ed.D.
Superintendent
AD:mbg
Cc: Mayor Patrick Morris
'""" OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
North F Street • San Bernardino. C'A 92410 • (909)381-1240 • fay 1909) 885392 •
arturo.del,,,ado'�i'sbcusd.k I2.ca.us
--� / 7 , 7�