DOCSLIB.ORG

Freeway Corridor Specific Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

YUCAIPA FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF YUCAIPA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 34272 YUCAIPA BOULEVARD YUCAIPA, CA 92399 November 2008 This page left intentionally blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1‐1 1.1 Purpose of the Specific Plan 1‐1 1.2 Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Project Overview 1‐2 1.3 Regional and Local Setting 1‐2 1.4 Planning Objectives 1‐4 1.5 Relationship to the General Plan 1‐9 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance 1‐10 1.7 Authority and Scope 1‐10 2 Baseline Conditions 2‐1 2.1 Introduction 2‐1 2.2 Established Land Uses 2‐2 2.3 Surrounding Land Uses 2‐7 2.4 Topography and Natural Features 2‐8 2.5 Geology and Soils 2‐11 2.6 Earthquake Faults 2‐11 2.7 Landslides and Liquefaction 2‐15 2.8 Hydrology and Drainage 2‐15 2.9 Water Wells and Water Quality Conditions 2‐16 2.10 Biological Resources 2‐16 2.11 Cultural Resources 2‐17 2.12 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Wastes 2‐20 2.13 Traffic and Circulation 2‐21 2.14 Market Conditions 2‐25 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Project Description 3‐1 3.1 Introduction 3‐1 3.2 Development Goals and Objectives 3‐1 3.3 Public Benefits 3‐6 3.4 Land Use Plan and Site Plan Concept 3‐7 3.5 Circulation Plan 3‐19 3.6 Grading Concepts 3‐24 3.7 Drainage System 3‐29 3.8 Water and Sewer System 3‐32 3.9 Public Facilities and Services 3‐43 3.10 Urban Design Concept 3‐47 3.11 Hillside and Open Space Preservation 3‐55 3.12 Fiscal Analysis 3‐58 4 Development Standards 4‐1 4.1 Purpose 4‐2 4.2 General Provisions 4‐2 4.3 Permitted Land Uses 4‐3 4.4 Development Standards 4‐7 4.5 Landscape Standards 4‐9 4.6 Sign Regulations 4‐9 4.7 Common Open Space, Parks, Trails, and Hillside Preservation 4‐12 4.8 Infrastructure 4‐13 5 Design Guidelines 5‐1 5.1 Introduction 5‐1 5.2 General Design Guidelines 5‐2 5.3 Design Guidelines by Land Uses 5‐8 6 Implementaton 6‐1 6.1 Introduction 6‐1 6.2 Phasing 6‐2 6.3 Public Financing Plan 6‐8 6.4 Maintenance Responsibilities 6‐12 6.5 Methods and Procedures for Implementation 6‐13 6.6 Enforcement of The Specific Plan 6‐14 6.7 Amendments to the Specific Plan 6‐14 6.8 Density Transfers 6‐15 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.9 Interpretations 6‐16 6.10 Statement of Severability 6‐16 6.11 CEQA Compliance 6‐16 Appendices Appendix A: Definitions Appendix B: Slope Analysis and Required Open Space Appendix C: Design Guidelines Figures Figure 1‐1 Regional Map 1‐3 Figure 1‐2 Specific Plan Area 1‐7 Figure 2‐1 Aerial Map 2‐8 Figure 2‐2 Constraints Map 2‐13 Figure 3‐1 Land Use Plan 3‐13 Figure 3‐2 Slope Map 3‐27 Figure 3‐3 Backbone Water Plan 3‐35 Figure 3‐4 Waster Water Plan 3‐41 Figure 6‐1 Phasing Plan 6‐3 Tables Table 2‐1 Property Acres 2‐2 Table 2‐2 Tribal Consultation 2‐17 Table 2‐3 Prehistoric Sites 2‐18 Table 2‐4 Archaeological Sites 2‐19 Table 2‐5 Average Annual Demand 2‐27 Table 2‐6 Population Growth 2‐27 Table 2‐7 Average Homes Sales Prices ‐ 2000 to 2005 2‐32 Table 3‐1 Neighborhood Input and Design Results 3‐2 Table 3‐2 Land Use Distribution by Neighborhood 3‐16 Table 3‐3 Yucaipa Street Standards 3‐20 Table 3‐4 Recommended Drainage Improvements 3‐31 Table 3‐5 Water Demand by Land Use 3‐34 Table 3‐6 Fire Flow Standards 3‐37 Table 3‐7 School Facilities Master Plan Student Generation Factors 3‐46 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3‐8 Slope Category And Open Space Requirements 3‐57 Table 4‐1 Permitted Uses 4‐5 Table 4‐2 Residential Development Standards 4‐7 Table 4‐3 Non‐Residential Development Standards 4‐8 Table 6‐1 Phasing 6‐2 Table 6‐2 Public Facilities Construction Cost Summary 6‐8 Table 6‐3 Maintenance Plan ‐ Responsible Parties 6‐12 iv CHAPTER 1 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN A Specific Plan provides policymakers the ability to prepare and adopt development and/or design standards and guidelines within a targeted area of the city. The Specific Plan process can also provide the impetus needed to initiate development in designated areas in a way that is also consistent with the City’s vision established in the General Plan. Although it is not part of the General Plan, a Specific Plan must adhere to and be consistent with the General Plan. In that regards a Specific Plan is similar to a zoning ordinance with the focus on implementation. One outcome of the Specific Plan process is the establishment of infrastructure plans that support development. In addition, a Specific Plan provides guidance to developers without stifling opportunities or imposing inflexible regulations that preclude creative development responses. Although California State law does not define a rigid structure, a Specific Plan often includes a comprehensive description of land use, existing conditions, circulation, infrastructure, site development standards, and design guidelines. The Plan must also discuss implementation programs for the property owners, developers, architects, and builders to prepare development proposals for the City’s review and approval. 1‐1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan provides the planning tools necessary to guide development for the 1,242‐acre Freeway Corridor planning area. In particular, this Plan establishes a framework for development of the area, including: Proposed land uses, development regulations, and design standards; A multi‐modal trail and circulation system that provides access for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles; A plan for protecting and managing important natural resources including the hillsides, and native oak trees; Infrastructure facilities required, including financing and phasing, to support implementation of the Plan; and Implementation and administrative processes needed to approve specific development projects within the Specific Plan area. The Freeway Corridor Specific Plan offers a mixture of residential, commercial, and business park development. In addition to these land uses, the plan provides community amenities such as trails, two potential elementary schools, and open space areas that help to create a cohesive community where people can live, work, shop, and play. A variety of residential uses are provided to help meet the growing demand for housing in San Bernardino County. The commercial and business park uses provide employment as well as retail and entertainment opportunities for those living within the community. The commercial and business park areas take advantage of the freeway visibility and access to serve both local and regional needs. The residential areas are linked to the commercial and business park areas through an extensive system of multi‐ modal trails and open space corridors. 1.3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING The 1,242‐acre Freeway Corridor Specific Plan area is located in the City of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County (see Figure 1). The Plan area is bisected by Interstate 10 (I‐10) and abuts the Riverside County line to the south. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 10 from the east and west. Local access to the Specific Plan area is provided by Live Oak Canyon Road, County Line Road, Oak Glen Road, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Calimesa Boulevard. 1‐2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1‐3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Specific Plan is also accessible from two freeway interchanges. The I‐10/Live Oak Canyon/Oak Glen Road interchange is at the western edge of the project area. The I‐ 10/County Line Road interchange is at the southeastern edge of the project area. 1.4 PLANNING OBJECTIVES Prior to the selection of a Consultant team to manage and prepare the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, the City Council established a set of objectives that were instrumental in the development of the Plan. The objectives are: Design an integrated addition to the City of Yucaipa containing housing, employment opportunities, retail/commercial areas, recreation areas, and other facilities essential to the daily lives of the residents; Ensure that the plan complies with the City Development Code related to hillside development; Expand the range of housing opportunities in the region to meet the needs of a variety of household types, sizes, and income levels; Provide an abundance and variety of open space and multi‐modal trails (including vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians) throughout the community; Design a safe and efficient circulation system that adequately supports the anticipated level of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic in and around the Specific Plan area; Develop a financing and phasing plan that provides for the efficient and timely provision of infrastructure and services as development occurs; and Comprehensively plan the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan area with consideration of other contiguous areas to ensure compatible and complementary development, circulation patterns, infrastructure, and services To assist the City staff and the Consultant team, the Yucaipa City Council formed a Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Advisory Committee (SPAC) to encourage the timely realization of an appropriate development plan for the project area. The committee was a diverse group that represented all of the numerous stakeholders, including property owners, nearby residents, and others who have an interest in the long‐term development of the site. This broad range of interests ensured that all views and perspectives were given respectful consideration.
Recommended publications
  • Attachment E Part 2

    Attachment E Part 2

    Response to Correspondence from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy Regarding the ArtCenter Master Plan Note that the emails (Attachment A) dated after April 25, 2018, were provided to the City after the end of the CEQA comment period, and, therefore, the emails and the responses below are not included in the EIR, and no response is required under CEQA. However, for sake of complete analysis and consideration of all comments submitted, the City responds herein and this document is made part of the project staff report. Response to Correspondence This correspondence with the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy occurred in the context of the preparation of the EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The formal comment letter from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy included in this correspondence was responded to as Letter No. 6 in Section III, Response to Comments, of the April 2018 Final EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The primary correspondence herein is comprised of emails between John Howell and Mickey Long discussing whether there is a wildlife corridor within the Hillside Campus, as well as emails between John Howell and CDFW regarding whether there is a wildlife corridor and whether CDFW will provide a comment letter regarding the ArtCenter Project for the Planning Commission hearing on May 9, 2018. Note that CDFW submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2018, after completion of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City has also provided a separate response to this late comment letter. This correspondence centers around the potential for the Hillside Campus to contribute to a wildlife corridor. The CDFW was contacted during preparation of the Final EIR to obtain specific mapping information to provide a more comprehensive description of the potential for wildlife movement within the Hillside Campus within the Final EIR.
  • 800/834-7557

    800/834-7557

    Searles Valley Delano Kernville 178 Death Valley 155 National Monument Delano Munipal 155 China Lake Naval Airport Weapons Ctr 99 Woody Rd na 155 Wofford Heights Tro 65 Ridgecrest Inyokern 38 China Lake 155 Mcfarland 178 178 178 178 99 178 Ridgecrest d South Lake 14 an R Bowm E Mountain Mesa 127 Lake Isabella Famoso Woody Rd Bodfish Cerro Coso Junior College y w H e l l i v r China Lake Naval e t r o d P Weapons Ctr R n tio ta S s e rl 395 a e S 43 Shafter-Minter 65 Field 178 Shafter y w H 99 e l l i G v o r l e d t en r S o ta P te H wy Meadows d R a Field Kern River n o 44 r State Park T Oildale ll rre Fort Irwin Ha red Alf wy H Garlock Rio Bravo Country Club Red Rock Canyon Red 178 State Rec Area Rosedale Mountain Randsburg 58 184 Greenacres 14 Bakersfield 43 Cantil Baker 43 Bakersfield Municipal Airport ck ba 58 de ud C d R Lamont A W Noon Weedpatch Park Galileo 5 Park South Co lumbi a Rd d lv B d ir 223 rb 223 46 de un h Arvin T Borax Bill Merrick Blvd 395 C Park h ick Blvd ip Rudn a California n g Um rd Ave a tali Rd Stanfo li City ey Rd S Vall t Bear 14 r d B Gordon Blvd e R e a w y r o le V 184 L l a dberg Blvd d a ll Lin rge Blv V ey Geo Cumberland R d buru Rd Rd v u Rd Mendi d W l Mendibur d B e d R Golden s v n y l e B t ppy Blvd N Loop Blvd l w o Po l B a r a lv o l b a V Hills d d l r o r v e a Bear Valley Springs B l e d e rnia City Blvd h B Califo B 204 Y dsburg Cutoff c C Ran t i a t Teha reat Circle Dr S Loop Blvd li chap M G fo i d S Blvd r 202 Valley Blvd v n l y d ia r r v Blvd B r Redwood l C 99 u D i n t B y i l
  • 2014 General Plan

    2014 General Plan

    CITY OF CALIMESA 2014 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AUGUST 4, 2014 CITY OF CALIMESA 2014 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AUGUST 4, 2014 Prepared by the City of Calimesa General Plan Advisory Committee and ® City of Calimesa 908 Park Avenue Calimesa, CA 92320 909.795.9801 This document is available for electronic download at http://cityofcalimesa.net The preparation of this General Plan was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the City of Calimesa and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 3: Transportation and Mobility Chapter 4: Infrastructure and Public Services Chapter 5: Housing Element Chapter 6: Resource Management Chapter 7: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Chapter 8: Safety Chapter 9: Noise Chapter 10: Air Quality Chapter 11: Sustainability Appendix A: Housing Element Background Report - under separate cover Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 3: Transportation and Mobility Chapter 7: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Chapter 8: Safety Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 3: Transportation and Mobility Chapter 5: Housing Element Chapter 9: Noise Chapter 10: Air Quality CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Calimesa General Plan expresses our community’s vision of its long-term physical form and development. This General Plan is comprehensive in scope and represents the product of years of effort on the part of residents and businesses in the community working to maintain and improve Calimesa’s quality of life and implement the community’s shared vision for the future.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 887-acre Canyon Hills project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City. The project site lies within the Verdugo Mountains, a mountain range that covers an area of approximately 25 square miles.1 The Verdugo Mountains are geographically defined by the San Fernando Valley and the La Tuna Canyon and Tujunga Canyon drainages to the west, the Los Angeles Basin to the south, the San Gabriel Valley and the Arroyo Verdugo drainage to the east, and the communities of Sunland and Tujunga, which lie at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, to the north. The project site is an irregular-shaped property that extends along a southeast to northwest axis, and is roughly bounded by Verdugo Crestline Drive2 on the north and La Tuna Canyon Road on the south. Interstate 210 bisects the project site in an east-west direction dividing it into a northern subarea (“Development Area A”) of approximately 492 acres and a southern subarea (“Development Area B”) of approximately 395 acres. Existing Land Uses The project site contains steep mountainous terrain with local relief changes in excess of 500 vertical feet. Land elevations range from approximately 1,160 to 2,064 feet above sea level. Natural slope gradients roughly range from 3:1 to as steep as 0.75:1 (horizontal:vertical). Steep “V” shaped canyons are abundant throughout the project site. The proposed project site is bisected by Interstate 210. The portion of the freeway that passes through the project site was constructed in the early 1970s.
  • County of Riverside General Plan Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan

    County of Riverside General Plan Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan

    County of Riverside General Plan Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Transportation and Land Management Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3634 Phone: (951) 955-3200, Fax: (951) 955-1811 October 2011 County of Riverside General Plan Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ........................................................................................................ 2 Location ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Features ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Unique Features ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Badlands/Norton Younglove Preserve
  • 30-Mile Studio Zone Map N S U G Viejo E

    30-Mile Studio Zone Map N S U G Viejo E

    David Rd Banducci Rd S d Horse Thief o R d 33 r Rd a e Golf & Country Club 58 14 L iv 5 e ak g R e 99 d ld R v d O Mojave l Rid B r 166 Maricopa Maricopa Hwy Airport y d le t 166 i R 166 e Tehachapi Mountains C e e h in a Rd i m W ek Mojave n y SAN LUIS OBISPO e r Cr a ld o l O f i C l a COUNTY C Pine Cyn Rd 58 North Edwards d R yn 58 d C R d t o e o u S nw o sq o da Boron u tt p o L a e C R k T d e d R n 166 14 o y n a Backus Rd d I C r y R d w d o v d s l R in is d l g Hw R B R A F s R n i r n o a o n r t r h i California o e d il KERN r t l k p R an c r i d e s Aliso Park S i e d Aqueduct m p Cerr a S P R o c w l r en Rd l o Edwards n h T o l 58 e Noro a - c l COUNTY i Hi B L e s r e AFB v i st W e nk i a Foothill Rd K Rd j p l o ey a M h 5 c Rd a h e T Rosamond C erro N Willow Springs Airport oroest e Rd Raceway Barstow Fort Tejon Rosamond Blvd t d S n R i State Historic Park Mil P otrero Hw Rosamond Blvd n Ma Lenwood y Rosamond a S m d i er Frazier e 395 r C R ud a H Fo dy xen Va Park lle w C y F a R razier Mountain P y ny d ark Rd on R 33 d r ve B e Ri a av rs Moj LOS PADRES t ow y NATIONAL FOREST G w R o d d rm s H an R il P a o Lanc E r aster e s Quail Rd T l d t R t al d a S n R n Lake y o yo Avenue D d ti n Avenue D h w n a t C r Na e 0 s 138 l o 138 F s 2 Ali 138 e y Sisquoc 1 H Hungry Valley e 1 l Figueroa Mounta River l in Rd 0 a t State Vehicular General V h 15 d e S William J Fox p 247 VENTURA Recreation Area t y R W e W o l Cuyama t W Airfield all e N2 S V t d Sierra Madre t River n R E h S F t t Mountains ood A Avenue
  • Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land

    Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land

    DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS CHAPTER III.8. CULTURAL RESOURCES III.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES This chapter presents the Affected Environment for the Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) Decision Area and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) area for cultural resources. These areas overlap, and in the following programmatic discussion are referred to broadly as the “California Desert Region.” More than 32,000 cultural resources are known in the DRECP area in every existing environmental context ⎼ from mountain crests to dry lake beds ⎼ and include both surface and subsurface deposits. Cultural resources are categorized as buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts (including cultural landscapes and Traditional Cultural Properties) under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Historic properties are cultural resources included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.4). See Section III.8.1.1 for more information on federal regulations and historic properties. This chapter discusses three types of cultural resources classified by their origins: prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic. Prehistoric cultural resources are associated with the human occupation of California prior to prolonged European contact. These resources may include sites and deposits, structures, artifacts, rock art, trails, and other traces of Native American human behavior. In California, the prehistoric period began over 12,000 years ago and extended through the eighteenth century until 1769, when the first Europeans settled in California. Ethnographic resources represent the heritage of a particular ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, Latino, or Asian immigrants.
  • 1 Collections

    1 Collections

    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
  • Berberis Nevinii (Nevin's Barberry) 5-Year Review

    Berberis Nevinii (Nevin's Barberry) 5-Year Review

    Berberis nevinii (Nevin’s barberry) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photograph by Chris Wagner, SBNF. Used with permission. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, CA August 14, 2009 2009 5-year Review for Berberis nevinii 5-YEAR REVIEW Berberis nevinii (Nevin’s barberry) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
  • Statement of Qualifications

    Statement of Qualifications

    STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Page & Turnbull FIRM PROFILE Page & Turnbull is interested in the intersection between the built surroundings we have inherited and the way we live now. Our mission is to imagine change within historic environments through design, research, and technology. Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources and civic areas. We were one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate our practice to historic preservation and we are among the longest-practicing such firms in the country. Our offices are located in San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles. Our staff includes licensed architects, designers and historians, conservators and planners. We approach projects with imagination and flexibility and are committed to the conservation of significant resources—where these resources can be made to function for present and future needs. Our services are oriented to our clients’ time and budget. All our professional staff meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES We emphasize the re-use of existing buildings and the thoughtful application of new design. Solutions for new construction respect existing architectural values and the context of neighboring structures. When analyzing buildings we are skilled in the assessment and treatment of the most significant architectural and historical spaces and elements. We welcome the challenge of solving problems of repair, seismic strengthening, and integrating new systems. Page & Turnbull ensures that projects comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for local, state and federal agency review.
  • Available for Lease/Sale Free-Standing Retail Showroom Building 17881 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA

    Available for Lease/Sale Free-Standing Retail Showroom Building 17881 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA

    Available For Lease/Sale Free-Standing Retail Showroom Building 17881 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA Investment Highlights: Asking Price: Building Size: 4,900 SF + Mezzanine Exclusively Offered By: Oliver, (480) 442-6583 [email protected] Call Oliver at 480-442-6583 DISCLAIMER This Executive Summary was prepared by owner - Newport Beach (the “Owner”) solely for prospective purchasers of 17881 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA (the “Property”). Neither we (its brokers, employees, agents, principals, officers, directors and affiliates) nor the Owner of the Property (the “Owner”) make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the completeness or the accuracy of the material contained herein. The information contained herein was prepared to provide a summary of unverified information to prospective purchasers and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the Property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation; you and your attorneys, advisors and consultants should conduct your own investigation of the property and transaction. The information contained herein has been obtained from the property owner or other third party and is provided to you without verification as to accuracy with respect to the size and square footage of the Property and improvements, the presence or absence of contaminating substances, PCB’s or asbestos on the Property, etc. All potential buyers must take appropriate measures to verify all of the information set forth herein. It is the sole responsibility of the prospective Buyer to confirm the size of the units, building and property. The building is being offered on an “As Is” basis - Broker and Owner shall not make any representations as to the conditions of the building.
  • 5.15 Recreation

    5.15 Recreation

    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 5. Environmental Analysis 5.15 RECREATION This section of the San Bernardino County (County) Countywide Plan (CWP or Project) Program Environmental Impact Report describes the regulatory framework, existing conditions, and the potential for environmental impacts related to parks and recreations. 5.15.1 Environmental Setting 5.15.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal National Park Service The National Park system is considered to have begun in 1872 when Congress established Yellowstone National Park under exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the “Organic Act” to create the National Park Service to “promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations” and to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Wilderness Act of 1964 In the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress directed certain federal agencies to study lands they administer for inclusion in a system of preserved wildernesses where no extractive activities can occur. Wilderness designation ensures the resources are managed to retain their “primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation.” Wilderness areas are open to hiking and, in some cases, horseback riding, backpacking, and other nonmechanical recreation. The Wilderness Act prohibits permanent roads and commercial enterprises, except in some instances related to recreation and safety. California Desert Conservation Area Plan The California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan was approved in 1980 in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.