Att #11 Email Correspondence 2024-2026 — City Council/Public Financing Authority, May 5, 2026

From: Cheryl DeMarco, AIA
To: Welch, Madalyn
Subject: Design Review Meeting - 24-334
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2024 7:40:54 AM
Madalyn,
I was informed about today's Design Review meeting. I would like the Design Review Board to consider the following, ask for additional information, and continue this item to a future review board hearing:
24-334 Design Review Board No. 24-005 HBCSD Maintenance and Operations Building This review is for the design, colors and material of a 7,510 SF building. This building will be situated on the existing HBCSD office.

1. Submitted Site Plan does not depict "existing property improvements on abutting parcels and across streets and/or alleys within fifty (50) feet of parcel." Per the city of HB Planning Application it should include: "location and dimension of parking, landscaping, driveways, building layouts and uses, windows and entryway locations and any other information useful to analyze the project." The plans do not accurately show the adjacent parcels and this is necessary to analyze this project.

2. Site Location - I ask the board to consider the location of the proposed building on the site, how it will impact neighbors on the east and west side. Could the building be an "L" shape or other options. The neighbors on the east will have increased traffic just behind their homes with trucks coming and going. The neighbors on the west will have a building over 17'-6" high, just past the public easement access path.

3. Building massing and material. This building will be a setback from the property line 22'-6", but not the public access easement. It will be 17'6" from the finish floor of the building to the ridge of the building. The view from the public access shows the height over the block wall and from neighbors rear yards. The photo in the architectural plans of the neighboring yard is not an accurate depiction of actual adjacent property.

4. With this building located next to the public access pathway there will be a secluded area that may promote homeless encampment or create a dangerous area to walk.

Imagine kids walking to the park and they come upon someone waiting there.

5. WCMP and CEQA. I did not see either of these noted in the drawings or in the application.

6. Public Notice - this project impacts many neighbors adjacent to the property, but also all property owners in this residential tract that the maintenance vehicles will be traveling through. Appropriate notice should be given to affected HB property owners.

7. A traffic study would be an appropriate document for the district to provide to the city to assist in the design and location of this facility.

Cheryl DeMarco, AIA
Architect | Real Estate Professional
[email protected]
949.478.4660
CA License: C23965 & DRE01945968
UT License: 9675803-0301 & 9675803-SA
This email and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please immediately delete its contents and notify us that you received the email unintentionally.

From: Mike Grillette
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Kelley, Jason; Planning Commission Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 5:05:24 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello
Please reconsider the appeal of the M&O building at Dorsett and please approve it. We have worked with the HBCSD and believe they have the best interest of the community. We understand it was approved 6-0 and now it appears that it was appeals. Please reconsider the appeal and move forward with approving the project.

With kind regards,
Mike Grillette
From: Mike Stovall
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Kelley, Jason; Planning Commission Subject: M&O building project 25–6 27
Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 4:30:51 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident and long time HB voter. to strongly oppose the current appeal by a city council member to relocate the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) yard back to the Sowers Elementary School area, instead of keeping/maintaining it at the Dorsett Avenue location.

Placing an O&M yard – which involves buses, heavy equipment, maintenance vehicles, and associated operations – directly in front of or adjacent to a school would create unacceptable safety hazards for our children, staff, and families. This would introduce:
• Significantly increased bus traffic and vehicle volume during peak school hours.
• Additional traffic lights, congestion, and turning movements that could endanger pedestrians and students crossing streets. • Heightened risks from diesel emissions, noise, and large vehicles operating near playgrounds and classrooms.

We have already experienced enough tragedies and casualties in our community related to traffic and school-zone dangers. Relocating this facility to a school site would only compound these risks and undermine the safety of our most vulnerable residents – our children.

Schools should remain protected environments focused on education, not industrial or maintenance operations.

The current Dorsett Avenue location appears to be a more appropriate site that avoids these direct impacts on students and families. I urge the City Council to reject this appeal and prioritize public safety by denying any move to the Sowers school area.

Please consider this opposition in your deliberations and uphold the safety of our schools. I appreciate your attention to this important matter and your service to our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Mike & Jan Stovall
Sent from my iPhone
From: Matt Vukelich
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Kelley, Jason; Planning Commission Subject: M&O building project 25-627
Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 3:51:44 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello
Please reconsider the appeal of the M&O building at Dorsett and please approve it. We have worked with the HBCSD and believe they have the best interest of the community. We understand it was approved 6-0 and now it appears that it was appeals. Please reconsider the appeal and move forward with approving the project.

With kind regards,
Matthew Vukelich
From: Louise Federmann
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Planning Commission; Kelley, Jason; [email protected] Subject: M & O building 25-627
Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 2:58:59 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important To Whom it may concern,
I support this project. Please move forward with approving it Sincerely,
Louise Federmann
9372 Cloudhaven Dr.

HB,
CA 92646
A registered voter
From: questa1997
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Kelley, Jason; Planning Commission Subject: M&O building project 25-627
Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 4:17:49 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello,
Please reconsider keeping the M&O building at the Dorsett location, as originally planned. I live right across from Sowers and seeing the kids at lunch time, the best use for that space is more grass (so the kids are actually on school property, not the city park).

Thank you,
Aaron Harris
Sent from my Galaxy
From: Matthew & Melinda Vukelich
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Planning Commission; Kelley, Jason; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Mark Manstof
Subject: Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building Project (File Number 25-627) Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 3:57:10 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello,
I previously sent an email supporting this project and have heard that a council member is appealing the decision. I would like to reiterate my support for the HBCSD. They have worked really hard to make sure that this is the best placement for this building and always try to ensure what is best for the children and city. Please do not allow the appeal to go through and move forward with the project at Dorsett.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Melinda Vukelich
Hello,
I had intended on attending tonights meeting in support of this project however, my children have been hit very hard with the flu and are unable to leave the house. Please find this letter in lieu of my attendance for tonights planning decision.

I am writing to express my strong support for your approval of the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building Project
(File Number 25-627).

I respectfully urge you to approve the proposed Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building Project (File
Number 25-627), as this decision will greatly benefit all. Please approve this project for HBCSD. The Board worked diligently to relocate the Bus Yard that I do believe they thoughtfully consider each and every avenue when making these decisions, especially when residents raise concern.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or 949-
467-4874, if you need further input from our community or would like additional information from me.

Thank you for your consideration.

Melinda Vukelich
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 6:32 AM
Subject: RE: M&O Building - Wall Neighbors
To: Jenny Delgado <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Manstof <[email protected]>, Jolene Miller <[email protected]>

Good morning Jenny,
Thank you for keeping me informed regarding the School District M&O building project.

Unfortunately for me I am out of town June 19
th and will not be able to attend the Zoning
Administrator public meeting. On my behalf, would you able to pass along this email to the build decision team concerning the shared fence line between the District building and residents of Breton Ln?

In brief, pertaining to the shared fence, initial discussion was a 6’ high block wall would be constructed. However, more recent information is the block wall is now planned to be 8’ high.

The Breton properties ground elevation is 3’ lower than the district property. Breton properties current block and fence height is 9’. An 8’ district wall would change the Breton properties back yard to an 11’ block wall view. I do not want an 11’ block wall view. An 11’ block wall will look like a freeway sound wall. Additional to a higher build coast, the footing will need to be more robust resulting in even more intrusion to my property’s existing back yard hardscape, mature tree line, irrigation, and electrical installations.

My requests,
Please let the decision makers know to not build the district block wall 8’ in height, rather please keep the wall to the initially discussed height of 6’.

Would you provide me the block wall decision maker(s) contact information so I can personally discuss the block wall build?

I would like a written letter of understanding regarding the wall build potential damage and monetary compensation to existing homeowner hardscape, landscape, irrigation, and utilities.

I invite the decision makers visit my Breton property and even the other shared wall neighbor’s property.

Good fences build good neighbors. I hope the decision makers consider my request.

Thoughts?

All the best,
Jon Gergen
21192 Breton Ln
(714) 651-7757

From: Jenny Delgado <[email protected]
>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 1:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mark Manstof <[email protected]>; Jolene Miller <[email protected]> Subject: Re: M&O Building - Wall Neighbors

Hi Jon,

It was nice talking to you today.

Here is the information we shared with the neighbors after the meeting with the Design Review Board. The project is scheduled to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator on June 19, which is a public meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

Update - May 28, 2024
The City of Huntington Beach Design Review Board (DRB) has approved the design and materials for the Huntington Beach City School District Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building, and it has made several recommendations for the Zoning Administrator. These recommendations include moving the building east an additional 20 feet away from Breton Lane, increasing the height of the block wall between the District and residents from six to eight feet, softening the west building face, using matured trees, and adding additional lighting. District staff will now discuss the DRB recommendations with the project architect and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consultant to evaluate any potential impacts. This is in preparation for the review by the Zoning Administrator meeting in June. We will provide updates as the project develops.

Have a good weekend,
Jenny

--
Best regards,

Jenny Delgado
Assistant Superintendent/CBO
Huntington Beach City School District
8750 Dorsett Dr. | Huntington Beach, CA 92646
[email protected] | 714-964-8888
Website | Twitter | Facebook
Statement of Confidentiality: This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error. The information may also be confidential and/or legally privileged.

Any use, review, disclosure, reproduction, distribution, copying of, or reliance on, this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.

Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.

From: Welch, Madalyn
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Huntington Beach City School District M&O Facility Date: Thursday, May 2, 2024 2:11:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
Good afternoon Robert,

I am the project planner assigned to this application. This project is currently routed out for review to all departments. I have provided the link below to our online permitting system where you can view the documents for this submittal. At the link below, type in the record number for this project and then select ‘Search’. Once it takes you to this application, select ‘Record Info” and then select ‘Attachments’. The record number for this project is PA-2023-0067.

Accela Citizen Access (huntingtonbeachca.gov)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Maddie Welch
Associate Planner
Community Development

Office: (714) 374 - 5353
[email protected]

2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Huntington Beach City School District M&O Facility

Hi Ricky,

Mark Mansdorf at the HB City School District mentioned you in his email to me as the point of contact for this project. How would I find out if the school district has any plans/drawings or discussions with the city about getting this project approved? Thank you.

Robert Granger
21232 Breton Ln, Huntington Beach, Ca 92646
714-404-7140

Robert Granger
Insurance Agent & Broker,
Granger Independent Insurance Services
949-424-6423 - (949) 4-CHOICE
www.grangerindependent.com
[email protected]
20902 Brookhurst St. Ste 208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 10:44 AM Mark Manstof <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert,

Thanks for reaching out to me! The drawings are in development and we recently had a lengthy discussion about the stormwater management that will mitigate the concern from your email.

In addition, you should have received a postcard from us about a community input meeting on Monday the 6th at 5PM at the District office. If for any reason you can not attend the community meeting I would be happy to find a time to discuss with you. I have also attached a presentation with information presented by Studio W at the April board meeting in regards to the project.

I look forward to meeting you in person on Monday! Please feel free to reach out to me directly if you have any other questions or concerns.

Mark Manstof
Director, Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, & Transportation Huntington Beach City School District
8750 Dorsett Drive | Huntington Beach, CA 92646
C | 949.445.0075

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 10:15 AM Robert Granger <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mark,

I'm following up on your email from a couple of years ago about the M&O building. You mentioned in your last email that you could share copies of the plans with me. Please forward a copy to me so I can be informed before the Monday meeting.

The raising of the land approximately 4-5 feet near the rear walkway has continued to cause water to drain to unwelcome flooding beyond the property. I had previously sent similar photos of this flooding back in October 2022. Here is more flooding video from February 1, 2024.

Kettler raised foundation runoff

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Robert & Rebecca Granger
21232 Breton Ln, Huntington Beach, Ca 92646
714-404-7140

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 10:20 AM Mark Manstof <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert,

Glad that you will be engaged in the process! Currently only conceptual plans exist that will be changing to align with the budget, causing these plans to be irrelevant. The site has been identified and is in the location shown in the image below in red. The architect has been in preliminary discussions with the multiple individuals at the city planning department, including Ricky Ramos, but nothing formal to date as we don't have any plans or specifications to provide them. I am the right contact to discuss these items with, we simply can't share information or documents that do not exist.

As far as your question about idling trucks, our M&O team starts early in the morning to tackle some of the challenges of the day before our students arrive. I will remind the team to be cognizant of the neighbors as they prepare for their day.

The air compressor noise that you are hearing is from the kitchen equipment. The timer for this equipment was not working properly, and it had been running at night creating a pressure relief sound.

This has been corrected as of last Thursday.

Thank you for being part of the process, and I look forward to sharing more information with you as the project develops!

Mark Manstof
Director, Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, & Transportation Huntington Beach City School District
8750 Dorsett Drive | Huntington Beach, CA 92646
C | 949.445.0075

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:03 AM Robert Granger <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you,

Ok, who at the city planning department? What has been discussed? What are the plans? Where is the building going to be located? Is it in the area where you have been grading the foundation and putting out stakes? I'm trying to get some basic information and prepare to be involved in the process. Is there someone above you that can provide me with this information?

Ps. Why is it so loud in the mornings with the radio, talking, and the idling diesel engines? I also hear equipment, sounds like a compressor going all the time when no one is even there?

Thank you.

Robert Granger
From: Robert Granger 21232 Breton Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-404-7140 To: City of Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator c/o Madalyn Welch, Associate Planner [email protected] RE: Kettler Education Center M&O Building I would like the zoning administrator to consider the following information: I have attached a timeline of events that shows the dates and hyperlinks to related documents pertaining to the addition of a maintenance operation to the Kettler Education Center. These documents referenced in the hyperlinks are evidence from emails, prior communications, meetings, state laws, photos, and video that support our position. All the hyperlinked documents should be considered as supporting evidence to be included in this letter. Should you require that each document be uploaded as evidence separately, please advise. Prior to 2023 all discussions of adding a maintenance building was to be submitted to the DSA for approval. It is my understanding, that a portion of this project regarding public accessibility must still be approved by the DSA. Using a broad interpretation in the definition of existing structure, the district was advised by their architect that you don’t need to go to the DSA for approval. It is easier to label the maintenance yard as an existing operation with the city and just request approval to add a “small” structure to an existing site. The history of the school property does not support that Kettler Education Center has always included a maintenance yard. According to DSA government code Section 53094, a school district is not required to comply with the zoning ordinances of a county or city unless the zoning ordinance makes provision for the location of public schools and unless the city or county has adopted a general plan. Furthermore, it specifically indicates that: “ The governing board of the school district may not take this action when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for non-classroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings.” It is clearly stated in the CEQA NOE that has been prepared that this is intended to be a new building, not a small change to an existing building. The function of the M&O building is clearly a “non-classroom” activity and would face extra scrutiny for approval by the DSA. The Google Earth photos at the end of this document show the historical photos of the proposed M&O site from 1985 to present. Notably, it was shown in the photo of 2/2019 that this was the time that the M&O building at the Dwyer Middle School was closed and the maintenance trucks, tractors, and equipment was moved to the parking lot of Kettler. Our investigation has not been able to determine if a permit was obtained at that time to move the M&O operations to Kettler. It is our position that the district has been operating an maintenance yard illegally since this time. It was not until the NOE was posted on the district website in May 2024, that I learned the district considered Kettler Education Center also includes the district M&O yard. The google earth photos show that from 2019 to the present, the district has added a few portable storage units but there are no existing buildings at the site. Google Earth Timeline of Kettler Construction Site Google Earth PowerPoint Slides Bus Storage: The google earth photo of 04/20/2020 shows the district used the Kettler Education Center parking lot as a bus storage facility. Does the school district also consider the storage of busses there to be an existing operation? According to their logic that the M&O yard is existing at Kettler, the same argument could be made that it is also the district bus yard. Did the district apply for a permit to store busses at Kettler? We could hear the busses idle for hours during that time to keep the batteries charged. Just because you use your parking lot to store maintenance vehicles or busses at Kettler does not make it a logical extension that this is an existing bus yard or existing maintenance yard. Air Conditioning Noise: Although the plans for the M&O building are intended to bring the existing (unpermitted) operations and activities indoors to minimize noise, the plans do not include air conditioning or heating for the workshop employees. HVAC is only proposed for the administrative office portion of the building. The NOE states” The proposed building would be used to conduct the existing District’s maintenance and operation activities in an enclosed space”. The key words is that the purpose of the building is to bring operations inside the building. It is unrealistic to believe that maintenance employees could be working in an insulated metal building without any HVAC. The addition of HVAC to the plans is essential to the evaluation of future noise impact on the very close proximity to homes east of the building. HVAC units will be eventually needed if the purpose is to bring operations indoors. HVAC units running 24/7/365 is a significant environmental noise impact. Diminished property value. We proudly invested in our home at 21232 Breton lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 on 5/15/1993. The purchase price was $228,000 and the current market value is approximately $1,500,000. The fact that there was no neighbors or buildings directly behind our home was an important benefit factored into our purchase. Many neighbors whose homes back up to the Edision Community Park and Kettler Elementary always state that it is so nice not to have a neighbor behind their home. The addition of the maintenance operations building casting a shadow on our back yard removes this positive benefit to the property value. We do not have an estimated diminished value at this time, but expect a calculation of a diminished value of the home would be significant over the lifetime of ownership. We intend to pursue a diminished property value claim if the project is approved. The design review board has recommended a 20-foot Eastward shift for the M&O building. However, the school district's architect has not included this in the plans submitted for approval, creating a discrepancy that requires clarification. How can recommendations by the design review board just be ignored? Given the gravity of the situation, I have sought the advice of a reputable law firm, Thatch Law Firm in Sacramento, specializing in school land issues and use. I am prepared to engage their services and initiate a legal appeal if the plans are approved. I have serious concerns about conflicting information contained in the architects plans and CEQA recommendation that the project is exempt from environmental review. The basis of the exemption is that the new M&O building is merely a small addition to the existing Kettler Education Center building. To my knowledge, the school district has never applied for a permit to use the Kettler Education Center as a maintenance yard. In reading the CEQA notice of exemption, the word “existing” is used many times to give you the impression that the maintenance yard has always been located at the Kettler Education Center. Prior to the hiring of the architect that drew the current plans and CEQA exemption, all school district communications, documents, and presentations have described this as a relocation of the maintenance operations and plans to build a new building. Not add to an existing building. Further, the argument in the NOE that there is no expansion of previous use is false. The property has never been designated or permitted for use as a maintenance yard. The position that this falls outside of the CEQA regulations is a blatantly misleading and false. No air conditioning units are being considered for the building. The addition of ac units to cool the employee workspaces is a certainty in the future. The employees will be forced to work outside or with the doors open for their projects. Why design a building if they will be working outside? The addition of a/c in the future is certainly going to be an environmental impact to the sound levels created by the units. A/C noise in such close proximity to the homes on the West Side of project will have impact on the homes there. The block wall proposed between the existing walkway and the wood fence at the back of our property will create an attractive nuisance environment for criminal activity. Providing a hidden corridor out of police view is welcoming criminal activity. The corridor walkway has historically been prone to graffiti, drug use, and homeless use. Let alone, a narrow dark corridor will need to add lighting for public safety. A design change must be made to alleviate this dangerous condition. Was the additional dirt placed on the project site in January 2022 permitted? The additional 4-5 feet of dirt added to the site created two years of storm runoff that did not drain into existing drainage, but rather found its way down the public walkway to the park, into the drainage on Breton Lane, and into the Pacific Ocean. From the emails received from the district at this time, there was no permit required to add yards of dirt taken from the Petersen Elementary remodeling project and use it to increase the level of the construction pad for the proposed M&O building. “The soil that is being referenced is being stockpiled from our other construction projects. This soil will be spread out over the area behind the District office this week. Stocking and utilizing soils within the district is a cost saving measure, especially with the recent increase in trucking fees and fuel costs” Lighting: Parking: The addition of the M&O building will require the parking lot to be reconfigured. There is no mention in the plans regarding the additional blacktop that will be required or the number of parking spaces to accommodate. Can the school use the parking lot as an additional rental income stream. Recent school board Methane Gas consideration: The proposed construction site sits on top of a landfill that was used to dump oil, construction materials, and who knows what else was being dumped illegally. The hazards of methane gas have been investigated previously by the school district, but no mention of methane gas is mentioned in the plans. To my knowledge, the presence of methane gas at Kettler Elementary was one of the key arguments to close it as an elementary school in 2005. It was argued at the time, that it would be more expensive to remediate the Methane gas hazard at Kettler than to close Kettler and move the students to Moffett Elementary. Further, to my knowledge nothing has ever been remediate the methane gas hazard other than installing monitoring vents. Research was conducted prior to the closing of Kettler Elementary than evaluated the risk. Timeline of Kettler Elementary and Maintenance and Operations Project 1973 Kettler Elementary/ Kettler Education Center is located at 8750 Dorsett Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1993 We purchased our home located at 21232 Breton Lane on 5/15/1993 03/10/2005 Kettler Elementary Closed 02/11/2011 LA Times No Interest in Kettler Lease 10/06/2015 Board Study Session Oct 06 2015 Discussions began to build new education center and maintenance and operations building. Here are the preliminary plans submitted to the DSA. The plans were eventually approved with the removal of the M&O building from the project. 10/2015 DSA Zoning Codes “(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the governing board of a school district, that has complied with the requirements of Section 65352.2 of this code and Section21151.2 of the Public Resources Code, by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district. The governing board of the school district may not take this action when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for non classroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings. 2017 Construction Services Agreement “District desires to construct certain improvements, including the relocation of the District’s Maintenance Department (the "Project")” 12/2018 LA Times Article Opening of New Education Center 03/13/2018 Architectural Agreement with SVA Architects “A-67” in pertinent part, “SVA Architects to provide services for a new maintenance building at Kettler Elementary School as part of the Maintenance Department Relocation Project” 02/2019 Maintenance yard at existing location at Dwyer Middle School demolished and construction begins on new school facilities. Slide 16: Google Earth photo showing maintenance trucks and trailers arriving at Kettler Education Center/aka district office. 05/2019 Chain Link Fence moved back to existing location. Slide 17 No know reason why school relocates fence other than appears to be preparing for the maintenance yard to be built. 04/2020 Kettler Education Center used as bus storage facility Slide 20. Busses relocated for storage for approximately 6 months during search for new “Bus Yard” Busses eventually relocated off site. 08/25/2020 Update: Page 20 “Maintenance Facility at Kettler Education Site” As late as 2020 the board is discussing adding a maintenance facility at Kettler Education Center Site 11/10/2020 New Maintenance Facility at Kettler Education Center “New M&O Facility at the Kettler Education Center (District Office): Placement of new ( pre manufactured structure), would enable termination of offsite lease b. Construction Cost Budget: 2,288,000 not including soft costs c. Status d. No Design Completed Currently e. Requires A/E Contract to gain DSA approval, initiate construction 1/14/2022 Email to Mark Manstof, Director, Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, & Transportation Additional dirt moved from Petersen School to raise the level of land approximately 4-5 feet. “ Robert Granger “ I can hear tractors grading land behind my home today. I was wondering if there are any plans to build maintenance buildings there. Mark Manstof “ Robert, Thanks for reaching out. We are in discussions about the M&O building, but currently it is in schematic design so construction is a bit away. Currently, we are building out the central kitchen in the back of the existing building. That is the construction that you noticed. Please reach out to me if you have any questions.” 08/16/2022 Video of presentation by architect to school board meeting. Pertinent part at Minute 8:53 to 9:40 Schematic design has been completed including meeting with constituants. Finalize updated plans for modular “Butler” building. Project not going through DSA as it is easier to go through city. 08/22/2022 Email to Mark Manstof Good morning! The team is currently in design for the M&O facility and construction is not anticipated to begin before the end of the calendar year. We will be notifying the surrounding community before construction begins. The soil that is being referenced is being stockpiled from our other construction projects. This soil will be spread out over the area behind the District office this week. Stocking and utilizing soils within the District is a cost saving measure, especially with the recent increase in trucking fees and fuel costs. 10/10/2022 Email to Mark Manstof “I missed the last meeting, can you give me an update” From Mark Manstoff “Plans do not exist” Glad that you will be engaged in the process! Currently only conceptual plans exist that will be changing to align with the budget,causing these plans to be irrelevant. 04/28/2023 Preliminary Drainage Report and Hydrology & Hydraulic Calculations “1.3 Purpose The purpose of this report is to perform the following hydrologic analysis and hydraulic design for the proposed Maintenance and Operations facility and site development.” 05/01/2023 Water Quality Project Narrative “The proposed site will create a new building for the maintenance and operations building for the school district.” “Due to the project’s proximity to the ocean, the downstream waterbodies include the Huntington Beach Channel which then discharges into the Pacific Ocean. 05/22/2023 Project Narrative Plans drawn up by new architect firm, Studio W Architects, and submitted to the city planning department. Original Submitted Plans Digital Photographs 10/30/2023 CEQA NOE signed by School Board “The proposed project involves moving the existing maintenance and operations activites” 4/16/2024 Board Meeting presentation to HBCSD Anticipated Project Schedule – • Entitlements Approval 05/2024 • Building Department Approval 06/2024 • Construction Start 08/2024 • Construction Complete 02/2025 1. Gothard Lease End: 04/2025 04/10/2024 CUP Resubmittal Plans 05/2024 Flooding from improper land fill Additional Flooding Video into foundation 05/28/2024 Design review board suggestions Move building back 20 feet east away from Breton Lane. Increase height of wall and add mature trees and landscaping 05/28/2024 School website posts update about Design Review Board Suggestions 06/11/2024 School District M&O Facilities in person update from Architect 1. No plans to move building back 20 feet 2. No plans to increase block wall from 6 feet to 20 feet 06/19/2024 Zoning Administrator Hearing at 1:30 pm Council Chambers, lower level, City Hall, Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA Additional hyperlinks links to supporting documents on secure dropbox account.

Photos and Video Google Earth Timeline of Kettler Construction Site Google Earth Powerpoint Slides Legal Ceqa articles Email Correspondence Link to all documents Timeline of Kettler Elementary and Maintenance and Operations Project

“How a project magically changes from the relocation of the school maintenance yard to adding a building to an existing maintenance yard”

1973
Kettler Elementary/ Kettler Education Center is located at 8750 Dorsett Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92646

1993
We purchased our home located at 21232 Breton Lane on 5/15/1993

03/10/2005
Kettler Elementary Closed

02/11/2011
LA Times No Interest in Kettler Lease

10/06/2015
Board Study Session Oct 06 2015

Discussions began to build new education center and maintenance and operations building. Here are the preliminary plans submitted to the DSA. The plans were eventually approved with the removal of the M&O building from the project.

10/2015
DSA Zoning Codes

“(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the governing board of a school district, that has complied with the requirements of Section 65352.2 of this code and Section21151.2 of the Public Resources Code, by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district. The governing board of the school district may not take this action when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for non classroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings.

2017
Construction Services Agreement

“District desires to construct certain improvements, including the relocation of the District’s Maintenance Department (the "Project")”

12/2018 LA Times Article Opening of New Education Center

03/13/2018
Architectural Agreement with SVA Architects
“A-67” in pertinent part, “SVA Architects to provide services for a new maintenance building at Kettler Elementary School as part of the Maintenance Department Relocation Project”

02/2019
Maintenance yard at existing location at Dwyer Middle School demolished and construction begins on new school facilities.

Slide 16: Google Earth photo showing maintenance trucks and trailers arriving at Kettler Education Center/aka district office.

05/2019
Chain Link Fence moved back to existing location. Slide 17 No know reason why school relocates fence other than appears to be preparing for the maintenance yard to be built.

04/2020
Kettler Education Center used as bus storage facility

Slide 20. Busses relocated for storage for approximately 6 months during search for new “Bus Yard” Busses eventually relocated off site.

08/25/2020
Update: Page 20 “Maintenance Facility at Kettler Education Site”

As late as 2020 the board is discussing adding a maintenance facility at Kettler Education Center Site

11/10/2020
New Maintenance Facility at Kettler Education Center
“New M&O Facility at the Kettler Education Center (District Office): Placement of new ( pre manufactured structure), would enable termination of offsite lease b. Construction Cost Budget: 2,288,000 not including soft costs c. Status
d. No Design Completed Currently
e. Requires A/E Contract to gain DSA approval, initiate construction

1/14/2022
Email to Mark Manstof, Director, Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, & Transportation Additional dirt moved from Petersen School to raise the level of land approximately 4-5 feet. “
Robert Granger
“ I can hear tractors grading land behind my home today. I was wondering if there are any plans to build maintenance buildings there.

Mark Manstof “
Robert, Thanks for reaching out. We are in discussions about the M&O building, but currently it is in schematic design so construction is a bit away. Currently, we are building out the central kitchen in the back of the existing building. That is the construction that you noticed. Please reach out to me if you have any questions.”

08/16/2022
Video of presentation by architect to school board meeting.

Pertinent part at Minute 8:53 to 9:40
Schematic design has been completed including meeting with constituants. Finalize updated plans for modular “Butler” building. Project not going through DSA as it is easier to go through city.

08/22/2022
Email to Mark Manstof

Good morning! The team is currently in design for the M&O facility and construction is not anticipated to begin before the end of the calendar year. We will be notifying the surrounding community before construction begins. The soil that is being referenced is being stockpiled from our other construction projects. This soil will be spread out over the area behind the District office this week. Stocking and utilizing soils within the District is a cost saving measure, especially with the recent increase in trucking fees and fuel costs.

10/10/2022
Email to Mark Manstof

“I missed the last meeting, can you give me an update”

From Mark Manstoff
“Plans do not exist”
Glad that you will be engaged in the process! Currently only conceptual plans exist that will be changing to align with the budget,causing these plans to be irrelevant.

04/28/2023
Preliminary Drainage Report and Hydrology & Hydraulic Calculations

“1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to perform the following hydrologic analysis and hydraulic design for the proposed Maintenance and Operations facility and site development.”

05/01/2023
Water Quality Project Narrative

“The proposed site will create a new building for the maintenance and operations building for the school district.” “Due to the project’s proximity to the ocean, the downstream waterbodies include the Huntington Beach Channel which then discharges into the Pacific Ocean.

05/22/2023
Project Narrative

Plans drawn up by new architect ﬁrm, Studio W Architects, and submitted to the city planning department.

Original Submitted Plans

Digital Photographs

10/30/2023
CEQA NOE signed by School Board
“The proposed project involves moving the existing maintenance and operations activites”

4/16/2024
Board Meeting presentation to HBCSD
Anticipated Project Schedule –
• Entitlements Approval 05/2024
• Building Department Approval 06/2024
• Construction Start 08/2024
• Construction Complete 02/2025

1. Gothard Lease End: 04/2025

04/10/2024
CUP Resubmittal Plans

05/2024
Flooding from improper land ﬁll

Additional Flooding Video into foundation

05/28/2024
Design review board suggestions

Move building back 20 feet east away from Breton Lane.

Increase height of wall and add mature trees and landscaping

05/28/2024
School website posts update about Design Review Board Suggestions

06/11/2024
School District M&O Facilities in person update from Architect

1. No plans to move building back 20 feet

2. No plans to increase block wall from 6 feet to 20 feet

06/19/2024
Zoning Administrator Hearing at 1:30 pm
Council Chambers, lower level, City Hall, Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main St.

Huntington Beach, CA

From: SHB President
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Planning Commission; Kelley, Jason; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Letter of Support – Agenda Item 25-627 (HBCSD M&O Building) Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 1:23:54 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission, My name is Christy Logue, and I serve as the President of South Huntington Beach Girls Softball.

On behalf of our board members, families, and the hundreds of girls who participate in our league each season, I would like to express our strong support for Agenda Item 25-627 regarding the Huntington Beach City School District Maintenance & Operations building.

Our league relies heavily on the partnership and support of the HBCSD maintenance team to keep our softball fields safe and playable throughout the season. Their work goes far beyond basic facility upkeep. Their team regularly maintains the fields by cutting the grass, filling gopher holes, repairing sprinkler heads, and keeping the bullpens and surrounding areas free of weeds.

These efforts are critical to the safety and experience of the young athletes who play on these fields. When the maintenance team addresses hazards like gopher holes, ensures irrigation systems are functioning properly, and keeps the fields maintained, it allows our players to focus on enjoying the game and developing their skills in a safe environment.

The maintenance staff are often working behind the scenes, but their impact is felt every single day by our league. Their dedication helps ensure our fields remain a place where girls in our community can come together to learn teamwork, build confidence, and enjoy the sport they love.

We truly value the partnership we have with the Huntington Beach City School District maintenance team and appreciate the important role they play in supporting youth sports in our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Christy Logue
President
South Huntington Beach Girls Softball
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Ramos, Ricky
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: FW: Huntington Beach School District Maintenance Building Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 5:45:41 PM

From: Linda Minko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 5:31 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Huntington Beach School District Maintenance Building

Dear Planning Commisioners,

I live in the Seabury tract by the Huntington Beach City School District office and would like to express my concern for the maintenance yard the district is trying to add to the district property there in the center of our housing tract. When we bought our property here we bought with an elementary school that our children could attend and never thought that the sight would be used for industrial use. That building would be an eyesore and bring down property values for our tract.

The District has not been good managing the district properties. First with using our bond money to upgrade Kettler school, yet closing it before anyone could use those upgrades and letting it sit empty while the district spent money to rent office space for years before finally using more money to turn the site into the district offices. They have dumped dirt from other school sites there causing mud runoff into other properties with the rain. They have not been good neighbors.

We should not have to have a maintenance building on that site just because they now want to save money that they would have had had they managed their budgets appropriately.

The zoning of this site is NOT for this type of building and the planning commission should not approve this.

PLEASE vote no on this project!

Thank you!

Pete and Linda Minko

From: Ramos, Ricky
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: FW: On Calendar for March 10, 2026 at 6PM. 25-627 APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S APPROVAL HBCSD MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUILDING - Continued from July 23, 2024) Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:54:07 AM
Attachments: DSA Email Ron LaPlante DSA has no authoritiy no cup .pdf School Zoning vs. State Architecture.pdf

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:21 AM
To: Gruel, Andrew <[email protected]>; Strickland, Tony <Tony.Strickland@surfcity- hb.org>; McKeon, Casey <[email protected]>; Williams, Chad <[email protected]>; Kennedy, Don <[email protected]>; Van Der Mark, Gracey <[email protected]>; Burns, Pat <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: On Calendar for March 10, 2026 at 6PM. 25-627 APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S APPROVAL HBCSD MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUILDING - Continued from July 23, 2024)

Pickle Ball Noise!!! No, something even worse, a Maintenance & Operations Yard for the HBCSD District Office. Why is it that adding an industrial use to a residential neighborhood receives so little attention? Why is it that the city planning department believes they have no oversight on a State-owned property? Can we just allow the State to do whatever it wants in Huntington Beach?
Ask your favorite AI model, "Can a school in California add a maintenance and operations yard to an existing school site, CA Code 53094?" Then add, "Can they circumvent city laws by going to the California State Department of State Architecture?" I have attached the response from Google Gemini Pro. I've also included links at the bottom of this email to all the supporting legal documents supporting this finding. Note: AI was not available in 2015 when I began informing the school district that they could not circumvent city laws under Government Code Section 53094.

The school district claims it can obtain State-level approval for the project through the DSA approval process. Let's let them try to overturn the city's legal authority as a charter city to enforce its own zoning and conditional-use permit authority. I've already received an email from the CA State DSA, Department of State Architecture (See attached), indicating they informed the HBCSD that they have no authority to approve a non- classroom facility. The HBCSD is aware of this and continues to communicate that they can pursue project approval through the DSA. Please read the email from the head of the DSA, Ronald W. LaPlante, S.E. , Principal Structural Engineer - Regional Manager, San Diego Regional Office.

As quoted by Huntington Beach council member: "Nothing says surf city identity like a prefabricated metal building in a quiet residential neighborhood." You can watch the entire meeting or watch the highlights/lowlights below. I cover the main points: The DSA Process vs. City Planning, The CEQA Class 3 Exemption Report, Concerns from the prior Planning Commission in July 2024, Community Concerns, and the City Staff report recommending approval.

Concerns Over Conditional Use Permit and DSA Approval Process - Watch Video

Discussion on Class 3 Exemption and Community Concerns - Watch Video Concerns Over Zoning Decisions and Community Impact - Watch Video Community Concerns Over Proposed Commercial Building in Residential Area - Watch Video Staff Report - Watch Video

Please feel free to call me on my mobile. I'd love to discuss this vital issue.

Robert Granger
714-404-7140
21232 Breton Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646

References

1. Letter from DSA Director Ron LaPlant

2. Title 5, Education Code 53094

3. Supporting Case Laws on Non-Classroom Facilities

4. Huntington Beach City Charter

5. City Charter Zoning Codes

6. Alternative M&O Plans (Not Considered) from Community to Eliminate Dark Alley Crime Hazard

Robert Granger <[email protected]>
FW: The Voided Project. for application # 118033, file # 30-15, Construction of a Maintenance Building
1 message
LaPlante, Ron@DGS <[email protected]> Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 9:38 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "Pereira, Marise@DGS" <[email protected]>, "Beebe, Aaron@DGS" <[email protected]>, "Larson, Nathan@DGS" <[email protected]>
Robert: As we discussed yesterday, DSA has been in contact with the school district about the maintenance building at Kettler Education Center. They have reached out to us to understand what is required to be submitted to DSA. Since this site is not used for school purposes, they only need to submit it to DSA for access compliance review. DSA has no other authority for work at this property. DSA does not issue conditional use permits nor enforce local zoning ordinances. Regarding the applicability of local zoning ordinance to this property and the legal interpretation of Government Code Section 53094, you will need to discuss this with legal counsel, the school board, and/or planning commission as this is outside the scope of DSA’s authority. Please contact us with any other questions you may have. Ron

Ronald W. LaPlante, S.E.

Principal Structural Engineer - Regional Manager » San Diego Regional Office Division of the State Architect
State of California » Department of General Services
10920 Via Frontera, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92127
www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/
Phone 858.674.5461
Email [email protected]
Work Hours:

Monday and Friday teleworking: (8:00 am – 5:00 pm).

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in DSA office: (8:00 am – 5:00 pm).

Partners in the Design and Construction of Great Schools Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Pereira, Marise@DGS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:33 PM
To: LaPlante, Ron@DGS <[email protected]>

Subject: FW: The Voided Project. for application # 118033, ﬁle # 30-15, Construction of a Maintenance Building

Hi Ron,

Let me know when we can talk about the email below.

Thank you,

Marise Pereira
Supervising Architect / Project Services

Division of the State Architect
State of California » Department of General Services
10920 Via Frontera, Suite 300 – San Diego, CA 92127
www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/

Phone 858.674.5402
Email [email protected]
Work Hours: Monday – Friday: 8:00 am – 5:00 pm

Partners in the Design and Construction of Great Schools Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Cheryl DeMarco, AIA <[email protected]>
Subject: The Voided Project. for application # 118033, ﬁle # 30-15, Construction of a Maintenance Building

CAUTION: This email originated from a NON-State email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are certain of the sender’s authenticity.

Hi Marise,

I just left you a voicemail regarding this voided project with the DSA. Can you help me navigate which entity would be responsible for approving a change from school use to commercial use for a maintenance yard?

I'll summarize my question. You may want to call me at 714-404-7140.

Application #: 102536 File #: 30-15, was to change the building from a school to a district office. This plan was completed, and the previous school, Willam Kettler Elementary School, now became the Ketter Education Center. The records indicate the new Kettler Education Center was completed by 10/2019. Although the Huntington Beach Elementary School District applied to the DSA for approval to add a maintenance facility under application # 118033, they never completed the application process. Nonetheless, the district began to operate a maintenance and operations facility at the Kettler Education center on approximately 02/2019 and continues through today. The operation has grown since 2019, when it was just a few trucks parked in the parking lot. Now, the operation has expanded to several trucks, trailers, buildings, and operations conducted outdoors in the parking lot.

In May 2024, the school contacted the city of Huntington Beach for approval to add a 7500 SF maintenance and operations building to the site. The building department and zoning initially approved the project plans, but the planning commission has indefinitely postponed the approval until further CEQA investigation has been completed. The planning commission thought is was inappropriate to put a commercial use operation in the middle of a residential housing tract.

The planning commission was skeptical about the basis of the CEQA exemption. The district claims they are exempt as an existing operation under CEQA.

I contacted the City of Huntington Beach code enforcement, who indicated the conditional use permit would need to be obtained at the state level.

1. Has a conditional use permit ever been obtained to change the usage from educational use to a maintenance yard?

2. If so, what is the process for applying for a change in the usage of school property from educational to commercial use?

3. Do you know who I should contact to report a zoning violation at the State Level? According to State Code 53094, schools are exempt from local zoning rules unless:
"may render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to the school district's proposed use of property. The governing board of the school district may not take this action when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for nonclassroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage, and repair buildings."

The community has hundreds of signed petitions and has notified the city that a maintenance yard is not wanted in our quiet neighborhood. What is the process to have the maintenance yard removed from the Kettler Education Center?

No, a school district cannot circumvent city zoning laws by going to the California Division of the

State

Architect

(DSA).

While many people believe the DSA is a "get out of jail free card" for school construction, California

law

creates

very

clear

distinction

between

building

codes

and

zoning

laws
.

1. DSA vs. City: Who controls what?
The DSA and the City have different jurisdictions. One does not replace the other for a project like

maintenance

yard.
● The DSA (Building/Safety): The DSA has jurisdiction over structural safety, fire/life safety,

and

accessibility

(the

"Field

Act").

They

ensure

the

building

won't

fall

down

earthquake.

However,

the

DSA

does

not

regulate

land

use

where

building

can

placed.
● The City (Zoning/Land Use): The City (or County) controls where things are built. Under Government

Code

53094
,

while

school

district

can

override

the

city

for

"classroom

facilities,"

the

law

explicitly

states

they

must

comply

with

city

zoning

for

"nonclassroom

facilities"

maintenance

yards

and

warehouses.

2. The DSA doesn't even "approve" M&O yards in the same way In fact, many maintenance and operations (M&O) buildings are actually exempt from DSA structural

oversight

because

they

aren't

"school

buildings"

where

students

and

teachers

are

regularly

present

for

instruction.
● If a building is purely for bus storage or equipment repair, the DSA often defers the building

code

enforcement

back

the

local

city

building

department
.
● Therefore, instead of "going over the city's head," the district might actually be legally required

get

permits

from

the

city.

3. The "Two-Thirds Vote" Trap
Some districts try to use the "2/3 board vote" mentioned in § 53094(b) to ignore city zoning.

However,

the

statute

very

specific:

"The governing board of the school district may not take this action when the proposed

use

the

property

the

school

district

for

nonclassroom

facilities
,

including,

but

not

limited

to,

warehouses,

administrative

buildings,

and

automotive

storage

and

repair

buildings.
"

If a district tries to use this vote to build an M&O yard, the City can take them to Superior Court.

judge

finds

the

facility

clearly

for

maintenance

(non-classroom),

the

district's

vote

will

declared "arbitrary and capricious" and the city's zoning will apply.

4. What about CEQA?
Even if the district found a loophole in zoning, they cannot bypass the California Environmental

Quality

Act

(CEQA)
.

M&O

yard

existing

school

site

usually

requires

public

"Mitigated

Negative

Declaration"

"Environmental

Impact

Report"

(EIR).

This

process

requires

the

district

to:
● Hold public hearings. ● Address noise, traffic, and hazardous materials (fuel/oil). ● Respond to community objections.

Summary
The DSA is a safety regulator, not a zoning authority. For an M&O yard, the district is legally a "local

agency"

that

must

comply

with

city

zoning

ordinances

just

any

other

developer.

Would you like me to draft a list of specific questions you can ask the School Board or the City

Planning

Department

verify

they

are

following

these

codes?

From: Gary Stine
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jimmy Lambos; Huntington Beach City School District - Leisa Winston, Ed.D; Kelley, Jason; Ramos, Ricky; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Mark Manstof Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC Maintenance & Operations Building, Planning Commission Surprise Meeting next Tuesday 3/10/26 at 6 PM Date: Friday, March 6, 2026 4:55:46 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image.png
image.png
Good Afternoon Mr. Granger,
On behalf of the Board of Trustees and the Huntington Beach City School District, thank you for your email and for sharing your specific legal and procedural concerns.

While we acknowledge your request for postponement and your position regarding the project, the District intends to move forward with the Planning Commission hearing as scheduled. As you are aware, the application for this project was submitted to the City nearly two years ago. Delaying the project further would only increase costs for taxpayers.

As your concerns fall under the jurisdiction of the City's formal review, the Planning Commission meeting would be the appropriate venue for you to address your concerns.

Thank you,
--
Gary Stine, MPA, CCBO
Assistant Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
8750 Dorsett Dr. | Huntington Beach, CA 92646
[email protected] | 714-964-8888
Website | Twitter | Facebook
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC Maintenance & Operations Building, Planning Commission Surprise Meeting next Tuesday 3/10/26 at 6 PM
To: Kelley, Jason <[email protected]
>, Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Mark Manstof <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Becky Granger <[email protected]>
CONFIRMATION OF OUR CONVERSATION with City Planner Jason Kelley RE: Notice of public hearing before the planning commission Tuesday March 10, 2026 at 6 PM.

Hi Jason Kelley and all parties involved in adding the School Distrct Maintenance and Operations yard in a quiet residential community
You have not given proper legal notice to the community to conduct the due diligence and time needed to review the new soil and sound reports provided by the applicant. You indicated that my only option is to call the applicant to request a postponement, as only they can remove it from the schedule. Please review your position with the City Attorney after reading this email.

I was just about to call the school to speak with the facilities manager, Mark Manstoff. Surprisingly, he called me on my personal mobile within minutes of our call ending. He indicated it had nothing to do with my call to you. Strange, it's not like he's ever picked up the phone and called me to give me an update, but thought it might be a good time. He has indicated that he was also surprised by the last-minute notice, as he was just advised of the hearing. He indicated he is unwilling to request a postponement as he has a fiduciary responsibility to get this approved and cannot delay the process another day. Just a reminder: the original presentation for this project was on 10-6-2015. See attached school district report from that time.

Knowing this issue may reappear on the planning commission schedule sometime in the future, I subscribe to email updates from the planning commission calendar of events. I've received them in the past, but no email for this event next Tuesday. Ricky Ramos told me not to worry during our phone call on 10/7/24, as we would receive proper 30-day notice once the school district has submitted the additional soils and sound report.

So please give the community ample time to conduct their due diligence and cancel the meeting next Tuesday.

A commercial use operation in a residential neighborhood is not only contrary to our city charter but also not permitted under the existing state CA Code of Regulations, Title 5 of the Education Code, section 53094, section B . This code
gives school districts limited autonomy to build classrooms without regard to municipal zoning laws. Please read this state code. The fact is that it explicitly states schools are not exempt from local zoning laws when the proposed use is for warehouses, administrative buildings, or automotive storage and repair buildings.

So please give the community ample time to conduct their due diligence and cancel the meeting next Tuesday.

Here is the total content of the email I sent to Ricky Ramos at the city on October 3, 2024. It outlines the state laws and legal precedent regarding projects that non-classroom facilities are not exempt from city laws.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 12:54 PM Ramos, Ricky <[email protected] > wrote:

Hayden and I can call you this Monday, Oct. 7 anytime from 2-4 pm. Let us know if you have a preferred time.

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>
Cc: Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]>; De Coite, Kim <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

I'd like to set up a call to discuss this matter. You can call me on my mobile anytime. 714-404-7140.

We are asking for your support in enforcing the city charter and immediately reject project PA-2023-0067, Kettler Maintenance & Operations Building proposed by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD)

Quite the contrary, they are clearly on the wrong side of the law here. We have consulted with one of the top land- use attorneys in Sacramento, who is eager to litigate the matter if the planning commission and city council decide to side with the State and approve this project.

A commercial use operation in a residential neighborhood is not only against our city charter but also not allowable under the existing state CA Code of Regulations, Title 5 of the Education Code, section 53094, section B . This
code is lovely in that it gives autonomy for schools to build classrooms without consideration for municipal zoning laws. The other lovely fact is that it explicitly states schools are not exempt from local zoning laws when the proposed use is for warehouses, administrative buildings, or automotive storage and repair buildings.

Over the years, this code has had some legal challenges to clarify what is considered classroom vs non-classroom facilities. Unfortunately, the case law does not support a maintenance yard as a classroom. What a surprise. Here is a great article that discusses the case law on the topic.

All boxes were checked and approved by the planning department and rubber-stamped by the zoning administrator. Thankfully, our intelligent planning commission appealed this decision.

Here is the HBCSD Notice of Exemption and their CEQA consultant's report . There is absolutely zero justification to
claim exemption from further CEQA. (California Environmental Quality Act) Note how often the consultant and the Notice of exemption used the term "existing."

How can they exist if they have never received a Conditional Use permit for a maintenance yard? Yes, they exist as a district office and, before that, an elementary school. According to these Google Earth images, the maintenance
yard at Ketter has been there since at least February 2019. Since then, the HBCSD has operated a maintenance yard without asking for a conditional use permit from the city. It is not the approval of a new building that is the focus of our position. It is the "Use" of the building as a maintenance operation that the district needs to get city permission for a conditional use permit. (CUP).

Unfortunately, the HBCSD does not understand the state does not oversee or have any involvement in non- classroom facilities. But, they continue to misrepresent to the public that they can just bypass the city process and go to the State DSA to get the project approved. Here is the letter from the State DSA representative that rebuts the
district's claim that they are exempt from local jurisdiction. Here is the latest public marketing infographic where they continue to argue that they have the state sovereignty to bypass the city and go to the DSA if the city does not approve the plans. For a complete view of the HBCSD's legal position and project updates, visit their project page here.

HBCSD Maintenance and Operations Project Marketing Website

Clearly, both the City of Huntington Beach and the HBCSD made errors in the planning stages to get this project approved. I'm asking the city attorney or land use attorney on staff to investigate and confirm that the school district is not the lead agency for the CEQA report.

The City of Huntington Beach planning commission needs to void this project immediately. The HBCSD has no leg to stand on that they are sovereign regarding managing their property. The HBCSD needs to understand that they can't operate any type of operation on their school properties. They are only sovereign when the "use" is for classroom use. State law is clear. Operations other than classrooms for kids must receive municipal approval. The fact that they continue to operate a an "unhoused" maintenance yard, since 2019, without a city CUP needs also to be addressed. The HBCSD is not above the laws of the state.

Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation.

Please feel free to call me on my mobile. I'd love to discuss this vital issue.

Robert Granger
714-404-7140
21232 Breton Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646

References

1. Laws of California:

2. California Code of Regulations:

3. Supporting Case Laws on Non-Classroom Facilities

4. Huntington Beach City Charter

5. City Charter Zoning Codes

6. Title 5, Education Code 53094

7. Letter from DSA Director Ron LaPlant

Kind regards,
photo Robert Granger
Independent Insurance Broker
(949) 4-CHOICE or (949) 424-6423
[email protected]
WWW.GRANGERINDEPENDENT.COM
20902 Brookhurst St. Suite 208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Book a Meeting with Me
Meet me on Zoom
‌
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 10:01 AM Kelley, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Robert – Is there anything specific you need for this project? I am happy to email you.

Thanks

Jason Kelley
Senior Planner
Community Development

Office: (714) 374-1553
[email protected]

2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648

HB ACA – Apply Online or Check Status: HB ACA
Surf City Inspections Request App: APPLE ANDROID FLYER How was your experience? Survey

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:53 AM
To: Kelley, Jason <[email protected]>; Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Cc: Becky Granger <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

I need your help. The community is very much against this project. We had the support of the planning commission back in July 2024, 3 of them are now city council members and do not support this project. After quite a lengthy process, the community deserves more than 5 days to rally support for the opposition to this project.

Can you please give me a call? 714-404-7140. Thank you, Robert .

RE: Record Information PA-2023-0067.APL01:
8750 Dorsett Dr, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 *
owner: Huntington Beach City School District

Kind regards,

Robert Granger
Independent Insurance Broker
(949) 4-CHOICE or (949) 424-6423
[email protected]
WWW.GRANGERINDEPENDENT.COM
20902 Brookhurst St. Suite 208, Huntington Beach,
CA 92646

Book a Meeting with Me

&nbsp
Meet me on Zoom
&nbsp
‌

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 7:24 AM Kelley, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert - the applicant has provided documents, however, staff has a number of corrections that were relayed to the applicant. Once the applicant resubmits the updated documents, staff will prepare for planning commission review.

thanks

Jason Kelley
Permit Center
Community Development

[email protected]

2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648

HB ACA – Apply Online, Check Status, & Schedule Inspections:
https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/aca

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:20 PM
To: Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]>
Cc: Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>; Becky Granger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

Any update on this? The school district was to provide the city with a sound study and a soils testing report. Please let me know if these have been provided. I would like to know the procedure to obtain these documents. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Robert Granger
Independent Insurance Broker
(949) 4-CHOICE or (949) 424-6423
[email protected]
WWW.GRANGERINDEPENDENT.COM
20902 Brookhurst St. Suite 208, Huntington Beach,
CA 92646

Book a Meeting with Me

&nbsp
Meet me on Zoom
&nbsp
‌

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 2:13 PM Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Granger,
As you’re aware, the District’s application for CUP No. 23-014 was continued to a date uncertain by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2024.

Moving forward, I will be the project planner for this application and the available update is that the additional information requested by the Planning Commission has been provided.

As an immediate neighbor, you will receive notice when the appeal is rescheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission which I anticipate will occur before summer.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Regards,

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 1:20 PM
To: Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>; Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

Can you tell me if there has been any communication with the school district on this project? If so, how do I find out about the details. Thank you Kind regards,

Robert Granger
Independent Insurance Broker
(949) 4-CHOICE or (949) 424-6423
[email protected]
WWW.GRANGERINDEPENDENT.COM
20902 Brookhurst St. Suite 208, Huntington Beach,
CA 92646

Book a Meeting with Me

&nbsp
Meet me on Zoom
&nbsp
‌

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 9:46 AM Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]> wrote:

We’ll call you this afternoon hopefully around 2 pm.

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 7:40 AM
To: Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>
Cc: Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

If you still have time today at 2 pm that would be great. I'm also available for a call from 2 to 4.

Kind regards,

Robert Granger
Independent Insurance Broker
(949) 4-CHOICE or (949) 424-6423
[email protected]
WWW.GRANGERINDEPENDENT.COM
20902 Brookhurst St. Suite 208, Huntington Beach,
CA 92646

Book a Meeting with Me

&nbsp
Meet me on Zoom
&nbsp
‌

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 12:54 PM Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]> wrote:

Hayden and I can call you this Monday, Oct. 7 anytime from 2-4 pm. Let us know if you have a preferred time.

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]>
Cc: Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]>; De Coite, Kim <KDeCoite@surfcity- hb.org>
Subject: Re: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

I'd like to set up a call to discuss this matter. You can call me on my mobile anytime. 714-404-7140.

We fear that if the city does not reject this project, it will set a terrible precedent for future school-related projects, notably the HBSD proposed Bus Yard at Sowers Middle School. The HBCSD has used dubious methods to circumvent the city planning rules under the erroneous assumption that they are exempt according to State Laws. Quite the contrary, they are clearly on the wrong side of the law here. We have consulted with one of the top land-use attorneys in Sacramento, who is eager to litigate the matter if the planning commission and city council decide to side with the State and approve this project.

A commercial use operation in a residential neighborhood is not only against our city charter but also not allowable under the existing state CA Code of Regulations, Title 5 of the Education Code, section 53094, section B. This code is lovely in that it gives autonomy for schools to build classrooms without consideration for municipal zoning laws. The other lovely fact is that it explicitly states schools are not exempt from local zoning laws when the proposed use is for warehouses, administrative buildings, or automotive storage and repair buildings.

Unfortunately, the city planning department unknowingly made some errors in the planning stages. The planners erroneously assumed that the school district could act as the lead agency for their CEQA investigation. With the HBCSD being allowed to act as the lead agency, the project moved through the planning process without oversight. All boxes were checked and approved by the planning department and rubber-stamped by the zoning administrator. Thankfully, our intelligent planning commission appealed this decision.

Here is the HBCSD Notice of Exemption and their CEQA consultant's report . There is
absolutely zero justification to claim exemption from further CEQA. (California Environmental Quality Act) Note how often the consultant and the Notice of exemption used the term "existing."

How can they exist if they have never received a Conditional Use permit for a maintenance yard? Yes, they exist as a district office and, before that, an elementary school. According to these Google Earth images,
the maintenance yard at Ketter has
been there since at least February 2019. Since then, the HBCSD has operated a maintenance yard without asking for a conditional use permit from the city. It is not the approval of a new building that is the focus of our position. It is the "Use" of the building as a maintenance operation that the district needs to get city permission for a conditional use permit. (CUP).

Unfortunately, the HBCSD does not understand the state does not oversee or have any involvement in non-classroom facilities. But, they continue to misrepresent to the public that they can just bypass the city process and go to the State DSA to get the project approved. Here is the letter from the State DSA representative that rebuts the district's claim that they are exempt from local jurisdiction. Here is the latest public marketing infographic where they continue to argue that they have the state sovereignty to bypass the city and go to the DSA if the city does not approve the plans. For a complete view of the HBCSD's legal position and project updates, visit their project page here.

HBCSD Maintenance and Operations Project Marketing Website

Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation.

Please feel free to call me on my mobile. I'd love to discuss this vital issue.

Robert Granger
714-404-7140
21232 Breton Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646

References

1. Laws of California:

2. California Code of Regulations:

3. Supporting Case Laws on Non-Classroom Facilities

4. Huntington Beach City Charter

5. City Charter Zoning Codes

6. Title 5, Education Code 53094

7. Letter from DSA Director Ron LaPlant

Kind regards,

Robert Granger
Independent Insurance Broker
(949) 4-CHOICE or (949) 424-6423
[email protected]
WWW.GRANGERINDEPENDENT.COM
20902 Brookhurst St. Suite 208, Huntington Beach,
CA 92646

Book a Meeting with Me

&nbsp
Meet me on Zoom
&nbsp
‌

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 5:43 PM Robert Granger <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 5:42 PM Ramos, Ricky <[email protected]> wrote:

Hayden Beckman has assumed this project and is copied in this email.

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 5:31 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: PA-2023-0067, HBCSC M&O Building

Can you please tell me who has been assigned to this case? I have additional information that needs to be included in the file. Thank you.

--
Gary Stine, MPA, CCBO
Assistant Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
8750 Dorsett Dr. | Huntington Beach, CA 92646
[email protected]
| 714-964-8888
Website | Twitter | Facebook

From: Louise Federmann
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2025 2:29:51 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important We are residents of Huntington Beach and registered voters. We would like to express our support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA- 2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA- 2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,
Louise E. Federmann 714 328-6753, [email protected] Larek Federmann 714 328-6754, [email protected]
9372 Cloudhaven Dr.

Huntington Beach, CA 92646
From: John Chen
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:08:39 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA- 2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,
-John
From: Linda Taylor
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 11:03:21 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O) PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you
Linda Taylor
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: William Richardson
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Ramos, Ricky; [email protected]; Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 8:53:40 AM
Attachments: a-Bus Storage Letter of Concern.doc
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I would like to express my strong support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance & Operation Building (M&O), HB City Record PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD, as they will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Our local neighborhoods have stood vehemently opposed to HBCSD's initial plan to place these facilities on the Sowers's Middle School property off Indianapolis Avenue, which we believe will have severe negative impact on public safety and would create sound ordinance violations in a predominantly housing neighborhood. Our belief is that such a facilities should be placed in a commercial area where it will not impact residences.

It has been expressed to our neighbors that there is a commercial property of Palmdale Lane that would be a better choice for the Bus Yard. The second, and newer issue not previously mentioned is the Maintenance and Operation Build, planned for the school's facilities at the Kettler School facility, an area with a very large parking area behind the school facility which should have minimal impact of the neighborhood there.

Please see a copy of the letter Dated December 17, 2024, which I sent to the Facilities, Maintenance, Operation & Transportation , Director, outlining our neighborhood's specific concerns about the Sower's project.

Thank you.

From: Matt Vukelich
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Ramos, Ricky; Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067 regarding the School District Bus Yard and M&O Building Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 1:04:31 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Hello,

I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Gratefully,
Matthew Vukelich
From: Richard Hoffstadt
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Maintenance Building proposed on the old Kettler School site Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:11:32 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important July 1, 2025
Subject: Proposed Maintenance Building proposed on the old Kettler School site
To: J Kelley
From: Richard Hoffstadt
I am the property owner of 21172 Breton Lane that backs up to the proposed Maintenance Building site. I have no objection to the construction of the proposed Maintenance Building on the Kettler School Site as shown on the site plan in the public meeting. The design appeared to address most of the neighbors concerns and issues which included the replacement of the deteriorated property line retaining wall & chain link fence with a combination retaining wall/garden wall.

Sincerely,
Richard Hoffstadt
From: Tamara Laramie
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: Maintenance Building at District Office site
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:29:13 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I am opposed to building a maintenance facility that would be less than 100 feet from the backyards of the homes on Breton Lane. This facility already starts operations at 6 a.m. each morning, and was also not a good neighbor to have during the remodel of the school site into the district office. My neighbor had concrete spilled into his backyard, and the brick wall and fencing were damaged during grading in my backyard.

Please encourage HBCSD to find another solution or site to build on.

Thank you,.

Sincerely,
Tamara Laramie
21202 Breton Ln, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
From: Barbara Catron
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: Strong Support for HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building and Bus Storage Facility Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 12:25:23 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear City Council and Planning Department,
As a parent in the Huntington Beach City School District, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Building and Bus Storage Facility projects.

These facilities are essential to keeping our schools safe, clean, and running efficiently. The M&O Building will centralize supplies, provide safe working conditions for staff, and reduce noise in our neighborhoods. The new Bus Storage Facility will ensure our students have reliable transportation and improve response times, all without impacting classroom budgets.

I urge you to approve these projects and help create a better learning environment for all Huntington Beach students. Thank you for your attention and commitment to our schools.

Sincerely,
Barbara Catron
HBCSD Parent of Makayla, Aubrey, and Charlie
Resident of Huntington Beach since 2002
From: Stacy Kaplan
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 10:58:16 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Hutington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Records:PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City record: PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank You,
Stacy Kaplan
From: David Kaplan
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 10:38:39 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Planning Commission. Council Members and Facilities,

I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB city record PA-2025-0067and Maintenance and Operations Building HB City Record PA-2023-0067. Pleaase expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,

Dave Kaplan
T: 714-330-4117 cell
F: 714-731-6092
17822 17th Street. Suite 312
Tustin, CA 92780
[email protected]
http://dkaplan.geiger.com

From: RENEE MAK
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:45:53 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my strong support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HBCSD PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O),PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve both of these projects for HBCSD that will serve this community and the children of Huntington Beach.

Best Regards,
Renee L. Mak
Cell: 515-865-3044
From: Renee
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:43:48 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my strong support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HBCSD PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O),PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve both of these projects for HBCSD that will serve this community and the children of Huntington Beach.

Regards,
Renee Wild
From: Renee M
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:38:30 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my strong support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HBCSD PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O),PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve both of these projects for HBCSD that will serve this community and the children of Huntington Beach. --
Renee Mak~
From: Zimmerli Trust
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:41:21 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my strong support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HBCSD PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O),PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve both of these projects for HBCSD that will serve this community and the children of Huntington Beach. --
Gary J. Wild, Trustee
The Zimmerli Family Trust
20551 Montauk Circle
Huntington Beach, California
92646
714-206-4516
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Jon Turner
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:31:35 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,
Jon Turner
From: fumi liang
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 2:59:03 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB CIty Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA- 2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you.

Fumi Liang
From: Linda Turner
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:30:12 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Board Members,
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Linda Turner
From: gail10us (null)
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: [email protected]; Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:04:47 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Mr. Kelley,
I would like to introduce myself to you and your committee. I am a long-time resident of Huntington Beach and next door neighbor to Sowers Middle School since March 1976. Our 2 daughters attended Hawes Elementary, Sowers Middle & Edison High schools. I also worked for the HBCSD for 25 years as Payroll & Benefit Lead and retired in 2022. I am writing to you today in SUPPORT of the "BUS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT" (Project Number PA-2025-0067) and "MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUILDING (Project Number PA-2023-0067). I would like to ask you to expedite and approve these projects for the Huntington Beach City School District that will serve the community and children of HB. I appreciate the work you do and thank you very much, Sincerely,
Gail & Gary Prestegard
9372 Castlegate Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Sent from my iPhone
From: petiteglory4
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 5:36:32 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard and Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA-2023-0067.

Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,
Sarah Schumacher
From: Sandi Lawson
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky; [email protected] Subject: HBCSD PA 2025-0067, PA-2023-0067
Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 3:01:04 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB City Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,
Sandra A Lawson
From: Rudy Renka
To: Kelley, Jason
Cc: [email protected]; Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky Subject: HBCSD PA-2025-0067 & PA-2023-0067
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:17:29 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I am a resident of Huntington Beach and would like to express my support for the Bus Yard & Transportation Facility, HB city Record: PA-2025-0067 and Maintenance and Operations Building (M&O), HB City Record: PA-2023-0067. Please expedite and approve these projects for HBCSD that will serve the community and children of Huntington Beach.

Thank you,
Rudy and Marina Renka
From: Linda Minko
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: Opposed to HBCSD Maintenance and Operation Yard at Kettler site Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 4:16:58 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important I am opposed to putting th HBCSD maintenance and operations yard at the old Kettler Elementary School.

This property is a residential neighborhood and not suitable for the project they want to put in the back of the
District office yard. It will be noisy, and eyesore and will bring down the property values of hardworking people
who bought there homes in a residential setting with the knowledge of a school site there but NOT a Maintenance yard!
Please respect the nature of the site as a school site and not a maintenance yard.

The HBCSD has not used their
resources wisely and this neighborhood should not pay for their mistakes. This district is really to small to sustain their top
heavy staff and would be wiser to merge with another district to be more fically sound.

Please do not approve the maintenance and operations yard at the Kettler site! Sincerely,
Pete and Linda Minko
From: Matthew & Melinda Vukelich
To: Kelley, Jason; Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Ramos, Ricky Cc: [email protected]
Subject: HBCSD PA-2023-0067
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 10:24:52 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Mr. Kelley
I am writing to express my strong support for your approval of the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building Project (File Number 24-485).

I respectfully urge you to approve the proposed Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building Project (File Number 24-485), as this decision will greatly benefit our neighborhood. Please expedite and approve this project for HBCSD.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or 949-467-4874, if you need
further input from our community or would like additional information from me.

With Warm Regards,
Melinda Vukelich
9282 Cloudhaven Dr.

From: Russ Medevic
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: Kettler School
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 1:29:36 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I do not agree with the decision to have Maintenance/Operation facilities at Kettler School site; this will downgrade and disrupt the homes surrounding the school (noise and commercial traffic). Would you buy a home on this site with these conditions? I doubt it.

Russ Medevic
Home owner
Satterfield Drive
From: Tram Bresnan
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: HBCSD M&O district site
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:45:28 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern:

I am a resident of Huntington Beach and a supporter of the Huntington Beach City School District. All three of my children have gone through the HBCSD and been provided with a wonderful education. I have been made aware that there has been an on-going battle in the building of a maintenance and operations shed. Why is the city wasting HBCSD's time and money in delaying this project that supports a proper work environment for our district employees? Why is it that the HBCSD cannot build a shed on their own property, especially since they have gone through the proper channels? It does not make sense that the HBCSD would have to spend money that they could use on students, teachers, and staff in order to lease a facility for its district employees. I ask that the city deny the appeal that was made on behalf of one resident and support the M&O district site that was proposed and that benefits the HBCSD community.

Respectfully,
Tram Bresnan
From: alejandra nauman
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Please deny the appeal and support the M&O district site Date: Thursday, April 16, 2026 4:28:50 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Hello city council,
I write to tou because I was made aware of the gentlemen that is requesting the change of the M&O district site, I’m asking you to please deny the appeal and support the M&O district site.

Our district has been going through the proper channels to create a maintenance and operations shed. It has been an ongoing process that has taken years, and received a 6-1 approval by the planning commission.

However, someone in the city council has filed an appeal on behalf of a resident whose house backs into the area. The city’s employees have been working in the area for a while without issues… this is just not right and not only forgoes a proper work environment for our district employees, but also threatens to cost us lots of additional money on unnecessary leases. The district should be able to build a shed on their own land! Thank you!
Alejandra M. Nauman
19501 Ranch Lane, unit 104
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Villasenor, Jennifer
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: Fwd: Support for M&O Building Project – May 5 City Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 10:22:02 AM
FYI
Jennifer
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Levin, Shannon" <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2026 at 4:26:13 PM PDT
To: "Villasenor, Jennifer" <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Support for M&O Building Project – May 5 City Council Meeting

From: Alisa Simpson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:18 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Support for M&O Building Project – May 5 City Council Meeting

Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members,
My name is Alisa Simpson, and I am a parent of two students in the Huntington Beach City School District. I am also a former HBCSD Council PTA President and have served as a PTA advocate across multiple school sites in our community.

I am writing to respectfully urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s 6–1 approval of the Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Building project at your upcoming meeting on Monday, May 5.

This project has already undergone extensive review, including CEQA compliance, and has been approved at multiple levels by the City’s Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. Continued delays not only undermine this thorough process but also divert valuable resources away from what matters most—our students.

As a parent and long-time advocate, I have seen firsthand how critical the M&O team is to the daily safety and functionality of our schools. They are responsible for maintaining safe classrooms, addressing essential infrastructure needs like HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems, and supporting school and community use of our facilities beyond school hours.

It is important to clarify that this building is not introducing a new or disruptive use.

The M&O team already operates from this site, currently working outdoors in a parking lot. Moving operations indoors will actually reduce noise and improve efficiency. The proposed structure is a modest, thoughtfully designed 7,500- square-foot building that meets all zoning requirements and includes features to minimize impact on surrounding properties.

Additionally, the District has spent over five years exploring alternative locations in collaboration with the City, regional agencies, and private stakeholders. This site remains the most viable and appropriate option.

At its core, this project is about supporting the people who keep our schools safe, clean, and operational for more than 4,500 students. Delaying or denying this project ultimately impacts the quality and sustainability of our school environments.

I respectfully ask that you support our students, our schools, and the dedicated M&O staff by upholding the Planning Commission’s approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Alisa Simpson
HBCSD Parent
Former Council PTA President
PTA Advocate
From: Danielle Andrews
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Please confirm m&o building for the hbcsd!
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:54:43 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Please support our amazing HBCSD and confirm M&O building! Please review facts below, our city depends on a thriving public school district, please stop delaying a project that has already been approved by our planning commission.

This project has been reviewed, studied, and approved twice, yet the delays in approval continue to cost our community money that should go toward students.

Misconceptions vs. Facts

MISCONCEPTION FACT
This will bring constant
noise, traffic, and industrial
activity to a quiet neighborhood.

The M&O team already
operates from this site,
currently outdoors in a parking
lot. Moving indoors will
reduce noise.

The District didn't explore
other locations.

The District spent more
than five years working with
the City of Huntington Beach,
OCTA, neighboring school
districts, local realtors, and
private landowners to find an
alternative site.

This hasn't gone through
proper review.

This project has completed
CEQA review, been approved
at every level of City review,
by the Zoning Administrator,
and approved 6–1 by the
Planning Commission. It meets
all applicable City
requirements.

The building will be a large,
industrial eyesore.

The building is a 7,500 sq.
ft. structure built to City
standards with design review-
approved materials. It includes
enhanced features such as
insulation for sound, a block
wall to separate it from
neighboring properties, and
landscaping to soften its
appearance.

The school district shouldn't
be building here at all.

The District Office has
operated here for years. This
purpose-built support facility is
designed to help maintain safe
schools for 4,500+ students.

The area is not zoned for an
industrial building
The building fits the existing
zoning for this property
without requiring any changes,
which is why it has been
reviewed, studied, and
approved twice.

What This Building Actually Is
The M&O building will mainly function as a storage facility and office. It will house the tools, supplies, and materials our team needs to maintain our schools, and provide space for staff to coordinate, plan, and complete administrative work before heading out to our campuses, where the work happens. Much like when you hire a contractor at your house, the work is primarily completed at our schools. We cannot mow the grass, replace light fixtures, or change carpet in a building.

Our M&O team is the backbone of everything that takes place on our campuses. During the school day, they keep classrooms safe and functional, handling HVAC, grounds, plumbing, and electrical needs. Beyond the school day, they maintain fields and facilities for local community organizations, support evening and weekend events, and enable our schools to serve the broader Huntington Beach community. This building simply gives them a proper home base to do all of that more efficiently.

For more information on the project, visit the Maintenance & Operations Building Project webpage.

The District remains committed to working with our community on this project and will continue to provide updates as they become available.

Kind regards,
Danielle Andrews
Danielle Andrews, GMS
714-904-9533
BHHS CA Properties
Corporate Services
calBRE #01741245
From: Lan-Tu Le
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Maintenance and Operations Building Project for HBCSD Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:29:43 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To Huntington Beach City Council,
My name is Julia Le and I am a resident of Huntington Beach. I am sending this email to ask City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's 6–1 approval for the M&O Building Project of HBCSD.

I have two children attending Dwyer Middle School and Seacliff Elementary School and I believe it is very important for the school district as well as our students to have a proper M&O building in order to properly maintain our schools.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Julia Le
From: Richard Hoffstadt
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Maintenance and Operations Building -
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 7:35:18 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] I am the owner of the property located at 21172 Breton Lane, directly behind the existing administration building at Kettler School. I FULLY SUPPORT the construction of the proposed Maintenance and Operations building. The school district is presently working out of temporary facilities at the Kettler school site and a permanent building, as proposed, would make the school maintenance operation much more efficient.

Sincerely,
Richard Hoffstadt
(714) 876-7338
From: Bob Woodard
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: HBCSD M&O Building
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 9:58:16 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Please uphold the Planning Commissions 6-1 approval of the HBCSD M&O Building.

From: mcurrie goldstarint.com
To: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: Re: Maintenance & Operations Building Project | Important Message to Our Community Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:29:52 PM
Adriana,
Why don't you tell the truth. The District operated a school on this site for many years. An m&o operation is new. The noise levels and trucks do bother the neighbors. I cannot open my windows in the spring, summer, or fall due to the 53-foot trucks coming in at 6 in the morning and their back up warning beeps are at 110 decibels. All we want is for the District to be good neighbors and put it somewhere else. If you told the truth, both the City Council and Zoning Commission would turn down this project at this location.

I hope the City Council recognizes the Districts deception and takes corrective action.

I am a resident of HB since 1989 and lived behind the space since 1999. We loved the noise from the school. Laughter and fun coming from the playground was acceptable. Machine noise, truck noise, cars and trucks coming onto the site from 6am, and now the threat of much more is too much for me not to speak out.

Though I am out of town and not able to attend the City Council meeting, I am against this project moving forward. That is why I am cc'ing the Council so they hear my voice.

A neighbor against the project,
Mark Currie
8811 Fry Circle
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Huntington Beach City School District <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:00:28 PM
To: mcurrie goldstarint.com <[email protected]>
Subject: Maintenance & Operations Building Project | Important Message to Our Community

HBCSD Logo_Vertical_Color.png
Your Voice Matters
The Huntington Beach City Council has
scheduled the M&O Building appeal for:

Tuesday, May 5, 2026, 6:00 PM | City Council
Chambers | 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach
City Council Member Andrew Gruel has
appealed a project that was reviewed and
approved by the City's Zoning Administrator
and Planning Commission. We need our
community to show up and send a message:
our students deserve properly maintained schools, and our team deserves a safe, permanent place to store the tools and materials required to make that happen.

Every continued delay drains resources meant for our students' education.

You can take action in one or both of the following ways:

Option 1 — Attend the City Council Meeting
Your presence matters. Join us on May 5 at 6:00 PM at City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street. If you wish to speak, you will have the opportunity to provide public comment in support of the project.

Option 2 — Email the City Council
You can send an email asking the full City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's 6–1 approval at [email protected].

This project has been reviewed, studied, and approved twice, yet the delays in approval continue to cost our community money that should go toward students.

Misconceptions vs. Facts
What This Building Actually Is
The M&O building will mainly function as a storage facility and office. It will house the tools, supplies, and materials our team needs to maintain our schools, and provide space for staff to coordinate, plan, and complete administrative work before heading out to our campuses, where the work happens. Much like when you hire a contractor at your house, the work is primarily completed at our schools. We cannot mow the grass, replace light fixtures, or change carpet in a building.

Our M&O team is the backbone of everything that takes place on our campuses.

During the school day, they keep classrooms safe and functional, handling HVAC, grounds, plumbing, and electrical needs. Beyond the school day, they maintain fields and facilities for local community organizations, support evening and weekend events, and enable our schools to serve the broader Huntington Beach community.

This building simply gives them a proper home base to do all of that more efficiently. For more information on the project, visit the Maintenance & Operations Building Project webpage. The District remains committed to working with our community on this project and will continue to provide updates as they become available.

Huntington Beach City School District

Huntington Beach City School District | 8750 Dorsett Drive | Huntington Beach, CA 92646 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact
From: Kristen Hardin
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Please uphold the approval on HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building Project Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:20:12 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To the Huntington Beach City Council,
My name is Kristen Hardin - I'm a mother, neighbor, PTSA President at Hawes Elementary, and incoming member of the Sowers PTSA next year.

In my meetings with the HBCSD, I've learned the amount of time, research, effort, and thought they put into every construction project. I also hear about the time wasted by our city when these projects are not approved or are delayed by months or even years.

For this current project (the Maintenance & Operations Building) to have made it through the entire process to then be stopped by a city council member, it is beyond frustrating.

I am also aware that we have limited land in this city for our HBCSD to plan and build these projects on... not to mention places that fit within the budget allotted for these projects.

I am asking that the city council uphold the Planning Commissions 6-1 approval for this project. Our school district must move forward on this project and the many more that are sure to come.
--
Kristen Hardin
From: Coco Fabre
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: HBCSD M & O Building Appeal
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 8:59:58 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear City Council Members,
We believe the council should uphold the Planning Commission's 6-1 approval for the M&O Building at 8750 Dorsett Drive. The project has been reviewed, studied, and approved twice to move forward. The council should reject the appeal and avoid any further delays.

Huntington Beach Residents:

Marc Fabre
Colette Fabre
From: Kristen Cooper
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support of HBC M&O building
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 8:39:23 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Good evening,
My name is Kristen and I am a longtime resident, born and raised in Huntington Beach, having attended Moffett, Sowers, an Edison. My husband and I own a home in HB and our children attend Moffett and Sowers. I am also an employee of the HB Union High School District, so to say that my roots are deep in Huntington Beach is an understatement and I have a vested interest in our city and the HB City School District.

I am writing to encourage the city council to uphold the approval of the Maintenance & Operation building project, which was approved 6-1 by the Planning Commission. Our maintenance staff deserve a central location to operate from with a safe and secure building to store valuable district funded tools and assets. It is imperative that this project continue to move forward without continued delay.

Thank you for your time reading my message of support for this project.

Respectfully,
Kristen Cooper
From: President Seacliff PTA
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Request for Support: HBCSD M&O Building Project Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:40:26 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear City Council Members,
I’m writing to share my concerns about the approval process for the M&O Building project for Huntington Beach City School District, and to ask on what grounds the building permit might be denied.

First, a lot of time and resources have already been spent on this project. It’s gone through multiple reviews, public hearings, and approvals, yet delays keep holding things up. This ongoing delay is costing the community money that could be better spent supporting our schools and students.

Second, I believe the site that’s been proposed is actually a very good fit. It’s been carefully reviewed and approved through a thorough process, including multiple levels of city review.

The district has looked at many options over the past five years, and this site was chosen because it meets all zoning requirements, is the right size, and is conveniently located to serve the community effectively. Moving forward with this site makes sense. It minimizes disruptions and makes good use of what we already have, rather than chasing after other unproven options that could cause more delays.

Third, the property is already in use by the district. Maintenance work is happening there, even if it’s currently outdoors. Building a proper facility on this site or other suitable locations would actually reduce community disruption and improve efficiency.

Finally, since the project has already met all city zoning, environmental, and design standards; and has received approval from both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.

It’s difficult to see what legitimate grounds there would be to deny the permit now. Any rejection would need to be based on new, substantial evidence of non-compliance or safety concerns, rather than simply on the fact of an appeal by a council member.

I believe further delays and potential rejection are unnecessary. The project has already gone through a thorough review process, and supporting it will ensure our schools have the proper resources to operate safely and effectively. I hope the council will move forward with approval without further delays.

Thank you for your time and consideration in supporting the continuation of this project.

Sincerely,
Laura Sanders
President 2025-26

I'm sending this now as it suits my schedule; please feel free to respond when it's convenient for you.

From: Julie Newton
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: HBCSD M &O Building
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:32:28 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi!
I am a teacher in the HBCSD and a HB resident. I ask that you uphold the 6-1 approval of our M & O building. We need this building to house this valuable department. Thank you.

Julie Newton
From: Villasenor, Jennifer
To: Kelley, Jason
Subject: FW: Request for Legal Clarification on CEQA Responsible Agency Duties – HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building (CUP No. 23-014) Set for City Council Hearing on May 5, 2026 Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 10:27:07 AM
Attachments: Environmental Opinion - HBCSD - Maintenance Facility (2).pdf

Fyi
From: Levin, Shannon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 7:57 AM
To: Villasenor, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Request for Legal Clarification on CEQA Responsible Agency Duties – HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building (CUP No. 23-014) Set for City Council Hearing on May 5, 2026

From: Robert Granger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 6:43 PM
To: Vigliotta, Mike <[email protected]>; [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request for Legal Clarification on CEQA Responsible Agency Duties – HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building (CUP No. 23-014) Set for City Council Hearing on May 5, 2026

RE: Request for Legal Clarification on CEQA Responsible Agency Duties – HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building (CUP No. 23-014)
Set for City Council Hearing on May 5, 2026
Dear Mr. Vigliotta,

We need your help! On behalf of the neighbors surrounding the Kettler Education Center to request your formal legal advice and clarification regarding the position taken by the Huntington Beach Planning Department on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 23-014. Specifically, we are seeking an explanation of the City’s legal obligations as a "Responsible Agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and why the Planning Department accepted the Huntington Beach City School District’s (HBCSD) Notice of Exemption (NOE) as valid without conducting its own separate, independent CEQA determination. Please read the environmental report prepared by Dr. Daneil Barbara that is attached to this email.

Background: The HBCSD is seeking a CUP to construct a 7,525-square-foot industrial Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Building 22.5 feet from residential property lines at the Kettler site. Acting as the Lead Agency, the District filed a CEQA NOE on November 1, 2023, claiming a Class 3 (Small Structures) Categorical Exemption. The District’s exemption rests on the premise that the project merely moves "existing" operations indoors. However, the District relocated its M&O operations to this site around 2018 or 2019 and has operated this maintenance yard ever since without the required City Conditional Use Permit.

Questionable Procedural Tactics and Evasion of Public Scrutiny

The District appears to have employed a highly questionable procedural tactic to intentionally evade public scrutiny and legal challenges by manipulating the CEQA statute of limitations. Specifically, the District officially recorded its Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County of Orange on November 1, 2023. By filing this NOE, the District triggered a very brief 35-day statute of limitations for anyone seeking to file a legal challenge to its environmental determination. The District then deliberately let this 35-day window quietly expire before advancing the project with the City. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application and plans were not resubmitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department until April 10, 2024, and the application was not deemed complete by the City until May 7, 2024.

Furthermore, the District did not hold a Community Input Meeting to actually notify the public and neighboring residents about the project's design and impacts until May 6, 2024—more than six months after the NOE was recorded. This calculated timeline demonstrates that the District intentionally let the legal window to challenge the NOE expire long before they formally notified the affected neighbors that the project was moving forward.

The City’s Duty as a Responsible Agency:

Because the City of Huntington Beach holds discretionary authority over the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the City acts as a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA. Under CEQA guidelines, a Responsible Agency is required to comply with CEQA and "must independently review and approve the CEQA document, and not rely automatically on the Lead Agency’s judgments". The guidelines further state that a Responsible Agency complies with CEQA "by considering the EIR or negative declaration prepared by the Lead Agency and by reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved".

Furthermore, during the July 23, 2024, Planning Commission hearing regarding the appeal of this project, a City official explicitly stated on the record that the Commission "has to make its own CEQA determination... before it acts on the project".

Here is the pertinent part from the planning commission video of that meeting.

Here is the link to the exact point
of this testimony

"Madalyn Welch: That's correct. The school district served as the lead agency.

Madalyn Welch: The agency prepared the notice of exemption document. :

Ian Adam And with what's the city's role to review that? If it does, the city review it to confirm those findings or at least weigh in, or would if they had a disagreement with that process? HB Employee: Yes. The Commission has to make its own CEQA determination before it approves, but before it acts on the project."

Questions for the City Attorney:

Given this clear legal framework, we respectfully request your legal opinion on the following questions:

1. Why did the Planning Department accept the District's NOE at face value? If a Responsible Agency must not "rely automatically on the Lead Agency's judgments", why did the City Planning Department fail to question the District’s use of an unpermitted, illegal operation as a valid CEQA "baseline" to claim there is no expansion of use?

2. Did the City fail to conduct an independent CEQA evaluation? CEQA guidelines stipulate that if a Responsible Agency believes the Lead Agency's document is inadequate, it has the option to bring a legal challenge against the document, assume the role of Lead Agency, or waive its objections .

3. Did the City explicitly waive its objections to the NOE, or did the Planning Department simply fail to conduct the independent review required by law before the Zoning Administrator approved the CUP on June 19, 2024?

4. How does the City justify ignoring "Unusual Circumstances"? Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c), a categorical exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect due to "unusual circumstances". Placing an industrial maintenance yard that houses heavy machinery and hazardous materials just 22.5 feet from single-family homes is clearly an unusual circumstance .

5. Why did the City not conduct its own initial study to evaluate these unmitigated noise and hazard impacts before approving the CUP?

The community relies on the City of Huntington Beach to protect our neighborhoods through proper zoning and environmental oversight. By accepting a flawed NOE for an unpermitted industrial facility, we believe the City has sidestepped its legal duties as a Responsible Agency under CEQA.

The city council needs your guidance on this issue. It is our position that the HBCSD is not exempt from an environmental review, wherever they decide to build this non- classroom facility.

We look forward to your timely legal clarification on this matter as we prepare for the final appeal before the City Council.

Sincerely,
photo Robert Granger
Insurance Agent & Broker,
Granger Independent Insurance Services
949-424-6423 - (949) 4-CHOICE
www.grangerindependent.com
[email protected]
20902 Brookhurst St. Ste 208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646

619.320.5894 Dan - 619.320.5895 Erika
[email protected] or [email protected]

www.pacificrimeco.com

EXPERT ENVIRONMENTAL OPINION & ANALYSIS
Regarding the Validity of the CEQA Notice of Exemption
(NOE) for the HBCSD
Maintenance & Operations Building Project
Project Site:

Kettler Education Center, 8750 Dorsett Drive, Huntington Beach, CA Prepared For:

Huntington Beach City Council
(Submitted on behalf of Concerned Residents of Breton Lane and the Surrounding Community)
Prepared By:

Paciﬁc Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC dba Paciﬁc Rim Eco (Dr.) Daniel Barbara, DHSc, CPH, REP , CCPI, CPI (Principal Consultant) Erika Vega, BA, CES (Cand.) (Senior Consultant)
2514 Jamacha Rd.

El Cajon, CA 92019
(619) 320-5894
Date: April 16, 2026

Page 2 of 27 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose

2.2 Scope of Review

2.3 Information Sources

3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

3.1 Project Description

3.2 Historical Context of M&O Operations

3.3 District's CEQA Claims

4.0 CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING & CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

4.1 Proximity to Sensitive Receptors (Residential & Public Park)

4.2 Proximity to Historic & Actively Managed Hazardous Waste Sites (ERIS Findings)

4.3 Sensitive Subsurface Conditions (ERIS Physical Setting Report Findings)

4.4 Proximity to the Huntington Beach Wetlands (Protected & Degraded Ecosystem) (REVISION)

4.5 Public Health & Wellness Impacts on Sensitive Receptors

5.0 ANALYSIS OF CEQA NON-COMPLIANCE (FIVE DISQUALIFYING PROBLEMS)

5.1 Problem 1: Unlawful Baseline, Substantial Change, & Procedural Invalidity Invalidating Class 1 Exemption

5.1.1 Flaw A: Reliance on an Unlawful Baseline

5.1.2 Flaw B: Substantial Change in Project Footprint & Class of Activity

5.1.3 Flaw C: Procedural Invalidity – NOE Filed Prior to Project Decision & Permitting

5.2 Problem 2: Misapplication of Class 3 Exemption

5.2.1 Not a "Similar Structure"

5.2.2 Involving "Signiﬁcant Amounts of Hazardous Substances"

5.2.3 Located in an "Environmentally Sensitive Area"

5.3 Problem 3: The "Unusual Circumstances" Exception Invalidates All Exemptions

5.3.1 Overview of the "Unusual Circumstances" Exception

5.3.2 Layered "Unusual Circumstances" Present at the Site

5.3.3 District’s Denial of Access as an Exacerbating Unusual Circumstance

5.4 Problem 4: Regulatory Vacuum & Potential Federal Non-Compliance

5.4.1 Incorrect Claim of Exemption from Local Zoning (Government Code §53094)

5.4.2 Potential Disregard of Federal Environmental Laws (NEPA)

6.0 CONCLUSION: THE NOE IS INVALID & PROCEDURALLY FLAWED

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL

8.0 DISCLAIMER

Page 3 of 27 ends

9.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL

APPENDICES (As applicable – e.g., if submission allows for physical attachments):

A. ERIS Database Report (Order No: 26041100360, April 11, 2026) B. ERIS Physical Setting Report (Order No: 26041100360p, April 12, 2026) C. Email correspondence with HBCSD Assistant Superintendent Gary Stine (April 13, 2026)
D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Huntington Beach Wetlands, GeoSyntec Consultants, August 25, 2004
E. CEQA Guidelines Sections Cited

Page 4 of 27 ends

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an independent environmental planning and regulatory opinion concluding that the Huntington Beach City School District’s (HBCSD) Notice of Exemption (NOE), ﬁled November 1, 2023, for the Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Building Project at 8750 Dorsett Drive is factually and procedurally inadequate and invalid under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This NOE does not withstand scrutiny and should be invalidated by the City Council.

Our analysis identiﬁes ﬁve compounding, disqualifying problems:

1. Unlawful Baseline, Substantial Change, & Procedural Invalidity (Invalidates Class 1 Exemption): The District relies on unpermitted M&O operations as its environmental baseline, and the project represents a substantial change in activity (open-air to enclosed storage of hazardous materials), not a minor alteration. Crucially, the NOE was ﬁled before a project decision or any permit requests were submitted, violating CEQA's foundational principles.

2. Misapplication of Class 3 Exemption: The project, an industrial maintenance facility using hazardous substances in an environmentally sensitive area, is fundamentally dissimilar from the types of "small structures" (e.g., stores, motels, offices) that CEQA Guidelines §15303(c) was designed to exempt.

3. Extraordinary "Unusual Circumstances" (Invalidates ALL Exemptions): The project's location combines extreme residential proximity (22.5 ft), adjacency to a large public park, close proximity to two major former landﬁlls (Ascon Superfund Site and Cannery Street Landﬁll), dozens of other hazardous sites, and highly sensitive subsurface conditions (poorly drained soils, shallow seasonal water table, numerous oil/gas wells). This layered environmental sensitivity creates a "reasonable possibility of signiﬁcant environmental effect, " rendering any categorical exemption invalid under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c). The District’s recent denial of access for independent environmental consultants to visit the site further exacerbates these "unusual circumstances" by hindering due diligence and transparency.

4. Regulatory Vacuum & Potential Federal Non-Compliance: The District’s incorrect claim of exemption from City zoning (Government Code §53094) leaves critical environmental impacts unvetted by any local authority. Moreover, the potential involvement of federal funds for the project, any federally funded school district operations “touching” the project, the potential involvement of federal funds for the adjacent park, the adjacency to the footprint of a superfund site, and the adjacency to federally protected marshlands and coastal plains could trigger federal

Page 5 of 27 ends

environmental review obligations (e.g., NEPA), which have not been fulﬁlled. These same funding mechanisms and adjacencies may also trigger US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction resulting from potential run-off impacts into the “Waters of the US” which likewise have not been properly explored.

5. Robust Public Health Concerns: The cumulative impacts of industrial operations in an already burdened environmental setting, in extreme proximity to residences and a public park, pose signiﬁcant and scientiﬁcally evidenced risks to the physical and mental health and well-being of the community, especially sensitive populations.

Recommendation:

The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission's approval, declare the NOE invalid, and require the HBCSD to conduct a proper environmental review (at minimum, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report) for the M&O Building Project. The City Council is urged to demonstrate "Leadership Not Lawsuits" by taking this responsible action, avoiding potential litigation risks and upholding environmental and public health safeguards.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
This report, prepared by Paciﬁc Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC, provides an independent, professional environmental planning and regulatory opinion regarding the validity of the CEQA Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the Huntington Beach City School District’s (HBCSD) Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Building Project. This opinion is submitted to the Huntington Beach City Council for consideration during the appeal hearing scheduled for May 5, 2026.

2.2 Scope of Review
The scope of this review includes a critical analysis of the District’s CEQA determination, assessment of the project’s environmental setting, evaluation of potential environmental and public health impacts, and an examination of regulatory and procedural compliance relevant to categorical exemption criteria and exceptions.

2.3 Information Sources
This opinion is based on the following:
• Original email solicitation from Robert Granger (April 8, 2026).

Page 6 of 27 ends

• CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). • California Government Code §53094.
• Email correspondence from HBCSD Assistant Superintendent Gary Stine (April 13, 2026).
• Discussions with Client Robert Granger and a concerned resident group of 20+ households.
• ERIS Database Report for 8750 Dorsett Dr. (Order No: 26041100360, April 11, 2026).
• ERIS Physical Setting Report for 8750 Dorsett Dr. (Order No: 26041100360p, April 12, 2026).
• General knowledge of environmental planning principles, regulatory requirements, public health science, and epidemiological evidence.

3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

3.1 Project Description
The proposed Project involves the construction of a new 7,525-square-foot M&O Building at the Kettler Education Center, 8750 Dorsett Drive, Huntington Beach. The building is intended to house district vehicles, equipment, and industrial materials.

3.2 Historical Context of M&O Operations
The District's M&O operations were previously located at Dwyer Middle School.

Around 2018 or 2019, these operations were relocated to the Kettler Education Center site. Since then, the M&O yard has operated as a "de facto industrial site" in the open air, without a required City Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The current project seeks to formalize these operations within a new, enclosed structure.

3.3 District's CEQA Claims
On November 1, 2023, the HBCSD ﬁled a Notice of Exemption (NOE), asserting that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA review under:
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities): Interpreted by the District as "minor alteration of existing facilities, negligible expansion of use. " • CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures): Interpreted by the District as "new construction up to 10,000 sq ft" (the M&O building is 7,525 sq ft).

Page 7 of 27 ends

4.0 CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING & CONTEXTUAL FACTORS The environmental setting of the Project site is highly sensitive and complex, rendering it unsuitable for the application of categorical exemptions.

4.1 Proximity to Sensitive Receptors (Residential & Public Park) The Project site is situated:
• Immediately adjacent to single-family residential homes on Breton Lane, with the closest property line just 22.5 feet away. Residences are considered highly sensitive receptors under CEQA due to potential impacts on quality of life, health, and property values.

• Adjacent to a large public park, reportedly funded in part by Southern California Edison (SCE). Public parks are sensitive recreational areas, heavily utilized by children and families, making them vulnerable receptors to noise, air pollution, and safety risks.

Page 8 of 27 ends

4.2 Proximity to Historic & Actively Managed Hazardous Waste Sites (ERIS Findings)
An ERIS Database Report (Order No: 26041100360, April 11, 2026) reveals a signiﬁcant concentration of historic and active environmental concerns within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius of the Project site:
• Ascon Landﬁll (Map Key 162): A former hazardous waste Superfund site (California Superfund site) located approximately 0.40 - 0.42 miles away. It is listed multiple times as a Federal CERCLIS, State Cleanup Site, SWAT site, and ICP Orange site, conﬁrming its signiﬁcant hazardous waste status and ongoing, complex remediation efforts.

• Cannery Street Landﬁll (Map Key 57, 58, 152): An additional inactive landﬁll site, indicating a second legacy contamination risk, approximately 0.20 - 0.40 miles away with current environmental impact within the immediate footprint of the proposed M&O facility (i.e. ongoing subsurface methane gas mitigation).

Page 9 of 27 ends

• Multiple Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites: Several LUST sites are present, indicating existing groundwater contamination concerns in the broader area (e.g., Chevron S S #783, Map Key 121, 0.33 miles). • Numerous Hazardous Waste Generators: Dozens of properties are identiﬁed as handling, storing, or generating hazardous waste.
• Drycleaners & PFAS Sites: Several current or historical drycleaner facilities (e.g., Lido Cleaners, Lucky Cleaners, Map Keys 99, 138) with potential for solvent contamination, plus multiple PFAS-related listings.

4.3 Sensitive Subsurface Conditions (ERIS Physical Setting Report Findings) The ERIS Physical Setting Report (PSR) (Order No: 26041100360p, April 12, 2026) provides critical details about the Project site’s subsurface environment:
• Soils (Map Unit 122 - Bolsa Silt Loam): Described as "somewhat poorly drained" with a "moderately high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. " This characteristic signiﬁcantly increases the risk of pollutant migration. • Shallow Seasonal Water Table: A "seasonal zone of water saturation at 54 inches (4.5 feet) bgs" exists during February through May each year. This shallow, seasonally high-water table poses an elevated risk of interaction with surface spills and facilitates rapid contaminant transport.
• Numerous Oil and Gas Wells: The PSR identiﬁes at least 17 active and plugged oil and gas wells within 0.15 miles of the site (Section 16, PSR Detail Report).

This history of resource extraction suggests potential subsurface conduits (old well bores) that could serve as preferential pathways for contaminant migration.

4.4 Proximity to the Huntington Beach Wetlands (Protected & Degraded Ecosystem)
The Project site is located approximately 0.4 miles from the Huntington Beach Wetlands, speciﬁcally the Magnolia Marsh, a 40-acre restored tidal wetland managed by the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. The GeoSyntec Consultants' Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Huntington Beach Wetlands (August 25, 2004) (Appendix D) provides critical context:
• Protected Habitat: The wetlands are home to multiple species of plants and animals, including at least 8 state and federally endangered species. • Hydraulic Connectivity: The wetlands are "hydraulically connected via the Huntington Beach Channel" and are "tidally inﬂuenced" (GeoSyntec, 2004,

Page 10 of 27 ends

Section 2.2, Page 7). Urban runoff, such as from the Project site, contributes to maintaining wetland characteristics (GeoSyntec, 2004, Section 6.9, Page 21). • Pre-existing Degradation: The GeoSyntec report documents:
• Ascon Landﬁll Impact: Shallow groundwater in the wetlands area has been "degraded as a result of seawater intrusion" with high TDS concentrations sourced from the adjacent Ascon Landﬁll (GeoSyntec, 2004, Page 10).
• Oil Seeps & Historical Extraction: An oil seep was identiﬁed in the Brookhurst Marsh within the wetlands (GeoSyntec, 2004, Section 6.2,

Page 19 ends

directly on the wetlands site (GeoSyntec, 2004, Section 4.0, Page 11). • Hexavalent Chromium: A reported release of hexavalent chromium from the Huntington Beach Generating Station to a drainage ditch potentially impacting the wetlands (GeoSyntec, 2004, Section 5.3, Page 15). • Conclusion: The M&O Project is situated adjacent to a highly sensitive, legally protected, yet already environmentally degraded wetland ecosystem, which receives direct runoff from the Project site's immediate vicinity. This is an "environmentally sensitive area" per CEQA Guidelines.

4.5 Public Health & Wellness Impacts on Sensitive Receptors The combination of Project characteristics and the environmentally burdened setting create a high potential for adverse impacts on community health and well- being, particularly for sensitive populations.
• Physical Health Risks:
• Respiratory & Cardiovascular: Increased diesel particulate matter (DPM) from M&O truck traffic and equipment operation contributes to poor air quality, exacerbating asthma and other respiratory conditions, and increasing cardiovascular risk, especially in children and the elderly (EPA, "Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, " 2002). • Carcinogenic & Toxic Exposure: The proximity to the Ascon Landﬁll, with known contaminants such as Benzene, PCE, and TCE (CalEPA DTSC records), poses a risk of vapor intrusion into residences. Benzene is a known human carcinogen linked to leukemia (ATSDR, "Toxicological Proﬁle for Benzene, " 2007). PCE and TCE are probable carcinogens linked to various cancers (IARC, "Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic

Page 11 of 27 ends

Risks to Humans, " 2012). Any new industrial activity that could mobilize these contaminants or introduce new exposure pathways in this already vulnerable community demands rigorous assessment.

• Cumulative Toxicological Effects: Exposure to a "cocktail" of various chemicals from multiple sources (M&O operations, two landﬁlls, numerous LUST/HAZ sites) can lead to synergistic toxicological effects that are greater than the sum of their individual parts, particularly on

Page 12 of 27 ends

developing systems (Landrigan et al., "Children's Health and the Environment, " 2005).
• Mental Health & Well-being:
• Chronic Environmental Stress: Residents in "fenceline communities" near industrial facilities and hazardous waste sites often experience elevated levels of chronic stress, anxiety, and depression due to persistent noise, odors, and perceived health threats (Morello-Frosch & Shenassa, "The Health Impact of Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards, " 2006). This "environmental stress" is epidemiologically linked to physiological impacts such as hypertension, sleep disorders, and immune suppression (WHO, "Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, " 2018).

• Distrust & Disempowerment: The District’s current approach, marked by non-compliance, lack of transparency, and denial of access for independent review, contributes to community distrust and feelings of disempowerment, which are known stressors impacting mental health and social well-being (Brown & Masterson, "The Cumulative Burden of Environmental Hazards, " 2012).
• Vulnerability of Sensitive Receptors: Children, in particular, are highly vulnerable due to their developing organ systems, higher respiration rates per body weight, and increased time spent outdoors or at play (e.g., at the adjacent public park). These factors mean that even seemingly "small"

Page 13 of 27 ends

impacts can have disproportionately adverse effects on this population (EPA, "Children's Environmental Health, " 2006).

5.0 ANALYSIS OF CEQA NON-COMPLIANCE (FIVE DISQUALIFYING PROBLEMS) Paciﬁc Rim Eco's independent review identiﬁes ﬁve fundamental and compounding problems with the District's NOE, each of which is independently sufficient to invalidate the exemption.

5.1 Problem 1: Unlawful Baseline, Substantial Change, & Procedural Invalidity Invalidating Class 1 Exemption
The District’s reliance on CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) is ﬂawed on three counts:

5.1.1 Flaw A: Reliance on an Unlawful Baseline
• CEQA Guideline: CEQA requires environmental impacts to be assessed against an environmental baseline of existing, lawful physical conditions at the time an environmental review is initiated. (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 693).
• Factual Basis: The M&O operations at the Kettler Education Center have been functioning as a "de facto industrial site" without a required City Conditional Use Permit (CUP) since approximately 2018–2019. • Conclusion: An unpermitted activity cannot form a valid CEQA baseline.

The District is attempting to legitimize an illegal situation by using it as the

Page 14 of 27 ends

standard for "existing facilities, " a practice inconsistent with CEQA principles.

5.1.2 Flaw B: Substantial Change in Project Footprint & Class of Activity • CEQA Guideline: Class 1 exemptions apply to "minor alteration of existing public or private structures... involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time... " (CEQA Guidelines §15301). • Factual Basis: The Project involves relocating an open-air industrial-like M&O yard into a new 7,525 sq ft enclosed building. This constitutes a substantial change in the facility’s physical footprint. More critically, enclosing the facility enables and concentrates the indoor storage and handling of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, oils, industrial solvents, cleaners, lubricants, propellants, acetylene, degreasers), representing an entirely different class of activity and exposure risk compared to an open- air yard. The quantities of such materials would likely meet or exceed thresholds for "signiﬁcant amounts of hazardous substances. " • Conclusion: This is not a "minor alteration" or "negligible expansion. " The project fundamentally changes the facility's nature and potential environmental risk proﬁle, thereby disqualifying it from a Class 1 exemption.

5.1.3 Flaw C: Procedural Invalidity – NOE Filed Prior to Project Decision & Permitting
• CEQA Guideline: The determination of an exemption must be made after a project is sufficiently deﬁned and after the public agency has made a decision to carry out or approve that project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15062(a) explicitly states: "A public agency may ﬁle a Notice of Exemption after it has decided to carry out or approve a project... " Similarly, CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(c) mandates that "The CEQA process must be completed before an agency makes a decision on the project. "
• Factual Basis: The District ﬁled its Categorical Exemption (NOE dated November 1, 2023) prior to formally deciding to proceed with the speciﬁc M&O Building Project and before submitting any formal permit requests (e.g., CUP application) to the City of Huntington Beach. This sequence indicates that the exemption determination was made prematurely,

Page 15 of 27 ends

without a fully deﬁned project action that could be subject to proper environmental assessment.
• Conclusion: Filing an NOE prior to a formal project decision and associated permitting constitutes a signiﬁcant procedural violation of CEQA. An agency cannot properly determine the applicability of an exemption without a deﬁned project, nor can it use an exemption to preempt the permit process. This "piecemealing" of the environmental review is a textbook example of a CEQA violation, rendering the NOE procedurally invalid.

5.2 Problem 2: Misapplication of Class 3 Exemption
The District’s reliance on CEQA Guidelines §15303(c) (Class 3: New Construction of Small Structures) is critically ﬂawed by the nature of the facility, its activities, and its location:

5.2.1 Not a "Similar Structure"
• CEQA Guideline: Class 3(c) applies to "A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of signiﬁcant amounts of hazardous substances... where the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. " (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15303(c)). • Factual Basis: An M&O facility, characterized by heavy machinery, district vehicle storage/maintenance (diesel trucks), and the handling of various hazardous materials, is fundamentally dissimilar from the enumerated examples (store, motel, office, restaurant). Such operations are commonly described as industrial or heavy commercial facilities, which are of an entirely different use category.
• Conclusion: The project does not align with the types of low-impact structures envisioned by Class 3(c).

5.2.2 Involving "Signiﬁcant Amounts of Hazardous Substances" • CEQA Guideline: Class 3(c) explicitly excludes structures "involving the use of signiﬁcant amounts of hazardous substances. " "Signiﬁcant amounts" are often deﬁned as quantities of one pound or more of a toxic or hazardous substance regulated by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control.
• Factual Basis: M&O facilities routinely store and use materials such as fuels, oils, industrial solvents, cleaners, lubricants, propellants,

Page 16 of 27 ends

acetylene, and degreasers. It is highly probable that the quantities of these substances stored or used at the facility will exceed thresholds for "signiﬁcant amounts. " Field documentation from April 14, 2026, already identiﬁed a "Pesticide Treated Area" sign on the Edison Park grounds adjacent to the M&O site, indicating the use of regulated chemicals.

• Conclusion: The M&O facility's inherent operational requirements for hazardous materials disqualify it from Class 3(c).

5.2.3 Located in an "Environmentally Sensitive Area"
• CEQA Guideline: Class 3(c) requires that the "surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. "
• Factual Basis (referencing Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3): The project site is unequivocally located in a highly environmentally sensitive area due to:
• Extreme residential proximity (22.5 ft).
• Adjacency to a large public park.
• Proximity to the Ascon Superfund Site and Cannery Street Landﬁll. • The presence of numerous other hazardous sites.
• Sensitive subsurface conditions (poorly drained soils, shallow seasonal water table, numerous oil/gas wells).
• Proximity to federally protected wetlands.

Page 17 of 27 ends

• Conclusion: The factual conditions demonstrate the surrounding area is highly environmentally sensitive, violating a core condition for Class 3(c) applicability.

5.3 Problem 3: The "Unusual Circumstances" Exception Invalidates All Exemptions
Even if the Project nominally ﬁt a categorical exemption (which it does not), the "unusual circumstances" exception unequivocally applies, invalidating the NOE.

5.3.1 Overview of the "Unusual Circumstances" Exception • CEQA Guideline: "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a signiﬁcant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. " (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c), emphasis added). The standard for disproving an exemption is not to prove a signiﬁcant impact, but to show a "reasonable possibility" of one due to unusual circumstances. This is a low bar test in the courts.

5.3.2 Layered "Unusual Circumstances" Present at the Site The cumulative and layered environmental context of the Project site creates extraordinary "unusual circumstances":
• Extreme Residential Proximity (22.5 ft): Places an industrial-like operation directly next to homes.
• Adjacency to Large Public Park: Introduces sensitive receptors (children, families) to potential industrial impacts.
• Proximity to Ascon Superfund Site & Cannery Street
Landﬁll: Operating an M&O facility involving heavy equipment and potential ground disturbance next to active and historic hazardous waste sites introduces complex environmental and public health risks. • Concentration of Hazardous Sites: The dense cluster of LUST sites, HAZ GENs, drycleaners, and PFAS-related sites (ERIS Report, Appendix A) in the immediate vicinity indicates an already burdened environment. • Sensitive Subsurface Conditions: Poorly drained soils, a shallow seasonal water table, and nearby oil/gas wells (PSR, Appendix B) signiﬁcantly increase the likelihood of contaminant migration from any spills or ground disturbance.

Page 18 of 27 ends

• Documented Existing Impacts: Residents have already documented noise violations (early morning activity, diesel trucks) and other nuisances.
• Conclusion: This unique combination of factors constitutes "unusual circumstances" that inherently create a "reasonable possibility of a signiﬁcant effect on the environment. "

5.3.3 District’s Denial of Access as an Exacerbating Unusual Circumstance
• Factual Basis: On April 13, 2026, HBCSD Assistant Superintendent Gary Stine explicitly denied access for Robert Granger and his environmental consultants to conduct an independent site review, citing "safety, site security, and ensuring that any environmental review activities are conducted... under District oversight" (Email from G. Stine to R. Granger, April 13, 2026, Appendix C).
• Conclusion: This denial actively impedes the public's ability to conduct due diligence and transparently assess environmental conditions. In the context of an appeal predicated on environmental impacts, the refusal to allow an independent expert to verify site conditions further reinforces the lack of transparency and heightens the "unusual circumstances" that demand rigorous environmental review. It raises serious questions about what the District wishes to prevent independent experts from observing.

5.4 Problem 4: Regulatory Vacuum & Potential Federal Non-Compliance

5.4.1 Incorrect Claim of Exemption from Local Zoning (Government Code §53094)
• Legal Basis: California Government Code §53094(b) states that school districts are subject to city or county zoning ordinances for facilities that are not to be used for classroom purposes.
• Factual Basis: The M&O Building is explicitly not a classroom facility. The Division of the State Architect (DSA) conﬁrmed in writing in August 2024 that it has NO authority to issue Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) or enforce local zoning for non-classroom facilities. Crucially, the District proceeded to construct a pad for the M&O building beginning in 2024 prior to issuance of any permits by relocated foreign soil from a non- adjacent site without any evidence of required civil engineering, the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),

Page 19 of 27 ends

the evaluation of local and regional drainage impacts, and likely (given the above) without property compaction. This action elevated the footprint approximately 4-feet above the then existing grade, severely impacting local and regional drainage in favor of the District’s building site.

• Conclusion: The District's initial claim of exemption from City zoning for the M&O Building is incorrect and invalid. By improperly avoiding City zoning oversight, the Project avoided proper local vetting for environmental impacts (noise, traffic, hazardous materials management, cumulative risks) and created a "regulatory vacuum" where impacts remained unaddressed by any competent authority. This constitutes a direct procedural ﬂaw in the Project's approval.

5.4.2 Potential Disregard of Federal Environmental Laws (NEPA) • Legal Basis: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts for projects signiﬁcantly funded by federal dollars or requiring federal permits.
• Factual Basis: It is currently unknown if the HBCSD M&O Project, or the adjacent public park, received federal funding (e.g., through the U.S.

Department of Education, LWCF grants for the park, or other federal programs). If so, NEPA would be triggered.

Page 20 of 27 ends

• Conclusion: If federal funds are involved, the District may be disregarding its obligations under NEPA and other federal statutes by proceeding without federal environmental review. The City Council has a responsibility to ensure all applicable environmental laws (federal, state, and local) are respected.

6.0 CONCLUSION: THE NOE IS INVALID & PROCEDURALLY FLAWED Based on the independent environmental planning and regulatory review by Paciﬁc Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC, the Huntington Beach City School District’s Notice of Exemption for the M&O Building Project is factually and procedurally inadequate and invalid under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project:
• Does not qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption due to reliance on an unlawful baseline, its nature as a substantial change, and the procedural ﬂaw of ﬁling the NOE prior to a project decision or permit requests.
• Does not qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption due to its industrial nature, use of signiﬁcant hazardous substances, and location within a highly environmentally sensitive area.
• Is demonstrably subject to the “unusual circumstances” exception (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c)), which independently invalidates any categorical exemption. This exception requires only a "reasonable possibility" of signiﬁcant effect, a low evidentiary bar in the courts.
• Has proceeded by improperly claiming exemption from local zoning, creating a dangerous regulatory vacuum, and potentially disregarding federal environmental review obligations.

The District's reliance on this invalid NOE means that the City Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is procedurally ﬂawed under CEQA.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Paciﬁc Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC, on behalf of the concerned residents, respectfully recommends that the Huntington Beach City Council:

1. OVERTURN the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the HBCSD M&O Building Project.

2. DECLARE the HBCSD’s Notice of Exemption (NOE) for this Project invalid due to its factual and procedural inadequacies.

Page 21 of 27 ends

3. REQUIRE the HBCSD to conduct a proper and thorough environmental review (at minimum, an Initial Study which would then determine if a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a full Environmental Impact Report is necessary) for the M&O Building Project, consistent with CEQA and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. This review must address:
• The cumulative impacts from the site's highly sensitive environmental context.
• The potential for public health and wellness impacts on sensitive receptors. • Potential federal environmental compliance requirements.

4. DEMAND immediate cessation of any further construction or ground disturbance activity at the Project site until a valid environmental review is completed and a Record of Decision is reached.

The City Council has a critical opportunity to demonstrate "Leadership Not Lawsuits. " Allowing a project with such demonstrable CEQA non-compliance and profound potential impacts on community health and environmental quality to proceed for political expediency would expose the City of Huntington Beach to substantial and unnecessary litigation risks. Taking the high road to ensure proper environmental safeguards now will prevent costly legal battles and uphold the City's commitment to its residents.

8.0 DISCLAIMER
This report provides a professional environmental planning and regulatory opinion based on the information available and the expertise of the Consultant. It is not intended to provide legal advice. The Client is advised to consult with legal counsel for legal interpretations and strategy.

9.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
This Expert Environmental Opinion & Analysis was prepared under the direction of Dr.

Daniel Barbara, Principal Consultant for Paciﬁc Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC.

Dr. Barbara holds a Master of Education (MEd) in Educational Leadership and a Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) with an emphasis in Public Health, is Board Certiﬁed in Public Health (CPH) by the National Board of Public Health Examiners, is a Registered Environmental Professional (REP) with the National Registry of Environmental Professionals, and is a Certiﬁed Commercial Property Inspector (CCPI). With over two decades of dynamic leadership and direct experience in complex environmental and health systems at the local, state, and tribal governmental levels in executive leadership positions, Dr. Barbara specializes in environmental impact analysis, public health

Page 22 of 27 ends

assessments, regulatory compliance, and risk mitigation, particularly in sensitive and multi-jurisdictional contexts involving governmental agencies and community concerns.

His expertise ensures a rigorous and defensible environmental assessment.

FOR CONSULTANT:

Dr. Daniel Barbara
Principal Consultant
Paciﬁc Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC
Date: April 23, 2026

Page 23 of 27 ends

Appendix A
ERIS Database Report
(Order No: 26041100360, April 11, 2026)

Page 24 of 27 ends

Appendix B
ERIS Physical Setting Report
(Order No: 26041100360p, April 12, 2026)

Page 25 of 27 ends

Appendix C
Email correspondence with HBCSD Assistant
Superintendent Gary Stine (April 13, 2026)

Page 26 of 27 ends

Appendix D
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Huntington Beach Wetlands, GeoSyntec Consultants, August 25, 2004

Page 27 of 27 ends

Appendix E
CEQA Guidelines Sections Cited
APPENDIX D: CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS CITED
This Appendix provides a concise list of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections referenced in this Expert Environmental Opinion & Analysis report, along with their general subject matter. These guidelines are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(c): Timing of the CEQA Process – Emphasizes that the CEQA process must be completed before an agency makes a ﬁnal decision on a project.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15062(a): Filing of Notice of Exemption – Speciﬁes that a Notice of Exemption may only be ﬁled after an agency has decided to carry out or approve a project.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c): Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions – The "Unusual Circumstances" exception, which dictates that a categorical exemption cannot be used if there is a reasonable possibility of a signiﬁcant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1): Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities – Covers projects involving the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, provided there is negligible or no expansion of use.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3): Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures – Covers new construction of limited numbers of small facilities or structures.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(c): Speciﬁc exemption for a "store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of signiﬁcant amounts of hazardous substances... where the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. "

From: Arin Lopez
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: Uphold Planning Commission approval of HBCSD Maintenance building Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:41:40 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Mayor and Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, I’m a parent at Eader Elementary, and I’m urging you to uphold the Planning Commission’s 6–1 approval of the Maintenance and Operations (M&O) building.

This project has already been thoroughly reviewed and approved at every required level, including CEQA, the Zoning Administrator, and the Planning Commission. Further delays only drain resources that should be supporting our students.

The M&O team already operates from this site, currently outdoors. Moving operations indoors will reduce noise, improve safety, and provide a functional workspace. The proposed 7,500 sq. ft. building is modest, meets all City standards, and includes sound‑reducing and aesthetic features.

Our schools rely on the M&O team to keep classrooms safe and functional every day. This building simply gives them the tools and space they need to support the 4,500+ students in our district.

Please affirm the Planning Commission’s decision and allow this essential project to move forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Arin Lopez
Huntington Beach
From: Megan blash
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: HBCSD M&O
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:16:29 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for the Huntington Beach City School District's approved Maintenance & Operations (M&O) facility. I understand there has been community concern surrounding this project, and many efforts have been made to address these concerns. In addition, this seems to be a matter that has been settled and is now being brought up yet again, despite having gone through the proper channels for approval. This seems to be a waste of time and effort.

This building has been in the works for over five years. During that time, the District worked extensively with the City of Huntington Beach, OCTA, neighboring school districts, local realtors, and private landowners to explore alternative sites before arriving at this location, one that already houses the District Office and where the M&O team has long operated outdoors. Moving their work indoors will actually reduce noise for the surrounding neighborhood, not increase it.

The project has completed full CEQA review, received approval from the Zoning Administrator, and was approved 6–1 by the Planning Commission. It fits the existing zoning without requiring any changes. The structure includes sound insulation, a block wall to buffer neighboring properties, and landscaping, which shows the effort and intent that it has been designed to be a good neighbor.

At its core, this is a storage facility and office that gives the M&O team a proper home base to support students across our schools. These are the people maintaining HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and grounds, keeping classrooms safe and functional every day. They deserve a facility that allows them to do that work efficiently and safely.

I respectfully ask that the Council stand by the thorough, multi-year process that led to this approval and support the District in moving forward.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Megan Blash of Huntington Beach

City Council/Public Financing AuthorityMay 5, 2026

City Council/Public Financing Authority
May 5, 2026