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
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
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
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
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).
• 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).
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.
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).
• 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,
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,
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
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
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"
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
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,
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,
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.
• 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.
• 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),
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.
• 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.
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
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
Appendix A
ERIS Database Report
(Order No: 26041100360, April 11, 2026)
Appendix B
ERIS Physical Setting Report
(Order No: 26041100360p, April 12, 2026)
Appendix C
Email correspondence with HBCSD Assistant
Superintendent Gary Stine (April 13, 2026)
Appendix D
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Huntington Beach Wetlands, GeoSyntec Consultants, August 25, 2004
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. "
619.320.5894 Dan - 619.320.5895 Erika
[email protected] or [email protected]
www.pacificrimeco.com
Dr. Daniel Barbara, DHSc, CPH, REP, CCPI, CPI
Principal Consultant
Pacific Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC
2514 Jamacha Rd.
El Cajon, CA 92019
(619) 320-5894
April 28, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND US Postal Mail
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Expert Environmental Opinion Regarding the Validity of the CEQA Notice of Exemption (NOE) – HBCSD Maintenance & Operations Building Project (8750 Dorsett Drive) – CUP No. 23- 014; Planning Commission File No. 24-485; Design Review Board Application No. 24-005; and City Planning Record No. PA-2023-0067
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Pacific Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC (Pacific Rim Eco) has been retained by Robert Granger and the concerned residents of Breton Lane to perform an independent professional review of the Huntington Beach City School District’s (HBCSD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination for the proposed 7,525-square-foot Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Building.
Accompanying this letter is our formal Expert Environmental Opinion & Analysis. Our investigation concludes that the District’s Notice of Exemption (NOE) is factually and procedurally invalid. We identified five compounding, disqualifying problems that necessitate a full environmental review:
• Procedural and Baseline Violations: The District relies on an unlawful baseline of unpermitted M&O operations and filed its NOE prematurely—prior to a project decision or permit submission— violating CEQA Guidelines Section 15062(a).
• Misapplication of Class 3 Exemption: This industrial facility, intended to house heavy machinery and hazardous substances, does not meet the "similar structure" criteria of Class 3 (small stores or offices).
• Extraordinary "Unusual Circumstances": The project’s 22.5-foot proximity to residences, adjacency to a public park, and location within a cluster of significant environmental sites—including
the Ascon Superfund Site, the Cannery Street Landfill, and the protected Huntington Beach Wetlands—create a "reasonable possibility" of significant effect. • Regulatory Vacuum: The District’s incorrect claim of zoning exemption under Government Code §53094 bypasses essential local vetting for noise, traffic, and hazardous materials. • Public Health Risks: Our analysis highlights scientifically evidenced risks to community physical and mental health, exacerbated by the site’s shallow seasonal water table and poorly drained soils, which facilitate contaminant migration.
Intent to Present
Please be advised that Pacific Rim Eco will be present at the City Council meeting on May 5, 2026, alongside our clients. We intend to provide expert testimony summarizing these findings for the administrative record with the bounds of whatever times is allocated for this purpose.
Upholding CEQA safeguards now is the responsible path to protecting the health of Huntington Beach residents.
Sincerely,
Dr. Daniel Barbara, DHSc, CPH, REP, CCPI, CPI
Principal Consultant
Pacific Rim EcoSystemic Strategy Advisors, LLC
An SBA-Certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business
Enclosure: Expert Environmental Opinion & Analysis (with Appendices A-E)