Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrethren Christian School Gymnasium - 21141 Strathmoor Lane Ferrera, Caren Subject FW BC/CUP 08 052 Revocation Hearing From Flynn, Joan Sent Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12 44 PM To CITY COUNCIL, Hess, Scott, McGrath, Jennifer, Ferreira, Caren Subject FW BC/CUP 08-052 Revocation Hearing Scott per the request of the author can you send this text to the Planning Commission—Care will you place this in the communication file on the topic (Brethren Christian)? From Terry Crowther [mailto trowther@earthlink net] Sent Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12 24 PM To Flynn, Joan Subject FW BC/CUP 08 052 Revocation Hearing bear Ms Flynn Please make the email below a part of the city record for CUP 08-052 and make sure the Planning Commission City Council and City Attorney receive a copy Thank you Terry Crowther (On behalf of NFSQ) 949-422-0476 From Terry Crowther [mailto trowther@earthlink net] Sent Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12 12 PM To Kelley, Jason Cc Fauland, Herb, Hess, Scott, Vigliotta, Mike Subject RE BC/CUP 08 052 Revocation Hearing Jason Thank you for your response With all due respect my question at the Planning Commission Study Session was not when - that was my question months ago - it was What' is the reason a revocation hearing has not been scheduled')' I asked that question based on the following Chapter 249 04, Enforcement Responsibilities states "The Director shall enforce all provisions of this ordinance code and shall have responsibility for revocation of discretionary permits, as provided in Section 249 06, and Chapter 249 06-D states "The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator shall revoke the permit upon making one or more of the following findings 1 That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading information or misrepresentation, i 2 That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or that other law or provisions have been violated, 3 That there has been a discontinuance of the exercise of the entitlement granted by the permit for twelve consecutive months ' The operative word in Chapter 249 04 and 249 06 is shall I do not see where The Director has a choice whether to schedule a revocation hearing or not and to revoke the permit based on 249 06D 249 06D-1 and 249 06D-2 The applicant mislead the Planning Department Planning Commission and City Council by submitting their application for their CUP requesting four portable lights to light their nighttime football games and in the public hearing by saying they do not need any additional lights including the existing City field lights The proof of them misleading is the applicants action of using 13 portable lights and reducing the number to 10 not four after being cited by the City They then repeatedly violated their CUP over a three-month period Not only did they violate their CUP but also they have violated the Uniform Building Code the Air Quality Management District requirements and their Storm Water Protection Plan since their CUP was issued So given the facts my question still remains What is the reason a revocation hearing has not been scheduled>" In addition to this question I now have a bigger question what is the reason our elected officials the City Council and City Attorney are not requiring the enforcement of our City Codes and Ordinances')'>7 Looking forward to your response Terry Crowther (On behalf of NFSQ) From Kelley, Jason [mailto jkelley@surfcity hb org] Sent Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1 38 PM To Terry Crowther Cc Fauland, Herb, Hess, Scott, Kelley, Jason, Vigliotta, Mike Subject RE BC/CUP 08 052 Revocation Hearing Terry In response to your question as to when the revocation of Brethren Christian High School s (BCHS) conditional use permit (CUP No 2008-052) will go back to the Planning Commission, the following is provided In November 2009 the Planning Commission reviewed CUP No 2008-052 in response to public complaints and alleged violations of the conditions of approval At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the review to a date uncertain to allow the administrative process to be completed BCHS was found in violation of one of the two citations and as a result paid the citation fee and completed the administrative process Since the administrative process was completed BCHS has been in compliance with their CUP conditions of approval Based on the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and conditions of approval there currently are no violations or reasons for scheduling a revocation hearing 2 Jason Kelley Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building ikelley(a surfcity-hb org 714-374-1553 From Terry Crowther [mailto trowther@earthlink net] Sent Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3 14 PM To Scott Hess Cc Jason Subject BC/CUP 08 052 Revocation Hearing bear Mr Hess As a follow-up to my public comments last night at the Planning Commission Study Session please explain to use what the reason is for you not scheduling a revocation hearing and revoking CUP 08-052 Chapter 249 04 and 249 064b of the city code seem to be very clear in the usage of the word shall Looking forward to your response thank you Terry Crowther on behalf of NFSQ 949-422-0476 3 o e. City of Huntington BeaC 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ® OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC ® .ROAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK CERTIFICATE January 26, 2010 Re: Certification of Miles Chen Law Group Document No. NFSQ 7068.001 To Whom It May Concern, I hereby certify that the enclosed transcript (Miles Chen Law Group Document No. NFSQ 7068.001) of the "Public hearing to consider appeals filed by Councilmember Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles of the Planning Commission's approval of Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 08-052 for the Brethren Christian School gymnasium located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane,"held on Monday, May 18, 2009, accurately represents the discussion and action taken between the Huntington Beach City Council, City staff, public speakers, and miscellaneous parties representing the applicant. Handwritten and initialed modifications are made on pages 3, 26, 89 and 159 of the transcript. If you have any questions regarding this certification, please feel free to contact me at (714) 536-5405, or by email at rlugar surfcity-hb.org. Sincerely, ��eAz� Robin Lugar Assistant City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Encl. Miles Chen Law Group Document No. NFSQ 7068.001 Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan • Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:714-536-5227) IOAIIES CtiEN LAiglli GROUP NFSQ 7068.001 I NFSQ 7068 . 001 208 2 sec ded Mayor Pro Tem Green, please vote . 3 MR . OERPER : Thank you . Ok y . 4 SECRETAR Could I--I ' m orry, I didn ' t 5 hear that was it oerper, Green? 6 MAYOR BOHR : Yes . 7 SECRETARY : Th nk yo The motion passes 7 8 - 0 . 9 MAYOR B R: Council comment - Councilmen 10 Hansen . 11 [ ouncil member comments unrelated t 12 gy nasium] . 13 [END HB CC MAY18 PART 6 OF 6 . MP3 ] T-he-fo t ��,1� 20 is J aF'► L. Fltfn n City-Clerk and Ex-o icio Clerk of e Ownell of the City of Huntington Beach, Califs ' Dapaty-- Uhiqus Reporting 2222 Martin Street Suite 212, Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949-477-4972 FAX 949-553-1302 i< MILES * CHEN LAw GROUP 9911 Irvine Center Drive,Suite 150- Irvine,CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Phone: 949.788.1425 • Fax(949) 788-1991 L AND USE E N V I R 0 N M E N T E NTITLEM ENT June 19, 2009 c d c VIA FACSIMILE f(714) 3 74-155 71 AND UNITED STATES MAIL Ms. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -¢ cn co Re: Notice of Commencement of Legal Action Dear Madam Clerk: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Neighborhoods for Safety&Quality intends to commence an action against the City of Huntington Beach challenging the City's approval of Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 by the City Planning Commission on March 10, 2009, and by the City Council on May 18, 2009, in conjunction with the Brethren Christian School facilities expansion(the "Expansion Project") The litigation will allege, among other things, the City's violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). This written notice is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding any of the above. Very truly yours, MILES • CHEN LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Stephen M. Miles I CM-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name,-State Barrnumber,andaddress): - FOR COURT USE ONLY Stephen M.Miles(SB# 185596) Miles.(✓lien Law Group,P.C. L E�T ®�I�. �� 9911 Irvine Center Drive,Suite 150 Irvine,CA 92618 FILED TELEPHONE NO.: 949) 78g-1425 FAX NO.: (949)788-1991 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY FOR(Name): elghborhoods For Safety&Quality COUNTY OF ORANGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF Orange CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER STREETADDRESs: 751 West Santa Ana Blvd. MAILING ADDRESS: 751 West Santa Ana Blvd. Jun 19 2009 CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Ana,CA�9+2701 ALAN CARLSON,Clerk of the Court ,BRANCH NAME: Civil Complex renter by C. PEDRAZA CASE NAME: Neighborhoods For Safety&Quality v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: m Unlimited [] Limited 30-2009-00277650 (Amount (Amount 0 Counter Joinder demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JuoG5UDGE NANCY WIEBEN STOCK exceeds$25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: DEPT. CX105 Items 1-6 below must be completed see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation 0 Auto(22) Breach of contract/warranty(06) (Cal.Rules of Court,rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist(46) Rule 3.740 collections(09) 0 Antitrust/Trade regulation(03) Other PUPD/WD(Personal Injury/Property 0 Other collections(09) Q Construction defect(10) DamagetWrongful Death)Tort 0 Insurance coverage(18) Mass tort(40) 0 Asbestos(04) Q Other contract(37) 0 Securities litigation(28) 0 Product liability(24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort(30) E] Medical malpractice(45) a Eminent domain)inverse Q Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other PI/PD/WD(23) condemnation(14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PI/PDIWD(Other)Tort Wrongful eviction(33) types(41) Business tortlunfair business practice(07) Other real property(26) Enforcement of Judgment Civil rights(08) Unlawful Detainer = Enforcement of judgment(20) 0 Defamation(13) Commercial(31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud(16) Residential(32) Q RICO(27) Intellectual property(19) 0 Drugs(38) ED Other complaint(not specified above)(42) Professional negligence(25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other non-PIIPD/WD tort(35) FI Asset forfeiture(05) Partnership and corporate governance(21) Employment 0 Petition re:arbitration award(11) a Other petition(not specified above)(43) Wrongful termination(36) © Writ of mandate(02) Other employment(15) Other judicial review(39) 2. This case is = is not complex under rule.3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex,mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a.Q Large number of separately represented parties d.0 Large number of witnesses b.[] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties,states,or countries,or in a federal court c. 0 Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. El Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought(check all that apply): a.[,::] monetary b.© nonmonetary;declaratory or injunctive relief c.F__]punitive 4. Number of causes of action(specify): 1: CEQA Petition for Writ of Mandate 5. This case [_� is © is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases,file and serve a notice of related cas z f m C 15.) Date: June 19, 2009 Stephen M. Miles (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) tSIG TURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding(except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code,or Welfare and Institutions Code).(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.)Failure to file may result in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq.of the California Rules of Court,you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case,this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. age 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal.Rules of Court,rules 2.30,3.220,3.400-3.403,3.740; Judicial councll of California Cal.Standards of Judicial Administration,std.3.10 CM-010[Rev.July 1,20071 www.courtinfo.ca.gov American LegalNet,Inc. www.Fonnswodd/ow.corn $350.00 $550.00 cp C 1 STEPHEN M. MILES (State Bar No. 185596) ELECTRONICALLY PATRICIA J. CHEN(State Bar No. 197719) FILE® 2 MILES o CHEN LAW GROUP SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA A Professional Corporation COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER Irvine, California 92618 Jun 19 2009 4 Telephone: (949) 788-1425 Facsimile: (949) 788-1991 ALAN CARLSON,Clerk of the Court 5 by C.PEDRAZA 6 Attorneys for Petitioner NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SAFETY& QUALITY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 I I NEIGHBORHOODS FOR Case No. 30-2009-00277650 SAFETY & QUALITY, a 12 an unincorporated association, VERIFIED PETITION 0 o FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 13 Petitioner, O a 0 14 V. Judge: JUDGE NANCY WIEBEN STOCK w 41 DEPT. CX105 x o 15 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a Dept.: Charter City; THE CITY COUNCIL W 16 OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON Hearing Date: a Q a BEACH, a legislative body of the City 0 17 of Hunting Beach, (NOTE TO COURT CLERK: THIS w LL 18 Respondents. PETITION INCLUDES A "CEQA" CAUSE 0 OF ACTION TO BE ASSIGNED TO A z 19 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE z a 0 DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH O =' PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21167.1 B O 20 KEVIN A. COLEMAN, NET )l 0J z DEVELOPMENT, a California o ? 0 21 Corporation; HUNTINGTON BEACH LL ° CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Cn J o a 22 California school district; and DOES I — W M U- THROUGH 25, inclusive, n > -jO 23 a 0 ix O � Real Parties in Interest. U � = 000 24 F- Z F- U Sao 25 w 26 = a a � = 27 U- O 28 1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE G- C Design Review Board Meeting 7/9/09 Brethren Christian Multi-purpose Gym Terry Crowther's Presentation First I would like to thank the City Council and Design Review'Board for making the effort to mitigate the design of this bu lding,by improving its,exterior facade and by attempting to screen it from the view of'our neighborhoods: The problem is this new facade and screening does not address the core issue that this building's size, shape, and height does not meet the requirements of the City's{general Plan, Land Use Elements, and Design Guidelines. (LU 9A.2 of the City's General Plan, Land Use Element and Chapters 2, 3, 4, and I I of the City's Design Guidelines) Specifically, where these documents repeatedly speak to the requirement that new structures be compatible with and convey the physical scale and character,of the residential and surrounding structures. (Please see the pictures of the .1/8 scale models I presented to you last month.) Another core issue is the capacity of this building and the impact it will have on our residential streets. The City's Design Guidelines also repeatedly speaks to the objective of facilitating and encouraging pedestrian activity and mitigate existing adverse automobile oriented planning patterns. I have prepared an additional exhibit, Build It And They Will Come, that shows how the capacity of this building, driven by its size, will flood our residential streets with cars and overflow parking that will reverse and destroy pedestrian activity on our residential streets. I respectfully ask that you continue to pursue solutions that will bring this building into compliance with the City's General Plan and Design Guidelines. If you have any questions regarding these exhibits I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time. Cc: City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, 14B School.District, Stephen.Milles A *- �.d" '.f a'�IR*--:�! +�-°� 7 T-.',�-'••"L�# t�'" �a..,_u ... a.,�.. �^�s tl�'_. i L yq �' s k"a ,�$j .. ,�` '` �„a, � '!w�y,.. �C'ar r- / � � j ___,_���{ •, t A ' � ,.: t 1 t � �".y�`4- t -> t.^ � �. �'�'., '�' ' �• h=} + l FS f'p 7 +�II it,� •* t offi - p•.�,e. _ "�"d - 5- f ;I ,.. f !1 16, �' f�, P. � �/�'.�a,r�r# � a � - ,t y 1 + '\, � --...•. `#..saw Y. .Lti r. .' +• Y 7.. 1s+++e• �` n jj' - �. dvpma / �� <r.. 'c: ,� '�-. t . .il.-,.��.�!` ,� � •'t 8 ( _ s .. , + s t �1r i1 ; { tom+ • ^tom, zn % -.,•,-� i P7,.. .��! - 1 � � •tN � i1�°� � � #� � 4 t - Y• t lit 4 1 zSv - rll,a ��t� oc+�zs zoos _ E _...8... ) _...__.... _.....__...._... _. 3388,7t9',-N ilr� 5/-zom3-'Vv: elu,v '9iFt>�.'- `...,- ._+.. +Fr«_ '[.`rc�Lait. ; -301,i. ., a � , BUILT AND',THEY DI WILL C,U11E • f= a- PARKING;AND'TRAFFIC,GENER�iTORS ,. k GCALCUPARCiNGER CII ARKINGIMP CTS r SCHOOL MAX ENROLLMENT PER CLASS:ROOM PLUS 1`PER STAFF 201 '< STUDENTS. ` 720\ ADDTCICINAL;ONSTTE PARKING 1 STAFF 75 USABLErPARKINGzIN=PARK LOT 10 TOTAL AS OF6/11149 4 OPEN,HOUSE ACTUAL NUMBER,OF CARS PARKED 14 CARS, STUDENT STUDENTS,"4/2109 400s;`•OlVSTTE AND:IN PARK PARKING LOT 285 FOIL 72Q STUDENTS *1,008 STAFF 45 (—I'.4 CARS PER STUpENT}.: ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDED ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDED ' <73> PAINGATPEOSPERCAR484PAKGYM O NGATl4 PER I ,15 DITIONAIPARKNGHE EDEASOF6/11/09 L G f NIGHTTIME FOOTBALL SPECTATORS .'.. .PARKING AT 3 PERSONS PER CAR '. 300 ? PARKllvG AT 1;:4*PERSONS PER,CA a�S43 AS`STATED.,BY KEVIN COLEMAN 900 ADAITIO,NAL PARKING NEEDED <88> ,; ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDED w<431> -NIGHT TIME;FOOTBAU POTENTIAL PARKING AT:3 PERSONS PER<CAR 499 PARK=ING AT l:4 PLRSt N5 pER'GAR !'1,069 INCLUDING;PLAYERS COACHES ADDITIONAL PARKING NEIrDED <287> ' ADDITIONAL PARKING Nip FIDED <8+7> BAND;SIDELINE SPECTATORS *1497 ' SOCCER NOT„IDENTIFIED , BASEBALL': NOT>IDENTIFIED # BASKETBALL, NOT IpENTIEJED VOLLEYBALL NOTIDENTII TED s M OUR, NAMENTS NOT<IDENTIFIED STUDENT CONCERTS NOT;IDENTIFIED ST UDENTPLAYS ry, : NOT IDENTIFIED OU 1. ` TSIDEORGANIZATIONS NOTLDENTIFIED * _ N . M 'POTENTESM D TT S IAL IMPACT. I ;,AS OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN MULTI-PURPOSE GYM 1/8"=V-p"Model as of 6/15/09 TWO STORY 6-UNIT VILLA BLEACHERS FOR OVER 600 PACIFIC TOWNHOME SPECTATORS 6 PT;HIGH BLOCK WALL, 1gPl�vl �t ..: '. 212 PAR tC1Y SPX�C � lt�)VIIE BRETHREN CHRISTIAN MULTI-PURPOSE GYM I/8"= V-0"Model as of 6/15/09 TWO-STORY 6-UNIT VILLA BLEACHERS FOR OVER 606 PACIFICTOWNHOME SPECTATORS 6 FT.H1GH1,BLOCK WALL Q_ 1 1 r `" 2 T'XpzkiNGSP CE �T�t7VTT)Ivl k,' 2I ,ry h -v k y. BRETHREN CHRISTIAN MULTI-PURPOSE GYM 1/8"= P-Q"Model as of 6/15/09 � s PE k k �R r i 1 x BRETHREN CHRISTIAN MULTI-PURPOSE GYM 1/8"=V-0"Model as of 6/15/09 NO tr� z ALL OF THE ABOVE STRUCTURES,AND MORE,CAN FIT INSIDE`THIS MULTI-PURPOSE GYM City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) May 26, 2009 Mr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa CA 92626 APPLICANT: Kevin A. Coleman, Net Development, 3130 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 REQUEST: REQUEST: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project; CUP: To permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft gymnasium, enhancements to existing landscape areas, construction/striping of three new parking areas, resurfacing existing parking lot areas, and expansion of the existing sports program to include evening football and basketball matches. Proposed uses within the gymnasium will consist of school related events, in addition to ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. LOCATION: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (east side of Strathmoor Lane, south of Atlanta Avenue). PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh On Monday, May 18, 2009 a public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Councilmember Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles of the Planning Commission's approval of Negative Declaration No. 08-018/ Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 for the Brethren Christian School gymnasium located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan • Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone: 714-536-5227) The following action was taken by the Huntington Beach City Council: Approved as amended with Findings for Approval for Negative Declaration No. 08-018, and Findings and Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. This is a final decision as to Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from the date of mailing of this notice to apply to the court for judicial review. This is a final decision as to Negative Declaration No. 08-018. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) you have Thirty days from the date of filing a notice of determination to apply to the court for judicial review. Enclosed are the Findings and Conditions of Approval, and the Action Agenda from the May 18, 2009 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact Rami Talleh, Senior Planner at (714) 374-1682. J tn L. Flynn, C M C City Clerk JF:pe c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning Herb Fauland, Principal Planner Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Councilmember Jill Hardy Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law Group Attachments: Findings and Conditions for Approval - CUP 08-052/ NG 08-018 City Council Action Agenda for 5-18-09 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 08-018 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative. Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. 2. Conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach program and traffic monitoring will reduce potential traffic impacts associated with the school. In addition, staggered start and end time will reduce the impacts to the neighborhood to a less than significant level. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052, will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 for the (a) construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium including (b) associated site improvements consisting of enhancing existing landscape constructing/striping three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, and resurfacing existing parking areas, (c) use of the gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice including basketball games during school hours and in the evenings after school hours, (d) use of the gymnasium for the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs and (e) use of an existing multi-purpose soccer field as a football field, install bleachers, and four light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice during school hours and in the evenings after school hours will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Potential traffic impacts will be minimized through the use of staggered start and end times, a neighborhood outreach program including the formation of a neighborhood traffic committee and designating of neighborhood liaisons to the school. An additional measure consisting of monitors to regulate traffic entering and exiting the subject site during events will reduce impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the new gymnasium and expanded activities will be adequately buffered and controlled with the suggested conditions of approval. In addition, the proposed sports facilities are similar in nature to the activities historically and presently occurring on the site. The placement of the gymnasium and football field and bleachers provides as adequate buffer for the adjacent single family residential uses. The proposed light standards are much shorter in height when compared to the existing light standards (30 ft. vs. 70 ft.). In addition, the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, concession area, ticket booth, etc...) and will be approximately 22 ft. high — similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height—similar in height to surrounding multi-family structures. 3. The proposed construction of a gymnasium at the subject property will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Title 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The existing and proposed school facilities comply with all code requirements including building height, landscaping, parking, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. One permanent surplus parking spaces and additional overflow parking will be available on the subject site. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. The project will serve the educational needs of community and surrounding region and is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Obiective LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.4.1: Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. Policy LU 9.4.2: Require that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU 9.4.3: Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of the property, minimize the cost of development, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community. Obiective PF 4.3: Provide public services at sites with existing public or institutional users. The site is currently developed as a school site with lighted open fields and currently occupied by Brethren Christian High School (BCHS), a private school. Furthermore, the existing fields are used by A.Y.S.O and Sea View Little League during the evenings on weekdays and during the day on weekends. The existing uses on the site and proposed gymnasium and football fields are consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies by advocating the inclusion of educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. In addition the proposed uses provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding region and enhance the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. The proposed gymnasium and football filed serve as sport/community facilities consistent in nature with the current use of the existing fields. The facilities will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The facilities will be sited in a way that provides the greatest amount of buffer for the adjacent residential uses. A total of 209 parking spaces will be provided on site to accommodate events within the facilities. Furthermore, site improvement such as landscaping enhancements and an improved vehicular circulation system will be provided to enhance the appearance of the site and provide for a more efficient use of the parking lots. The design of the gymnasium will incorporates vertical and horizontal offsets to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition, landscaping will be installed on the southern elevation to soften the appearance of the gymnasium. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9, 2008 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The landscape plans shall be modified to include landscaping along the entire length of the south elevation. The landscaping shall incorporate a horizontal element, such as three foot high shrubs, for the length of the building and vertical elements at every panel. (DRB) b. The site plan shall be modified to include a pedestrian connection across the drive aisle perpendicular to Strathmore Lane between the main campus and the proposed gymnasium by shifting the parking spaces on the north side of the drive aisle to the east. The pedestrian connection shall incorporate decorative materials to differential the walkway from the drive aisle. (DRB) c. The building elevation shall be modified to include an awning or canopy above the gymnasium entrance. Final design of the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. (DRB) d. The industrial roll up doors on the east elevations shall be removed and replaced with man doors e. Gates will be installed at the entrance to all parking areas to restrict vehicular access to the site after hours. Final design, location and operating hours of the gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments. f. The site plan shall provide and identify seven additional parking spaces. g. Elevations shall depict approved colors and building materials approved by the Design Review Board pursuant to Condition No. 3 and maintained in case file DRB No. 08-040. 2. Incorporating sustainable or"green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.orq/DisplayPage.asr)x?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.buildit-green.or.q/index.cfm?fuseaction=quidelines). 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Design Review Board shall review and approve the gymnasium building elevations at publicly noticed meeting. 4. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Applicant provides written confirmation of formation of a neighborhood traffic committee, with signatures of members. b. Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site as approved by the Police Dept. c. The applicant shall coordinate with Department of Public Works to install striping at the center line of Strathmore Lane and Effingham Drive. 5. The use shall comply with the following: a. A neighborhood traffic committee shall be established to allow neighbors to express concerns and suggest methods of improving traffic and pedestrian safety. Brethren Christian School shall meet with their regular neighborhood committee within one month after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, in order to assess the parking and traffic at the site. If there are substantial neighborhood concerns with traffic and/or parking, after six months from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the gym, then the issues shall be analyzed by Planning and Public Works staff and if necessary, shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. At that time, in order to resolve any outstanding concerns, the Planning Commission may modify and/or add conditions of approval. The school shall maintain a log of all complaints and make the log available upon request to the City. b. There shall be a minimum of two parking lot attendants stationed at each of the two parking lot entrances for football games. Attendants shall be identifiable to persons in vehicles and shall direct traffic entering into and existing from the site. c. Use of the gymnasium for events with more than 100 spectators and participants and/or use of the football field for games shall not occur at the same time and shall not overlap with community organized sports activities or any classroom instruction. d. Prior to the start of each school year, an informational packet shall be distributed throughout the entire neighborhood and to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department with the following information: 1. School contact information, 2. School policies regarding traffic and parking control 3. A calendar of events for the upcoming school year. The calendar of events shall include the next meeting date for the neighborhood traffic committee. e. All groups to hold an event on the campus, will be required to have security personnel on site 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the event. They will be responsible for cleaning any trash debris, ensure that people do not loiter after events. f. The use shall comply with all the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16. g. Evening football games shall be restricted to Friday and Saturday only. A maximum of seven evening football games shall be allowed per football season. Football games shall start no later than 6:30 PM. In addition, the band shall cease all performances at 9:00 PM. h. All field area lighting shall be oriented so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. i. No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football field on Sundays. j. Use of the gymnasium for non-school (Brethren Christian High School) activities/events shall be limited to 24 times per calendar year. 6. Signage shall be subject to separate permits. 7. A review of the use shall be conducted by the Planning Commission within six (6) months of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or final building permit approval to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. A second review shall be conducted within 12 months of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or final building permit approval. At that time the Planning Commission may consider modifications to the conditions of approval. 8. The development services departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to invite Public Works Director Travis Hopkins to receive a proclamation for Public Works Week. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to invite Public Works Director Travis Hopkins, Police Captain Bill Stuart, and Community Services Division Head Janeen Laudenback to distribute Public Service Recognition Awards given out by the Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to invite Fire Chief Duane Olson to come forward and accept a proclamation for Emergency Medical Services Week. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to invite Marine Safety Chief Kyle Lindo forward to accept a proclamation for Beach Safety Week. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to invite Police Chief Ken Small and Huntington Beach Police Officer's Association President Kreg Muller to accept a proclamation for National Police Officer's Week. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to invite Ocean View Athletic Director Tim Walsh to introduce the outstanding Ocean View Basketball Team and their coaches for special recognition of their season's accomplishments. MAYOR'S AWARD: Mayor Bohr to invite Police Chief Ken Small to present the Mayor's Award to the Parking Control Unit. PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) 6 Speakers COUNCIL COMMITTEE / APPOINTMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING Mayor Pro Tem Green & Councilmember Dwyer discussed OCTA, Measure "M" funds, closed bus routes. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT None UBLIC HEARING I. (City Council) Public hearing to consider appeals filed by Councilmember Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles of the Planning Commission's approval of Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 08-052 for the Brethren Christian School gymnasium located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane. Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action a) Approve Negative Declaration No. 08-018 with findings; and b) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 with findings and conditions of approval. 13 Late Communications 37 Speakers Move to deny the appeal(s) and support the application with additional conditions of approval including: Non-Brethren Christian activities/events limited to 24 in a given year; Planning Commission to conduct a review of the CUP at 6-months and 12-months from the initial occupancy of the gym;Applicant to work with staff and the Design Review Board to revisit aesthetics and develop architectural enhancements to the gym facade, publicizing meetings to allow public participation; Football games are restricted to Fridays and Saturdays, with a maximum of seven game days held in a given year;Add a center line stripe at the corner of Strathmore and Effingham; Gymnasium cannot be used for any events while football games are in process. Approved as amended 5-2 (Carchio, Hardy No) CONSENT CALENDAR (Items #2 through #9) 2. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) - Approve and adopt minutes. Recommended Action: Approve and adopt the minutes of_the City Council/Redevelopment Agency regular meeting of April 20, 2009, and the City Council/Redevelopment Agency special meeting of April 27, 2009 as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Approved 7-0 3. (Redevelopment Agency) - Approve request to enter into a loan agreement with the Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau (HBMVB) for a loan of$50,000 from future transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues to fund the Meeting Marketing Campaign to promote Huntington Beach to the business meeting market. Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a loan agreement in an amount of $50,000 with the Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau, in a written loan agreement and promissory note that has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. Approved 7-0 4. (City Council) - Request to adopt Resolution No. 2009-24 allowing military veterans whose vehicles meet certain weight criteria, and vehicle license plates display Pearl Harbor Survivors, Legion of Valor recipients, former American Prisoners of War, Congressional Medal of Honor recipients and Purple Heart recipients, to park in any metered parking stall without charge. T/9`e- Council/Agency Meeting Held: D Deferred/Continued to: �"A�r_ov d Proved a / ler s Signet e Council Meeting Date: 5/18/2009 Department ID Number: PL 09-11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY C CIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIS OR PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, DIRECTOR OF PLA M SUBJECT: APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM - Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Council Member Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles of the Planning Commission's approval of Negative Declaration (ND) No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 08-052. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 08-018 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 Planning Commission Action on March 10, 2009: THE MOTION MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018 WITH FINDINGS AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, MANTINI, SHIER-BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSE® Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions(s): 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 with findings for denial." 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 05-25 and Variance No. 05-15 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Kevin A. Coleman, Net Development, 3130 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Appellant No. 1: Council Member Jill Hardy Appellant No. 2: Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law Group, P.C., 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618 Property Owner: Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA Location: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (west side of Strathmoor Ln., south of Atlanta Ave. —former Gisler School site) -2- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR COTY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 Negative Declaration No. 08-018 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 represents a request for the following pursuant to Section 214.06, PS District: Land Use Controls, Public Semipublic Uses, Private Schools, of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO): A. To construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium, host indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice including 10 basketball games in the evenings after school hours. The applicant also proposes to use the gymnasium for a variety of other school activities such as drama, choir, band rehearsals and performances, graduation ceremonies, and other school events. In addition the applicant proposes to make the gymnasium available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. B. To use an existing multi-purpose soccer field along the southerly property line as a football field, install bleachers with seating capacity for up to 624 spectators, use of up to four 30 ft. high portable light standards, and host boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice including approximately five games in the evenings after school hours. C. The request also includes associated site improvements including enhancing existing landscape areas along Strathmoor Lane, Effingham Drive, and Bluefield Drive, remove approximately 87 parking spaces within the parking area along the southerly property line, constructing/striping three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces along the northerly property line and behind the main structure, and resurfacing existing parking areas through out the site. The proposed project is a request by Kevin A. Coleman, on behalf of Brethren Christian High School (BCHS). The proposed gymnasium is located along the southerly property line furthest away from residential uses to the north, east and west and will abut an approximately 180 ft. wide Southern California Edison easement currently developed as a park (Attachment No. 6). The gymnasium will occupy a portion of the existing school parking lot and replace six outdoor basketball courts. The gymnasium will contain three practice size basketball courts, which convert into one regulation sized basketball court that doubles as an indoor volleyball court. Additional gym amenities include bleacher seating with capacity for up to 625 spectators, restrooms, team rooms, weightlifting room, concessions area, and restrooms for the adjacent outdoor fields. The plans indicate that the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, concession area, ticket booth, etc...) and will be approximately 22 ft. high — similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height. -3- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 The hours of operation for Brethren Christian School are between 7:00 am to 9:30 pm, Monday through Friday. School activities within the proposed gymnasium will consist of physical education, band and choir practice, drama rehearsals and events, and graduation ceremonies. These uses will be relocated from unenclosed areas of the school campus in an attempt to reduce existing noise impacts. The applicant also proposes to make the gymnasium available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth sports programs for nighttime and weekend events. Basketball games will be scheduled two times per week after school hours between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm during the basketball season. The school's football program has already begun in the existing lighted fields. Football practice is held during school hours. The football season consists of approximately 5 night games after school between the hours of 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm. The bleachers will abut the Southern California Edison easement. The portable light standards when cranked to their highest point are approximately 30 ft. high. The existing light standards are approximately 70 ft. high and are used throughout the existing sports fields. The Brethren Christian Warriors compete in the Academy League. Other teams include St. Margaret's Episcopal School, Oxford Academy, Whitney High School, Capistrano Valley Christian School, and Sage Hill School. A total of 209 on-site parking spaces will be required to comply with the minimum Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance parking provisions. In constructing the new parking areas an existing fire lane that ends in a hammer head design on the west side of the main buildings will be extended to the north to connect with the existing parking area at the intersection of Bluefield Drive and Strathmoor Ln. The existing landscape areas along the Bluefield Dr., Strathmoor Ln., and Effingham Dr. street frontages will be enhanced with new ornamental landscaping. All existing landscaping on site will remain and be protected in place. B. BACKGROUND: Before BCHS occupied the site, Gisler Elementary School had been closed since 1986. When the school was open, the enrollment of the school totaled approximately 860 students. The enrollment for the closing year was approximately 574 students. The school was used by the Huntington Beach Playhouse on a semi-regular basis for productions before BCHS occupied the site. Gisler Elementary School was developed with six outdoor basketball courts, two baseball fields, and three soccer fields. The lighted fields have been historically used by community based sports organization such as A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League. According to the Community Services Department, the youth sports groups have used the Gisler School site for approximately 20 years. It is important to note that all of the outdoor activities associated with the Gisler School when it was operated by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBSCD), including A.Y.S.O and Sea View Little League, were established by private agreements with the School District. -4- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 In 1998 the City approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 to allow BCHS to operate a private school (grades 7 to 12) on a temporary basis for up to two years with a maximum of 500 students. In 2000, the City approved Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 to allow BCHS to operate on a permanent basis with a maximum enrollment of 720 students. Both entitlements permitted the establishment and operation of a junior high and high school but did not explicitly include all of the outdoor activities commonly associated with a high school that are currently occurring on the site. These outdoor activities include school sports such as soccer and baseball at the existing fields. Other uses operated by BCHS that were not identified in the entitlements/ but commonly associated with high schools are drama rehearsals and plays, band practice and choir practice and events. Approximately 500 students are currently enrolled at the school. The school has leased the site from the Huntington Beach City School District on a yearly basis. In 2008, the School District proposed to sell four closed school sites including Gisler Elementary School. After much deliberation and community objection, the School District abandoned the sale of Gisler School and negotiation a 35-year lease with renewals with BCHS. After securing a long term lease, BCHS proposes the aforementioned improvements to expand the school activities provided on site. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission approved the subject entitlements at a public hearing on March 10, 2009. Testimony in support of the request was received from the applicant, five representatives from Brethren Christian School and AYSO, and six residents. Seven additional residents also expressed their support in letters submitted to the City (Attachment No. 10). Testimony in opposition to the request was received from 10 residents of the surrounding neighborhood. 54 additional residents also expressed opposition in letters submitted to the City (Attachment No. 11). The residents were concerned with lighting impacts, aesthetics, loss of views, noise, increased traffic, parking on residential streets, and use of the gymnasium for outside organizations. Staff recommended approval of the request on the basis that the project complies with all applicable Code requirements; provides recreational opportunities for the school and community consistent with the General Plan; includes several conditions of approval requiring neighborhood outreach and traffic monitoring, and a six-month review. Commissioners who voted in support of the request cited that a majority of the neighborhood concerns are a result of the existing use of the fields for community based sports groups during weeknights and weekends. The commissioners stated that potential traffic impacts cited by the neighborhood will be minimized through conditions of approval requiring major events in the gymnasium, evening football games, community organized sport events, and school operations not overlap with each other; formation of a neighborhood traffic committee; monitors to regulate traffic entering and exiting the site during evening football games; and six month review. The commissioners also cited the applicant's claims that field lighting will be regulated by BCHS under the terms of the new lease agreement. -51 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 Commissioners who voted against the request indicated that the gymnasium is an appropriate use for the site; however, the commissioners stated that use of the gymnasium should be limited to school related activities only. These commissioners believed the gymnasium should not be made available to outside organizations due to the number of school events and community based sports activities held on the site. One commissioner also opposed to the requests expressed concern with the design of the structure. The Planning Commission made several straw votes to modify staff suggested conditions of approval. The straw votes required vehicle gates at parking lot entrances; security cameras; a neighborhood traffic committee; parking lot attendants; and staggering use of the gymnasium, sport fields, and football field. Straw votes were made to add the following conditions of approval: ® Football games shall start no later than 6:30 pm. In addition, the band shall cease all performances at 9:00 pm. ® All field area lighting shall be oriented so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. ® No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football fields on Sundays. The Commission ultimately approved the request based on findings that with the revised conditions of approval the proposed addition of the gymnasium to the school will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission Staff Report is attached (No. 4) for review and provides additional details for consideration by the City Council. D. APPEAL: On March 20, 2009, two appeals of the Planning Commission's action were filed. Council Member Jill Hardy filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project. The primary reasons for the appeal are increased traffic and incompatibility with the surrounding land uses (Attachment No. 2). Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law Group, also filed an appeal on behalf of Sharon Crowther and additional community members of the unincorporated association known as "Neighborhoods for Safety & Quality" (Attachment No. 3). The basis of the appeal is that the Planning Commission's approval of the request is in violation of the State and municipal law including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's General Plan. In his appeal letter, Mr. Miles raises five specific grounds for the appeal, which are listed below and discussed in detail. -6- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The following is a discussion of both appeal letters. In addition, a full project analysis is included in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 10, 2009 (Attachment No. 4). Appeal No. 1: Council Member JIII Hardy The analysis below focuses on the appeal filed by Council Member Jill Hardy on March 20, 2009. In the appeal letter Council Member Hardy raised concern with land use compatibility and increased traffic. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY In reviewing the proposed gymnasium and football field, staff determined that the request is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The subject site is located in the PS (Public- Semipublic) zone which allows for public and private schools. The subject site has operated as a private school since 1998 on a closed former public school site. Accessory uses such as a gymnasium and football field are allowed within the PS zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south across a 180 ft. wide Southern California Edison easement. The proposed gymnasium and football field are characteristic of properties zoned for public uses. This is evident at other school sites developed with similar amenities within the City that are surrounded by residential uses. In addition, the subject site is currently provided with lighted fields and is used regularly by youth sports organization in the evenings. The proposed sports facilities will be similar in nature to the activities presently occurring on the site and other school sites with a similar zoning classification. The proposed gymnasium and football fields will provide recreational and educational opportunities for the community. The gymnasium is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing vertical and horizontal building offsets and landscaping to soften the appearance of the structure. Furthermore, the gymnasium and football fields are sited in such a way so as to provide the greatest amount of distance between the proposed facilities and the surrounding residential uses. In addition, the entrances to the gymnasium and football field are oriented towards the interior of the site away from the surrounding residential uses. The Planning Commission and staff determined that the project will be compatible with surrounding land uses because the new gym and expanded activities will be adequately buffered and controlled with the suggested condition of approval. In addition, the proposed sports facilities and activities are similar in nature to the activities historically and presently occurring on the site. The placement of the gymnasium and football field with bleachers provides an adequate buffer for the adjacent single-family residential uses. The proposed light standards are much shorter in height when compared to the existing light standards (30 ft. vs. 70 ft.). In addition, the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, -7- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 concession area, ticket booth, etc...) and will be approximately 22 ft. high — similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height — similar in height to surrounding multi-family structures. For these reasons, staff does not consider the issue of incompatible land use valid. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In reviewing the request, staff determined that the proposed gymnasium and football field will not significantly impact traffic flows in the surrounding local streets. Vehicle trips for the existing private school were originally analyzed in a traffic study prepared by ACT Consulting Engineers, Inc. in 2000 and updated in an addendum to the traffic study prepared by CNC Engineering in 2009 for the proposed addition of the gymnasium. The study analyzed peak a.m. traffic demand indicating that the school related traffic between 7:30 am and 8:05 am will be approximately 270 vehicles. The traffic study also stated the volume of traffic generated by the school during the morning drop-off period, which is expected to be the most intense, is well within the capacity of the surrounding local streets, which is approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per hour based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The campus has two parking lots-one on the north end of the site and a separate lot with a drop off area on the south end of the site. The south parking lot can better accommodate vehicle queuing during drop off and pick up traffic. The 2000 traffic study recommended that traffic guards be dispatched to direct traffic from the northerly parking lot to the appropriate drop-off area in the southerly parking lot. This recommendation was made a condition of approval of Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 and remains in effect. Vehicle trips for the proposed 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and football field were also analyzed in the addendum prepared by CNC Engineering. The addendum stated that a major event within the gymnasium or adjacent field is anticipated to generate approximately 228 trips, 42 trips less than the peak traffic demand of the school. Events at the gymnasium and football field are not proposed to occur at the same time or during the school's afternoon peak traffic demand (between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.). The events are proposed to occur in the evenings between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Furthermore, community based sports groups such as A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League will not engage in any activities during the same time that BCHS events are to be held within the gymnasium and football field. Therefore, the trip generations associated with the gymnasium and football field are not accompanied by vehicle trips generated by other activities on the site. Per consultation with the Public Works Department, 228 trips in the evening hours can be accommodated by the surrounding local street, which as previously mentioned have a capacity of handling approximately 1,000 vehicle trips with no impacts to traffic flows. The Planning Commission and staff determined that with the conditions of approval on the project including limiting the use of the gymnasium and football field for major events during times when school instruction is over and the fields are not being used by community based sports organizations; requiring formation of a neighborhood traffic committee; requiring monitors to regulate traffic entering and exiting the site during evening football games; and a -8- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 1 six month review. For these reasons, staff does not consider the issue of potential traffic impacts valid. Appeal No. 2: Stephen M. Miles, Files/Chen Law Group The analysis below focuses on the appeal filed by Stephen M. Miles, on March 20, 2009, on behalf of Sharon Crowther and Neighborhoods for Safety and Quality. The specific grounds for which the appeal is based on are listed in bold italics below followed by staff response. A fair argument, supported by substantial evidence, exists that the ,fiction will result in a significant, unmitigated environmental impact. Notably, the Action will result in unmitigated Land Use and Planning impacts, Air Quality impacts, Transportation/Traffic impacts (including parking and associated air quality impacts), Public Services impacts, and Aesthetics impacts. LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACTS Staff does not concur with the assertions that the request will result in unmitigated impacts to land use and planning. The existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the property are P (RL) (Public — Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) and PS (Public Semipublic), respectively. The 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and football field as accessory uses (subject to approval of a conditional use permit) to the existing private school are consistent with both the zoning and general plan designations. The former public school site is currently occupied by Brethren Christian High School (BCHS), a private school, and developed with lighted open fields. BCHS has occupied the site since 1998. Furthermore, the existing fields are used by community based sports organizations during the evenings, on weekdays)and during the day on weekends. The existing uses on the site and proposed gymnasium and football fields are consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies by advocating the inclusion of educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. In addition the proposed uses enhance the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. The proposed gymnasium and football field serve as sport/community facilities consistent in nature with the current use of the existing fields. The facilities will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because the facilities will be sited in a way that provides the adequate buffer for the adjacent residential uses. A total of 209 on-site parking spaces will be provided to accommodate events within the facilities. Furthermore, site improvements such as landscaping enhancements and an improved vehicular circulation system will be provided to enhance the appearance of the site and provide for a more efficient use of the parking lots. The design of the gymnasium will incorporate vertical and horizontal offsets to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition, landscaping will be installed on the southern elevation to soften the appearance of the gymnasium. Less than significant impacts to Land Use and Planning are anticipated. -9- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 Furthermore the request is consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: Objective LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.4.1: Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. Policy LU 9.4.2: Require that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU 9.4.3: Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of the property, minimize the cost of development, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community. Objective PF 4.3: Provide public services at sites with existing public or institutional users. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Staff does not concur with the assertions that the request will result in unmitigated impacts to air quality. The request was analyzed for short term and long term air quality impacts using the URBEMIS2007 program (version 9.2.4) to model emissions from the project during construction and operation of the gymnasium. Total emissions for the project did not exceed Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Regional Thresholds. Less than significant impacts to air quality are anticipated. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC IMPACTS Staff does not concur with the assertions that the request will result in unmitigated impacts to Transportation/Traffic. As previously mentioned, a traffic study was prepared by CNC Engineering (January 2009). The study indicated that the gymnasium is expected to generate approximately 228 vehicle trips during major events. Major events are proposed to occur after peak traffic demand and not concurrently with other uses and activities on the site. Less than significant impacts to transportation/traffic are anticipated. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS Staff does not concur with the assertions that the request will result in unmitigated impacts to Public Services. The project is currently developed with a private junior high and high school -10- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 located at an existing former public school site. All facilities needed to service the proposed gymnasium are already in place. The project has been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Public Works, Building and Safety, Fire, Police, and Planning for compliance with all applicable City codes. With implementation of standard City codes and policies, no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. Furthermore, the Fire and Police Department reviewed the project and indicated that the project can be adequately served by existing resources. Less than significant impacts to public services are anticipated. AESTHETICS IMPACTS Staff does not concur with the assertions that the request will result in unmitigated impacts to Aesthetics. The site is presently developed with an educational complex. It does not contain any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project proposal. However, in the event that trees are removed, they are required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio pursuant to a standard condition of approval. The ND identified that the height of gymnasium (34 ft.) may impact the character of the adjacent park to the south and surrounding neighborhood. However, this issue was addressed in the ND in that the gymnasium will be set back considerably from street frontages and screened by existing perimeter landscaping. Furthermore, landscaping will be provided on the southern elevation of the gymnasium to soften the appearance of the structure. In addition, the building is designed and constructed of common materials consistent with schools throughout the city in surrounding residential areas. Furthermore, new light sources will not result in an increase in lighting levels that currently exist in the parking areas and main school buildings. The fields are currently lighted in the evenings between 5:00 pm and 9:00 pm on weekdays and on weekends by four 70 ft. high light standards. Lighting is proposed to concentrate light at the main field adjacent to Gisler Park. The proposed light standards are 30 ft. in height compared to the existing 70 ft. high light standards. Standard City codes and policies requiring the directing and shielding of lights in a manner to prevent spillage and glare onto adjacent properties will be implemented. Less than significant adverse impacts to aesthetics are anticipated. The Negative Declaration fails to address greenhouse gas emissions as required by A.E. 32 and CEQA. AB 32 codifies the state's goal to reduce its global warming by requiring that the state's greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor greenhouse gas emissions levels. In addition, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has until January 1, 2010ato adopt CEQA guidelines for evaluation of greenhouses gases. In the interim, both the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and CARB have established thresholds for determining significance. The SCAQMD threshold has targeted reductions for stationary -11- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 source projects in which the threshold is 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions per year for industrial sources. The preliminary recommendation from GARB is 7,000 metric tons/year of CO2 equivalent emissions for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. Although there is no identified interim threshold for schools, when compared to the more restrictive CARB threshold for commercial, industrial, and residential developments (7,000 metric tons), the proposed project (excluding the existing school) is expected to generate approximately 53 metric tons/year of CO2, which is well below these levels. The Negative Declaration failed to account for a fair projection of additional community events that would be hosted by the proposed gymnasium and football field pursuant to the Civic Center Act. Substantial evidence also exists that the Seating capacity for both the gymnasium and football field were understated to avoid conducting a peak hour traffic analysis. The ND analyzes the applicant's proposal to make the gymnasium available to the community. A traffic study prepared by CNC Engineering analyzes the proposed trip generation associated with the use of the gymnasium. As stated previously major events including use by outside community organizations are proposed to occur after peak traffic demand and not concurrently with other uses and activities on the site. In addition, the football field and gymnasium are proposed to be used for major events after peak traffic demand (6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.). Furthermore, seating capacity of the proposed gymnasium and football field were addressed in an errata to the ND based on comments received during the 20 day public comment period. The Action is improperly described in the Negative Declaration. reliance on square footage of the proposed gymnasium provides limited to no useful information to assess the magnitude of the gymnasium's impact. The gymnasium capacity must be readily identified in the Negative Declaration to fulfill public disclosure and informed decision-making purpose of CEQA. Once the capacity of the gymnasium is readily identified, the Negative Declaration must analyze the environmental impacts of the capacity in conjunction with the 624 seating capacity of the proposed football field. The ND described the maximum capacity of 624 seats for the gymnasium and identified the parking requirement of 209 parking spaces. Therefore, seating capacity for the proposed gymnasium and football field were properly analyzed. The Negative Declaration contains illusory mitigation measures that do not effectively eliminate the potential for simultaneous events at the gymnasium and football field. The ND contains no mitigation measures. However, the Planning Commission approved the request with several conditions of approval. One condition (No. 4(c)) states: -12- 5/7/2009 11:28 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5//812009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 Use of the gymnasium for events with more than 100 spectators and participants and/or use of the football field for games shall not occur at the same time and shall not overlap with community organized sports activities or any classroom instruction. This condition is intended to ensure that major events in the gymnasium and football field do not occur at the same time that the fields are used by community based sports groups and/or school is in session. Conditions of this nature are routinely applied to projects with more than one use on the site in order to ensure that adequate parking is provided and traffic on surrounding streets is not impacted. Staff does not agree with the assertion that this is an illusory condition. The applicant will meet with the neighborhood traffic committee on a quarterly basis to discuss parking and traffic issues. In addition the project is subject to a six month review. If deemed necessary, the Planning Commission may modify and/or add conditions of approval at that time. The Negative Declaration failed to address (and make a Mandatory Finding for Significance for "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Reliance on a traffic study conducted almost a decade ago and prior to the enactment of greenhouse gas emissions laws (A.B. 32 and S.B. 375) cannot address `cumulatively considerable"air and transportation impacts of the Action. As previously stated the proposed gymnasium and football field are well below interim thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions currently being used for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. Also use of the proposed gymnasium and football fields will not generate vehicle trips at times when the site is being used for school and when the field is being used by community based sports organizations. The project's impacts with respect to air quality and transportation are less than significant and the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Summary The proposed gymnasium and football field are proposed on a site that has operated as a private school since 1998 on a closed former public school site and are characteristic of properties zoned for public uses. Such accessory uses are allowed within the PS zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. Furthermore, the proposed sports facilities will be similar in nature to the activities presently occurring on the site. In additionjwith the conditions imposed, the project will not impact existing traffic flows. Staff believes that the project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not have significant traffic or parking impacts. The ND is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed gymnasium and football field. The ND provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the project. The issues discussed in the ND are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of .13- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 09-11 all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the development proposal. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed. Staff believes that the ND is adequate and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The ND and Errata were presented to the Planning Commission for their review and the Planning Commission approved the ND with findings for approval. Strategic Plan Goal: Strategic Plan Goal: Create a plan for the use of surplus school property to ensure compatible sues within the surrounding neighborhood and meet community needs. The subject site is located at the former Gisler School site and is currently occupied by a private school (Brethren Christian High School). The proposed gymnasium and football field provide for educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods and enhances the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. Environmental Status: In accordance with CEQA, ND No. 09-018 (Attachment No. 5) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The ND was approved by the Planning Commission on March 10, 2009. The ND must be approved by the City Council prior to any action on CUP 08-052. Attachment(s9: ' . o - N i u mi, o -r. jq,'qI 0 1. Suggested Findings for Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 2. Appeal memo from Council Member Jill Hardy dated March 20, 2009 3. Appeal Letter from Stephen Miles dated March 20, 2009 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 10, 2009 5. Negative Declaration No. 08-018 (Response to Comments and Errata 6. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations dated October 9, 2008 7. Project Narrative dated October 9, 2008 and April 21, 2009 8. Planning Commission Notice of Action dated March 11 , 2009— ND No. 08-018 and CUP No. 08-052. 9. Draft Minutes of March 10, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 10. Letters Received in support of the Proposed Project -14- 5/6/2009 3:50 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ®ATE: 5/18/2009 DEPARTMENT I® NUMBER: PL 09-11 11. Letters Received in opposition of the Proposed Project 12. 1 PowerPoint Presentation Slides -15- 5/6/2009 3:04 PM AT'TACH ��M ,E-,NT , #11 ,, ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 08-018 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. 2. Conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach program and traffic monitoring will reduce potential traffic impacts associated with the school. In addition, staggered start and end time will reduce the impacts to the neighborhood to a less than significant level. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052, will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 for the (a) construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium including (b) associated site improvements consisting of enhancing existing landscape constructing/striping three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, and resurfacing existing parking areas, (c) use of the gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice including 10 basketball games during school hours and in the evenings after school hours, (d) use of the gymnasium for the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs and (e) use of an existing multi-purpose soccer field as a football field, install bleachers, and four light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice during school hours and in the evenings after school hours will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Potential traffic impacts will be minimized through the use of staggered start and end times, a neighborhood outreach program including the formation of a neighborhood traffic committee and designating of neighborhood liaisons to the school. An additional measure consisting of monitors to regulate traffic entering and exiting the subject site during events will reduce impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the new gymnasium and expanded activities will be adequately buffered and controlled with the suggested conditions of approval. In addition, the proposed sports facilities are similar in nature to the activities historically and presently occurring on the site. The placement of the gymnasium and football field and bleachers provides as adequate buffer for the adjacent single family residential uses. The proposed light standards are much shorter in height when compared to the existing light standards (30 ft. vs. 70 ft.). In addition, the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, concession area, ticket Attachment 1.0 booth, etc...) and will be approximately 22 ft. high —similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height—similar in height to surrounding multi-family structures. 3. The proposed construction of a gymnasium at the subject property will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Title 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The existing and proposed school facilities comply with all code requirements including building height, landscaping, parking, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. One permanent surplus parking spaces and additional overflow parking will be available on the subject site. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. The project will serve the educational needs of community and surrounding region and is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Obiective LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.4.1: Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. Policy LU 9.4.2: Require that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU 9.4.3: Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of the property, minimize the cost of development, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community. Obiective PF 4.3: Provide public services at sites with existing public or institutional users. The site is currently developed as a school site with lighted open fields and currently occupied by Brethren Christian High School (BCHS), a private school. Furthermore, the existing fields are used by A.Y.S.O and Sea View Little League during the evenings on weekdays and during the day on weekends. The existing uses on the site and proposed gymnasium and football fields are consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies by advocating the inclusion of educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. In addition the proposed uses provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding region and enhance the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. The proposed gymnasium and football filed serve as sport/community facilities consistent in nature with the current use of the existing fields. The facilities will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The facilities will be sited in a way that provides the greatest amount of buffer for the adjacent residential uses. A total of 209 parking spaces will be provided on site to accommodate events within the facilities. Furthermore, site improvement such as landscaping enhancements and an improved vehicular circulation system will be provided to enhance the appearance of the site and provide for a more efficient use of the parking lots. The design of the gymnasium will incorporates vertical and horizontal offsets to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of surrounding residential Attachment 1.1 neighborhood. In addition, landscaping will be installed on the southern elevation to soften the appearance of the gymnasium. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9, 2008 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The landscape plans shall be modified to include landscaping along the entire length of the south elevation. The landscaping shall incorporate a horizontal element, such as three foot high shrubs, for the length of the building and vertical elements at every panel. (DRB) b. The site plan shall be modified to include a pedestrian connection across the drive aisle perpendicular to Strathmore Lane between the main campus and the proposed gymnasium by shifting the parking spaces on the north side of the drive aisle to the east. The pedestrian connection shall incorporate decorative materials to differential the walkway from the drive aisle. (DRB) c. The building elevation shall be modified to include an awning or canopy above the gymnasium entrance. Final design of the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. (DRB) d. The industrial roll up doors on the east elevations shall be removed and replaced with man doors e. Gates will be installed at the entrance to all parking areas to restrict vehicular access to the site after hours. Final design, location and operating hours of the gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments. f. The site plan shall provide and identify seven additional parking spaces. 2. Incorporating sustainable or"green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?Categor 1�19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). 3. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Applicant provides written confirmation of formation of a neighborhood traffic committee, with signatures of members. b. Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site as approved by the Police Dept. 4. The use shall comply with the following: a. A neighborhood traffic committee shall be established to allow neighbors to express concerns and suggest methods of improving traffic and pedestrian safety. Brethren Christian School shall meet with their regular neighborhood committee within one month after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, in order to assess the parking and traffic at the site. If there are substantial neighborhood concerns with traffic and/or parking, after six months from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the gym, then the issues shall be analyzed by Planning and Public Works staff and if necessary, shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. At that time, in order to resolve any outstanding concerns, the Attachment 1.2 Planning Commission may modify and/or add conditions of approval. The school shall maintain a log of all complaints and make the log available upon request to the City. b. There shall be a minimum of two parking lot attendants stationed at each of the two parking lot entrances for football games. Attendants shall be identifiable to persons in vehicles and shall direct traffic entering into and existing from the site. c. Use of the gymnasium for events with more than 100 spectators and participants and/o ruse of the football field for games shall not occur at the same time and shall not overlap with community organized sports activities or any classroom instruction. d. Prior to the start of each school year, an informational packet shall be distributed throughout the entire neighborhood and to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department with the following information: 1. School contact information, 2. School policies regarding traffic and parking control 3. A calendar of events for the upcoming school year. The calendar of events shall include the next meeting date for the neighborhood traffic committee. e. All groups to hold an event on the campus, will be required to have security personnel on site 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the event. They will be responsible for cleaning any trash debris, ensure that people do not loiter after events. f. The use shall comply with all the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16. g. Football games shall start no later than 6:30 PM. In addition, the band shall cease all performances at 9:00 PM. h. All field area lighting shall be oriented so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. i. No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football field on Sundays. 5. Signage shall be subject to separate permits. 6. The development services departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Attachment 1.3 ATTAC H MENT #2 0A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk FROM: Jill Hardy, City Council Member DATE: March 20, 2009 C =� SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRMML; 1D o NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018 AND CONDITI VSE'12 PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN HIGW$ Hd0L-- GYMNASIUM) � N 1 am hereby appealing Planning Commission's actions on The Brethren Christian High School Gymnasium project. On March 10, 2009, the Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. The request is to permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 square-foot gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice. The gymnasium will also be made available for use by the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. The request also permits the use of an existing soccer field as a football field with bleacher seating and four portable light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice. The primary reasons for my appeal are increased traffic and incompatibility with the surrounding land uses. I also wish to incorporate any additional issues brought forward by other parties. Pursuant to Section 248.18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. SH:HF:rt Attachment: Letter from Miles — Chen Law Group, dated March 20, 2009 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred Wilson, City Administrator Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning _l�� Herb Fauland, Planning Manager ­7!.T Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Z sz ash Q M 600Z Linda Wine, Administrative Assistant Huntington Beach City School District, Property Owner, a; r Kevin Coleman, Applicant '� ATTACH MENT #3 , , MILES * CHEN LAw GROUP 9911 Irvine Center Drive,Suite 150-Irvine,CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Phone: 949.788.1425 - Fax (949) 788-1991 L AND USE E N V I R 0 N M E N T E NTITLE MENT C= C=3 March 20, 2009 C:) VIA PERSONAL DELIVERYAND ELECTRONIC MAIL[city.counci1(4,)vurfcity-hb. F-3 Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council CD c/o Ms. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk CD City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL — Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk: This firm serves as counsel to Ms. Sharon Crowther and additional community members of the unincorporated association known as "Neighborhoods for Safety & Quality" ("Neighborhoods") On behalf of Ms. Crowther and Neighborhoods, we hereby submit this Notice of Appeal of the aforementioned discretionary action taken by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on March 10, 2009 (the "Action"). The basis for this Notice of Appeal is that the Action is in violation of the State and municipal law including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's General Plan. This Notice of Appeal is also based on all issues raised during the March 10, 2009, proceeding before the Planning Commission, including the agenda packet, all oral testimony, and the approximately 55 comment letters received by the City concerning Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. This Notice of Appeal is further based on all other contentions and allegations set forth in the administrative record of proceeding. Of specific concern here, and a basis for this Notice of Appeal, is that the Planning Commission made specific inquiry about prior litigation against Ocean View School District over their illegal efforts to approve gymnasiums with a Negative Declaration. In the Orange County Superior Court case styled Neighborhoods for Education First v. Ocean View School District (OCSC No. 0ICC10230) Judge Stuart T. Waldrip issued a judgment., statement of decision, and writ of mandate that rescinded the Ocean View School District's Negative Declarations and the School Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk March 20, 2009 Page 2 of 3 District, on remand, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the EIR was also challenged and ultimately the Court required enforceable mitigation measures that included busing plans and event limitations and capacity limitations). Neighborhoods for Education First was awarded its attorneys' fees for litigating the case under the Private Attorney General statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. The Action is identical (from a substantive and procedural perspective) to the action taken by the Ocean View School District that the Orange County Superior Court found fault with. Boiled down to its essence, the Orange County Superior Court ruled in the Ocean View School District decision that the ca acit of expanded school facilities must be addressed in an environmental assessment and the Court specifically ruled out the use of enrollment figures as an excuse for not providing the appropriate analysis. Additionally, this Notice of Appeal is based on the following specific grounds: • A fair argument, supported by substantial evidence, exists that the Action will result in a significant, unmitigated environmental impact. Notably, the Action will result in unmitigated Land Use and Planning impacts, Air Quality impacts, Transportation/Traffic impacts (including parking and associated air quality impacts), Public Services impacts, and Aesthetics impacts. • The Negative Declaration fails to address greenhouse gas emissions as required by A.B. 32 and CEQA. • The Negative Declaration failed to account for a fair projection of additional community events that would be hosted by the proposed gymnasium and football field pursuant to the Civic Center Act. Substantial evidence also exists that the seating capacity for both the gymnasium and football field were understated to avoid conducting a peak hour traffic analysis. • The Action is improperly described in the Negative Declaration. Reliance on square footage of the proposed gymnasium provides limited to no useful information to assess the magnitude of the gymnasium's impact. The gymnasium capacity must be readily identified in the Negative Declaration to fulfill the public disclosure and informed decision-making purpose of CEQA. Once the capacity of the gymnasium is readily identified, the Negative Declaration must analyze the environmental impacts of the capacity in conjunction with the 624 seating capacity of the proposed football field. • The Negative Declaration contains illusory mitigation measures that do not effectively eliminate the potential for simultaneous events at the gymnasium and football field. • The Negative Declaration failed to address (and make a Mandatory Finding of Significance for) "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Reliance on a traffic study conducted almost a decade ago and prior to the enactment of greenhouse gas emissions laws (A.B. 32 and S.B. 375) cannot address "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts of the Action. �i � NO. -' - Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk March 20, 2009 Page 3 of 3 An appeal fee of $2,379.00 is being submitted along with this Notice of Appeal. Our understanding is that Councilwoman Jill Hardy has or will be appealing this matter and, accordingly, this Notice of Appeal should not be subjected to an appeal fee. The appeal fee is therefore being made under protest. On behalf of Sharon Crowther and Neighborhoods, we thank you for your consideration of the Notice of Appeal and professional courtesy in hearing this appeal. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, MILES • CHEN LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Stephen M. Miles SM:lak cc: Ms. Sharon Crowther Ms. Susan Y. Lee, Esq. F., � g n z,� ti tg ^ z- _ - - � / y > > _. a � x . . : < - � x�� »«« . unti a ,s a. a��� sue, »a; �i H NTIN T N BEAC fir,G O H•' s, 9�s TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of PI a ing BY: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner DATE: March 10, 2009 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08- 052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) APPLICANT: Kevin A. Coleman,Net Development, 3130 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA LOCATION: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (west side of Strathmoor Ln., south of Atlanta Ave. - former Gisler School site) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: e Negative Declaration No. 08-018 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. o Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 requests: - An approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium. - Associated site improvements consisting of enhanced landscaping, three new parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, and resurfaced existing parking areas. - Use of the gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice games during school hours and in the evenings after school hours. - Use of an existing multi-purpose soccer field as a football field, bleacher seating, and four portable light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice. - Use of the gymnasium for the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. o Staff s Recommendation: Approve Negative Declaration No. 08-018 based upon the following: - The project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-0052 based upon the following: - Consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies advocating inclusion of recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods and enhances the educational opportunities available to the youth of the community. - Complies with the applicable HBZSO site development standards and includes a condition of approval requiring additional parking. - No net increase in vehicle trips due to staggered event times. - Hours of operation for the different activities found on the site will not overlap. - Traffic to and from the subject site will be directed by parking attendants located at each of the entrances to the school. - Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach and traffic monitoring are proposed. #B-3 a V� J? 8 o� Wm Ya t7 cnrrae — — mYx3m i � 1 ♦ emu. WAW= ♦ ♦ s.Iffm M&UM r ♦ .cwnrucu 1 ramaov n r r� r [ a y t""W s I 9{- %F .M Sa Fes#'"^#' R - gd1TfN 1ig am. ' Sa� SN HAD t Proposed Football FieldfC5 TZZ2 ;4 �1y and Bleachers Ta # =' Subject Site >r OR �: Q•s A�.lei�- +W`1MwaW Mom` wmnlp„.„A. -i Proposed Gymnasium VICINITY MAP Negative Declaration No. 2008-018/ Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) 21141 Strathmoor Lane (west side of Strathmoor Ln., south of Atlanta Ave.) PC Staff Report -03/10/08 2 (09sr20 ND OS-1 S/CUP OS-052-BrettueiiQy. asium)) N. 'mil -.- RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 08-018 with findings (Attachment No.l);" B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 05-25 and Variance No. 05-15 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Negative Declaration No. 08-018 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 represents a request for the following pursuant to Section 214.06, PS District: Land Use Controls, Public Semipublic Uses, Private Schools, of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO): A. To construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium, host indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice including 10 basketball games in the evenings after school hours. The applicant also proposes to use the gymnasium for a variety of other school activities such as drama, choir, band rehearsals and performances, graduation ceremonies, and other school events. In addition the applicant proposes to make the gymnasium available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. B. To use an existing multi-purpose soccer field along the southerly property line as a football field, install bleachers with seating capacity for up to 624 spectators, use of up to four 30 ft. high portable light standards, and host boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice including approximately five games in the evenings after school hours. C. The request also includes associated site improvements including enhancing existing landscape areas along Strathmoor Lane, Effingham Drive, and Bluefield Drive, remove approximately 87 parking spaces within the parking area along the southerly property line, constructing three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces along the northerly property line and behind the main structure, and resurfacing existing parking areas through out the site. The proposed project is a request by Kevin A. Coleman, on behalf of Brethren Christian High School (BCHS). The proposed gymnasium is located along the southerly property line furthest away from residential uses to the north, east and west and will abut an approximately 180 ft. wide Southern PC Staff Report -03/10/08 3 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gymnasium)) California Edison easement currently developed as a park. The gymnasium will occupy a portion of the existing school parking lot and replace six outdoor basketball courts. The gymnasium will contain three practice size basketball courts, which convert into one regulation sized basketball court that doubles as an indoor volleyball court. Additional gym amenities include bleacher seating with capacity for up to 625 spectators, restrooms, team rooms, weightlifting room, concessions area, and restrooms for the adjacent outdoor fields. The plans indicate that the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, concession area, ticket booth, etc...) and will be approximately 22 ft. high — similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height. The hours of operation for Brethren Christian School are between 7:00 am to 9:30 pm, Monday through Friday. School activities within the proposed gymnasium will consist of physical education,band and choir practice, drama rehearsals and events, and graduation ceremonies. These uses will be relocated from unenclosed areas of the school campus in an attempt to reduce existing noise impacts. The applicant also proposes to make the gymnasium available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth sports programs for nighttime and weekend events. Basketball games will be scheduled two times per week after school hours between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm during the basketball season. The school's football program has already begun in the existing lighted fields. Football practice is held during school hours. The football season consists of approximately 5 night games after school between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm. The bleachers will abut the Southern California Edison easement. The portable light standards when cranked to their highest point are approximately 30 ft. high. The existing light standards are approximately 70 ft. high and are used throughout the existing sports fields. The Brethren Christian Warriors compete in the Academy League. Other teams include St. Margaret's Episcopal School, Oxford Academy, Whitney High School, Capistrano Valley Christian School, and Sage Hill School. A total of 202 striped parking spaces will be provided on-site. In the past the City has authorized BCHS to use up to 10 parking spaces within the Gisler Park parking lot for overflow parking. In constructing the new parking areas an existing fire lane that ends in a hammer head design on the west side of the main buildings will be extended to the north to connect with the existing parking area at the intersection of Bluefield Drive and Strathmoor Ln. The existing landscape areas along the Bluefield Dr., Strathmoor Ln., and Effingham Dr. street frontages will be enhanced with new ornamental landscaping. All existing landscaping on site will remain and be protected in place. Backzround: Before BCHS occupied the site, Gisler School had been closed since 1986. When Gisler School was open, the enrollment of the school totaled approximately 860 students. The enrollment for the closing year was approximately 574 students. The school was used by the Huntington Beach Playhouse on a semi- regular basis for productions before BCHS occupied the site. Gisler School was developed with six outdoor basketball courts, two baseball fields, and three soccer fields. The lighted fields have been historically used by A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League. According to the Community Services Department, the youth sports groups have used the Gisler School site for approximately 20 years. It is important to note that all of the outdoor activities associated with the Gisler PC Staff Report -03/10/08 4 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gymnasium)) School when it was operated by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBSCD), including A.Y.S.O and Sea View Little League, were established by private agreements with the School District. In 1998 the City approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 (Attachment No. 10)to allow BCHS to operate a private school on a temporary basis for up to two years with a maximum of 500 students. In 2000,the City approved Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 (Attachment No. 11) to allow BCHS to operate on a permanent basis with a maximum enrollment of 720 students. Both entitlements permitted the establishment and operation of a junior high and high school but did not explicitly include all of the outdoor activities commonly associated with a high school that are currently occurring on the site. These outdoor activities include school sports such as soccer and baseball within the existing fields. Other uses operated by BCHS that were not identified in the entitlements but commonly associated with high schools are drama rehearsals and plays,band practice and choir practice and events. Approximately 500 students are currently enrolled at the school. The school has leased the site from the Huntington Beach City School District on a yearly basis. In 2008, the School District proposed to sell four closed school sites including Gisler School. After much deliberation and community objection, the School District abandoned the sale of Gisler School and negotiation a 35-year lease with renewals with BCHS. After securing a long term lease, BCHS proposes the aforementioned improvements to expand the services provided on site. Study Session Summary: The following are issues that were raised during the Planning Commission study session on Tuesday, February 24, 2009: ® The Planning Commission inquired about four middle schools within the Ocean View School District where gymnasiums were recently constructed. The following is list of the names and addresses of the requested school sites. Three of the sites are within the City of Huntington Beach and one is within the City of Fountain Valley. ,:- A!"- --ma s ^, YY:=,.,.�s�- �°s ;vow•. _;',..:,$� .:.-.e.,<<a,,,,�. � �; � �z„3__,�rr..r:�_ ;,�; , ,..�.�„d«•H,......, c��fii.,1 ,-- Marine View Middle School 5682 Tilburg Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Mesa View Middle School 17601 Avilla Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Spring View Middle School 16662 Trudy Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Vista View Middle School 16250 Hickory Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ■ The Planning Commission also inquired about the hours of operation for youth sports groups using the existing lighted fields. The fields are used approximately year round Monday through Friday between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. and on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The City allots use of the fields twice a year to regional youth sports organizations. Once the City allots the time, each group is required to obtain a facilities permit from the property owner, Huntington Beach City School District. For example, the City allotted use of the fields to two PC Staff Report -03/10/08 5 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gymnasium)) sports organization for the spring of 2009, A.Y.S.O. Region 56 and Sea View Little League. A.Y.S.O. uses the soccer fields for soccer practice, games, and some small tournaments. Sea View Little League uses the baseball fields for practice only. On some occasions, both groups would use the fields on the same days. ■ In addition, the Planning Commission inquired about the height of existing structures in the area. The main structures on the campus are approximately 22 ft. in height. The single family residences surrounding the school include one and two-story home which are typically 20 to 25 ft. in height. The multi-family structures south of the site across, the Southern California Edison easement are approximately 30 ft. in height. • The Planning Commission requested copies of the existing entitlements. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 are provided in Attachment Nos. 10 and 11 respectively. ■ The Planning Commission requested to be informed of any community meetings held by BCHS. BCHS will hold a community meeting on march 81h at 3:00 p.m. in the drama room on campus (Attachment No. 8) ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surroundke Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Desi,-nations: 1, IIJ GENE L �. ..; xONI NO WA, �Z ,, IDS Subject Property: P-RL(Public—Residential PS (Public Semi-Public) Private Junior high and Low Density Underlying High School Designation) North, East, and RL-7 (Residential Low RL(Residential Low Single Family Residential West (across Density) Density) Strathmoor Ln.) of Subject Property: West of Subject P (Public) RL (Residential Low Park Property: Density) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is P(RL) (Public— Residential Low Density Underlying Designation). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Obiective LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. PC Staff Repot-t -03/10/08 6 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gyninas"u )) Policy LU 9.4.1: Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas,provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. Policy LU 9.4.2: Require that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU 9.4.3: Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of the property, minimize the cost of development, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community. B. Public Facilities and Public Services Element Obiective PF 4.3: Provide public services at sites with existing public or institutional users. The site is currently developed as a school site with lighted open fields and currently occupied by Brethren Christian High School (BCHS), a private school. Furthermore, the existing fields are used by A.Y.S.O and Sea View Little League during the evenings on weekdays and during the day on weekends. The existing uses on the site and proposed gymnasium and football fields are consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies by advocating the inclusion of educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. In addition the proposed uses enhance the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. The proposed gymnasium and football filed serve as sport/community facilities consistent in nature with the current use of the existing fields. The facilities will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The facilities will be sited in a way that provides the greatest amount of buffer for the adjacent residential uses. As conditioned, a total of 209 parking spaces will be provided to accommodate events within the facilities. Furthermore, site improvement such as landscaping enhancements and an improved vehicular circulation system will be provided to enhance the appearance of the site and provide for a more efficient use of the parking lots. The design of the gymnasium will incorporate vertical and horizontal offsets to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition, landscaping will be installed on the southern elevation to soften the appearance of the gymnasium. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the PS (Public Semipublic) zone and complies with the requirements of that zone, with exception of the parking requirement (see further discussion on parking below). hi addition, a list of City Code Requirements, Policies, and Standard Plans of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal Code has been provided to the applicant (Attachment No. 4) for informational purposes only. PC Staff Report -03/10/08 7 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gymnasium ) ATTACHMENT d qd_. The existing private school complies with the minimum required on-site parking. The City parking code requires 7 spaces per classroom and 1 per staff member, including teachers and staff. The total required parking for the proposed school operation is 201 spaces. A total of 202 parking spaces are provided on- site. In 2000 the school received authorization to use 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Gisler Park parking lot. No written agreement however could be found which stipulates use of the spaces by the school. Therefore, the 10 overflow parking spaces are not factored into the 202 available parking spaces for the school. The HBZSO does not provide a parking ratio for purposes of determining the parking requirement for stadiums, bleachers, or gymnasiums. Parking ratios for similar uses identified in the HBZSO, such as theaters and assembly, are one parking space for every 3 seats. These uses are similar to the gymnasium and football field in that they involve seating area for spectators. The gymnasium and football field contain bleacher seating. The HBZSO indicates that one seat is equivalent to 18 inches when pews or benches are used. The gymnasium has a total of 938 lineal feet of seating area which is equivalent to 625 seats. The bleachers at the football stadium have a total of 936 lineal feet of seating area which is equivalent to 624 seats. Therefore the parking requirement for the gymnasium and football field is 208 and 209 parking spaces respectively. Events at the gymnasium and football field are not proposed to occur at the same time or during the school hours. Therefore, the parking ratio is applied to each use separately and the highest parking requirement, 209 parking spaces, applies to the whole site. In order to provide the minimum required parking for the site, staff has conditioned the project to provide seven additional parking spaces for a total of 209 on-site parking spaces. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Subsequently, Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 (Attachment No. 9) was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). To analyze traffic a Traffic Study prepared by ACT Consulting Engineers (January 2009) was required. The study concluded that the proposed gymnasium and football field would not have a significant affect on the environment. Furthermore the study concludes that traffic generated by the gymnasium and football fields will not impact the surrounding streets. The study states that the gymnasium and football fields will generate approximately 228 vehicle trips, which is within the capacity of the surrounding local streets. (Refer to the discussion on traffic in the analysis section of the report form additional information) The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 for twenty(20) days commencing on January 29, 2009, and ending on February 17, 2009. Comments were received from 44 residents concerning traffic, parking, lighting, and noise. Environmental Board Comments: The Environmental Board was notified of the draft Negative Declaration on February 17, 2009. The Environmental Board provided a letter(Attachment No. 9) addressing several issues including: ■ Green building practices ■ Parking ■ Lighting and Glare PC Staff Report -03/10/08 8 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-0552—BrQ#en,,G:n asiu A response to the Environmental Board's comments as well as the 44 comment letters received has been prepared and included in the draft negative declaration (Attachment No. 9). In addition, the study was amended and an errata was prepared to update the Transportation/Traffic section of the negative declaration with additional information pertaining to parking. Also, the Noise section of the study was updated to reference the noise ordinance of the Municipal Code. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 08-018. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on November 20, 2008. The DRB recommended approval of the project with the following modifications to the plans: ■ The landscape plans shall be modified to include landscaping along the entire length of the south elevation. The landscaping shall incorporate a horizontal element, such as three foot high shrubs, for the length of the building and vertical elements at every panel. ■ The site plan shall be modified to include a pedestrian connection across the drive aisle perpendicular to Strathmore Lane between the main campus and the proposed gymnasium by shifting the parking spaces on the north side of the drive aisle to the east. The pedestrian connection shall incorporate decorative materials to differential the walkway from the drive aisle. • The building elevation shall be modified to include an awning or canopy above the gymnasium entrance. Final design of the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. a The applicant concurs with the DRB recommended modifications. After reviewing comments received from the surrounding residents regarding the appearance of the proposed gymnasium the applicant has offered to make some additional changes to the plans. Neighbors were concerned with the appearance of the roll up doors located on the east elevation. The neighbors indicated that the roll up doors had an industrial appearance and were not appropriate for the area. The applicant proposes to replace the roll up doors with man doors to address this concern. This modification is incorporated into the conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. PC Staff Report -03/10/08 9 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—_Brethren G um)) -T TACH I f il� , ._ ° L..._. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Fire, Public Works, and Planning have reviewed the application and identified applicable code requirements. The Code Requirements letter was transmitted on December 5, 2008 and is attached for informational purposes (Attachment No. 4). In addition, the Public Works Department recommended the following suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2): ■ Damaged portions of the sidewalk along the Bluefield Drive and Strathmoor Lane frontages shall be removed and replaced upon inspection by the Public Works Department pursuant to the Public works Department Standard Plan No. 207. The applicant does not concur with this condition in that the project constitutes construction of ancillary building which does not necessitate the repair of damaged sidewalks. Furthermore, the applicant contends that any damage along the sidewalks is minor in nature. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on February 26, 2009, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of March 3, 2009, a total of 56 letters from surrounding residents have been received. A total of 54 letters opposing the request primarily cited issues with traffic, parking, noise, light glare, and aesthetics. Only two letters of support were received from surrounding residents. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): December 17, 2008 Negative Declaration: June 15, 2009 (180 days) Conditional Use Permit: Within 60 days from Negative Declaration Approval Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 was filed on October 9, 2008, and deemed complete December 17, 2008. The application is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 10, 2009. ANALYSIS: The primary planning issues to consider with this request are compatibility with the surrounding residential land uses, traffic, parking, noise,hours of operation, and proposed activities such as school events,private events, and sports activities. Land Use Compatibility The subject site is located in the PS (Public-Semipublic) zone which allows for public and private schools. The subject site has operated as a private school since 1998 on a closed former public school site. Accessory uses such as a gymnasium and football field are allowed within the PS zone with the AC Staff Report -03/10/08 10 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren� Nsium)) approval of a conditional use permit. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south across a 180 ft. wide Southern California Edison easement. The proposed gymnasium and football field are characteristic of properties zoned for public uses. This is evident at other school sites developed with similar amenities within the City that are surrounded by residential uses. In addition, the subject site is currently provided with lighted fields and is used regularly by youth sports organization in the evenings. The proposed sports facilities will be similar in nature to the activities presently occurring on the site and other school sites with a similar zoning classification. Throughout the City, PS zones are situated amidst residential zones in order to provide needed services to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed gymnasium and football fields will provide recreational and educational opportunities for the community. The gymnasium is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing vertical and horizontal building offsets and landscaping to soften the appearance of the structure. Furthermore, the gymnasium and football fields are sited in such a way so as to provide the greatest amount of distance between the proposed facilities and the surrounding residential uses. In addition, the entrances to the gymnasium and football field are oriented towards the interior of the site away from the surrounding residential uses. Traffic and Parking Impacts Traffic Vehicle trips for the existing private school were originally analyzed in a traffic study prepared by ACT Consulting Engineers, Inc. in 2000 and updated in an addendum to the traffic study prepared by CNC Engineering in 2009. The study analyzed peak a.m. traffic demand indicating that the school related traffic between 7:30 am and 8:05 am will be approximately 270 vehicles. The traffic study also stated the volume of traffic generated by the school during the morning drop-off period, which is expected to be the most intense, is well within the capacity of the surrounding local streets, which is approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per hour based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The campus has two parking lots one on the north end of the site and a separate lot with a drop off area on the south end of the site. The south parking lot can better accommodate vehicle queuing during drop off and pick up traffic. The 2000 traffic study recommended that traffic guards be dispatched to direct traffic from the northerly parking lot to the appropriate drop-off area in the southerly parking lot. This recommendation was made a condition of approval of Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 and remains in effect. Vehicle trips for the proposed 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and football field were also analyzed in the addendum prepared by CNC Engineering. The addendum stated that an event within the gymnasium or adjacent field is anticipated to generate approximately 228 trips, 42 trips less than the peak traffic demand of the school. Events at the gymnasium and football field are not proposed to occur at the same time or during the school's afternoon peak traffic demand (between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.). The events are proposed to occur in the evenings between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Furthermore, A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League will not engage in any activities during the same time that BCHS events are to be held within the gymnasium and football field. Therefore, the trip generations associated with the gymnasium and football field are not accompanied by vehicle trips generated by other activities on the site. Per consultation with the Public Works Department 228 trips in the evening hours can be accommodated by PC Staff Report -03/10/08 11 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gymnasi in the surrounding local street, which as previously mentioned have a capacity of handling approximately 1,000 vehicle trips with no impacts to traffic flows. Parktu As previously stated the parking requirement for site is 209 parking spaces. The project site proposes to provide 202 parking spaces (not including the 10 overflow parking space at the Gisler Park parking lot). Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring seven additional parking spaces be provided for the school. The site plan indicates that area is available in front of the gymnasium and across from the existing covered mall to provide the additional parking spaces. Modifying the plan to include additional spaces will not affect on-site circulation. Alternatively, the school could enter into a formal agreement to secure up to 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Gisler Park parking lot. The applicant is currently reviewing this suggested condition of approval (No. 1(f)). Construction of a new drive aisle behind the classroom buildings improves circulation within the site. As previously stated, the northern parking does not currently have an on-site connection with the parking lot to the south. This configuration forces motorists to exit the site in search of a parking space in one of the other parking lots. The plans indicate that a drive aisle is proposed along the rear of the classroom buildings to connect the two parking areas. This connection will greatly enhance vehicular circulation on the site allowing motorists to circulate between all the on-site parking without having to exit the site onto the surrounding local streets in search of available parking. The proposed drive aisle will not conflict with students walking to the open field in that the field is fenced off and provided with only a few points of access. The main access to the field is located in front of the proposed gymnasium. The project is conditioned to provide a pedestrian walkway to gymnasium with will provide safe pedestrian access to the field. Staff has determined that the proposed sport facilities will not have an impact to the flow of traffic on the existing roadways and, as conditioned, will be provided with sufficient on-site parking. However, due to neighborhood concern with the number of organizations using the site, staff recommends the following conditions of approval related to traffic and parking which are consistent with conditions of approval placed on other school sites with similar activities: ® A neighborhood traffic committee shall be established to express concerns and suggest methods of improvement. BCHS shall meet with the neighborhood committee six months after completion of the gymnasium, and annually thereafter, in order to assess the parking and traffic at the site. If, after six months of operation, there are substantial neighborhood concerns with traffic and/or parking, then issues will be analyzed by Planning staff and if necessary, shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission in order to resolve any outstanding concerns. • An information packet shall be distributed throughout the entire neighborhood and shall contain contact information, school policies regarding traffic and parking control, and calendar of events for the upcoming year. • There shall be two parking lot attendants at both the front and rear parking areas during all events. Attendants shall be identifiable to persons in vehicles and shall direct traffic entering into and existing from the site. PC Staff Report -03/10/08 12 (09sr20 ND 08-18/CUP 08-052—Brethren Gymnasium -�. The applicant is currently reviewing the suggested conditions of approval (Nos. 4(a), (b), and (d)). Noise Per Section 8.4.090 of the Municipal code,Noise Control-Special Provisions, school bands, school athletics and school entertainment events, are exempt from the provisions of the noise ordinance because these are typical activities of junior high and high schools. None the less, increased noise from all the proposed activities and the football games may occur. Noise during the football games will be intermittent and not sustained over long periods of time. These sounds may include but are not limited to cheering, announcements, and whistling. The Noise Ordinance allows intermittent intervals of noise to exceed the maximum allowed level of 55 decibels when they are not sustained for long periods of time. The majority of events will occur during daylight hours. Evening football games, which start at 7:00 p.m. and end at 9:30 p.m., will be limited to approximately five games during the football season on Friday nights. Schools and school related activities, such as school athletics and school entertainment events, are found throughout the City within residential neighborhoods in order to provide recreational and education opportunities to the surrounding community. The project may result in a reduction in noise from other activities during the day due to the availability of the gymnasium. Existing uses such as physical education and, choir, and drama practice currently operate outdoors. These uses will be relocated to within the proposed gymnasium. Schedule of activities The site is used by several parties. The Huntington Beach City School District has agreements with A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League to use the soccer fields and baseball fields. The City has allotted them use of the fields Monday through Friday between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m. BCHS's hours of operation are Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. BCHS proposes to operate the gymnasium and football field weekdays between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. (A schedule of event for BCHS sport programming is provided in Attachment No. 12) The gymnasium will also be made available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. A detailed list and schedule for these types of uses within the gymnasium has not been provided to staff. However, use of the gymnasium and football field is conditioned not occur at the same time and must not overlap with A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League activities. The applicant has proposed the following security measures, which have been made suggested conditions of approval (Nos. I(e), 3(b), and 4(h)), to regulate events on campus: ■ All groups to hold an event on the campus, will be required to have security personnel on site 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the event. They will be responsible for cleaning any trash debris, ensure that people do not loiter after events. • Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site. • Gates will be installed at the entrance to all parking areas to restrict vehicular access to the site after hours. PC Stall'Report -03/10/08 13 (09sr20 ND 0 18/CU13 08-052—Brethren Gy asiu 1)) � r �d. With the suggested condition of approval requiring the staggering of time for events, school games, and A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League activity, staff believes there will not be a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhood. SUMMARY: Staff has evaluated the project with regard to traffic impacts and neighborhood compatibility and has determined that the proposed development will implement General Plan land use goals and is in substantial compliance with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance development standards applicable to the property. The project will serve the recreational needs for the community and surrounding region without creating adverse traffic, noise, or lighting impacts within the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 08-052 for the following reasons: ■ Consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies advocating inclusion of recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods, provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding region, and enhances the educational opportunities available to the youth of the community. ■ Complies with the applicable HBZSO site development standards including parking. Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach and traffic monitoring are proposed. ■ No net increase in vehicle trips. ■ Hours of operation for the different activities found on the site will not overlap ■ Traffic to and from the subject site will be directed by parking attendants located at each of the entrances to the school. ATTACHMENTS: l. Suggested Findings and Conditions for Approval—Negative Declaration No. 08-018/ Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 2. Public Works Department suggested conditions of approval dated November 19, 2008 3. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations dated October 9, 2008 4. Code Requirements Letter dated December 5, 2008 (for informational purposes only). 5. Narrative dated October 9, 2008 6. Letters of support 7. Letters of opposition 8. Applicant's invitation to a community meeting on March 3, 2009 9. Negative Declaration No. 08-018 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 dated May 28, 1998 11. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 dated April 28, 2000 12. Schedule of BCHS 2008 sport program SH:HF:RT:lw PC Staff Report -03/10/08 14 (09sr20 ND 08-181CUP 08-052-Brethren Gymnasium)) AT TACHMENT #5 -5 v"N V RDN MENTCHEC K ST-FORM T .,,T",*,��,Y�,,,,-------,-,"O,",F,,NUN BEAC z NJ G�, DEPARTMENT PPLA NESSMEKNI, '0�"," 200', yy V NME , --N�L`;b 8' ti-11"&%""�.�,,�� -- '-�.,-"-�- v�, 77�7,"-'77�"i", 1. PROJECT TITLE: Concurrent Entitlements: Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 2008-005 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (west side of Strathmoor Ln., south of Atlanta Ave.) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Kevin A. Coleman, Net Development, 3130 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Contact Person: Kevin A. Coleman Phone: (714)754-4454 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P(RL) (Public—Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) 6. ZONING: PS (Public Semipublic) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of recreational facilities and associated improvements at an existing private junior high and high school site. The components of the project include the construction of a 34-foot tall, approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, enhancements to existing landscape areas, displacement of 87 parking spaces for the construction of the gymnasium, construction of three new parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, resurfacing existing parking lot areas, and expansion of the existing sport program to include evening football and basketball matches. The proposed gymnasium is located along the southerly property line furthest away from residential uses to the north, east and west abutting an approximately 180 ft. wide Southern California Edison Page I e� I';. I ATTAU MAEINNIF U- n easement currently developed as a park. The gymnasium will occupy a portion of the existing school parking lot and replace six outdoor basketball courts. The gymnasium will displace approximately 87 parking stalls which will be relocated to an area at the entrance of the gymnasium and along the northerly property line. The gymnasium contains three practice size basketball courts which convert into one full sized basketball court that doubles as an indoor volleyball court, bleacher seating, restrooms, team rooms, weightlifting room, concessions area, and restrooms for the adjacent fields. Activities within the proposed gymnasium will consists of indoor sports activities and ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches, and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events. Other uses include band and choir practice and drama rehearsals and events. These uses will be relocated from unenclosed areas of the school campus in an attempt to reduce existing noise impacts. The existing landscape areas along the Bluefield Dr., Strathmoor Ln., and Effingham Dr. street frontages will be enhanced with new ornamental landscaping. All existing landscaping on site will remain and be protected in place. The displaced parking spaces resulting from construction of the gymnasium will be replaced in three new parking areas: a 34 space parking area along the northerly property line, a 37 space parking area along the west side of the main school buildings, and a 21 space parking area adjacent to the gymnasium entrance.In constructing the new parking areas an existing fire lane that ends in a hammer head design on the west side of the main buildings will be extended to the north to connect with the existing parking area at the intersection of Bluefield Drive and Strathmoor Ln. The existing sports program at the school will be expanded to include basketball games within the gymnasium. Basketball practice is expected to occur daily during school hours. Basketball games will be scheduled two times per week between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm. Football matches have already begun in the existing lighted fields. Football practice is held during school hours. The football season consists of 5 night games between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm. Bleachers will be constructed for the existing full sized soccer field/football field along the southern property line abutting the Southern California Edison easement. Additional portable lighting will be used for the football matches. Up to four portable light standards will be wheeled out onto the field during night games. The portable light standards when cranked to their highest point are approximately 30 ft. high. The existing light standards used throughout the sports fields are approximately 70 ft. high. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The project site is located at Gisler School, a closed school site currently being used as a private junior high and high school (Brethren Christian School). The private school was temporarily approved by the City for a period of two years with a maximum of 500 students in 1998. The City later approved the school to operate with a maximum of 720 students on a permanent basis in 2000. Currently,the school operates at less than the maximum capacity at approximately 500 students. The surrounding uses consist of primarily single family residences to the north, east, and west. Gisler Park is located to the south of the site. The park is approximately 11 acres in size and is located within a Southern California Edison easement. The Gisler Park parking lot is located to the southwest of the site. The parking lot contains 55 parking spaces. In addition, the Huntington Beach City School District has an agreement with the American Youth Soccer Organization(A.Y.S.O.)to allow use of the existing lighted, full sized soccer fields and parking at the Gisler School site. A.Y.S.O. uses the existing lighted fields and parking lot at the subject site on weekday afternoons and on weekends. The hours of operation of operation for Brethren Christian School uses are between 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The Page 2 A.Y.S.O. uses the parking lot on weekdays between the hours of 5:00 pm and 9:00 pm and on weekends. The school buildings and soccer field uses do not occur simultaneously. In the event that school events at the gymnasium and existing fields are scheduled to occur after 5:00 pm and on weekends, they will not occur simultaneously with A.Y.S.O. matches and practices. 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None. 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED)(i.e. permits,financing approval, or participating agreement): Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment, but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. �� ' 2t0 1 O Signature Da q(1i (alleh 0,enior plovnrer Printed Name Title Page 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief expla!,.ation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adegaat.� ­.upported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general stao(iards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" cut-ies when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentia?' ,Tnificant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has redum. :i ,:;ct from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must E'c,,.. ; ,. the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier amii ses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been .i.'s'quately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses arc discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances)have been incorpora,u._ into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The foll, � �,checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulatioj; but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: StandFu ' Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to i�. ._.omponents of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or niis,ijmzing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 4. SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) El El Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a fat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 5 ATTACHMENT 0, ��, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orEl El 11 9 regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, sped 1-1c: Mari, local coastal program, or zoning ordinan..E_) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1 and 2) Discussi�,l,. The existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the property are P (RL) (Public— Residentiai Low Density Underlying Designation)and PS (Public Semipublic), respectively. The 27,000 sq. ft. g -exi��asium as an accessory use to an existing private school and associated improvements are consistent with hot—: the zoning and general plan designations; however,the proposed gymnasium construction is subject to app;w._,i of a conditional use permit. Therefore the project will not conflict with any land use plan in the city- of E i Li ttington Beach, including the Municipal Code, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El ❑ El 9 natural community conservation plan?(Sources:1) Discussion: The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium as an accessary use to an existing private school (Gisler School) and associated improvements. The project site is not located within an area designated as a wildlife habitat area. The proposed project would not conflict with any appli�'able habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as none exists in the City. No impa�1 s are anticipated. c) Physically divide an established community? 11 El 0 (Sources:11,3, and 4) Discussion: The proposed project will not disrupt or physically divide an established community. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. $. gymnasium as an accessory use to an existing private school (formerly Gisler School)and associated improvements. The project does not consist of_the construction of any roads,road widening,rail lines, bridges or other features that would physically divide a community. No impacts would occur. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either11 El 9 El directly(e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(e.g., through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:1) Discussion: The proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium as an accessory use to an existing private school (formerly Gisler School) and associated improvements. The project does not consist of the construction of new homes,business, or extension of roads or other Page 6 �- ATTACHMEENT NO. �. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact infrastructure. The existing private school was previously approved with a maximum of 720 student and 75 employees. No changes to the maximums are proposed. Construction of the gymnasium and associated improvements will be new amenities that may attract new students to the school and possibly attract more people to reside in the City. However, any increase in the student body resulting from the new gymnasium will not exceed the maximum threshold previously established for the school. A less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, El El El 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:1,3,4, and 5) See discussion under item c. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating El El El 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source�::3,4,and 5) Discussion: The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium as an accessory use to an existing private school (formerly Gisler School)and associated improvements where no residential uses exist on site. In addition, acquisition of land would not be required to accommodate the proposed improvements. The project would not result in the displacement of any housing or people. No impacts would occur. III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineatedEl ❑ El on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ?(Sources:I and 9) Discussion: The project is not known to be traversed by an active fault and is not located within the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The nearest active fault is the Newport- Inglewood fault located approximately I mile west of the project site. No impacts are anticipated. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:I and 9) Discussion: The project site is located in a seismically active region of Southern California. Therefore,the site could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures built in Huntington Beach are required to comply with standards set forth in the California Building Code(CBC) and standard City codes,policies, and procedures which require submittal of a detailed soils analysis prepared by a Licensed Soils Engineer. Conforming with CBC requirements and standard City code requirements will ensure potential impacts from seismic ground shaking are less than significant. Page 7 ATTACHMENT NOO. �E� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and `A,. -l-,orting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact iii) Sclr3mic-related ground failure, including El El El liquefaction? (Sources:l,9 and 16) Discussi:_.:;: Although the site is located within an area identified by the City's General Plan as having a very high potential for liquefaction,the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone, according to Seismic Haz<. :'_�,ies maps of the California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG). Additionally, the potential for liqu� 47_-., of the subsurface soils at the site is considered low, due to the absence of loose sandy soils above the gtU66 ikiwater level as is typical in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore liquefaction impacts associated with se:s-nic related ground failure to people and structures on-site would be less than significant. iv) Landslides? (Sources:l) 9 Discii­�' a: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,the site is not in an area susceptible to slop,- ility. The project site is located on a flat parcel of land and no slopes or other landforms susccr__,.i_­ to landslides exist in the vicinity of the property. Moreover, the California Division of Mines and Geoli._-„ Pas not mapped any earthquake-induced landslides at, or in the vicinity of,the site that would be in&.= �_ of the potential for slope instability at or in the vicinity of the site. No impacts from landslides are anticif=..red. b) Result in substantial soil erosion,loss of topsoil, or El El El change_. :,, topography or unstable soil conditions from excay._,,,E_,n, grading, or fill? (Sources:I and 9) Disco,.= >-: Minor grading and landscape modifications may result in short term wind and water erosion wwever, after completion of the project, the site will be covered with structures,landscaping, and pa Inch would preclude substantial soil erosion. Construction of the gymnasium will occur in the paved parking; lot area adjacent to the existing school buildings. The new parking areas will be constructed on exist.10 Y oWed areas and some landscaped areas. Other improvements such as the landscape enhancements and footl wachers will occur in existing planter area and fields. The site is primarily flat and does not contain any u,,_que physical or geologic features. There will be no export of soil. A less than significant impact is antic i,mtcd. c) Be to-1-0ed on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ 9 El that o,:-Idd become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral sprea,J i,_��, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources:l and 9) Discussion: Refer to Responses Ill.a iii)and III.a iv)for discussion of liquefaction and landslides, respectively. Subsidence is large-scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. The project site has not been identified as an area with the potential for subsidence. In addition, withdrawal of oil or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project and, therefore, subsidence is not anticipated to occur. However, in the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area,the site may be subject to ground shaking. The CBC and associated code requirements address lateral spreading and subsidence. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Page 8 It O,ENT 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of the t indorm Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources:I and 9) Discussi.oii: Based upon the City's General Plan, the project site is located within an area of moderate to high clay. :_a-iient according to the Expansive Soil Distribution Map. This can be indicative of expansive soils. Howe-vcr, This is common in the City and impacts can be addressed through compliance with applicable soils, grading., :grid structural foundation requirements, and codes and ordinances, such that any potential geologic impacf3 i ill be reduced to a level of insignificance. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. e) Have is incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic uvii,s or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ whet:, .c, -ers are not available for the disposal of (Sources:I and 9) Discussion: The project site is located in an urbanized area in which wastewater infrastructure is currently in placr,. ";_'�ic.refore, the capability of the soils to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems is not relcv,t.1i,,1 U1 the proposed project. No impact would occur related to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. IV.HYDRO€__t3GY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project. a) V io'-.W ny water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requnu,""_eats? (Sources:l and 4) Discussion: Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be addressed in the project design and ::i;.­,,ciopment phase pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program(SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)prepared by a Licensed Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The SWPPP and WQMP will establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction operation of the facility, including source, site and treatnicitt controls to be installed and maintained at the site. The WQMP and SWPPP are standard requirements for development in the City of Huntington Beach, and with implementation, will ensure compliance with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will reduce project impacts to a level that is less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources:I and 12) Page 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant _�spporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c The Water Division of the Public Works Department reviewed the project and did not indicate about any substantial impacts to ground water supplies due to the nature of the proposed uses. Add <i:­Eilly, the subject site is not located near any active ground water wells; therefore,the proposed project wil< substantially deplete groundwater supplies and no significant impact is anticipated. The proposed t v it.rl will consist of restrooms for the indoor courts and separate restrooms for field activities. No shox .: tacilities are proposed as part of the Gymnasium. The project will be subject to standard City codes rei�u �:nplementation of Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow fixtures and use of drought (;7t species and drip irrigation. Although the project will contribute to cumulative water usage, the in ii the City is considered insignificant, because the proposed school complies with the Public General Pln:. ::: ,:_ use designation for the site, the estimated water demand for the proposed project can be ac ,r: :- ;:dated by the City's water service capacity and does not represent a significant increase in demand. c) Sul-:,_=",,i,;lly alter the existing drainage pattern of the a. including through the alteration of the stream or river, in a manner which would ,bstantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? t and4) D's, :: . )ii: The site is currently developed with approximately 18%of the site paved, 11%covered with II du, ,;;". and 71% landscaped/hardscaped. The approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium is proposed to be cons=rucied within an existing paved parking lot. The gymnasium will displace approximately 87 parking stalls v,l.<<_`" ;'f be relocated to area at the entrance of the gymnasium, west of the main school buildings, and along c.dy property line. Slight increases in existing surface run off may occur due to the covering over of son). ;zdscaping areas with additional impervious surfaces to accommodate displaced parking stalls. 1-4 c r. this increase in the impermeable portion of the site, which will generate additional runoff, is The school proposes to discharge into an existing public storm water drainage system. The project 10 i1- 1: ;;,ipact the course of a stream or river, as none exist on the site. It is not located in the vicinity of and dot.- . .�t drain directly into any natural body of water. A less than significant impact is anticipated. d) Sub--:Ni.i:}lly alter the existing drainage pattern of the El El El sil, r'ua, including through the alteration of the coy: _. _,Ca stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of aniount or surface runoff in a manner which wou(_I <esult in flooding on or off-site? (Sources:1,3,4 and: 1) Discussion: See discussion under item e. e) Creatc or contribute runoff water which would exceed El El ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systc ;.is or provide substantial additional sources of polluicd runoff? (Sources:I and 4) Discussion: There are no streams or rivers on the project site and surrounding area. The project proposes to construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associated improvements The gymnasium is proposed to be located in an area currently used for parking and will not directly result in an increase of impervious surface. However, construction of the gymnasium will displace approximately 87 parking stalls which will be relocated to an area at the entrance of the gymnasium, west of the main school buildings, and Page 10 ,ATTACHMENT NO. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES "and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact along the northerly property line. Slight increases in existing surface run off may occur due to the covering ove, ol'some landscaping areas with additional impervious surfaces to accommodate displaced parking stalls. However, this increase in the impermeable portion of the site, which will generate additional runoff, is negligibie. Approximately 70%of the site will remain landscaped. The parking lot expansion will not subsianti i?y alter existing drainage patterns or increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. Any additional runoff will be directed into the existing drainage system for the property. Less than significant impacts would occur. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑O ❑ (Sources.10) Discussion: The Public Works Department recommends a standard condition requiring a Water Quality Manage,w,nt Plan to be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollutin-_ hischarge Elimination regulations in order to control the quality of water runoff and protect down zi i E an areas. NPDES requirements assure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requiitii;eiits. Less than significant impact would occur. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x mappcc .,: a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insuranc, Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:11) Discussion: The project site is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)Zone X, which is not subject to Federal Flood Development requirements and is outside the 100-year flood hazard area. No housing units are being proposed as part of this project therefore,no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Place wi' ,in a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:3 and 10) Discussion: The project site is located in Zone X and is-not within the 100-year floodplain. The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. No significant adverse impacts to the existing water supply are anticipated. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: The site is not in the immediate vicinity of a levee or a dam. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 (Sources:1,3, and 10) Discussion: The project site is not designated in the General Plan as an area subject to tsunami run-up. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ Page I r ,AT TA C H MEE N T Noe I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (Sources: 1,3, and 10) Discussion: See discussion under items a and e. 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ construction activities? (Sources: 1,3, and 10) Discussion: See discussion under items a and e. ❑ ❑ ❑ m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources: 1,3, and 10) Discussion: The proposed project will not include any of the activities described above and therefore will not have any impacts. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: 1,3, and 10) Discussion: See discussion under items a and e. ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources: 1,3, and 10) Discussion: See discussion under item e. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources: 1,3, and 10) Discussion: See discussion under item c. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:I I and 12) Page 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated 'Impact No Impact Discussion: See discussion under item e. b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ concentrations? (Sources:I 1 and 12) Discussion: See discussion under item e. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Create oi'Jectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources:I 1 and 12) Discus;!,gin: See discussion under item e. d) Conflic` ).;fith or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ appltcl sic air quality plan? (Sources:I 1 and 12) Discuui)n: See discussion under item e. e) Result r; a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ;'} pollutant for which the project region is non- ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ attait)m,e;it under an applicable federal or state ambient air quaiity standard(including releasing emissions which �.xceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precu,�:)r )? (Sources:I I and 12) Discu sinn: a)—e) Short-term: The construction of the project may result in short-term air pollutant emissions front hl-, '';.}Mowing activities: the commute of workers to and from the project site; minimal grading activities, hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site; fuel combustion by on- site C,,i O ruction equipment; and dust generating activities from soil disturbance. Emissions during constmetion were calculated using URBEMIS2007 program(version 9.2.4). The allotment of equipment to be utili/v: ;luring each phase was based on defaults in the URBEMIS2007 program and was modified as needed to represeat the specifics of the proposed project. The URBEMIS model calculates total emissions, on-site and offsite,resulting from each construction activity which are compared to the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds. A comparison of the projects total emission with the regi.c-tai thresholds is provided below. A project with daily construction emission rates below these thresholds is considered to have�}a less than significant effect on regional air quality. egg alas 'm> Regional Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) a� f. ?. CO VOC NOx PM 10 PM25 Sox Estimated Construction Emissions for proposed 14.75 4.69 28.07 70.01 14.62 0.01 project Significance Threshold 550 75 100 150 55 150 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Page 13 1 TTA v .�� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES (and S,.r=porting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Based .F . he aforementioned table construction emission from the proposed project would not exceed the region.,.: 'C,resholds. Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated. Long-term,: Air pollutant emissions due to the project were also calculated using the URBEMIS2007 program 4-.2). The program was set to calculate emission for an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium. The default LJRBEMIS2007 variables were used for the calculations. P.: ,, - " M . S �� 641 �]eta cane _ 1 � Mr-AM he a s�;E°' ids ° Re tonal Significance Threshold Lbs/da g g Y) CO VOC NOx PM 10 PM25 Sox Estimated hrQiect ioi proposed 1.56 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.0 pl_ ._� Si.: : hreshold 550 75 55 150 55 150 Exc c_d Threshold'? NO NO NO NO NO NO Based oo the aforementioned table construction emission from the proposed project would not exceed the regiona'i hresholds. Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cara.._ nerease in traffic which is substantial in El ❑ 0 11 reie .:•: the existing traffic load and capacity of the strcC sj:ern (e.g., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacir. ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? (Sours__,,.1,4, and 14) Discuss:orr : The subject site is currently occupied by a private junior high and high school, Brethren Christian School; ,vhich was temporarily approved by the City for a period of two years with a maximum of 500 student� ;rz 1998. The City later approved the school to operate with a maximum of 720 students on a permanent basis in 2000. In reviewing the request to allow the school on a permanent basis the City reviewed a traffic study prepared by ACT Consulting Engineers, Inc dated March 28, 2000. The study analyzed peak a.m. tz :r`_ :demand indicating the school related traffic between 7:30 am and 8:05 am will be approximately 270 vehicles. The traffic study also states the volume of traffic generated by the school during the morning drop-off period, which is expected to be the most intense, is well within the capacity of the surrounding local streets. The traffic study recommended that traffic guards be dispatched to direct traffic to drop-off areas to address vehicle queuing. This recommendation was made a condition of approval of Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 and remains in effect. The primary component of the project is to construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium as an accessory use to the existing school. The majority of activities within the gymnasium include indoor sports, physical education, drama rehearsal and events,band rehearsals, and choir rehearsals and events in conjunction with school operations and during school hours. These uses currently occur on the site within open areas of the campus. An addendum to the March 28, 2000 traffic study prepared by ACT Consulting Page 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Engineers, Inc. was prepared by CNC Engineering. The addendum dated December 17, 2008 states no significant trip impacts will be generated by the addition of the new gymnasium on the a.m. or p.m. peak hours for the adjacent streets. Therefore, significant increases in traffic with these types of uses are not anticipated. In addition,the number of students allowed to enroll is capped at 720. Sport events and other school and community events may be held within the gymnasium and adjacent football fields after school hours. It is anticipated that if an event is scheduled during the evening peak traffic hours, the traffic flow on the adjacent streets would be no worst than a typical school day during drop-off and pick-up times. An event within the gymnasium or adjacent field is anticipated to generate approximately 228 trips, which would not significantly impact the surrounding streets. Any event held within the gymnasium or football field will occur after school hours between 7:00 p.m.and 9:30 p.m.and will not conflict with school traffic during afternoon pick up times. Furthermore, current lease agreement between the school district, Brethren Christian School, and A.Y.S.O prohibit the overlapping of school and A.Y.S.O. events. The Public Works Department Traffic Division reviewed the ACT Consulting Engineers traffic study dated March 28, 2000 and the addendum prepared by CNC Engineering on December 17, 2008 and determined that proposed gymnasium and associated improvement will not adversely impact traffic loads on the surrounding local streets. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,4, and 14) Discussion: As discussed above, the traffic volume projected for the development is not anticipated to significantly affect the current level of service for area roadways. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1,4, and 14) Discussion: The project is not of regional significance and the height of the proposed structure does not penetrate the navigable airspace to impact air traffic patterns or levels for the area. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 11 El 19 El (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 1,4, and 14) Discussion: Project access will be provided via existing driveways off Bluefield Drive and Strathmore Lane with internal circulation provided through several drive aisles in the parking lot,which serves the project. The project access and circulation design has been reviewed by the City and is considered adequate. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,4, El 0 191 El and 14) Discussion: The project was reviewed by the Fire Department and no comments regarding emergency access problems were noted by the Fire Department. Furthermore, implementation of the project will result in improved emergency access to the site. An existing fire lane, which currently terminates in a hammer head design on the west side of the main school building will be extended to the north of the site and connect with an existing parking lot drive aisle to provide for continual circulation to improve emergency access. A less Page 15 j f' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting [nfonnation Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact than signiflicant impact is anticipated. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1,4, ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ and 14) Discussion: A total of 202 striped parking spaces will be provided in the front and rear parking areas. The City h: r':<..ng code requires 7 spaces per classroom and 1 per staff member, including teachers and staff. The total __;=:;rcd parking for the proposed school operation is 201 spaces. Therefore,the proposed parking supply will c.ouimodate the everyday parking demand as well as provide 1 additional parking space on site. Special even!,, x'_hin the gymnasium will be accommodated within the existing parking lots. The number of proposed park4i.�r .< -aees will sufficiently serve special events since those activities do not occur during the morning peak 1,ar sang demand times. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. g) Confli.:-. -.,it,h adopted policies supporting alternative trans;;:. Wrr(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (Soul,,-: ';4, and 14) Discussion The project proposes construction of a 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium will displace approximately 87 part: paces. The displaced parking spaces will be relocated to an area close to the entrance of the gyrnr. ;:,;1 fn and at the north side of the site. In order to expand an existing parking lot at the north end of the site, tlic existing under utilized bicycle parking area will be relocated. Based on data received from the school, the sli ud-c it body, and staff commute to the site from a wide area in Orange County and do not rely on bicycles as « <_. native method of transportation. Approximately 200 students are shuttled daily by four school buses from v ai'ious communities, approximately 60 students drive to the school daily, and the remaining students are transp,--' ;.l by passenger cars or van-pools. However,pursuant to standard city codes and policies the bicycle must be relocated to an area within the school campus to accommodate any students living within clo :: :;:..cimity to the school who may choose to commute to the campus via a bicycle. A less than significant impact as anticipated. VII. BI01,0GICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Haw,- -�. substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a czaididate, sensitive, or special status species in local uT ,.-gional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:1) Discussion: The project site is presently developed and located in a residential area of the city. It does not support any unique, sensitive, or endangered species and is not shown in the General Plan as a generalized habitat area; therefore, no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:l) Discussion: The project does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local Page 16 IVI B NC), e Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES ;and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact or re gic„ra' plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wi id;I i,; -- n-vice. The project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal or bird species and does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. c) Idav�- a -a 1stantial adverse effect on federally protected El ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act J 11 i i ng, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, through direct removal, filling, hydrutogical interruption, or other means? (Sources:l) Discuss o-� : The project does not contain any wetlands; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) Interfc rd_substantially with the movement of any native 1:1 El El resic�,, ,i _; migratory fish or wildlife species or with native resident or migratory wildlife impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources:l) The project area is surrounded by residential developments on three sides and a neighborhood parr:. `:.: south. The site does not support any fish or wildlife and should not interfere with the movement of any fish or wildlife species nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conl7ic- with any local policies or ordinances protecting El El El biologics? resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources:l) Disc.,<.-s on: The site is currently occupied by a private junior high and high school facility and does not con't-",vIn any rare or unique plant species. The project will be subject to a standard city codes and policies requiring the submittal of a landscaping plan and the replacement of any existing mature trees to be removed at a 4 ! ;,;_; lfowever, no trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project proposal. Landscaping assok.';Diec? with the proposed project may introduce new plant species to the site; however,plant materials are cxperacc3 to be common landscaping species and will be contained within the project boundaries. t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Cons,cr':alon Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources:l) Discussion: As discussed above, the project site is presently developed and is located in a residential community. It does not support any unique or endangered plant or animal species and is not shown in any adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan; therefore, no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. Page 17 C-1T NOr _ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral El El El 9 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources:1) Discussion: The project site is not known as having mineral resources. No impacts are anticipated. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ Ox mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources:1) Discussion: The project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan or any other land use plan. Development of the project is not anticipated to have any impact on any mineral resource recovery. No significant adverse impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:1,4 and 5) Discussion: The applicant is not intending to operate the site in a way that would generate hazardous materials. The project consists of the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium. With implementation of the standard City codes and requirements, no impacts resulting from hazards or hazardous material are anticipated. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1,4 and 5) Discussion: The project will be subject to regulation by the Fire Department for any possible hazardous materials. Based on the information noted above regarding the proposed uses, no significant impacts are anticipated. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1,4 and 5) Discussion: The subject site is developed as a private junior high and high school. The project consists of the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associated improvements, which do not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.No impacts are anticipated. Page 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,4 and 15) Discussion: The site is not listed on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. No impacts are anticipated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two ❑ ❑ ❑ miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Orange County Airport Environs land use plan due to the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. However, the site is located such that it would not be impacted by flight activity from the center. No impacts are anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: The project site is not near any private airstrips. No impacts are anticipated. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ evacuation plan? (Sources:l,3 and 4) Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and is designed to be in compliance with fire access and circulation requirements. The proposed gymnasium construction and associated improvements will not result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans.No impacts are anticipated on any emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including ❑ ❑ ❑ where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:1,3 and 4) Discussion: The project is located in an urbanized area and is not near any wild lands. No impacts are anticipated. Page 19 _ .g SENT , Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noisy,: :-.rdinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources:1,4,5 and 6) Discus-s: ;;,:: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction with the use of construction equipiii,�.et. All construction will be required to comply with Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Munic <:' Code,which restricts the hours of construction to reduce impacts to the area. During the const ru-C iv.,of the gymnasium, landscaping and parking facilities,noise levels on the site may increase from normal Construction equipment such as small tools and equipment. No large grading equipment nor tools are antici»l ted to be used for the proposed project. Through the implementation and compliance of standard City codes<<<1_i policies,no significant noise impacts during construction are anticipated. The p c ; ;ct site and surrounding area are completely developed with residential uses with the exception of Gisler Park to the south of the site. The proposed project is a request to construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gyms rr;sium and associated improvements. Based upon the applicant's narrative and current use of the site as a p=r= =ate,junior high and high school and use of the fields for A.Y.S.O. soccer matches, the use of the gymnas:canna and adjacent fields for football matches is not substantially different than the type of activities that currently occur at the site with regard to noise generation. The gymnasium will reduce existing noise impacts by holasing current outdoor school activities indoors such as drama, band, and choir practice and events. Spcci,� events and sport events at the gymnasium and adjacent field are expected to be considered negligible due to c.�dsting ambient noise levels and the similarity of proposed activities to those already occurring on the site. ;' ny long-term noise sources from the project are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance but ar; :�.,t expected to be a concern due to the existing use of the site. Nevertheless, long-term noise impacts may o;.;,3 i� as a result of vehicles in the new parking area to the north of the site. The project will be required to con,gip?; with State requirements pertaining to noise attenuation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45dB in any habitable room. This may be achieved by improvements shown on the site plan such as a 15 ft. wide I:a}idscaped planter between the proposed parking lot and the residential properties to the north. Further:More the northern parking area adjacent to the residences will be controlled after hours by a vehicular privacti -,,ate prohibiting vehicles from entering the parking lot after 10:00 p.m. No significant long-term noise impacts resulting from the project are anticipated. b) Exposure;of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources:I and 4) Discussion: No significant additional ground borne vibration is anticipated given the anticipated traffic volume generated by the project which is considered negligible and does not significantly impact the level of service on area roadways. Existing truck traffic from the project is limited to the size of UPS delivery trucks. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ project? (Sources:l,4 and 5) Page 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The type of noise to be generated by the project in the long term will be similar to that generated by the other school and field uses in other residential areas and is not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels significantly. Noise impacts may occur on an occasional basis as a result of the vehicular noise generated within the proposed and existing parking lots. Due to the existing level of traffic generated by the project and the ambient noise from the existing uses, the project generated noise Ievels are considered negligible. The gymnasium will reduce existing noise impacts by housing current outdoor school activities indoors such as drama, band, and choir practice and events. Less than significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ without the project? (Sources:l,4, and 5) Discussion: The project is anticipated to generate short-term noise impacts during construction. Based on a standard condition, which regulates hours of construction, a negligible impact is anticipated. No other significail, noise impacts are expected after construction due to the existing uses on the site and the nature of the project, which is compatible with residential uses in the area. The gymnasium will reduce existing noise impacts by housing current outdoor school activities indoors such as drama,band, and choir practice and events. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:l,3 and 4) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Orange County Airport Environs land use plan due to the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. However,the site is located such that it would not be impacted by flight activity from the center. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:1,3 and 4) Discussion: The site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and will not expose students or teachers working there to excessive noise levels. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources:1) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Page 21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The Fire Department reviewed the project and indicated that it is required to comply with several code requirements and specifications. Additionally, the project site is within the area of five-minute response time from the Magnolia Station and Bushard Station and can be adequately served by existing resources. Implementation of the project will result in improved emergency access to the site. An existing fire lane, which currently terminates in a hammer head design on the west side of the main school building will be extended to the north of the site and connect with an existing parking lot drive aisle to provide for continuance circulation: to improve emergency access. Based on this, no significant impacts are anticipated. b) Police Protection? (Sources:1) ❑ El 9 Discussion: The Police Department reviewed the project and indicated that they have no significant concerns that need to be mitigated. The project can be adequately served with existing Police resources. c) Schools? (Sources:1) ❑ El ® ❑ Discussion: The site is located in the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The project would not generate any elementary school children or high school students. By itself, the project will not alleviate overcrowding and the need for additional facilities at both districts, but incrementally contributes to spaces available to school age children. d) Parks? (Sources:1) ❑ ❑X Discussion: The project is not expected to have any significant impact on park facilities, although limited use of the adjacent park and other facilities for occasional school outings is possible. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (Sources:1) Discussion: The project is currently developed with a private junior high and high school located at an existing school site. All facilities needed to service the proposed gymnasium are already in place. The project has been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Public Works, Building and Safety,Fire,Police, and Planning for compliance with all applicable City codes. With implementation of standard City codes and policies, no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El El ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: Discussion: The Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The WQMP will establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction operation of the project and its implementation will ensure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Page 22 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: The project site is a former public school site currently occupied by private junior high and high school. The proposed construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associated improvements are not expected to result in the construction of new or significant expansion of existing water or wastewater treatment facilities to serve the development. Incremental extensions of public services and utilities to the site will be required to serve the proposed construction and will be provided by the respective governmental agencies and utility companies, at the expense of the applicant. All utility connections to the school site will be in accordance with all applicable Uniform Building Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards. and Water Division criteria. With the implementation of standard City codes and policies, less than significant impacts to the City's utilities or services are anticipated. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1 and 3) Discussion: The project site is a former public school site currently occupied by private junior high and high school. The proposed construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associated improvements are not expected to result in the construction of new or significant expansion of existing stormwater facilities to serve the development. Incremental extensions of public services and utilities to the site will be required to serve the proposed construction and will be provided by the respective governmental agencies and utility companies, at the expense of the applicant. All utility connections to the site will be in accordance with all applicable Uniform Building Codes, City ordinances,Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval,no adverse impacts to the City's utilities or services are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ O ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1 and 3) Discussion: The proposed project is in compliance with the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed on the site. The project site occupies portion of private junior high and high school. The project is proposed to construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, a low-water consuming use, is not expected to have a significant impact on water supplies. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1 and 3) Page 23 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: According to the applicant, the proposed gymnasium will generate an estimated 500 gallons of sewage per day and will not result in a substantial increase in generation of solid waste. With the implementation of standard City codes and policies, no adverse impacts to the City's utilities are anticipated. Any necessary utility connections are considered minor improvements, and existing systems can accommodate the projected use. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted El capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1 and 3) Discussion: The project site is a former public school site currently occupied by a private junior high and high school,which is a relatively small school. The school does not generate a substantial amount of daily waste products. The waste produced consists mostly of paper products. The proposed gymnasium is not expected to significantly increase the amount of waste proposed by the existing private school. Waste produced by the existing facility and proposed gymnasium will be collected by Rainbow Disposal. Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed. The remaining solid waste is transported to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years. Based on present solid waste generation rates and the project's proposed gymnasium, the project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of daily waste products in the long term. The project is not anticipated to noticeably impact the capacity of existing landfills that will serve the use. Therefore,less than significant impacts are anticipated. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and El 11 19 El regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1 and 3) Discussion: The project will be served by Rainbow Disposal and will be subject to participation in any solid waste reduction programs presently available in the city. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice(BMP), (e.g. water El 19 quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: 1 and 3) Discussion: See discussion under item e. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ FRI (Sources:l,3 and 4) Discussion: The project is an established school facility and is surrounded by residential developments and a public park. It is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway nor is it in an area with any scenic vistas. Page 24 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic El El El buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1,3 and 4) Discussion: The site is presently developed with an educational complex. It does not contain any scenic resources such rock outcroppings or historic buildings. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project proposal. However, in the event that trees are removed, they are required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio pursuant to a standard condition of approval. No adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,3 and 4) Discussion: The project includes the construction of a 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associated improvements. The construction of an additional structure at the height of 34 ft. may impact the character of the adjacent park to the south and surrounding neighborhood. However, the gymnasium will be set back considerably from street frontages and screened by existing perimeter landscaping. The buildings as well as associated accessory structures are designed and constructed of common materials consistent with schools throughout the city in surrounding residential areas. This includes a similar color pallet and mass and height of residences in the surrounding area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the El El area? (Sources: 1,3 and 4) Discussion: Construction of the gymnasium will introduce minimal new light sources on the project site. Lighting will be included throughout the exterior of the proposed gymnasium but will be in character with lighting found in typical educational facilities. The new light sources will not result in an increase in lighting levels that currently existing in the parking areas and main school buildings. Introduction of portable lighting in the fields will also introduce new light sources. The fields are currently lighted in the evenings between 5:00 pm and 9:00 pm on weekdays and on weekends. New portable lighting is proposed to concentrate light at the main field adjacent to Gisler park. The portable light standards are 30 ft. in height compared to the existing 70 ft. high light standards. Standard City codes and policies requiring the directing and shielding of lights in a manner to prevent spillage and glare onto adjacent properties will be implemented. The portable lighting is not anticipated to result in an increase in glare than that which already exists at the site due to shielding and concentration of light one field along the southerly property line away from residential uses. Less than significant adverse impacts are anticipated. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 615064.5? (Sources: ❑ N 7 and 12) Discussion: The subject site is developed with an existing school facility and does not contain any historic structures and is not located within any of the City's historic districts. No historical resource will be impacted by the construction of the project. Page 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSN ES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 615064.5? El El El (Sources: 8 and 12) Discussion: The subject site is not located in an identified archaeological site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1 El El El 9 and 8) Discussion: The site is presently developed, has been previously graded, and does not contain any unique geologic features. It is not designated as having any paleontological resources. No impacts are anticipated. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 8) El ❑ El Discussion: Based on the discussion under item b, the project is not expected to result in the disturbance of human remains. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing El El neighborhood, community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:3 and 4) Discussion: The increased use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or recreational facilities would be minimal and would likely consist of'oecasional use for school outings. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require Elthe construction or expansion of recreational facilities El 9 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:l,3 and 4) Discussion: The project consists of construction and operation of a gymnasium and other improvements. The associated effects of which are analyzed through this documents. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of these activities. c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources:l,3 and 4) El El ® ❑ Discussion: The residents in the surrounding neighborhood currently enjoy the existing recreational facilities at the school and Gisler Park. The project proposes to construct a gymnasium in a paved parking lot area with six outdoor basketball courts. While the construction of the site will result in the loss of some recreational opportunities such as the existing outdoor basketball courts, construction of the gymnasium will provide Page 26 NO. _. - Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact needed restroom facilities, which will support other existing recreational uses. Separate restrooms with direct access to the fields are proposed to be constructed along the westerly side of the gymnasium replacing existing portable restrooms. The restroom will be made available during school and A.Y.S.O. events. Less than significant impacts to recreational amenities or facilities are anticipated. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant envirfo—Rental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ,1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or 11 El ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: The subject site is developed with a school facility and does not contain any farming operations. Development of this project will not result in the conversion of any farmland. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a El El 11 Williamson Act contract? (Sources:I and 3) Discussion: The subject site is presently zoned PS (Public-Semipublic)which does not permit agricultural uses. Development of the site will not conflict with agricultural use and zoning as none exist nor are permitted on the site. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ El ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1 and 3) Discussion: The site is presently developed with a non-agricultural use and is surrounded by residential uses. Therefore, the development will not result in the loss of any farmland. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of El El 0 the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources:1,3,4,5 and 7) Page 27 ��r Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: T?�e project site is currently developed as a school facility. It is not located within any wildlife or biological rc,.�urce areas and therefore will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, r reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The site does not contain an,,: ;::,Qtoric resource. Based on discussions in Sections I to XVI above,the project is anticipated to have no adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. b) Does the j;.-<�;ect have impacts that are individually limited, but cumuiab ':,;ly considerable? ("Cumulatively El El El considers l;l," means that the incremental effects of a project are consicie_zi61._,when viewed in connection with the effects of past fzr<�j 0, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of p."'Dable future projects.) (Sources: 1,3,4,5 and 12) Discuss J=f discussed above in Sections Ito XVI, any individual and cumulative impacts from the project can be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of standard City codes and policies. The proposed project i< c_-- s-Jstent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. It does not represent a significant negative impact to ,-nvironment or goals of the City. The project does not have impacts that are cumulatively considerablu. c) Does the prOJect have environmental effects which will cause su Is a] adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1,3,4,5 and 12) Discuss % discussed above in Sections I to XVI, the project as proposed and with implementation of standard City codes ...__;d policies will have a less than significant impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Page 28 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document'Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan and EIR City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.,Zoning Information Counter, 3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision " Ordinance 3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 4 Reduced Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations See Attachment#2 5 Project Narrative See Attachment#3 City of Huntington Beach Planning 6 Traffic Analysis Report Dept.,Zoning Information Counter, Prepared by CNC Engineers, January 2009 3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach 7 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City Clerk's Office 2000 Main Street,2nd floor Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Planning 8 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Map Dept.,Zoning Information Counter, 3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 9 City of Huntington Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity Map " 10 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report " 11 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (June 14,2000) " 12 CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 13 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 14 Trip Generation Handbook, 5"'Edition, Institute of Traffic " Engineers 15 Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan(Nov. 16, " 1995) 16 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 17 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " 18 Code Requirements letter See Attachment#4 EA 08-18(Brethren Christian School) Page 30 8 • � 8 6 MCF • GRNCLA — EDIIi[3®t HEII- WARNER ♦ ♦ SLATU •. 'pIBLRT ♦ f Lrsu� • _ ♦ f a� GARFILLD YOXKTCVM —.--�—ADAMS � 1 tD(DIANAMLIS t n r, M - -A'Ii.ANTA 14 00 _�" .�' �_•� .-�i per, `�'';` 7g •-•�. ..i``�„4,�us'_.R?���.%Y�,,:.�^"'.��""��`=s "� - .:x.caaxpyMI 6ANNING ' t ..i.` FIF,s'b ';, R f''.77, . s OUli " gn Ell,`RN � RMI '£'xa` Ay 2i3 S Fri..... '. J NA Subject Site - � _.. It ,m�..- n-$ice; :wilk:tte .:, .r%r� .'�:;i3:-V :ter y`'%`•-�"- :i� .�. .-.�;&`. r'i� ;r.=sz sr- :. `nii�.,.. :`ys, ).m .,�ti:�JkD''1'nYuea®Lv:*��'..iv(.��b,."a,• F.� -.. ,.i"',--`iF��cyi �-in��•,�. -4�s.,'� y'��'.4$"' VICINITY MAP Environmental Assessment No. 2008-018 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) 21141 Strathmoor Lane (west side of Strathmoor L,n., south of Atlanta Ave.) ATTACHMENT P'mm L�-7j L!��j 7j BLUEFIILD DR.Ull— —_—• �• ( I f a j[q� I 81CYctE Y — . . f YARD JJ_---- I /.__.���#�.>• �\ rr�snoces j 1\\�M I• I �,.-_-_�la+.��t+..t---� `✓11%' e+nc too uj 1<C I Z SLOG 300 BLDG 200 < S p vBoacl w tt.0 st✓r I vlatAC(CnalmL BA(,.r1Uw MMC(wM)•/:BCO )[. A(RAC[(n51mG!iB(VM(BACIr[tOM O[M(L W M . rtBco eeo B.cwtaw o(wttfnaret(oRn Ass(. .1 I CA or BLDG,500 •••1••rr.rr—I BLDG 400 ry yMj I. I C"NG�P:'UAL tRE[ra.lX 182 e _ " CMNGNAM OR k: g XXa a. tla K s Xe — �+,C Eli, 7 - �F Tl I`1`iI I ( a w 53 Po00g spacer �_1D � I -rr MT M-•i T � I 4 �..Darr i p ^^II _ _ �� r� �• ,err ;ors o.a rwa .w r wn4r>4 nw sbV.1•.Ap_ _ _$ amrmXn lun n¢rwn mwnr In 4 b.wwr d w wor r0 scu( CNC alaAE076 O OIf+lJ! 9Q PA_ 3 � -1,mid _ BrAlc t.rr' ENCIIiSLRINC CD. cot a ooa commas mcm+a aosa.s n.t.wew.en w qw n.a w..w, cow b..mab n. 1*N O rM frW M•a� �a*.6 bNmU wAWrm CIIet b®L �.1'a v C� EXG. IAL ���'��6�° ��� '1011l<l� .wrl°Ertwewu.E.,a,.o..N..�w,.e �) I eurxonrµmn a.aee ar exieron yeru�ex --------� _'"p------- 9 - ---BLUE IEI-D D --- I e w°ArA x,.�.��„�, f/ELD DR r FULL SIZE d SOCCER 1-4 cowiwcna ,'nE, e. ® m aLI——A I � Li I I / � I i xronroEo awe. �� r I I r gg Exa � I . . rora,rAOFoeeo i,ps es. Q ! ! � -,. I O' Fxya°nw Brnarw a,�o0u s�aa0 \ `a S fai 1 /' f� A 0 z Q SNORT SIDEper •> v. N SOCCER Ico a .... O \ ca•.e a„x� e ——I I y I anal emGonu.w.e eaa,er Q LBASEBALL m gyres— I d "--------------------- —_—_— �= -- Q 2 C� FULL5IZE IO® I Z� O uj PAN 50FTBAL __ __ ! � coc�wxx -e—f m IA ___ m i I FINGHAM I! o DR T A PROPOSED GY NASIUM '0 ..$ e�„enE o P — I. a I. / —————— — K�)a„w� O SCE EASEMENT GREEN BELT SCE EASEMENT GREEN BELT E..o dox�° Kn o,Eo �a� ex �Fo .e..l.o)ee w-rrt .a w` rora� nN�nr,nor..e. ,up ).cam pi wee /'� ``L✓ �c�.se,eoae.w as N o a k•`ti. re,Bu raK E NiM KbaIXO r J eCI)allRO wa�iu �® taro.qa.e° )p NT Y 0*oe i.r0 ,uw .,wo n xY.wmna v..xewn n i0eairl.iJw rrrJ O m,,Oe10)• EXISTING °a PAf2IC EA»R°ae >I,p °Je —--—--—--—_-—__—-_s__ __ _-.�.._—--—_-—-- -_ SITE PLAN *gyp r D1.1 9 p ol A� � � nree I oTlu cwke g�_ °� corcmuw nuaro F`�� our p caeemwa n.n n.w wenur6Efi R �g k nw roper ar,ca e oo+ ero:.we iratiwi >I ' F uj -- ---r----------------r--- ---,- ------- -------------r ------------------� �0 J � U 0 ui .�I �$4 I' CC /y�0y�� -- --_--- - - - -- --I --I -- -- -- B W I � I i ------ i i r I I u[vrw0xa e.eserel.E�.cewrao � 6cw nE.E Io ear oe 6a.M'i 'r mE qr pO �9 I'`, p Lp i I , I ---------------------- -` oeio7 5 I I 6 I I A � ®® moon nE,w FLOOR PLAN D2'1 Im a BRETHREN C H R I S T I A N JUN OR & SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 01, z y0 a R or. ELU E !a E / q NORTH - FRONT ELEVATION 1 Z Q w m H M E OF HE 10 S UO ° m z0 � o x a �2 z Fi i m = i En EAST - LEFT SIDE ELEVATION — 2 KEY NOTES Q —ETE TILT.-I—-.NEL-.INTED O1 CCw'CRe TE—IL/DINT �i .1 tnM 9TOFIEFR0IJT DOOR MD V.—mv.TEn ITN NTeD L4p9 OA—Non erOREFRONT UINOW-T—TINTED GLnBm.NO .w-e�•F.mmw r r��wTn ..T.--TICKET ExCuu.r,E OS 4—STOREFRONT SLIDING WNDM WIT WI iN TINTED a10f Lave—coNceesloNe �s 10--T.L DDae.ND—4 PAINTED. owERwe<D ROLL�-DDDR-ANTED. EXTERIOR ELEYATIONB Q. v+•coNCleere.cone RevE.L CONCRETE!CORE REVEAL Mi DELNEATION. 0 -HINTED a WOO L—AnEm D3.1 M e ) �4 C U Fc++ e f V + SOUTH - REAR ELEVATION Vey 3 Z d 4 =o 0 � nl zLLJ N o ' v z cB)cAL .B _ a B W + BC.EME 4 )p J.NF b .n auG 01 Y 1 Y . b 0EP OB WEST - RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 4 KEY NOTES Di GCNCRETE}ILI-UP WALL PANEL,PANTED Q DONCRETE PANEL JD.T, Q T UNn.Vn etOREERONT DOCK AND WMDO BYBTEM WIT. ul ED O A �B'AE*RONi WIND UNFIT WT.TINTED GL4 AN .,.v vow.amnavM�.rtn Plft C Ex O eGLa rNUM BTOREERON}BLIDIUG wIUDOW WIT WIT.TIUTED w1p1 BB ors coNCEBeIDNB. �s .OLLCW METAL DOOR AND­P TED ❑T O E.EAD ROLL uv DOOR PANTED O )i+.-.-TE ecoRE REVEAL EIXTEAIOR EllNA110N8 CWDRETE BDDRE REVEAL FLAG DELNFAIION Q PUNTED SCND.LDGDManee D3.2 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK M BRETHREN CHRISTIAN ' JUNIOR & SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL i �i 1 . i Aorewo Ex°e:o � ��� _ _ �� pi Z(oOLu c S co A r — J " J l_ J_ __J____-___-I________I i I I _______I F f100X PLAN SCHEME C CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN 1 D2.1 : f _ py ------------- --dev e- 0 November 13, 2008 a •�,�6ye9�,i L"`v4 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To Whom It May Concern, As part of our request for an issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, please find the following narrative that describes the background of Brethren Christian Junior and Senior High School (BCHS) and the modifications we are requesting: BCHS has operated at the former Gisler Huntington Beach City School District property for the last 10 years on a short term,year to year lease; the lease recently amended to a 35 year term. BCHS respectfully requests permission to develop a multi purpose community gymnasium that will house basketball, volleyball and other indoor activities. The Gisler campus has existed at the location as an institutional school for 45 years. The North and West sides of the school are homes; on the East side are Strathmoor Street and the South side is an SCE Easement. The gym will be located against the SCE Easement, open sports fields, and a parking lot on the other two sides; it does not abut any residences. The purpose of the gymnasium is to support BCHS activities as well as Huntington Beach community, churches, and youth programs. Operation hours will be regular school hours, some weekends and evenings. I hope this information along with the attached plans covers your needs. If you have any concerns or questions; please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kevin A. Coleman KAC:kIw 3130 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 . Phone (714) 754-4454 • Fax(714) 754-0198 i T T . _ City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING December 5, 2008 Kevin A. Coleman Net Development 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 08-005/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 (21141 STRATHMOOR LANE — BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Coleman: In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation. It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any "conditions of approval' adopted by the Planning Commission. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. The attached project implementation code requirements may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a matter separate from the associated entitlement(s) within ten calendar days of the approval of the project pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 248.24_ The appeal fee is $494.00. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1682 or at rtalleh@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Rami Talleh, Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Gerald Caraig, Building and Safety Department—714-374-1575 Lee Caldwell,Fire Department—714-536-5531 Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Principal Planner Jason Kelley,Planning Department Huntington Beach City School District,P.O.Box 71,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 G:ATalleh\2008\StaffRevieW\21141 Strathmoore(Brethren Chistian School)A21141 Code Letter.doc Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfrci'_%; 'AT A T S.,W JJ HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT NAME: BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2008-202 ENTITLEMENTS: ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-005 DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 9, 2008 PROJECT LOCATION: 21141 STRATHMOOR LANE (EAST SIDE OF STRATHMOOR LN., SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVE.) PLAN REVIEWER: RAMI TALLEH, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1682 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PAN FOR BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL BY CONSTRUCTING A 27,005 SO. FT. GYMNASIUM AND RECONFIGURING/EXPANDING AN EXISTING PARKING LOT. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above_ The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 08-005/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view_ c. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides_ Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Page 2 of 3 Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). d. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. e. All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a time-clock or photo-sensor system. (HBZSO 231.18(C)) f. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 231.20 — Bicycle Parking. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Building & Safety, Fire and Public Works shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing)and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. The addressing Assignment shall be reviewed and approved prior to submittal for building permits. 3_ The Development Services Departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 4. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 5. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 08-005/ Conditional Use Permit No_ 08-052 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period following the approval of the entitlements has elapsed. 6. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 08-005/ Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. Page 3 of 3 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 08-005/ Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 8. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein- 9- Construction shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 10. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $50 for the posting of a Notice of Exemption or Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2)days of the Planning Commission's action. If a Notice of Determination is required an additional check in the amount of $1,800 for California Department of Fish and Game shall be made out to County of Orange and submitted within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 11. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. , l T NO. • ow 1i , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2008 PROJECT NAME: BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2008-202 ENTITLEMENTS: ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-005 DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 9, 2008 PROJECT LOCATION: 21141 STRATHMOOR LANE (EAST SIDE OF STRATHMOOR LN., SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVE.) PLAN REVIEWER: JASON KWAK, PLAN CHECK ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5278 /jkwak@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PAN FOR BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL BY CONSTRUCTING A 27,005 SQ. FT. GYMNASIUM AND RECONFIGURING/EXPANDING AN EXISTING PARKING LOT. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received as stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. This list is not intended to be a full and complete list and serves only to highlight possible building code issues on the proposed preliminary plans. Electrical, plumbing, and mechanical items are not included in this review. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the plan reviewer. 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. None 11.CODE ISSUES BASED ON PLANS& DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Plumbing Code, 2007 California Electrical Code, 2007 California Energy Code and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC). Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way per Section 1024.6 of the CBC. 3. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on at least one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet in width that adjoins a street or public way, per Section 1025.2. 4. Provide compliance with disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11 B including accessible seating or accommodations for Group A occupancies. ATTACHNIENT NO. i I t i H ` HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT H1INTINGTpN BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 19,2008 i PROJECT NAME: BRETHREN CHRISTIAN PRIVATE SCHOOL { ENTITLEMENTS: EPA 2008-005 i PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2008-0202 i I DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 9, 2008 PROJECT LOCATION: 21141 STRATHMOOR LANE PROJECT PLANNER: RAMI TALLER, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1682/RTALLEH(a)SURFCITY-HB.ORG !i PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER. TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5431 /SBOGART(a,)SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR BRETHREN CHRISTIAN PRIVATE SCHOOL BY CONSTRUCTING A NEW 27,005 SQ. FT. GYMNASIUM AND RECONFIGURING / EXPANDING AN EXISTING PARKING LOT. i i The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as ! stated above_ The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans(Civil, Water and ` Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. ! i THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO j ISSUANCE OF A nv-uoi-ITION PERIQT: "I_ Applicant shall proviae a consinung arbdfist`report on a►i me existing trees.' STIC-fep6rt si ll quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees_ The report shall also I recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (Resolution 4545) tea. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). a Page 2 of 6 i i i l THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: I 1. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.-(MC-1 7.05/ZSO 230.84) The plan shall comply with I- Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. The existing two southerly driveway approaches on Strathmoor Lane shall be removed I and replaced with an ADA compliant driveway approaches per Public Works Standard Plan No. 209 or 211. (ZSO 230.84) i b. A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in the street. (ZSO 230.84) { 1 C. The existing 4-inch domestic water service currently serving the property may potentially be utilized to serve the new gymnasium if it is of adequate size, conforms to current 1 standards and is in working condition as determined by the City Water Inspector. If the property owner elects to utilize the existing domestic water service, the existing non- conforming 4-inch compound meter assembly(including meter box and/or vault) shall be upgraded and a new by-pass pipeline within the meter box shall be constructed to i conform to current Water Standards. (ZSO 230.84) d. Alternatively, a new separate domestic water service, meter and backflow protection l device(s) may be installed per Water Standards and shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The domestic water service i shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. (ZSO 255.04E) 1 e. The existing 4" backflow protection device shall be removed and replaced with a backflow protection device that conforms to the current Water Standards. (ZSO 230.84) f. Separate dedicated fire water service(s) shall be constructed per Water Standards for the y� fire sprinkler system required by the Fire Department. (ZSO 230.84) ?. g. Separate backflow protection device(s) shall be installed per Water Standards for the fire f water service. (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) I-• 2. - H j.angsgapcat to it t i9ciu r, . ,u.,, w,-Vcij c,A Dy a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning ' Departments. (ZSO 232.04) j a. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of 1 brown trunk). l b. 'Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (ZSO 232.04D) , C. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (ZSO 232) 3. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (ZSO 232.04B) 4. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (DAMP) 1 . 5. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final y landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arborist report j GAEngineering Di vision\ELLIUMCond it ions 2008\Strathmoor21141 -Brethren Christian School\Stmdunoor Ln.21 141 EPA 08-05(PA 08-202)Dev Req 11-19-08-doc r . A4 . m Page 3 of I shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arbodst's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NO]) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City. (DAMP) 7. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)conforming to the City of Huntington Beach's Project WQMP Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006 and prepared by a Licensed Civil F: Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance and shall include the following: a. Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable). b. Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, i maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating f reduced or"zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. j c_ Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. (DAMP) i d_ Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. i l e_ Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs_ f. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs_ g. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M)Plan for all structural BMPs. i. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shalt be submitted to Public Works for acceptance. After acceptance, two copies of the final report shall be returned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: i) The 11" by 17" Site Plan in .TIFF format(400 by 400 dpi minimum). j ii) The remainder of the complete WQMP in .PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner's certification sheet, Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet, appendices, attachments and all educational material_ i.. j. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file- 8- indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices i (BMPs) on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP. The WQMP shall follow the City i i` GAEngineeting DivisionTLL10MConditions 20081Strathmoor 21141-Brethren Christian SchoohStrathmoor Ln.21141 EPA 08-05(PA 08-202)Dev Req ! 11-19-08 doc i 1 Page 4 of 6 i of Huntington Beach; Project Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 9_ A suitable location, as approved by the City, shall be depicted on the grading plan for the I necessary trash enclosure(s). The area shall be paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and ! I pavements diverted around the area, and screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. € The trash enclosure area shall be covered or roofed with a solid, impervious material. 1( Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited_ If feasible, the trash enclosure area shall be connected into the sanitary sewer. (DAMP) 10. A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. (MC 17-05.150) 11. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (AQMD Rule 403) 12. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by i adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, regarding grading and I . construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. 13. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. { i- THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 1. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (MC 12.38.010/MC 14.36.030) . r 2. The developer shalt coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05.210) ! . 3. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Wind Erosion WE-1) i 4_ All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (MC 17.05) 5- Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-1/MC 17.05) I_ 6_ The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible_ (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1)(DAMP) i F 1MEngineering Division\ELL[OTRConditions 2008L4trathmoor 21141-Brethren Christian SchooMt athmoor La-21141 EPA 08-05(PA 08-202)Dev Req 11-19-08.doc c= i Page 5 of 6 I 7_ All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the ; site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (DAMP) 8. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (DAMP) 9. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas_ (AQMD Rule 403) 10. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (DAMP) 11. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (CHECK WITH LEE CALDWELL-HE SHOULD INCLUDE THIS) 12. All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. (DAMP) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 1. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued_ (MC 17.05) 2. Traffic impact fees for commercial development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of $154 per net new added daily trip is adjusted annually on December 1st_ The new daily trips shall be determined by the approved Traffic Impact Analysis or calculated by staff. (MC 17.65) { THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: i 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and landscape plans_ (MC 17.05) 2. The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site. (ZSO 232) a. Existing trees to remain on site shall not be disfigured or mutilated, (ZSO 232.04E)and, i b. General tree requirements, regarding quantities and sizes. (ZSO 232.08B and C) 4 3. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shalt be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (ZSO 232.04D) 4_ Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) t copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy' Prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record_ 1 5. Prior to grading or building permit close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall- a_ Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. i I �f 1 GdEngineering DivisionTLUOT-nConditions 20081Strathmoor 21141-Brcihren Christian SchooMtrathmoor U.21141 EPA 08-05(PA 08-202)Dev Req I' 11-19-08.doc I " i ATTACHMENT N a ��� ' 1 Page 6 of 6 i b. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed. C. Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described ; in the Project WQMP. d. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. 6. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) { , 7. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the city web site at http://www.surfcity-hb.orq/files/users/public_works/fee_schedule.pdf. (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) i 8. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (MC 14.52) f_ 1 - 1- i i r ! 4" 1 t ! t t i t t I i � i f, i i" i 1 - 1 i. 1 7 i i.. 1 ! t G:1Engineering Division\ELLFOMConditions 20081Strathmoor2l l41-Brethren Christian SehoohStrathmoor Ln"21141 EPA 08-05(PA 08-202)Dev Req i 11-19-08.doc i Eve JJ HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT NAME: BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHHOOL GYMNASIUM ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2008-005/2008-202 PROJECT LOCATION: 21141 STATHMOOR LANE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: RAMI TALLEH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1682/rtalleh@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5531/dmaresh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT A BRETHERN CHRISTIAMN SCHOOL TO CONSTRUCT A 27,005 SP FT GYMNASIUM AND RECONFIGURING/EXPANDING AN EXISTING PARKING LOT_ The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated October 9, 2008. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer- Fire: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Fire Hydrants and Water Systems Private Fire Hydrants are required. Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification # 407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Private fire hydrants shall not be pressurized by Fire Department Connections to the sprinkler system. The system design shall ensure that recirculation of pressurized water from the hydrant, thru the FDC and back through the sprinkler system supply to the hydrant does not occur. Installation of the private fire service main, including fire department connections, shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. The maintenance of private fire hydrants is the responsibility of the owner or facility association_ Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department_ For Fire Department I MENT NO. R Page 2 of 3 approval, portray the fire hydrants and reference compliance with City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards in the plan notes. (FD) Private Fire Service Connection to the Public Water Supply- Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing the connection, piping, valves and back-flow prevention assembly (DDCA) for approval and permits. Approval by Public Works and the Fire Department must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. The dedicated private fire water service off-site improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. (FD) Fire Protection Systems Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification #424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building_ Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOX® Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification #403 - KNOXO Fire Department Access in the building plan notes. (FD) Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX® Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Building Construction Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Posting Of Room Occupancy is required. Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for assembly purposes, shall have the TACH M1,ENT N 0e Page 3 of 3 capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit per HBFC sec. 2501.16.1. (FD) Egress Illumination/Emergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power is required. Provide means of egress illumination per HBFC 1211.1 and UBC 1003.2.9. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION: a. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition. (FD) b. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification #426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) OTHER: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards_ (FD) b. Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 5th floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfcity-hb.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at (714) 536-5411. S:\Prevention\1-Development\1-Planning Department - Planning Applications, CUP's\2008 CUP's\Strathmoor lane 21141 Brethern Christian School Gymnasim PA#2008-005 10-20-08 DM.doc ATTACNENT No. __ ...- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018 I. This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08- 018. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associate site improvements as of February 17, 2009 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to the Draft Negative Declaration, and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-18. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of February 17, 2009. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. The Errata to the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 is provided to show corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018. Based on the information contained in the public record, the decision-makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018. 1. An official 20 day public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08- 018 was established by the State Clearinghouse. It began on January 29, 2009 and ended on February 17, 2009. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through February 17, 2008. 2. Notice of the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on January 29, 2008. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals. 3. Notice of the availability of Negative Declaration No. 08-018 were mailed to property owners and tenant within a radius of 1,000 ft. of the project site. GAENVIRONM\RESPONSE-COMMENTS gR +1 icy I1I. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of February 17, 2009 are contained in Appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 20 days. The public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018 commenced on January 29 2009 and expired on February 17 2009. The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through February 17 2009. Copies of all documents received as of February 17 2009 are contained in Appendix A of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-018, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. Response to Comments Negative Declaration no. 08-018 Brethren Christian School Gymnasium GAENVIRONM\RESPONSE-COMMENTS / AA T Ifs : TOPICAL RESPONSES There were five issues raised in a number of the comment letters: (1) impacts to traffic on the surrounding local streets, (2) Impact of light glare onto surrounding residences and aesthetics of the proposed building, (3) security of the site and impact to public services, and (4) impacts of noise to the surrounding residents. Therefore, topical responses have been prepared that consider the key points of the comments on each of these issue areas and present one consolidated response on each issue. Comments provided in a letter from Terry and Sharon Crowther (TSC) were copied 41 times. All comments in response to issues identified by TSC apply to all 44 copied letters. Topical Response-1 Vehicle trips for the existing private school were originally analyzed in a traffic study prepared by ACT Consulting Engineers, Inc. in 2000 and updated in an addendum to the traffic study prepared by CNC Engineering in 2009. The study analyzed peak a.m. traffic demand indicating that the school related traffic between 7:30 am and 8:05 am will be approximately 270 vehicles. The traffic study also stated the volume of traffic generated by the school during the morning drop-off period, which is expected to be the most intense, is well within the capacity of the surrounding local streets, which is approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per hour based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The campus has two parking lots one on the north end of the site and a separate lot with a drop off area on the south end of the site. The south parking lot can better accommodate vehicle queuing during drop off and pick up traffic. The 2000 traffic study recommended that traffic guards be dispatched to direct traffic from the northerly parking lot to the appropriate drop-off area in the southerly parking lot. This recommendation was made a condition of approval of Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16 and remains in effect. Vehicle trips for the proposed 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and football field were also analyzed in the addendum prepared by CNC Engineering. The addendum stated that an event within the gymnasium or adjacent field is anticipated to generate approximately 228 trips, 42 trips less than the peak traffic demand of the school. Events at the gymnasium and football field are not proposed to occur at the same time or during the school's afternoon peak traffic demand (between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.). The events are proposed to occur in the evenings between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Furthermore, A.Y.S.O. and Sea View Little League will not engage in any activities during the same time that BCHS events are to be held within the gymnasium and football field. Therefore, the trip generations associated with the gymnasium and football field are not accompanied by vehicle trips generated by other activities on the site. Per consultation with the Public Works Department 228 trips in the evening hours can be accommodated by the surrounding GAENVIRONMIRESPONSE-COMMENTS local street, which as previously mentioned have a capacity of handling approximately 1,000 vehicle trips with no impacts to traffic flows. This response addresses the following comments: CGW-1, JP-1, PSN-I, PPB-1, LDN-I, MSBA, AR- 1, and TSC-I. Topical Response-2 All existing and propose light standards are subject to the Municipal Code which requires lighting to be shielded in order to prevent spillage of glare onto adjacent properties. The existing light standards which currently are directed towards residences will be required to comply with code and redirected away from surrounding residences. All proposed light standards will be required to be shielded so as not to impact surrounding residences. The proposed gymnasium is designed to incorporate vertical and horizontal offsets to soften its mass. The plans indicate that the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms and will be approximately 22 ft. high—similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height similar in height to adjacent multi-family units. Furthermore, the project is conditioned to provide landscaping along the southerly elevation to soften the appearance south facing wall and replace all proposed roll up doors with man doors to provide for a more compatible look. This response addresses the following comments: CGW-2, PSN-3, LDN-2, and TSC-4 Topical Response-3 The Police Department reviewed the project and indicated site can be adequately served with existing Police resources. The project is also conditioned to provide gates to all entrances of the site to secure the facility in the evening after hours. This response addresses the following comments: TSC-3, LDN-3, and AR-2 Topical Response-4 Per Section 8.4.090 of the Municipal code,Noise Control- Special Provisions, school bands, school athletics and school entertainment events, are exempt from the provisions of the noise ordinance because these are typical activities of junior high and high schools. None the less, increased noise from all the proposed activities and the football games may occur. Noise during the football games will be intermittent and not sustained over long periods of time. These sounds may include but are not limited to cheering, announcements, and whistling. The Noise Ordinance allows intermittent intervals of noise to exceed the maximum allowed level of 55 decibels when they are not sustained for long periods of time. The majority of events will occur during daylight hours. Evening football games, which start at 7:00 p.m. and end at 9:30 G:IENVIROWRESPONSE-COMMENTS !�'? � Ada akL— a p.m., will be limited to approximately five games during the football season. The project may result in a reduction in noise from other activities during the day due to the availability of the gymnasium. Existing uses such as physical education and, choir, and drama practice currently operate outdoors. These uses will be relocated to within the proposed gymnasium. This response addresses the following comments: PSN-2, AR-3, and TSC-2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS EB-1 Comment: The City Council and City Staff have committed to a citywide green policy. Guidelines for green design, engineering, construction, and operation are now available to the public and developers. Many recent projects have addressed green issues within their Environmental Assessment. There is little consideration given to energy, construction waste, water usage or building best management practices (BMP's) in any section of this EIR. The Board suggests that the overall building energy profile be reviewed in the context of upgraded options and design. We are not necessarily suggesting a LEED standard, but are suggesting consideration of options for long term energy and resource saving. We suggest the design team visit http://surfcity-hb.org,/Govenunent/Departments/Planning/gbplanning cfm for additional information. Response: Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. EB-2 Comment: Several critical assumptions go into any parking space requirements. Nominal assumptions were used to determine the number of parking spots needed for this project. The analysis apparently did not include any guest parking spaces. If fact, nowhere in the entire document does it give the actual seating capacity for the gym for different events. Only a square footage basis is given. It would seem something as basic as seating capacity would have to be prominent in any analysis to a project such as this, especially in regards to parking. It is a fact that many sites such as this in the city burden their surrounding neighborhoods during functions and special events which tend to happen regularly. The Board requests that a significant impact be identified and that real life assumptions be used for a variety of event scenarios to determine a realistic estimate of total parking spaces required. Response: The existing private school complies with the minimum required on-site parking. The City parking code requires 7 spaces per classroom and 1 per staff member, including teachers and staff. The total required parking for the proposed school operation is 201 spaces. A total of 202 parking spaces are provided on-site. In 2000 the school received authorization to use 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Gisler Park parking lot. No written agreement however could be found which stipulates use of the spaces by the school. Therefore, the 10 overflow parking spaces are not factored into the 202 available parking spaces for the school. The HBZSO does not provide a parking ratio for purposes of GAENVIRONKRESPONSE—COMMENTS TT ,�C H i&; I11T c � ' determining the parking requirement for stadiums, bleachers, or gymnasiums. Parking ratios for similar uses identified in the HBZSO, such as theaters and assembly, are one parking space for every 3 seats. These uses are similar to the gymnasium and football field in that they involve seating area for spectators. The gymnasium and football field contain bleacher seating. The HBZSO indicates that one seat is equivalent to 18 inches when pews or benches are used. The gymnasium has a total of 938 lineal feet of seating area which is equivalent to 625 seats. The bleachers at the football stadium have a total of 936 lineal feet of seating area which is equivalent to 624 seats. Therefore the parking requirement for the gymnasium and football field is 208 and 209 parking spaces respectively. Events at the gymnasium and football field are not proposed to occur at the same time or during the school hours. Therefore, the parking ratio is applied to each use separately and the highest parking requirement, 209 parking spaces, applies to the whole site. In order to provide the minimum required parking for the site, the project will be conditioned to provide seven additional parking spaces for a total of 209 on-site parking spaces. EB-3 Comment: There will be nighttime events on playing fields close to residences that will require permanent and temporary illumination. The height of the lighting standards is discussed in general. The Board recommends that illumination problems on local residents and energy use be discussed in further detail. Response: See Topical Responses 2 and 4. G:\ENVIRONM\RESPONSE-COMMENTS AT T HNIE-t I vt�^ V. ERRATA TO DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-18 The following changes to the Draft Negative Declaration No. 08-18 and Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Draft Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ El 0 El excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources:1,4,5 and 6) Discussion: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction with the use of construction equipment. All construction will be required to comply with Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, which restricts the hours of construction to reduce impacts to the area. During the construction of the gymnasium, landscaping and parking facilities, noise levels on the site may increase from normal construction equipment such as small tools and equipment. No large grading equipment nor tools are anticipated to be used for the proposed project.Through the implementation and compliance of standard City codes and policies, no significant noise impacts during construction are anticipated. The project site and surrounding area are completely developed with residential uses with the exception of Gisler Park to the south of the site. The proposed project is a request to construct an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium and associated improvements. Based upon the applicant's narrative and current use of the site as a private junior high and high school and use of the fields for A.Y.S.O. soccer matches, the use of the gymnasium and adjacent fields for football matches is not substantially different than the type of activities that currently occur at the site with regard to noise generation. The gymnasium will reduce existing noise impacts by housing current outdoor school activities indoors such as drama, band, and choir practice and events. due to existing ambient fiaise levels aiid the similarity of pfoposed aetivities to those alr-eady oeetiffifig en the site. Any long-term noise sources from the project are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance but are not expected to be a concern due to the existing use of the site. Per Section 8.4.090 of the Municipal code,Noise Control-Special Provisions, school bands, school athletics and school entertainment events, are exempt from the provisions of the noise ordinance because these are typical activities of junior high and high schools. None the less,increased noise from all the proposed activities and the football games may occur. Noise during the football games will be intermittent and not sustained over long periods of time. These sounds may include but are not limited to cheering,announcements, and whistling. The Noise Ordinance allows intermittent intervals of noise to exceed the maximum allowed level of 55 decibels when they are not sustained for long periods of time. The majority of events will occur during daylight hours. Evening football games,which start at 7:00 p.m. and end at 9:30 p.m.,will be limited to approximately five games during the football season. Nevertheless, long-term noise impacts may occur as a result of vehicles in the new parking area to the north of the site. The project will be required to comply with State requirements pertaining to noise attenuation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45dB in any habitable room. This may be achieved by improvements shown on the site plan such as a 15 ft. wide landscaped planter between the proposed parking lot and the residential properties to the north. Furthermore the northern parking area adjacent to the residences will be controlled after hours by a vehicular privacy gate prohibiting vehicles from entering the parking lot after 10:00 p.m. No significant long-term noise impacts resulting from the project are anticipated. GAENVIRONWRESPONSE-COMMENTS VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1,4, and 14) Discussion: A total of 202 st6ped parking space.--Will be preN4ded in the ffE)RI and feaf pai=king afeas. The City pafkinb aeeefffiiiedate the evefyday par-king dem.-And-Ass ivell as pfovide 1 additional parking spaee on site. Speeial eveiits within the gyffmasium will be aeeemmodatedwithin the existing pafking lots. The rtumbef of propose pafkin- spaces will suffieiently sei=�,e special events since those aefiN,ities de net eeetir-dtifin.6-1--___, eede requires 7 spaees per classroom and 1 per-staff member, ineluding teachers and staffi. The total pad_a ' +imes The existing private school complies with the minimum required on-site parking. The City parking code requires 7 spaces per classroom and 1 per staff member, including teachers and staff. The total required parking for the proposed school operation is 201 spaces. A total of 202 parking spaces are provided on-site. In 2000 the school received authorization to use 10 parking spaces on the adjacent Gisler Park parking lot. No written agreement however could be found which stipulates use of the spaces by the school. Therefore,the 10 overflow parking spaces are not factored into the 202 available parking spaces for the school. The IIBZSO does not provide a parking ratio for purposes of determining the parking requirement for stadiums,bleachers,or gymnasiums. Parking ratios for similar uses identified in the IIBZSO, such as theaters and assembly, are one parking space for every 3 seats. These uses are similar to the gymnasium and football field in that they involve seating area for spectators. The gymnasium and football field contain bleacher seating. The HBZSO indicates that one seat is equivalent to 18 inches when pews or benches are used. The gymnasium has a total of 938 lineal feet of seating area which is equivalent to 625 seats. The bleachers at the football stadium have a total of 936 lineal feet of seating area which is equivalent to 624 seats. Therefore the parking requirement for the gymnasium and football field is 208 and 209 parking spaces respectively. Events at the gymnasium and football field are not proposed to occur at the same time or during the school hours.Therefore,the parking ratio is applied to each use separately and the highest parking requirement,209 parking spaces, applies to the whole site. In order to provide the minimum required parking for the site,the project will be conditioned to provide seven additional parking spaces for a total of 209 on-site parking spaces. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. GAENVIRONM\RESPONSE-COMMENTS �� ,�,.�a� f_� T R A IL 1 0, � �_�__ APPENDIX A A`i"T'ACHNiENT N0. F ' h CITY' F H I GT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD February 17, 2009 City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Subject: Entitlement Plan Amendment # 2008-005 & CUP # 2008-052, Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Dear Mr. Talleh: At the February 5t", 2009 Environmental Board meeting the members reviewed the subject Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Board is pleased to see the attention to neighborhood environmental issues. We offer the following comments and recommendations for your consideration. A) Awareness of Cify's published Green Policies The City Council and City Staff have committed to a citywide green policy. Guidelines for C21 green design, engineering, construction, and operation are now available to the public and developers. Many recent projects have addressed green issues within their Environmental y Assessment. There is little consideration given to energy, construction waste, water usage or building best management practices (BMP's) in any section of this EIR. The Board suggests that the overall building energy profile be reviewed in the context of upgraded options and design. We are not necessarily suggesting a LEED standard, but are suggesting consideration of options for long term energy and resource saving. We suggest the design team visit http•//surfcity-hb orq/Government/Departments/Planning/gbplanning cfm for additional information. B) Parking Concerns Several critical assumptions go into any parking space requirements. Nominal assumptions were used to determine the number of parking spots needed for this project. The analysis apparently did not include any guest parking spaces. If fact, nowhere in the entire document does it give the actual seating capacity for the gym for different events. Only a square footage basis is given. It would seem something as basic as seating capacity would have to be prominent in any analysis to a project such as this, especially in regards to parking. It is a fact that many sites such as this in the city burden their surrounding neighborhoods during functions and special events which tend to happen regularly. The Board requests that a significant impact be identified and that real life assumptions be used for a variety of event scenarios to determine a realistic estimate of total parking spaces required. C) Noise and Lighting Concerns There will be nighttime events on playing fields close to residences that will require permanent and temporary illumination. The height of the lighting standards is discussed in Eb general. The Board recommends that illumination problems on local residents and energy use be discussed in further detail. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this review. Please don't hesitate to contact us with questions. Very truly yours, HB Environmental Board David Guido, LEED A.P. Chair CC: City Council Planning Commission February 14ih, 2009 TO: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Subject: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Planning Department City of Huntington Beach We are responding to your departments"Public Notice" regarding the above planned project. My wife and I purchased our home at 21192 Lockhaven Circle (2 blocks from this tentative project) in January of 1968, having now lived here over 41 years. We purchased the home because it was in a quiet residential area, with schools close by for our four children,a nice small park nearby,and traffic that was very light and safe for small children. We have observed numerous positive changes in our city and have been quite happy with the City of Huntington Beach leaders for keeping this a wonderful place to live. As some of us long time residents are"aging", passing away, or just moving away, many new families have come into the community. We now have many small children playing on our streets. We love it and we do not want to see any added danger to those children,just as we didn't want that for our children- Now comes the problem! We watched this school became"under utilized"a few years back, falling into disrepair. We were happy when this school was repaired and converted into a private high school. Yes, it did increase the traffic a lot but it was better than watching the school fall further into disrepair. Then the soccer teams took over the large play area, installed VERY BRITE lights so they could play night games,and we watched the traffic increase drastically,almost every night! The streets in the area became full of potholes,as this quiet little school enrolled more students and increased traffic even more. Last year the city spent big dollars to finally repair the streets in our neighborhood and it will probably be another 40 years before they do it again. This school signed a long term lease to use this property and now wants to enlarge it even more by adding a large gymnasium so they can attract more students and enlarge their sports programs. This is just an accident waiting to happen! This facility was never intended to be Put IM the use A- nre Yuen School :;'oulu the access roads were NE current intended to handle the curre /t traffic, let alone the added traffic Tl=mot «, f ta■�s pil, \1llt� ttl;, lltt\l P-ArU,rlty l`` till lllfl PrP ilP-Ar�A1 itatP fllr tnPCP t\,ril-C` Ilf tiQP_ sT(-'!{`1�1 _\_s_ _ :_ __ J - _ _ •_O __ ___ ___ _ _ _.L _ _ _-- _J i..•s- __ _-_ rst_-__ people -earkilig��n me nearby residential sire[ets ,lei to flour b ocks attar, r V 1..,._ a 1 Y C The current lighting at night iS already"hlineling' when Ileac iilg YY f'tt(�Ft Er_'.t f]nAzi TT2. I(fon T �'i��+tr� any `controls" were ever put in place to restrict or control this lighting_ atitl � i1=4ti' v, re, son.wone dropr.eii the CGG �a!1 i haara atrea y observed a number )f"ne-arr is z ,-" -,vi h T LIgrd to n- v rs speeding fawn Effln£7h in �inbe. c- m- --e- t eo- d e-- r- d d- o -2- and !!!/�— narrc,�narrowly missing c;t1lldren ITl file area, not to mention other tehicles. .ls th'-s really what We want for this are I ni?p('the planning L�Jm issio will take a ions rlarrl ({ick at th-`-se p Sang anci iti1 arm a._ It y"v'u etitulCl al 0 10(�% into t11i;,icur rClit iight`ng prt L`ic IiIS c ii t tlii� iIi i�c c, iiiatiil+b sure iii j alv f'�ty,elf' tints nifto n :3:1; LiittPli F't .�(T$f cif({zN rN��{Prit4 in peter .a rL+_-1 ary i-e{lt in fAvor ref a v expa—€`Ision of this selhooli property and 1 hopc it doesn't - FFlic lit a class action" lawsuit lroiii i?i7tit istt CI i':stdcnts Ll tilc Cltt" eiIUVC 5%a1 a�1 to alloy, thi- schvoi expand Lida er. � r Rcga-ds, Claudette and Gary N orthingtp_6 21 i 92 Lq� haven Circle Huntington Beach%!714/968-1854 �' City of Huntington Beach FEB 17 2009 IliTTAM . T �� February 12, 2009 City of Huntington eeact-, FEB 18 2009 Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department 2000 Main Street . Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re:Notice of Availability of a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Dear Rani Talleh, After reviewing the public notice regarding the proposed Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project, I am hopeful my concerns for our neighborhood will be considered. We have lived on Strathmoor Lane for thirty-five years. I even attended the school at the end of my street when it was called Gisler Middle School. Although, ever since Brethren Christian Junior& Senior High School opened, we have been coping with many traffic incidents and a few vandalism issues. We currently experience a high level amount of traffic, with the more than occasional speeder. We live one house in from Atlanta on the east side of Strathmoor Lane. I have personally-witnessed a young student completely loose control of his car and spin out as he turned right(at an unsafe speed)onto Strathmoor Lane from Atlanta this past fall (check the HB Police records). My truck, which I occasionally park in front of my house, has a large dent on the driver side door due to a hit and run. It is an undertaking to back out of our driveway before school begins, at the end of the school day, and during all sporting events and other recitals taking place at the school. The loud base music played from some of the cars can be disruptive while the traffic is backed up in front of my house waiting to turn onto Atlanta. I have had chewing gum thrown onto the hood of my truck. There is yellow paint all over the street directly in front of my house. Recently, another driver turning right onto Strathmoor Lane off of Atlanta(again at a higher than safe speed) avoided hitting my neighbor directly across the street from me as he was backing out of his driveway, but then nearly hit my truck. Unfortunately I do not have dates and times for the events listed above although I do have witnesses if necessary. My fear is that if this gymnasium is built,the traffic will increase and it will negatively impact our neighborhood even more than it already is. Your consideration to my concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, r (D � -� L�_O Jennifer rcival ATTACHMENT . � 02/17/2009 15:22 9497234436 ATLANTIC BRIDGE WAGE 01 February 15, 2008 Rami Talleh. Sevior Planner y� City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr Talleh, I write with respect to the preposterous proposed School Gymnasium.Project at the Brethren Christian School. This development is completely incongruous with the.neighborhood. It is a monstrous development that will severly impact both our quality of life and the value of our homes. 'The traffic associated with the school is already a problem._Too many ears in too small a space with insufficient parking is a recipe for trouble and downright dangerous. The proposed signage is horrific and the building itself will give a`warehouse' feel to our neighborhood. We the taxpayers are livid that this abomination is even allowed to be discussed. If the Brethren Christian School is real.l.y trying to be a good neighbor then why did they proceed with plans before meeting with residents. We already put up with the fleet of speeding SUVs that accompany their current sports events and the litter that they leave behind.Not to mention their intrusive lighting and the unacceptable noise that accompany their sporting events.They have done nothing to prevent the `spillage' from their lights as is required by their conditional use permit. In summary, this proposed monstrosity should he abandoned due primarily to the following- (1) Traffic—the neighborhood cannot cu)rently cope with the traffic associated with this school. It is already dangerous. There are many people with young children in this neighborhood and you are putting these children at risk by inviting further traffic to these small streets_ There is not enough parking as it is. Traffic and parking is already a problem and.you are going to make it unlivable. (2) poise—the current outdoor night ga.mcs are already too loud. Furthermore, to suggest that vehicles for their night-games will have departed by 9:30PM is City of Huntington Beach FEB 17 2009 tiTTCHMENR F a ; 02/17/2009 15:22 9497234436 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PAGE 02 P,S N absurd. Currently they are still departing at 10-30PM. It's like the Keystone 2, Cops in our neighborhood whenever they have their events. (3) Aesthetics—we will now have a lovely view of a 27,000 warehouse facility ,PS� thereby destroying our property values. Would you buy a house on Strathmoor Lane with a view of a 27,000 foot building with large si.gnage?It is preposterous. (4) Crime—we already have frequent visits from the police helicopter at night. I can a.5sure you that such visits will increase when we have a 27,000 square foot `warehouse' gymnasium.acting as a buffer from street views. For the love of God, in these difficult times,will you please spare us this nonsense and please apply a modicum of common sense. We are entitled to"quiet enjoyment" of our homes. It is the responsibility of the City to ensure that OUT quiet enjoyment.is Maintained. If this abomination proceeds we will take legal action. Peter and Sandra Neal.on 21211 Lockhaven Circle Huntington Beacb, CA 92646 2� "A� ATTACHM , �. February 11, 2009 City of Huntington 86u Rami Talleh, Senior Planner FEB 1 7 2009 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department We reside at 21121 Cocobana Lane, directly north of the school. We have always been in favor of having Brethren as neighbors, however having a school as your neighbor can have disadvantages. There are traffic issues, stadium light issues, noise issues, which are all understandable but do need addressed. On many occasions we have had to discourage vandalism, vagrancy on the school property during nights and weekends. We have even had a camper who decided to camp overnight on the school property in a tent. We have the usual adolescents who decide to take refuge and drink and party because it's difficult for the police to spot them in the backside of the school. With adding the parking lot alongside our home, we feel this will only accelerate these type of activities. We have had a broken window, injured dog and numerous foreign objects in our yard. We have spoken with the principal, Rick Niswonger regarding our concerns. When he had shown. us the proposal months ago, we made known our concerns, and his response was that they would make this parking lot accessible to staff only during the week by using some type of gate barrier. We notice in the plans that were submitted that this parking lot not only lacks the gate, but now it is connected to the main lot south of the school. Rick has stated that the gate should not be a problem, but we feel it's in the neighborhoods best interest to have this stated in the plans. The gymnasium will bring extra traffic and individuals into our quiet neighborhood. Our neighborhood was designed to have a middle school not a high school with football games and activities in a gym Brethren's website states that they are located in a quiet neighborhood. With the additions that they propose, will it still be a quiet neighborhood? Paul& Pam Bertsch 21121 Coeobana Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714 968 1033 February 11 ", 2009 Rami Talleh Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 �r Dear Mr. Talleh: Re: Public Notice concerning Brethern Christian School — Negative Declaration refer to the Public Notice I have received with regard to the planned School Gymnasium at Brethern Christian School_ As a resident of the tract in which the school is located I am writing to express my concerns about this project. I have no doubt that it will impact this neighborhood in several negative ways. The situation with BCS is already barely tolerable. The streets in our neighborhood are inundated with traffic at the start and at the end of each school day. Speeding cars, huge SUV after huge SUV and inattentive drivers talking on hand-held cell phones (despite the ban) are already presenting challenges for those of us who live here. On those days LD� when sporting events are held at the school it's decidedly worse. Our streets are jammed with parked cars, SUVs and trucks. People take short cuts through our front '1 yards, plants and shrubs en route to the playing field. They litter our sidewalks, block our driveways, allow their pets to urinate and defecate on our lawns, etc. Adding "ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events" will most certainly exacerbate all of these problems. Apart from providing residents (in what used to be a "quiet residential neighborhood") with a toxic mix of noise, pollution and structures which do not fit the locale, it will present an even more dangerous traffic situation than that which prevails today in this neighborhood. There is simply no room here for more cars and buses and the plan as it stands makes inadequate accommodation for any more. We do not want any more heavy traffic, engine-revving, horn-honking and people yelling their goodbyes at the tops of their voices in this neighborhood at 9.30 pm or 10pm after the fun and games have ended. Many of us adults and most children are in bed trying to sleep at that time of night. Nor do we want any more of the same on Sunday afternoons. Furthermore, the prospect of having a 34 foot-tali, 27,000 square foot building with roll- � 1 up doors and large signage in this location is simply not compatible with the existing low Qlv profile tract homes in this neighborhood. It will be an eyesore....a Z monstrosity....completely incongruous in the landscape. Homeowners on Strathmoor Lane are already having problems with the school's extremely bright spotlights which illuminate their second stories at night. As if that wasn't enough, they now face the prospect of having a building as big as an aircraft hanger built in full view of their front door and windows. The effect that will have on their property values is alarming and we are well aware that falling values in one part of a neighborhood invariably ricochet around the entire neighborhood. Finally, we are already kept awake night after night during the summer by Huntington ��� Beach Police helicopters buzzing the local area and the Southern California Edison easement which borders the BSC grounds. Youngsters find it a convenient place to 2 party and we need less youngsters partying in our neighborhood, not more. The events J planned for this gymnasium will doubtless bring many more of them around. Much as it would be nice to think that they will all leave the tract as soon as the games end, they won't. A small but loud minority will hang around afterwards and cause problems. The plan does not provide for policing of the events to make sure that attendees arrive and depart in a quiet and orderly fashion and that they don't damage our property or cause us problems. Who will provide such policing and who will pay for it? Will BSC assume responsibility and provide compensation for damages resulting from the activities held at the gymnasium? I'm sorry to have to advise that I have personally experienced both rude and dangerous behavior on the part of people attending sporting events at BSC. As I mentioned previously the school's impact on our neighborhood is already only barely tolerable. I could continue ad infinitum to list my additional concerns but, suffice to say in conclusion, the proposed plan will have nothing but negative consequences for the residents of this neighborhood. It will compromise our quality of life, our safety and our property values and for the vast majority of us it will provide no advantage whatsoever. r9,cere,1,y, Louis D. Nealon 21211 Lockhaven Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ATTAC Page I of 1 Talleh, Rami From: The Beuerleins [bermlines@verizon.netj Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:05 PM To: Talleh, Rami Subject: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Rami Talleh.- We received the Public Notice regarding the project listed above. With the intended expansion and the addition of r(16(� activities resulting in more traffic, we believe this proposal will definitely have a negative impact on our t neighborhood. In particular, we are concerned about the safety of our children who occasionally play in or 1 around our street(i.e. bikes, skateboards, basketball, etc.). Due to the excessive speed and traffic of the current drivers to and from Brethren Christian School, we feel that speed bumps are currently needed on Effingham Drive. The gymnasium project will generate an exponential increase in neighborhood traffic. At the very least, the City of Huntington Beach should put speed bumps on Effingham Drive, and possibly Strathmoor, to reduce the City's liability exposure and to protect our children's safety. Please include this document in your packet for the public hearing in early March. We look forward to a reply from the City on this matter. Thank you! Michael &Stephanie Beuerlein 9842 Effingham Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2/13/2009 °�° ' dG . ` � Cif of HUhth tOM Soach FEB 17 2099 February 17, 2009 Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2008-018 BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM Dear Mr. Talleh: We are writing a response to the Draft Negative Declaration for the School Gymnasium project that is currently under review. We have several concerns with the proposed project and the impact it may have on our surrounding community that are not reflected by the Planning Departments analysis of the project. Our specific concerns address increased traffic, neighborhood security, and increase in noise. In addition, we are concerned with the expansion of high school activities on an existing middle school site. Traffic Currently, the traffic in the morning and afternoon use Strathmoor and Effingham as the ingress A �and egress to the school site. During the morning the traffic is quite heavy as well as the afternoon. While there is an impact, it has been tolerable. 11L The concern arises over the increase of"ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches ... in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." Further, the existing sports program will be expanded to games on week nights in addition to the Friday night football games. These events will far increase the amount of traffic that currently enters and exits in the morning and afternoon. Not only will the school community be driving to the evening events, outside groups and other private school supporters will be doing so also. An example of this problem can be seen with the addition of Friday night football games. The amount of cars and patrons to the events far outnumber the available parking and capacity for the site. Cars can be observed parking on the adjacent streets over a block away due to lack of on-site parking. While the event may be a two hour event, the traffic begins forty-five minutes before and after the scheduled event. In addition, local school sites should serve their immediate neighborhood it serves. Security With the additional events and activities proposed as a result of the construction of gymnasium, comes additional security issues the community may face. While the school has control over the students and parents within their jurisdiction, they have limited, if any, control over the groups coming into the area for scheduled games and events. We are unaware of any plans as to how the school will address this issue and control the visitors to the site. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner February 17, 2009 Page two Noise Living near a school one expects to hear noise from the school due to physical education, bells, field days and activities. However, this project is the beginning of expanding an existing middle school site to one that accommodates high school students with an increase of activities. With the additional activities comes increased noise, not only in the day, but expanding into the evening. In the proposal it states that activities such as band and choir practice and drama rehearsals will be relocated from unenclosed areas. The middle school does have two enclosed area with existing stages. One area can hold several hundred people and was used as a large multi-purpose room and a smaller room that holds over 60 to seventy people. When the middle school was open, the enrollment reached over 900 students and they were able to provide appropriate space for the various programs. There should be ample space to support the existing programs in the current facility. Middle School Site While we can appreciate the administration of the Brethren School and their Board's effort to expand the facilities to provide an education for the students that attend the private school, we are concerned with the site's capability to meet their needs. The school is nestled in the center of existing homes and was once a neighborhood middle school. It now is being expanded to address the needs of both middle school and high school age students. We believe this creates a problem as the site will not be conducive to such an expansion. According to the Guide to School Site Analysis and Development, "requirements in this guide can serve to assist in the program modifications necessary to make the best use of a reduced site size in areas where land is scarce and costly. " Site requirements for grades nine through twelve 0 11 ' 1 a � 11 el a ell : 1 0 111 I1 0 e � . , .g Physical Education 13.8 15.6 1 17.6 19.5 19.8 Buildings and Grounds i 3.3 4.0 5.1 6.3 7.6 Parking and Roads 21 3.6 4.4 5.2 6.1 Total acres without CSR 19.2 23.2 27.1 31.0 33.5 Guide to School Site Analysis and Development,2000 edition,California Department of Education,Sacramento,Ca &-rTMME N . Rami Talleh, Senior Planner February 17, 2009 Page three As stated earlier, the existing site should be sufficient to house their programs. The only justification to add a large facility to the site would be to expand the programs that would generate greater appeal in attracting students to enroll in the school. More time and community input is necessary to determine if this expansion project is necessary and even feasible. As can be seen on the above chart, the acreage necessary for this school should be between 19 and 23 acres. Based upon the foregoing information, we believe that the project is ill advised and should not be approved as presented. Further discussion and review of their long-term plans need to be presented and addressed with the community for further understanding. Until then we must oppose the proposed building project as it negatively impacts the surrounding residents. The increase in traffic, the noise, the issue of security and the site capacity are major concerns and issues that must be addressed and resolved_ Sincerely, Alan Rasmussen, Ed.D. Janet Rasmussen 21061 Amberwick Ln Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 ,TT ��; � 0", "_ :5 February 6,2009 Rami Talleh Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,Ca.92648 Re: Public Notice Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Negative Declaration Dear Mr.Talleh: We received the Public Notice regarding the above. In our review of the Draft Negative Declaration for the School Gymnasium Project, we find it interesting that with the Planning Department's review of the entire project description that you have concluded that there will be"No Significant Impact"or"No Impact"to our community. The proposed building is 100% inconsistent with what exists in our City. There are no other schools located in an interior residential neighborhood that have lighted fields and high profile buildings. We have a number of concerns, most of them shown in the following sections: VI. Transportation and Traffic The Public Notice indentifies there will be"ancillary events catering to the surrounding community,churches and youth programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events. ��� Because we currently deal with a number of traffic and speeding issues with the current school traffic and activities, in all probability,adding more events,extending hours,and adding more traffic will 4 definitely be an issue for our neighborhood. Additionally, because of the absence of any statement in the documents,we're concerned this could possibly mean year round activities. With the added visitors and activities,you do not show any impact on the parking issue. Where will the added buses and visitor's vehicles park? Granted,the school proposes to add five additional spaces as they reconfigure the parking areas,but at this time,a number of staff and/or students don't park on-site. They park on the residential streets and the park's spaces. During the football season,we even had overflow parking on our street,one block away.And how do they intend to inform visitors that we have many young families in this residential community and to drive the speed limit coming and going to the site. How can this be patrolled? Are the residents going to be at more risk with these added vehicles? X. Noise It's indicated that an indoor facility, i.e.,the gym,will reduce noise. Noise during the school �Jv hours really isn't a current issue. However,the outdoor night games can be quite loud,as any sporting event is. And it's unlikely that the completion of the football games,and the departure of the vehicles, will end by 9:30 p.m. So,there is an impact on us. ATTACH1 �n� n Xf. Public Services t Given the proposed gymnasium will back to the Southern California Edison easement—the park —is it possible it might attract unwanted activity? We have occasional issues during the summer prompting the helicopter to fly over. With the building being a buffer from the street area this may increase. We do think it could have an impact on the neighborhood. XM. Aesthetics Your review doesn't identify lighting as an issue,nor that a 34 ft. high,27,000 sq.ft. building is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Also, the drawings show, but there's no written comment, there will be large signage on the east side of the building,along with two oversized roll-up doors; this is what will be seen as you enter from Brookhurst west on Effingham;the signage on the north side won't be as large, but still appears larger than current lettering, and will be seen as you go south on Strathmoor T5 from Atlanta. The school indicates they will have portable lights for the football games. They have told us t 1 night use of the 70 ft. lights are for ASOP. However,they are also used by the school for night games. This past season,the lights have appeared much brighter than years past. They may have changed the wattage. The school had indicated to us they would try to adjust them as we have them shining into some of our second story windows,as well as impairing vision when driving west on Effingham. Based on the Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27,"all outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage"onto adjacent properties". The Aesthetics section does have an impact on us. Where it's our belief that the school has all good intentions to remain a good neighbor, we wonder why there wasn't more thought in meeting with the residents prior to having architectural plans completed and moving forward with such an expansion. In attracting new students to their school on their website,they indicate"Located in a quiet Huntington Beach residential neighborhood less than two miles from the beach,". This is why we live in this neighborhood and want to remain as such. With the intended expansion and the addition of activities resulting in more traffic,we believe this proposal will definitely have a negative impact on our community,to include safety issues,as well as possibly affecting property values. The gymnasium is oversized and does not fit with the current low-profile buildings or neighborhood and is inconsistent with other interior neighborhood schools' land use. Since y, Terry L. and Sharon L.Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca. 92646 714-93-0312 trerowther@cartlilink.net cc: City Council,City of Huntington Beach February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. 'ferry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: 12ami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: .2 Name: k-c Signaturut�' Address February 7,2009 �- zU Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in a■ur letter,we feel there could be a:egat:ze impactor.our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Doping you agree that we treed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 211 o�F Name: _ i� ��'t■ f -f-- Signature• Address : / � ..n. � February 7,2009 CQ Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Doping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: -6)/W Name: --�7� Y�Ge Signature: Address : 4(1 AC (� 4 7f V J f J L q�,- // 4 /- i February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could he a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must he to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we geed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: 12ami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature: Address /-Od4t r February 7,2009 � t_�.�u;1;- Z-'O];) Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Eloping you agree that we geed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Itami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 9— . /0, Name: _ D(.(_) Signature: Address1�I_, /Li1 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Fast week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.It you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we geed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Ferry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ' Name- Signature: t Address February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Fast week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could he a negative impact on our community should this proposal he approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ;Z- 10RIkM f Name: Signature: Address : February 7,2009 1lT ..4�..�i.._.-LL�Ill 1\Glj�'L UTJ( L=twcck we received a Puglia lNotiee-frotn the City of Huntington Beech Ply"°-i-'d Department fora Nega -e Declaration for the Brethrek Christian School Gymnasium Project_ -After400kug at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department Because the proposed expension and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to ffCvlPw tht informatib(1. As-Anted in our letter,we feel there could-he a negative hap-act On vuur i:oammuniNy should lit"proposal be approved. -Skild you agree with our-convernsi it would be grcat if you could send your comments to the Pianat"a Depart ue:t as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agivera t of our letter,forwarding it to the Pla-aver. —Affacumments must be,to the Manner by 5-60 r-m.,Tuesday February :7,500-,with a public hearing teFutatively scuedukd for early Nbtlrch,which-we should all attend. Wit,=:S yu:1:gr ee tivat-We need tb Giainiai7 toile iut�rity'of nur ne ghborhoed, b-- fj�� Terry and S area Cr o::ti er AIM Richmond Circler Huntington Reach!Ca. 92646 7iT963�'3l2 f _• - ---------------------------------------------------ate— l ---------- -To- ; - - �3a�i i alien;Senior Planner �r X 7t� ��� v v aeuab:Planner C vV of itunoingt on Beach � C _ rlanmino Depairtment ; AgrCQ!lleu5 Of git—hed kfttwyr- Diate. !� �...�... T oiguaiu CV ice" v Address • �' � •` / i •� Feb 13 09 10:42a (, res%fther 714-9 312 P 1 February 7,20-09u Mipar Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Retch Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. .flier lookkag at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Depar:meat. Because the proposed ezpausion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the int'ormation. As stated in our letter;we feel there could be a negative impact on our tommuniCy', should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planuilg Department as we-if.If you'd prefer;you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p:m�;Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early Mare8;which we should all attend. Raping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 --- ---- --------- ------------- - =-.-_e- - ------- ----------- `o: Bami Tallch,Senior Planner e;PIX Zld - � 'I¢ - t � � N Senior Manner � City ofu®taagfonacli Pfaa€viee Depart-)u E Agreement of attached letter.- Date: Name: e l`i��s11}-ii�L—C: fi+✓j� .i°<lI�� r} ^ ,,' I.f.'fi��'{',f AT W R' . , City of Huntington Beach FEB 13 2009 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date:_ F-m - co Name- Signature:. Address : Z.0 Hrz ATTACH N .J _ F City of Huntington Bead February 7,2009 FEB 13 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: � � .� - L��� 4X Signature: Address / O iV 4, 6 v-- l y of HuntiivQi r February 7,2009 FEB'13 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we 'received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns, it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: /D tcmv ;?Oa Name: Pl'u'rz fW r, i�-4 Signature: Address • �$$ ���' 1rJ OW. e� . TTACHM N�! �,IKIJ{� ..-;-: - Aty of ftty 3 2009 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: a Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature: w Address • �—�'� fl ATTACHMENT NO,-- ��� City of Huntington Beach E February 7,2009 FEB 13 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our Ietter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Doping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: y Name: All6f- lam'G V/l Signature: r ' Address • �toSZ ,l�eriJlG�' City of Huntington February 7,2009 FEB 13 20 3:i Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Eloping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: �' --O Cl Name: Signature: Address - 4 4 O Z b a oo!`e-- P-- . ATTACHMEN N1 , February 7,2009 0� "U"$MPO Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ro, r 11 A I I , �2— c9 O Name: B � � �✓ Signature: (n� Address 1V4,1X;1-7 /4/ ATTACHMENT ! w ��� February 7,2009 peo Dear Neighbor 9 Last week we reccived a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declar> tion for file Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns, it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.3f you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Plann?r. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping yov agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terri- and Starer Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 714-963-0312 --- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior 1'ganner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 3� Nmne- n,:,... Signa?ure• r-,1104P-2 CEO kW A/)I L.20 10ff H U4-T- February 7, 2009 Dear Neighbor.- Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter, forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. t� Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Taileh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: —/� Name: 1-3 Signature: Address qy .,:v n February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Roping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-%3-0312 -------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh9 Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 2, Name: Signature: Address : Zi O,t,Ot Huntiriigton Beach February 7,2009 FEB 1 7 2000 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Manner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: If' 0 Name: f ` t, Signature: Address : �� Paz 4 c-� Gk, .,,i Huntington beach February 7,2009 FEB 172009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Doping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Ferry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: c2lloZIOT Name• C ,6? D-4 Signature. Address : City Oj Huntingtoy) 60ach February 7,2009 FEB I 2®09 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we treed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: 12ami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Z Oe Name: �2 . c�� Signature: Address : `IAb . Y �90 -------------------- ---------------------------------------------- To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner IWO i(11,I gruff Beach Senior Planner City of fIuntington Beach 17 2009 Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 2111°11c). Name: C-,,ad,S Signature: N 5, A:��n Address : oZl 1 CQL lO b ,L ; " ,_' jM . To: Rani Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: a — Cj i Name• Signature: Q �s Address : 1 U Y a S frZ-A l y l ywC)O L am . VA 01 UA �-- I— �� Av � a !0o pgqyim C u�r F� s 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Sensor Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: D'J • I f,�� � ) Signature: CRY 01 Address : • 9dto y(-v 1 To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: 1C 71 Signature- 1 l� Address ATTACHMENT:. To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature: Address x H 9 4 N T �-- i To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Manning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: — -�9 L U Name: "ar-pc Af 201w Signature• Address : l l C-12- ---------- — - ------------------------------------------------------- _' T 9: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 01 Planning Department M Of 11untinglOn - - t 1 j Agreement of attached letter: Date: 1! L" FFI);,3 2009 &?j'p � 0 Signer.Ure• i Address : 7 �,�- tl+�'C WW-, 2 ATTACHMOEIM m (�� —------- --—-- ----- -------------------- Te Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner C! City of Huntington Beach �C�y�n�111g�®!7 Planning(Department e11h 10 , Z009 Agreement of attached letter: (Date: 2— 1 a —09 Name: (-CTOR EDIT H —1--,)WqQAK Signature: Address : -2 n( i -Ri cm m o R D (-1�7 t pc L-E - ------------------------------------------------------------ . To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner OaG� City of Huntington Beach Planning Department (-16 E� 1�2009 Agreement of attached letter: Date; Name: Signature• Address : 14 'L o: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department City of.Hun ington BeaCh Agreement of attached letter: Date: 0014 FEB 18 2009 Fume: -T5 f}ivy —7i3f}-1 LEY Signature- 6,��, As� JV Address: ✓G/**14 To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner Ok [7 v 9 City of Huntington Reach Manning Department City of�HuntingTp Beach Agreement of attached letter: Date: IV Name: �/ 1 Signature: w Address • �2—L �-14 2-&�� 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami TaBeh,Senior Planner --nior Planner City of Huntington Peach Planning(Department RB 7'2QQ9 ® i Agreement of attached letter: Date: Lq Name: Signature: Address • Or 0 e eA C4MN ` -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami T'alleh,Senior Planner Senior Manner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department �� ZOp� City Of y"'fi on Agreement of attached letter: Date: e in cr Signature: Address IHI tag��,`'4s� ',F"� .:����+,m„ To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 41L S��gMf' Name• Signature• Address 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner / ,, /- Senior Planner eK 61A, f b C44 r 1 7�`�- Xa4 �`"LJ " ``7 City of Huntington Beach C/�� Planning Department Ile- Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Ako,�in -- Signatu e• Addr ��� � Cif of Huntington Beach February 7,2009 FEB 17.20og Dear Neighbor: ]Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the informatian. AS stated in our!etter,we fee!there could b--a n gative imnnact on our come-lu n-!Fy should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we geed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Tianner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ` 3 Name: :Ja M es ,e W l>n el < Signature:QC6�� Address : 14 I siy'F Our QriIliW Gal 1 offs— yd!�1 1l Ale . Cars &-Y1 #4416Y, , �c7h� e- { , Y�n esi � u43I�1-1�5 � /�►��r� r� �_ �c�m2-�J �S �Gj7tac�rh zAfp ' ✓1 1�?'� �� � �a�� i'6 �d7 - Lf� '3 6 ! �o4scA all 1 CY- Saccor- • ar.N, 1 I �� _ i' Ile Ott "ja 3 �_ w /b-"des A c-�-1 l \J V �6 Y o 0 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: l Name: J 1 i L UL Signatu Addre � a The Crowthers make some compelling arguments against the Brethren Christian School gymnasium/expansion Project. Are what they state facts? We think there is some validity to their point of view. What are your positions/answers to their questions? JO QOA T ry � .�i YY ATTAC': #6 ti: - - .. - - I • yam;; - :'k�tciy,;aj;.:d��+,,:;uypsi°�t'�i•'VIFf';n`.'" ;;i}�p. ,7/;� F - ,'�. ' T�-'Q,',,:ic�.ytd'di�':N;.'Y �t^ �, .1,�.,N��,�,» r.' ,tom {,�'��• ,1.•r� «'[':L,• i�it�' M•'"... _ �Y„�q�Y � •`, �Ay ✓ �°"' 8�, '�i�:+�.. +{f�; >Ri�:'ti ...� .t�� �.,Y,•;WM���4 �L�.r6?r'Y' r t -� , Ce L�K mr 8LUEEIEI0 OR.YARD SICYCLC 3 u nw r .ou.•f \ j \ :\� Fj BLOC too ` �11� 1�U �I I L -r� BLOC JCO P'f"' 2 O.^ortcr w a.0 BLOC 200 ` i - ' 1 r•. I O Ka'"cnerwc B.wro.nNu rr.r[:Bco •• � P[tOw DCNU aR SrD 60Y....... 1[. b I nurr�n II I A* K 0 I CA XK B.PRO•D[Nq rn, UT I �q SA�6-Q 6-C.row p[N r(Bp p[CMP.SY•lt rJ BLOG 400 Ir• �� t_,W J GAY G:MAL`AE MAN ,i>VRpYEO r I 11 \ �'u• 5I I .,:•:..Nwa io.0 c•:nHw,u.� y al r _'1 \ LEGEND -- i n i k p _ i — (`"'.�•�;. EFFlN UALAAI DR'a. I i[ i � V ITI 53 oof4lnq.Goce• it I.- o.nr w• 6 __ �_ _��__ �� J1 Mr•p=n -T[—^f yl � • iwA.[4.r m ) JLS.ILllJLJLJLy-s�llLH H h f Lr" •••, q Raw :�J RCP®1pPrr mn =F I R E L A E"„w gip •� �".�"�B�.,.. Sii u•.:r.�.s a w o....�^ 1-80—!!32 Ad AAA i I 4Q_EL9E�Ln � to 0 wr n.c.wr r.a GRAD a vim= yams[ %N[r r.M' n�iso.0 wyiNaCR.�.Y is ww R a s wwr now R alas 1meY R79eL AM MwMn r Tq M~J.M OYnD On a•41U• MYAY tlsYl G G[� ZL I I 1 m WE EXG. IAL , �_______^__"�''� wn.•ortrnnw*ece.rewierwdceru�e++ '`. $ 1 .Nvnoc.ew e�w.c eras o.rn.u�w aro i , c en.N,ww..No ae��we uiou suucl. BLU it————————FULL 91ZE I II o+�++sv+mra _` — ————New.ue «e— SOCCER \ q . : : Mom, — r\ — u i 1 RJGrlp1 r^Ryw�.ei«r1 O * ,o; o._ / _ ® N g> I .-------YaLU NGqu¢ er ,w /Mail rt 1 1 X / 1 I � ror.e•��o-u.xe reso er. �fa �� 1 w I 5HORT SIDE... w„o E SOCCER =c c � 1 rom ew�onn�w.e ar,.r. Q UJ I BASEBALL I� � 0 I ---------------1---------, 8 ——yI� .ueic, N �� 9ru I U V .L m ------ FULL9IZE ® �' I I Z(n �_ Z 1 C� im ----- �I --- - - --p - w= II Z / S } T WC7 y I EFFINGHAM DR o r A o�+ -j '1 ec c�a m it JI PROPOSED GT NASIUM —————— — ——— -� 27,005 5F. �%, `---—•—---- ----— --� wcnb � to SCE EASEMENT GREEN BELT tee ., 4Ro ;, 4a,4o O SCE EASEMENT GREEN BELT ,e�eu oum nee�,> w�.v ` «��eern.ae ruw r' n� °� re,ece,aa.e ..Yu ao«•N•».a o..•�`w ® rora ea we oa e�c`ns � r�o ° e M egae nrj�•, ,up o eoe 21�6,. T �.. EXI '. �uc�e nr' PARK .u+toaw rua a ae N SITE PLAN � d 7 Dy1 I Y 8 C D E F O Y � � C5 //r/�o ,rrero � c�ec vice v.ke V —A`-- / cPc+e.'w^ a�n I 0 y F A gp - 7)1 � I Z ' I Q \� ----- ------ ----'-r- -�'-'-7---------r�--' r-----------------li--------i CC 0 —;I----;—"- Z Zo a I I LU = zo III I I 8 I I I ------ - -- 4-- \L '�- i-- - J-�j--' a .wt me � ---}-- �--- ; -�-- � � - � III{------- '�< f I I I I I I I 1 I I I I li I ' II I - -- $A- - - I I 1 I I 1 '� I t I i I I I I ..w•m,..w•ww v n awm. I I I ��w r,..ti....•o oae...an w. wti.aw ui�w,w.m w ow.,a WO s 6 n—n.w FLOOD PLAN 02.1 S ° tl B R E T H E N C H R I S T I A PSI JUN OR & SENIOR IOH SCHOOL=1 y�T 0 E Z a —� U all A NORTH - FRONT ELEVATION z W � 0 H M E OF W R 1 ® S UV 2m ° Zu) � o uj x= F o =0 _ o w 2 z z x M Ei � a b /yE8.yf.� je W 4 1 � KUEnfi•C 'B ALbE m9 `••1 En8 D 0>06�00 EAST - LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 2 KEY NOTES aDavC BETE T­UP Watt PANEL PANTED iWTED GL 489aE.RpN*Dona AND WiuDow BreTEn ery Tu Ou .OR ��L�Mun�BT T-1wWO!xWWr EiT liv IIVTED GLA00 AVD w-v+l�m.o�.00am.w�m E0 ALI.NQM 8TORF6-8LVD WINDOW WIT WITH 11NTED a x° a• °1 ❑0 uOLLOW n9111 DPOR AND iRG'IE PAwrCD [] --.A.ROLL UP Dona.PAMreO. I] LB'coacae T!eCDae Reveal, EXTERIOR ELEYATIONE O -'cONDRETE 8DOR9 REVEAL kI DELINEATIVN, O P .TED BCN LLOD Ift D3.j ej eI z I Ali E C� j� C > � SOUTH - REAR ELEVATION Vey 3 Z `= w TJU o Uz 06 of ` w= 0 v, z ;I t W = _ FBI o m N N II ANe m. .. w carp me WEST - RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION KEY NOTES QcwcrserE nu.uP WALL PANeL PANTED ❑] CC*ICIaETE Pavel laver, �J A--$TOPEERONT DO AND WND Br T51 WITN NiED GLA09. a PLUnNUn 0TCa R T WM UNIT WIT.TINTED GLABB A00 AND .,w v ny�p�gna v M avw<n, —— .—ExGu.ANGe. ❑5 AL l)n NJn BTOIEEe 1 BLI 1-UUNDOW WIT WTN TNTED 00�01 GL—eDei DONCEDOIONB. �0 -4--AL DOOR AND I—E PAINTED O DKNNEAD IEOLL UP DDOII PANTED, ❑e Bi.CwCIKre POPE PEveµ, EXTEFIDF CLEVAilONB O ei4'—RETE BGpeE Ie Al—DELNEATIO Qm PAINTeD 03.2 m BRETHREN CHRISTIAN JUNIOR & SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL R 6 E.c --------- -------- _________ __ --7 — la — �—:----� - Z tij --- --- -----i fn 0 �J ZUD uj m = --- ---- ------ -- SCHEME C CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN 1 D2.1 ATTACHMENT #71 , W. , 'i i v. ff eM November 13, 2008 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To Whom It May Concern, As part of our request for an issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, please find the following narrative that describes the background of Brethren Christian Junior and Senior High School (BCHS) and the modifications we are requesting: BCHS has operated at the former Gisler Huntington Beach City School District property for the last 10 years on a short term, year to year lease; the lease recently amended to a 35 year term. BCHS respectfully requests permission to develop a multi purpose community gymnasium that will house basketball, volleyball and other indoor activities. The Gisler campus has existed at the location as an institutional school for 45 years. The North and West sides of the school are homes; on the East side are Strathmoor Street and the South side is an SCE Easement. The gym will be located against the SCE Easement, open sports fields, and a parking lot on the other two sides; it does not abut any residences. The purpose of the gymnasium is to support BCHS activities as well as Huntington Beach community, churches, and youth programs. Operation hours will be regular school hours, some weekends and evenings. I hope this information along with the attached plans covers your needs. If you have any concerns or questions;please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kevin A. Coleman KAC:klw ATTACHMENT NO. 3130 Airway Avenue ® Costa Mesa, California 92626 • Phone (714)754-4454 • Fax(714) 754-0198 Rhretl7ren risfian Junior& Senior High School Quality Christian Education Since 1947 Tuesday, April 21, 2009 To: The City of Huntington Beach This is a narrative summary of Brethren Christian's efforts to communicate with our neighborhood regarding our gym, and the work we have done so far to mitigate perceived problems. Our intent to build a gym has been public knowledge for nearly two years. It was always closely linked to our desire to secure our long term lease. On Tuesday, July 17, 2007 the Huntington Beach City School District held a public meeting to listen to proposals for long term lease of the Gisler and other surplus campuses. There was a large contingent of local residents in attendance, I publically presented the school's desire to lease the campus for the long term enabling us to build a gym. Here is part of the exact text I read that evening: "For some time Brethren Christian has desired to improve the property and our service to the community by building a gym for our use and the neighborhood as well." All through the fall, winter and into the spring public meetings were held in which we shared our goal of a long term lease with permission to build a gym for our own use and the community. Our formal proposal to the district that fall included: "Brethren shall be permitted to place and construct on the Property, at its sole cost and expense, such improvements and fixtures reasonably necessary to conduct its operations, including but not limited to a gymnasium." There was a tsunami of support for our school. I am aware that some of the support was simply in favor of the status quo but there was still plenty of praise for what fine neighbors we were and that our proposal was fair and in the best interest of all. Our final lease agreement signed June 24 of 2008 stated: "Tenant desires to construct a new multi-purpose gymnasium to be situated on or about the parking lot . . . " On July 10, 2008 we sent a press release to the Orange County Register, Huntington Beach Independent, Long Beach Press Telegram and the LA Times OC edition. This is the first paragraph: Brethren Christian Junior and Senior High School has signed a long-term lease with the Huntington Beach City School District for its present site on Strathmoor Avenue in Huntington A Ministry of Greater Long Beach Christian Schools,Inc. 21141 Strathmoor Lane.Huntington Beach,California 92646 e(714)962-6617 e Fax(714)962-3171 Website:www.bchs.net o E-mail: info@mail.bchs.net ATTACHMENT Beach. The lease essentially provides for a lease term of 35 years. The lease also provides financial incentives for the school to develop a multi-purpose center(gym) and to make improvements to the mechanical equipment and roof of the campus. On July 24, 2008 we held a"Community Thank You Barbecue"on the campus to thank our neighbors for their support and to show our plans for improving the campus. Easels were set up holding the site layout boards showing the location of the new gym, football field, and other planned improvements. Easily more than one hundred fifty neighbors attended. We answered questions about our new planned new gym. Again, I was overwhelmed with the kind words of support from the neighbors. That fall we invited our neighbors to our football games. The planned improvements, including the gym, were on display prominently. When the public comment process began, I believe in February of 2009, we were notified that many neighbors had signed a letter in opposition to the building of the gym. We began receiving other emails and letters as well. The primary complaints were of perceived existing problems of excessive traffic, parking on streets during football games and generally dangerous driving by people going to and from the campus. It was also clear that many of the issues involved AYSO and its extensive use of the campus. It was feared that the addition of a gym would lead to more usage by outside groups and thus exacerbate the problem. Immediately the school took the following actions: • Contacted the Huntington Beach Police Department to request unannounced and ongoing traffic patrols (and especially ticket writing!). Additionally, our School Police Liaison Officer agreed to additional unannounced, ongoing patrols. • Notified the neighborhood by student distributed flyers of the unannounced and ongoing traffic patrols • Notified all students, staff,teachers, and parents through email, newsletter, staff meetings, huge posters and assemblies to ensure safe, and courteous driving and to encourage: • Voluntary car pooling • Voluntary 20 mph speed limit in 25 mph zone • Leaving early to avoid the temptation to speed • Assigned staff to traffic monitor duty in high visibility yellow jackets both morning and afternoon on Strathmoor and Effingham. • Logged all traffic or site related complaints. • Purchased a radar gun to help us be objective in determining speeders • Set a policy of directing all parking for our 6-7 football games annually onto our campus. We will open the other end of our football field ensuring ample on campus parking. This also applies to any other event where parking on the street might be an issue. • Set a policy that all outside groups using our campus be required to have on site security 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after any events to ensure trash pickup and that no loitering occurs. A Ministry of Greater Long Beach Christian Schools,Inc. 21141 Strathmoor Lane®Huntington Beach,California 92646• (714)962-6617®Fax(714)962-3171 Website:www.bchs.net•E-mail:rniswonger@bchs.net ATTACHMENT � . • Drafted a preliminary version of a Neighborhood Information Packet. • Met with AYSO about the concerns with traffic, speeding and field lights. We also notified them of the unannounced, ongoing traffic patrols by HBPD. • Sent a letter to the Public Works Commission requesting: • Deceleration lanes on Effingham and Brookhurst • Speed bumps • School zone signage • Cross walk markings • Stop sign installed at the south exit of the school We organized a meeting with our neighbors who live within .35 miles of the school on March 8, 2009. This was two days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. We presented our plans and listened to the neighborhood concerns. We also presented our strategies to address those concerns. At this meeting we received several signups for our Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Committee. This meeting was held on Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 3:00 pm on campus. The minutes of the meeting are attached. This meeting was again to allow neighbors to express concerns and suggest methods of improving traffic and pedestrian safety. The committee suggested: m More school zone signage should be installed. ® A median preventing westbound traffic on Effingham from entering the school at the south exit would prevent possible collisions. • The committee suggested enhancements to the preliminary draft of the Neighborhood Information Packet. These actions are designed to create a permanent structure for listening and responding to neighborhood issues. We have enjoyed a long and pleasant relationship with our neighbors and it is our firm intent that this will continue for decades to come. Sincerely, IV Rick Niswonger Principal A Ministry of Greater Long Beach Christian Schools,Inc. 21141 Strathmoor Lane e Huntington Beach,California 92646 e(714)962-6617 a Fax(714)962-3171 Website: www.bchs.net®E-mail:miswonger@bchs.net ATTACHMENT NO. AT�TcHMENT #8 ' Huntington Beach Planning Commission ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION March 11, 2009 Kevin A. Coleman Net Development 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) APPLICANT: Kevin A. Coleman, Net Development REQUEST: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CUP: To permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, enhancements to existing landscape areas, construction of three new parking areas, resurfacing existing parking lot areas, and expansion of the existing sports program to include evening football and basketball matches. Proposed uses within the gymnasium will consist of school related events, in addition to ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648 LOCATION: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (east side of Strathmoor Lane, south of Atlanta Avenue). DATE OF ACTION: March 10, 2009 On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was conditionally approved. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval. Please be advised that the Planning Commission reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to commencement of the project. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the conditions of approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance in order to expedite the processing/completion of your total application. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan, reflecting conformance to all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to TACCIIMENT NO. . Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www,surfcity-hb.org Notice of Action:ND 08-018/CUP OL,_.32 March 10,2009 Page 2 appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Five Hundred Forty-One Dollars ($1,541.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars ($2,379.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is March 20, 2009 at 5:00 PM. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. "Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020." If you have any questions, please contact Rami Talleh, the project planner, at rtalleh@surfcity-hr.org or (714) 374-1682 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: Herb Fauland, Planning M ager SH:HF:RT:lw Attachments: Findings and Conditions of Approval— No. 08-018/CUP No. 08-052 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Leonie Mulvihill, Senior Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-0181 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 08-018 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. 2. Conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach program and traffic monitoring will reduce potential traffic impacts associated with the school. In addition, staggered start and end time will reduce the impacts to the neighborhood to a less than significant level. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052, will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 for the (a) construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium including (b) associated site improvements consisting of enhancing existing landscape constructing three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, and resurfacing existing parking areas, (c) use of the gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice including 10 basketball games during school hours and in the evenings after school hours, (d) use of the gymnasium for the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs and (e) use of an existing multi-purpose soccer field as a football field, install bleachers, and four portable light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice during school hours and in the evenings after school hours will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Potential traffic impacts will be minimized through the use of staggered start and end times, a neighborhood outreach program including the formation of a neighborhood traffic committee and designating of neighborhood liaisons to the school. An additional measure consisting of monitors to regulate traffic entering and exiting the subject site during events will reduce impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the site is currently provided with lighted fields and is used regularly by youth sports organization in the evenings. The proposed sports facilities will be similar in nature to the activities presently occurring on the site. The placement of the gymnasium and football field and bleachers provides as much buffer area as possible for the adjacent residential uses. The proposed portable light fixtures are much shorter in height when compared to the existing light standards (30 ft. vs. 70 ft.). In addition, the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, concession area, ticket booth, etc...) and will be G:PC\NOA\09\ND 08-018/CUP 08-052 Attachment 1.1 NO. f approximately 22 ft. high—similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height—similar in height to surrounding multi-family structures. 3. The proposed construction of a gymnasium at the subject property will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Title 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The existing and proposed school facilities comply with all code requirements including building height, landscaping, parking, and any specific condition required for ,the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. One permanent surplus parking spaces and additional overflow parking will be available on the subject site. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. The project will serve the educational needs of community and surrounding region and is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Objective LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.4.1: Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. Policy LU 9.4.2: Require that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU 9.4.3: Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of the property, minimize the cost of development, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community. Objective PF 4.3: Provide public services at sites with existing public or institutional users. The site is currently developed as a school site with lighted open fields and currently occupied by Brethren Christian High School (BCHS), a private school. Furthermore, the existing fields are used by A.Y.S.O and Sea View Little League during the evenings on weekdays and during the day on weekends. The existing uses on the site and proposed gymnasium and football fields are consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies by advocating the inclusion of educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. In addition the proposed uses provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding region and enhance the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. The proposed gymnasium and football filed serve as sport/community facilities consistent in nature with the current use of the existing fields. The facilities will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The facilities will be sited in a way that provides the greatest amount of buffer for the adjacent residential uses. A total of 202 parking spaces will be provided on site to accommodate events within the facilities. Furthermore, site improvement such as landscaping enhancements and an improved vehicular circulation system will be provided to enhance the appearance of the site and provide for a more efficient use of the parking lots. The design of the gymnasium will incorporates vertical and horizontal offsets to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of surrounding residential G:PC\NOA\09\ND 08-018/CUP 08-052 Attachment 1.2 neighborhood. In addition, landscaping will.be installed on the southern elevation to soften the appearance of the gymnasium. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9, 2008 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications_ a. The landscape plans shall be modified to include landscaping along the entire length of the south elevation. The landscaping shall incorporate a horizontal element, such as three foot high shrubs, for the length of the building and vertical elements at every panel. (DRB) b. The site plan shall be modified to include a pedestrian connection across the drive aisle perpendicular to Strathmore Lane between the main campus and the proposed gymnasium by shifting the parking spaces on the north side of the drive aisle to the east. The pedestrian connection shall incorporate decorative materials to differential the walkway from the drive aisle. (DRB) c. The building elevation shall be modified to include an awning or canopy above the gymnasium entrance. Final design of the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. (DRB) d. The industrial roll up doors on the east elevations shall be removed and replaced with man doors e. Gates will be installed at the entrance to all parking areas to restrict vehicular access to the site after hours. Final design, location and operating hours of the gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments. f. The site plan shall provide and identify seven additional parking spaces. 2. Incorporating sustainable or"green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.orq/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). 3. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Applicant provides written confirmation of formation of a neighborhood traffic committee, with signatures of members. b. Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site as approved by the Police Dept. 4. The use shall comply with the following: a. A neighborhood traffic committee shall be established to allow neighbors to express concerns and suggest methods of improving traffic and pedestrian safety. Brethren Christian School shall meet with their regular neighborhood committee within one month after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, in order to assess the parking and traffic at the site. If there are substantial neighborhood concerns with traffic and/or parking, after six months from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the gym, then the issues shall be analyzed by Planning and Public Works staff and if necessary, shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. At that time, in order to resolve any outstanding concerns, the G:PC\NOA\09\ND 08-018/CUP 08-052 Attachment 1.3 as Planning Commission may modify and/or add conditions of approval. The school shall maintain a log of all complaints and make the log available upon request to the City. b. There shall be a minimum of two parking lot attendants stationed at each of the two parking lot entrances for football games. Attendants shall be identifiable to persons in vehicles and shall direct traffic entering into and existing from the site. c. Use of the gymnasium for events with more than 100 spectators and participants and/o ruse of the football field for games shall not occur at the same time and shall not overlap with community organized sports activities or any classroom instruction. d. Prior to the start of each school year, an informational packet shall be distributed throughout the entire neighborhood and to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department with the following information: 1. School contact information, 2. School policies regarding traffic and parking control 3. A calendar of events for the upcoming school year. The calendar of events shall include the next meeting date for the neighborhood traffic committee. e. All groups to hold an event on the campus, will be required to have security personnel on site 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the event. They will be responsible for cleaning any trash debris, ensure that people do not loiter after events. f. The use shall comply with all the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16. g. Football games shall start no later than 6:30 PM. In addition, the band shall cease all performances at 9:00 PM. h. All field area lighting shall be oriented so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. i. No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football field on Sundays. 5. Signage shall be subject to separate permits. 6. The development services departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any. claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G:PC\NOA\09\ND 08-018/CUP 08-052 Attachment 1.4 AXITACHMENTNOO a ATTACH MEN T #9' PG Minutes March 10,2009 Page 23 B-3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08- 052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) Applicant: Kevin A. Coleman, Net Development Request: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CUP: To permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, enhancements to existing landscape areas, construction of three new parking areas, resurfacing existing parking lot areas, and expansion of the existing sports program to include evening football and basketball matches. Proposed uses within the gymnasium will consist of school related events, in addition to ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. Location: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (east side of Strathmoor Lane, south of Atlanta Avenue). Project Planner: Rami Talleh STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 08-018 with findings (Attachment No.1);" B. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)." The Commission made the following disclosures: • Commissioner Speaker listened to the Study Session audiotape and visited the site. • Commissioner Mantini attended the Study Session and visited the site. • Commissioner Farley reviewed this project when it came before the Design Review Board. He also attended the Study Session, visited the site, attended the neighborhood community meeting on Sunday, March 8, 2009, and spoke with local residents. • Chair Shier Burnett has attended the Study Session, spoken to the local residents, attended the neighborhood meeting on March 8, 2009, visited the site and spoken with staff. • Commissioner Scandura has attended the Study Session, visited the site and spoken with Commissioner Livengood. ® Commissioner Livengood has attended the Study Session, attended the neighborhood meeting on March 8, 2009, and spoken with Commissioner Scandura. • Commissioner Delgleize has attended the Study Session and visited the site. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the project. He noted that 56 public comment letters had been received: 2 in favor and 54 against the project. He also noted that there is a Late Communication from Brethren Christian School regarding staff's suggested conditions of approval. Commissioner Speaker asked staff about the current Brethren Christian School game/sports schedule and staff noted that the details are listed in Attachment Nos. 12.1 through 12.6 of the staff report. 09p=0310 . T -° I G Winutes March 1.0; 9, DRAFT Page 24 Commissioner Scandura asked whom the Conditional Use Permit would bind and staff said that the approved Conditional Use Permit would be binding on Brethren Christian School, Commissioner Livengood asked about school zone signage and Traffic Manager Bob Stachelski noted that he signed a work order earlier in the day regarding such signs. Planning Manager Herb Fauland noted that the suggested Conditions of Approval, Attachment No. 1.4, Item 4a, call for a six-month review of the parking and traffic at the site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Kim Healy, resident, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that she felt the new gymnasium would be good for the students. Karen Rudd, resident, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that she felt it would be a benefit to the students and parents at Brethren Christian School. John Gray, Brethren Christian School/AYSO Region #56, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3 and said that he would take the local residents' concerns into consideration. Bob Ransom, Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3 and said that he would strive to be a good neighbor. Dale Strouch, resident, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that the project would be beneficial to the community. Bob Rudd, Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, and briefly addressed the minor corrections and changes that Brethren is suggesting to staff's recommended Conditions of Approval. Terry Crowther, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-3, citing issues with increased noise and traffic. Alan Rasmussen, resident, spoke against Item No. B-3, stating that he is concerned about noise and traffic and recommends a continuation of this item. Eric Profitt, resident and alumni of Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that an on-site gymnasium would be good for the students. Kent Sparks, resident, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that he supports the children's activities at Brethren Christian School. Rick Niswonger, Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, and said that the school will continue to strive to be a good neighbor and an asset to the community. Kelsey Colman, student at Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, citing the school's need for an on-site gymnasium. Alison Goldenberg, resident, spoke against Item No. B-3, citing concerns with increased noise and traffic. 09pcm0310 F h A f, I ENT r - 4, PC Minutes DRAFT March 10,2009 Page 25 Bill Burhans, Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that he supports the students' sports activities. Brian Clegh, resident, spoke against Item No. B-3, citing concerns with density, parking, blocked views and the potential of decreased property values. Edith Dworak, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-3, citing concerns with traffic. Dale Casella, neighbor on Strathmoor Lane, spoke against Item No. B-3, citing concerns with traffic. Robert Crombie, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-3, citing concerns with traffic. Jason Miller, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-3, citing concerns with traffic. Adalyn Robers, Beach Cities Community Church, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3 and the benefit an on-site gymnasium would bring to the students of Brethren Christian School. Raymond Lee, resident and parent of students at Brethren Christian School, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, and said that he supports the school's athletic programs. Paul Slavik, resident, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3, saying that he supports the school and the students' sports activities. Roger Hodges, resident, spoke against Item No. B-3, citing concerns with traffic. Mike Beuerlein, resident, spoke against Item No. B-3, citing concerns with traffic. Kevin Coleman, applicant, spoke in favor of Item No. B-3 and said that the project is in compliance with city code. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura asked Kevin Coleman what the primary use of the gymnasium would be. Mr. Coleman stated that while the gymnasium might be rented out to other organizations, its primary use would be for Brethren Christian School students. Commissioner Livengood noted that the current Brethren Christian School sports calendar is already extremely busy. He also stated that he is in support of the gymnasium, but doesn't support non-Brethren Christian School use. Commissioner Scandura noted that he concurs with Commissioner Livengood and would like the Planning Commission to restrict the gymnasium use to Brethren Christian School. He also stated that he has concerns with the gymnasium's design. Commissioner Mantini said that she is concerned with neighborhood traffic, with or without the addition of the gymnasium, and suggests that a traffic study be done on existing traffic conditions in the neighborhood. Commissioner Farley said that he sees value in the project, but understands the residents' concerns. He suggested that the school implement an enforceable traffic 09pcm0310 AIMACHMENT NO. PC Minutes March 10, 2009 D"IR AFT Page 26 management plan with restricted hours. He also noted that he has concerns with late night sporting events and suggested a restriction on gymnasium uses. Commissioner Delgleize said that she concurs with Commissioners Mantini and Farley. She agrees with Commissioner Farley's suggestion that an enforceable traffic management plan be implemented. She also asked the applicant if the field lights were on each night of the week and the Mr. Coleman said yes, the lights were on each night until 9:00 PM. Chairperson Shier Burnett asked if speed bumps could be added to the neighborhood streets. Fire Division Chief/Fire Marshal Bill Reardon said that would not be allowed, as the current fire code disallows use of speed bumps, as it would increase response time for emergency vehicles. Chair Shier Burnett said that if this project is approved, she would like to see it come before the Planning Commission for review after six months. She also concurred with Commissioner Scandura and noted that she has issues with the current gymnasium design. She further stated that she would be in favor of the project, but would like to add a condition that the gymnasium would not be used on Sundays. Planning Manager Herb Fauland noted that there are overlapping activities and existing agreements between Brethren Christian School and AYSO and Sea View Little League. He noted that it is the Planning Commission's purview to limit Brethren Christian School to activities that do not conflict with AYSO. STRAW VOTE #1 A motion was made by Livengood, seconded by Mantini, to amend suggested Condition of Approvals No. la-If by changing the wording on Item 1e from "Final design and location of the gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments" to "Final design, location and operating hours of the gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments." AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: Shier Burnett, Scandura ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED 09pcm0310 PC Minutes March 10, 2009 DRAFT Page 27 STRAW VOTE #2 A motion was made by Livengood, seconded by Shier Burnett, to amend suggested Condition of Approval Nos. 3a and 3b by changing the wording on Item 3b from "Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site" to "Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site as approved by the Police Dept." AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #3 A motion was made by Scandura, seconded by Speaker, to amend Condition of Approval No. 4a by changing the wording to read "A neighborhood traffic committee shall be established to allow neighbors to express concerns and suggest methods of improving traffic and pedestrian safety. Brethren Christian School shall meet with their regular neighborhood committee within one month after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, in order to assess the parking and traffic at the site. If there are substantial neighborhood concerns with traffic and/or parking, after six months from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the gym, then the issues shall be analyzed by Planning and Public Works staff and if necessary, shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. At that time, in order to resolve any outstanding concerns, the Planning Commission may modify and/or add conditions of approval. The school shall maintain a log of all complaints and make the log available upon request to the City." AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED 09pcm0310 PC Minutes LjRAFT March 10,2009 Page 28 STRAW VOTE #4 A motion was made by Livengood, seconded by Delgleize, to amend Condition of Approval No. 4b by changing the phrase "There shall be a minimum of two parking lot attendants stationed at each of the two parking lot entrances" to "There shall be a minimum of two parking lot attendants stationed at each of the two parking lot entrances for football games." AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #5 A motion was made by Scandura, seconded by Delgleize, to amend Condition of Approval No. 4c by changing the wording to "Use of the gymnasium for events with more than 100 spectators and participants and/or use of the football field for games shall not occur at the same time and shall not overlap with community organized sports activities or any classroom instruction." AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #6 A motion was made by Livengood, seconded by Farley, to accept Conditions of Approval 4d, 4e, 4f and 4g with no changes. AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #7 A motion was made by Livengood, seconded by Mantini, to accept Condition of Approval 4h with no changes. AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Delgleize MOTION APPROVED 09pcm0310 PC Minutes March 10, 2009 DRAI� Page 29 STRAW VOTE #8 A motion was made by Speaker, seconded by Livengood, to add new Condition No. 4j to read "Football games shall start no later than 6:30 PM. In addition, the band shall cease all performances at 9:00 PM". AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Delgleize MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #9 A motion was made by Livengood, seconded by Scandura, to add new Condition No. 4k to read "All field area lighting shall be oriented so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties." AYES: Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mantini MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #10 A motion was made by Shier Burnett, seconded by Scandura, to add new Condition No. 41 to read "No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football field on Sundays." AYES: Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: Mantini, Livengood ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED A tentative motion was raised by Commissioner Livengood to add new Condition of Approval No. 4m to limit or restrict the gymnasium rentals. Director of Planning Scott Hess noted that the Planning Commission's recommended amendments to existing Condition No. 4c should encompass the changes requested by Commissioner Livengood, so the tentative Straw Vote was not motioned, seconded or voted on. Planning Manager Herb Fauland noted that the Planning Commission had not addressed in their Straw Votes the stop signs or speed bumps discussed earlier in the meeting. Chair Shier Burnett noted that speed bumps are disallowed by current fire code. Transportation Manager Bob Stachelski noted that the addition of stop signs would be the purview of the Public Works Department. 09p=0310 ATTACHMENT ® � x PC Minutes DRAFT March 10, 2009 Page 30 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018 WITH FINDINGS AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley Shier Burnett, Delgleize NOES: Scandura, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 08-018 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. 2. Conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach program and traffic monitoring will reduce potential traffic impacts associated with the school. In addition, staggered start and end time will reduce the impacts to the neighborhood to a less than significant level. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052, will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 for the (a) construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium including (b) associated site improvements consisting of enhancing existing landscape constructing three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, and resurfacing existing parking areas, (c) use of the gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice including 10 basketball games during school hours and in the evenings after school hours, (d) use of the gymnasium for the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs and (e) use of an existing multi-purpose soccer field as a football field, install bleachers, and four portable light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice during school hours and in the evenings after school hours will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Potential traffic impacts will be minimized through the use of staggered start and end times, a neighborhood outreach program including the formation of a neighborhood traffic committee and designating of neighborhood liaisons to the school. An additional measure consisting of monitors to regulate traffic entering and 09p=0310 ATTACHMENT :` ... PC Minutes March 10, 2009 DRAFT Page 31 exiting the subject site during events will reduce impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the site is currently provided with lighted fields and is used regularly by youth sports organization in the evenings. The proposed sports facilities will be similar in nature to the activities presently occurring on the site. The placement of the gymnasium and football field and bleachers provides as much buffer area as possible for the adjacent residential uses. The proposed portable light fixtures are much shorter in height when compared to the existing light standards (30 ft. vs. 70 ft.). In addition, the gymnasium will be a tilt-up concrete structure with two visible components. The first component will house the ancillary rooms (restrooms, team rooms, concession area, ticket booth, etc...) and will be approximately 22 ft. high — similar in height to the existing classroom structures. The second component houses the courts and is approximately 34 ft. in height—similar in height to surrounding multi-family structures. 3. The proposed construction of a gymnasium at the subject property will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Title 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The existing and proposed school facilities comply with all code requirements including building height, landscaping, parking, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. One permanent surplus parking spaces and additional overflow parking will be available on the subject site. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. The project will serve the educational needs of community and surrounding region and is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Obiective LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.4.1: Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. Policy LU 9.4.2: Require that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU 9.4.3: Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of the property, minimize the cost of development, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community. Obiective PF 4.3: Provide public services at sites with existing public or institutional users. The site is currently developed as a school site with lighted open fields and currently occupied by Brethren Christian High School (BCHS), a private school. Furthermore, the existing fields are used by A_Y.S.O and Sea View Little League during the evenings on weekdays and during the day on weekends. The existing uses on the site and proposed gymnasium and football fields 09pcm0310 ' I A a ,P�t � PC Minutes DRAFT March 10,2009 Page 32 are consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies by advocating the inclusion of educational and recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. In addition the proposed uses provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding region and enhance the educational opportunities available for the youth of the community. The proposed gymnasium and football filed serve as sport/community facilities consistent in nature with the current use of the existing fields. The facilities will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The facilities will be sited in a way that provides the greatest amount of buffer for the adjacent residential uses. A total of 202 parking spaces will be provided on site to accommodate events within the facilities. Furthermore, site improvement such as landscaping enhancements and an improved vehicular circulation system will be provided to enhance the appearance of the site and provide for a more efficient use of the parking lots. The design of the gymnasium will incorporates vertical and horizontal offsets to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition, landscaping will be installed on the southern elevation to soften the appearance of the gymnasium. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9, 2008 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The landscape plans shall be modified to include landscaping along the entire length of the south elevation. The landscaping shall incorporate a horizontal element, such as three foot high shrubs, for the length of the building and vertical elements at every panel. (DRIB) b. The site plan shall be modified to include a pedestrian connection across the drive aisle perpendicular to Strathmore Lane between the main campus and the proposed gymnasium by shifting the parking spaces on the north side of the drive aisle to the east. The pedestrian connection shall incorporate decorative materials to differential the walkway from the drive aisle. (DRIB) c. The building elevation shall be modified to include an awning or canopy above the gymnasium entrance. Final design of the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. (DRIB) d. The industrial roll up doors on the east elevations shall be removed and replaced with man doors e. Gates will be installed at the entrance to all parking areas to restrict vehicular access to the site after hours. Final design, location and operating hours of the gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments. f. The site plan shall provide and identify seven additional parking spaces. 2. Incorporating sustainable or"green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). 09pcm0310 ��, p PC Minutes DRAFT March 10, 2009 Page 33 3. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. Applicant provides written confirmation of formation of a neighborhood traffic committee, with signatures of members. b. Security cameras shall be installed to help monitor the site as approved by the Police Dept. 4. The use shall comply with the following: a. A neighborhood traffic committee shall be established to allow neighbors to express concerns and suggest methods of improving traffic and pedestrian safety. Brethren Christian School shall meet with their regular neighborhood committee within one month after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, in order to assess the parking and traffic at the site. If there are substantial neighborhood concerns with traffic and/or parking, after six months from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the gym, then the issues shall be analyzed by Planning and Public Works staff and if necessary, shall be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. At that time, in order to resolve any outstanding concerns, the Planning Commission may modify and/or add conditions of approval. The school shall maintain a log of all complaints and make the log available upon request to the City. b. There shall be a minimum of two parking lot attendants stationed at each of the two parking lot entrances for football games. Attendants shall be identifiable to persons in vehicles and shall direct traffic entering into and existing from the site. c. Use of the gymnasium for events with more than 100 spectators and participants and/or use of the football field for games shall not occur at the same time and shall not overlap with community organized sports activities or any classroom instruction. d. Prior to the start of each school year, an informational packet shall be distributed throughout the entire neighborhood and to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department with the following information: 1. School contact information, 2. School policies regarding traffic and parking control 3. A calendar of events for the upcoming school year. The calendar of events shall include the next meeting date for the neighborhood traffic committee. e. All groups to hold an event on the campus, will be required to have security personnel on site 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the event. They will be responsible for cleaning any trash debris, ensure that people do not loiter after events. f. The use shall comply with all the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 99-16. g. Football games shall start no later than 6:30 PM. In addition, the band shall cease all performances at 9:00 PM. h. All field area lighting shall be oriented so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. i. No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football field on Sundays. 5. Signage shall be subject to separate permits. 09pcm0310 rA0E N T N 0. PC Minutes March 10, 2009 DRA10-l"T Page 34 6. The development services departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. CONSENT CALENDAR C- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 2 008 COMMENDED ACTION: Motion to "Approve the S ember 23, 2008, Plan ing Commission Minutes as submitted." C-2. PLANNIN COMMISSION MINUTES DAT SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 RECOMMEND ACTION: Motio "Approve the September 30, 2008, Planning Commissi Minutes submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE SHIER BURNETT, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO CONTINUE THE SE EMB 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND THE SEPT BER 30, 200 LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TO THE MARCH , 2009 MEETING, THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYE - Speaker, Mantini, Farley, S ' r Burnett S: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - NONE 09pcm0310 ATTACHMF-:.NT NO. �t2 ATTACHMENT # 1 0 -ity 4f Huntington �E City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning FEB j 1009 I am a 71 and retired, live in Villa Pacific Condos across the street from Gisler Park and Brethren Christian School. I enjoy having the school there on Strathmoor Ln. I like hearing the band play and having the kids around. I didn't get to any of the football games last year, but hope to this year. I am for the new building and the other improvements. I have live4iere 31 years and it is nice to have the school site occupied. I would like to see the field still to be used by the soccer teams in the community. Regards, Ina Hunter 21311 Seasprite Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 714-962-1209 ATTACHMENT NO. l Page I of I Talleh, Rami From: Bill & Dianna Burhans lbdburhans@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:29 AM To: Talleh, Rami Subject: Brethren Christian School Gym Dear Mr. Talleh, A letter has been distributed around to help "the integrity" of our neighborhood. In my opinion the gym would do just that. My wife and I have lived on Panacea Drive since 1982 and in that time a lot of changes have occurred. When we moved in most kids were in high school or above. Now our cul-de-sac has lots of new families with ten children under the age of eight years. With the addition of Brethren Christian School, the area has been revitalized. Friday night football may be loud with the drums, trumpets and cheers from the crowd and believe me we hear it all, but this is a community and we have spirit. I could go on but to the point. The school gym will have a positive impact. Very few kids are good enough to make the school basketball teams, so now they could join basketball leagues and use the new gym. There is a large condo complex south of the school site with many children. Lots of potential here for their use. The gym has other uses for the community; meetings, school concerts and plays. I'm getting carried away in my "short note" to you. Keep in mind that if there is one note written to you in favor of the gym, there are probably twenty who would agree. Thanks for your time and consideration. Bill Burhans 9551 Panacea Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-968-8087 2/13/2009 I A � OJOr_e4__9__, Page 1 of 1 Rick Niswonger From: Robin Klein [copdoc@lbpoa.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:48 AM To: Rick Niswonger Subject: Brethren Christian Safety We live in the tract and have had NO problems with any of the students and/or their driving.We consider you a great neighbor and appreciate the supervision that you obviously provide for the kids. Th . ks for eing there and being such a great and responsive neighbor Dr. Robin Klein 3/10/2009 gpj Page 1 of 1 Rick Niswonger From: Atlas Wellness Center[atlaswellnesscenter@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:39 PM To: Rick Niswonger Subject: From a neighbor Hi Principal Niswonger, My name is Louis Rice and I live at VILLA PACIFIC community, so I am a neighbor of yours. I got your letter and just read it today so I missed your meeting. I don't understand what concerns some neighbors would have, I guess some people have way too much time on their hands! In any case, I hope it went well, and just wanted to show my support and hope that your mission gets accomplished! If there's anything I can do to support your cause, don't hesitate to ask! Your friendly neighbor, Lou Dr. Louis Rice www.a _aswe ness.com Windows Live''": Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 3/10/2009G Page 1 of 1 Rick Niswonger From: Kkdbartlett@aol_com . Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:49 PM To: Rick Niswonger Subject: letter to the city of HB Dear Council Members and Planning Commission, Government service is quite often a thankless job, so first, I would like to thank you for your time and efforts to make Huntington Beach such a great place to live. With regards to the proposed improvements to the Brethren JrJSr. High School site, I hope you continue to make those same good decisions and approve their plans to add an on site gymnasium. The gymnasium addition has been well thought out with the placement at the back of the campus minimizing the visual impact from the neighborhood. Having an onsite gym will help to reduce traffic in the immediate neighborhood by eliminating the need to drive to and from a remote location to practice. This is currently done with car pools in an on going effort by the school to keep traffic at a minimum_ Additionally, this will be a permanent improvement to the school site at no cost to the city. The scale of the building will be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and the height of the proposed building is lower than the adjacent two story houses. Again, thank you for your service and your anticipated approval of this project_ Sincerely, aav&4r Xatvy 8a#tlett 607 7th Street Huntington Beach A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in "must 2 easessteps! 3/10/2009 Rick Niswonger From: School Board Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:54 AM To: Rick Niswonger Subject: Response from Craig Frolich for City Planning Commission 3-9-2009 Huntington Beach City Planning Commission Dear Sirs: I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1963. I attended Circle View, Meadow Veiw, Spring View, Marina High School, Edison High School and Goldenwest College all of these education facilities are in the Huntington Beach area. All the HIGH SCHOOLS and Goldenwest College have had Gymnasiums. There are MANY reasons as far as all the benefits of a HIGH SCHOOL having a gym, as I have gain many benefits myself. I would particulary be please to watch my children play sports in BCHS's new GYM. BCHS has addressed all the concerns that have been brought by the community. Most likely to an even higher degree than that of a public school. It is a HIGH SCHOOL, NOT allowing BCHS the right to build a GYM would seem unreasonable. This is a very simple decision. BCHS is a HIGH SCHOOL, High Schools have GYMS! OF COURSE I am in favor of the GYM, even if I lived across the street. Craig S. Frolich 7162 Bluesails Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 Cell Phone 714-267-9044 1 Page 1 of 1 Rick Niswonger From: S Pinterpe[SPinterpe@socal_rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:52 PM To: Rick Niswonger Subject: gym while biking across your outdoor basketball courts recently, i thought to myself how digusting they look;therefore, it was with great pleasure that i read about the new gym. 1 found some of the FAQ's quite interesting. people who buy homes near schools then complain about the weekend soccer games are idiots. i hope your neighbors will support your school. sincerely, sam Pinterpe huntington beach 3/10/2009 ATTACHMENT # 11 February 14t11, 2009 TO: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Subject: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Planning Department City of Huntington Beach We are responding to your departments "Public Notice" regarding the above planned project. My wife and I purchased our home at 21192 Lockhaven Circle(2 blocks from this tentative project) in January of 1968, having now lived here over 41 years. We purchased the home because it was in a quiet residential area, with schools close by for our four children, a nice small park nearby, and traffic that was very light and safe for small children. We have observed numerous positive changes in our city and have been quite happy with the City of Huntington Beach leaders for keeping this a wonderful place to live. As some of us long time residents are"aging", passing away, or just moving away, many new families have come into the community. We now have many small children playing on our streets. We love it and we do not want to see any added danger to those children,just as we didn't want that for our children. Now comes the problem! We watched this school became"under utilized"a few years back, falling into disrepair. We were happy when this school was repaired and converted into a private high school. Yes, it did increase the traffic a lot but it was better than watching the school fall further into disrepair. Then the soccer teams took over the large play area, installed VERY BRITE lights so they could play night games, and we watched the traffic increase drastically, almost every night! The streets in the area became full of potholes, as this quiet little school enrolled more students and increased traffic even more. Last year the city spent big dollars to finally repair the streets in our neighborhood and it will probably be another 40 years before they do it again. This school signed a long term lease to use this property and now wants to enlarge it even more by adding a large gyninasium. so they can attract more students and enlarge their sports programs. This is just an accident waiting to happen! This facility was never intended to be put to the use the Bream the access roads( were NEVER intended to handle the current traffic, lei alone the added trtaftic that ,=r_1<gt 3y�e n,Sa�P \)Zlit this i!_it 11{t\/ �arlrin(i is r1l1 \lltl Pl'P rlPar a(1P�1{i�tP ff,r itlPC``P f\?T\(�L !1T I�CP \1lP(`l'.!1 P\_/P_ilpC alrPal4ll P]`2 ilba i?ft"}Ei Q iA P'K lil lY Alt} ,f-? i'2f".„1{'�`N, res-went lui sore iS u i tot S`llir iCnokcksi `:1�a,'- T IP_,('.Llrl'P_,nt lighting at 11)gllt ]s already "bliilclirig. when heading \tvE'.Et (�_rr_ E. titltr}-{.{ f fln i "t-xf, _vnv controis" Were ever ptit 111 place to restrict or controt this lughting, arici Hf it y s`er't som"Worre dropped t.le 1i `,0 "Lveadv observed a r13i_rriber of"Px.2r 1'_iiss s" -,x h reg-- d te, rlv rs sne-edin1 doxv Ef�nSJh i `./ e"- t- a -r d- e r--d.-_g - o _a and rrirrariv:J' rTiiSSin Ch'ldren in the area, not to mention other vehicles- it-, this really/ what vve want for this area'-,) t n(,?rf'. the 1:1.1i 1P_g ti TT{t?1 1cSl�lj{ will take -A long hard look ar t-t-+Pse plan. and {n`{�it, - arc a% ri yoci shlo"Ild also I(Jok into ihf'pcurs�nt "liVirtni" pri_/C?iS ni ltiii"t ti.Ui tit 17tiC 9 tilaliin� siar< a s'at in ete• f'l" Httnt2nf 14 n Beach tl u'diclin_I Most o f[�� residents in �ttrr;a r�� ;a r� nf�t en �,t/nr rnf!?-v i` uris. oI eilis school proNrty and 1 hop;: :: docsi-` ?t -i to if "chins oclion" lac vsL'sit from conccracd r'%Sfil<nts if uLi %riy rirovCS>c3I ci ; Co arrtitis' this sC rioor cxpanu turuiM c gar d s, : Claudette and Gary t orthing 2 11922 UcYkhaven Circle Huntington Beach ,14/1968-1854 FEB 17 2009 ATTACHMENT NO, It s —� City of Huntington Beach February 12, 2009 FEB 18 2009 Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Notice of Availability of a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Dear Rami Talleh, After reviewing the public notice regarding the proposed Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project, I am hopeful my concerns for our neighborhood will be considered. We have lived on Strathmoor Lane for thirty-five years. I even attended the school at the end of my street when it was called Gisler Middle School. Although, ever since Brethren Christian Junior& Senior High School opened, we have been coping with many traffic incidents and a few vandalism issues. We currently experience a high level amount of traffic, with the more than occasional speeder. We live one house in from Atlanta on the east side of Strathmoor Lane. I have personally witnessed a young student completely loose control of his car and spin out as he turned right(at an unsafe speed) onto Strathmoor Lane from Atlanta this past fall (check the HB Police records). My truck, which I occasionally park in front of my house, has a large dent on the driver side door due to a hit and run. It is an undertaking to back out of our driveway before school begins, at the end of the school day, and during all sporting events and other recitals taking place at the school. The loud base music played from some of the cars can be disruptive while the traffic is backed up in front of my house waiting to turn onto Atlanta. I have had chewing gum thrown onto the hood of my truck. There is yellow paint all over the street directly in front of my house. Recently, another driver turning right onto Strathmoor Lane off of Atlanta(again at a higher than safe speed) avoided hitting my neighbor directly across the street from me as he was backing out of his driveway, but then nearly hit my truck. Unfortunately I do not have dates and times for the events listed above although I do have witnesses if necessary. My fear is that if this gymnasium is.built,the traffic will increase and it will negatively impact our neighborhood even more than it already is. Your consideration to my concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, r ( -�' Jennifer rcival 02/17/2009 15:22 9497234436 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PAGE 01 February 15,2008 Rami Talleh. Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington beach.CA 92648 Dcar. Mr Talleh, I write with respect to the preposterous proposed School Gymnasium.Project at the Brethren Christian.School. This development is completely incongruous with the neighborhood. It is a monstrous development that will severly impact both our quality of life and the value of our houses. The traffic associated with the school is already a problem- 'Too many cars in.too small a space with insufficient parking is a recipe for trouble and downright dangerous. The proposed signage is horrific and the building itself will give a`warehouse' feel to our neighborhood. We the taxpayers are Livid that this abomination.is even allowed to be discussed. If the Bretheen Christian School is really trying to be a good neighbor then why did they proceed with plans before meeting with residents. We already put up with the fleet of speeding SUVs that accompany their current sports events and the litter that they leave behind.Not to mention their intrusive lighting and the unacceptable noise that accompany their sporting events.They have done nothing to prevent the `spillage' from their lights as is required by their conditional use permit. In summary,this proposed monstrosity should be abandoned due primarily to the following: (1) Traffic—the neighborhood cannot cuwrently cope with the traffic associated with this school. It is already dangerous. There are many.people with young children in this neighborhood and you are putting these children at risk by inviting further traffic to these small streets_ There is not enough parking as it is. Traffic and parking is already a problem and.you are going to make it unlivable. (2) Noise—the current outdoor night games are already too loud. Furthermore, to suggest that vehicles for their night-games will.have departed by 9:30PM is City of Huntington Bose, FEB 17 2009 ATTACNMEI 02/17/2009 15:22 9497234436 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PAGE 02 absurd. Cur,-ently they are still departing at 10-30PM. It's like the Keystone Cops in our neighborhood.whenever they have their events. (3) Aesthetics—we will now have a lovely view of a 27,000 warehouse facility thereby destroying our property values. Would you buy a house on Strathmoor Lane with a view of a 27,000 foot building with large si.gnage? It is preposterous. (4) Crime—we already have frequent visits from the police helicopter at night. I can assure you that such visits will increase when we have a 27,000 square foot `warehouse' gymnashirn.acting as a buffer from street views. For the love of God, in these difficult times,will you please spare us this nonsense and please apply a modicum of common sense. We are entitled to"quiet enjoyment" of our homes. It is the responsibility of the City to ensure that our quiet enjoyment is maintained. If this abomination proceeds we will take legal action. Peter. and Sandra Neal.on 21211 Lockhaven Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 �h- 4 n 9� ot--IN 2 (b 6 2 �-r z &7;P -t A-t v7K LA AJ4E-: ATTACHMENT . 1t February 11, 2009 City of Huntington [36 r Rami Talleh, Senior Planner FEB 17 2009 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department We reside at 21121 Cocobana Lane, directly north of the school. We have always been in favor of having Brethren as neighbors, however having a school as your neighbor can have disadvantages. There are traffic issues, stadium light issues, noise issues, which are all understandable but do need addressed. On many occasions we have had to discourage vandalism, vagrancy on the school property during nights and weekends. We have even had a camper who decided to camp overnight on the school property in a tent. We have the usual adolescents who decide to take refuge and drink and party because it's difficult for the police to spot them in the backside of the school. With adding the parking lot alongside our home, we feel this will only accelerate these type of activities. We have had a broken window, injured dog and numerous foreign objects in our yard. We have spoken with the principal, Rick Niswonger regarding our concerns. When he had shovm us the proposal months ago, we made known our concerns, and his response was that they would make this parking lot accessible to staff only during the week by using some type of gate barrier. We notice in the plans that were submitted that this parking lot not only lacks the gate, but now it is connected to the main lot south of the school. Rick has stated that the gate should not be a problem, but we feel it's in the neighborhoods best interest to have this stated in the plans. The gymnasium will bring extra traffic and individuals into our quiet neighborhood. Our neighborhood was designed to have a middle school not a high school with football games and activities in a gym Brethren's website states that they are located in a quiet neighborhood. With the additions that they propose, will it still be a quiet neighborhood? Paul& Pam Bertsch 21121 Cocobana Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714 968 1033 February 11 to 2009 Rami Talleh Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 n=� b�'� Dear Mr. Talleh: Re.- Public Notice concerning Brethern Christian School — Negative Declaration refer to the Public Notice I have received with regard to the planned School Gymnasium at Brethern Christian School. As a resident of the tract in which the school is located I am writing to express my concerns about this project. I have no doubt that it will impact this neighborhood in several negative ways. The situation with BCS is already barely tolerable. The streets in our neighborhood are inundated with traffic at the start and at the end of each school day. Speeding cars, huge SUV after huge SUV and inattentive drivers talking on hand-held cell phones (despite the ban) are already presenting challenges for those of us who live here. On those days when sporting events are held at the school it's decidedly worse. Our streets are jammed with parked cars, SUVs and trucks. People take short cuts through our front yards, plants and shrubs en route to the playing field. They litter our sidewalks, block our driveways, allow their pets to urinate and defecate on our lawns, etc. Adding "ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events" will most certainly exacerbate all of these problems. Apart from providing residents (in what used to be a "quiet residential neighborhood') with a toxic mix of noise, pollution and structures which do not fit the locale, it will present an even more dangerous traffic situation than that which prevails today in this neighborhood. There is simply no room here for more cars and buses and the plan as it stands makes inadequate accommodation for any more. We do not want any more heavy traffic, engine-revving, horn-honking and people yelling their goodbyes at the tops of their voices in this neighborhood at 9.30 pm or 10pm after the fun and games have ended. Many of us adults and most children are in bed trying to sleep at that time of night. Nor do we want any more of the same on Sunday afternoons. Furthermore, the prospect of having a 34 foot-tall, 27,000 square foot building with roll- up doors and large signage in this location is simply not compatible with the existing low profile tract homes in this neighborhood. It will be an eyesore....a monstrosity....completely incongruous in the landscape. Homeowners on Strathmoor Lane are already having problems with the school's extremely bright spotlights which illuminate their second stories at night. As if that wasn't enough, they now face the prospect of having a building as big as an aircraft hanger built in full view of their front door and windows. The effect that will have on their property values is alarming and we are well aware that falling values in one part of a neighborhood invariably ricochet around the entire neighborhood. ATTACHMENT O, � °' Finally, we are already kept awake night after night during the summer by Huntington Beach Police helicopters buzzing the local area and the Southern California Edison easement which borders the BSC grounds. Youngsters find it a convenient place to party and we need less youngsters partying in our neighborhood, not more. The events planned for this gymnasium will doubtless bring many more of them around. Much as it would be nice to think that they will all leave the tract as soon as the games end, they won't. A small but loud minority will hang around afterwards and cause problems. The plan does not provide for policing of the events to make sure that attendees arrive and depart in a quiet and orderly fashion and that they don't damage our property or cause us problems. Who will provide such policing and who will pay for it? Will BSC assume responsibility and provide compensation for damages resulting from the activities held at the gymnasium? I'm sorry to have to advise that I have personally experienced both rude and dangerous behavior on the part of people attending sporting events at BSC As I mentioned previously the school's impact on our neighborhood is already only barely tolerable. I could continue ad infinitum to list my additional concerns but, suffice to say in conclusion, the proposed plan will have nothing but negative consequences for the residents of this neighborhood. It will compromise our quality of life, our safety and our property values and for the vast majority of us it will provide no advantage whatsoever. rrpcerely, v' Louis D. Nealon 21211 Lockhaven Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 -TTACH Page 1 of 1 Talleh, Rami From: The Beuerleins [bermIines@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:05 PM To: Talleh, Rami Subject: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Rami Talleh: We received the Public Notice regarding the project listed above. With the intended expansion and the addition of activities resulting in more traffic, we believe this proposal will definitely have a negative impact on our neighborhood. In particular, we are concerned about the safety of our children who occasionally play in or around our street (i.e. bikes, skateboards, basketball, etc.). Due to the excessive speed and traffic of the current drivers to and from Brethren Christian School, we feel that speed bumps are currently needed on Effingham Drive. The gymnasium project will generate an exponential increase in neighborhood traffic. At the very least, the City of Huntington Beach should put speed bumps on Effingham Drive, and possibly Strathmoor, to reduce the City's liability exposure and to protect our children's safety. Please include this document in your packet for the public hearing in early March. We look forward to a reply from the City on this matter. Thank you! Michael &Stephanie Beuerlein 9842 Effingham Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 6RY Of HUht laton Beach FEB 17 2009 February 17, 2009 Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2008-018 BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM Dear Mr. Talleh: We are writing a response to the Draft Negative Declaration for the School Gymnasium project that is currently under review. We have several concerns with the proposed project and the impact it may have on our surrounding community that are not reflected by the Planning Departments analysis of the project. Our specific concerns address increased traffic, neighborhood security, and increase in noise. In addition, we are concerned with the expansion of high school activities on an existing middle school site. Traffic Currently, the traffic in the morning and afternoon use Strathmoor and Effingham as the ingress and egress to the school site. During the morning the traffic is quite heavy as well as the afternoon. While there is an impact, it has been tolerable. The concern arises over the increase of"ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches ... in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." Further, the existing sports program will be expanded to games on week nights in addition to the Friday night football games. These events will far increase the amount of traffic that currently enters and exits in the morning and afternoon. Not only will the school community be driving to the evening events, outside groups and other private school supporters will be doing so also. An example of this problem can be seen with the addition of Friday night football games. The amount of cars and patrons to the events far outnumber the available parking and capacity for the site. Cars can be observed parking on the adjacent streets over a block away due to lack of on-site parking. While the event may be a two hour event, the traffic begins forty-five minutes before and after the scheduled event. In addition, local school sites should serve their immediate neighborhood it serves. Securi With the additional events and activities proposed as a result of the construction of gymnasium, comes additional security issues the community may face. While the school has control over the students and parents within their jurisdiction, they have limited, if any, control over the groups coming into the area for scheduled games and events. We are unaware of any plans as to how the school will address this issue and control the visitors to the site. ATTAC H M E N 9; =z°0, Q Rami Talleh, Senior Planner February 17, 2009 Page two Noise Living near a school one expects to hear noise from the school due to physical education, bells, field days and activities. However, this project is the beginning of expanding an existing middle school site to one that accommodates high school students with an increase of activities. With the additional activities comes increased noise, not only in the day, but expanding into the evening. In the proposal it states that activities such as band and choir practice and drama rehearsals will be relocated from unenclosed areas. The middle school does have two enclosed area with existing stages. One area can hold several hundred people and was used as a large multi-purpose room and a smaller room that holds over 60 to seventy people. When the middle school was open,the enrollment reached over 900 students and they were able to provide appropriate space for the various programs. There should be ample space to support the existing programs in the current facility. Middle School Site While we can appreciate the administration of the Brethren School and their Board's effort to expand the facilities to provide an education for the students that attend the private school, we are concerned with the site's capability to meet their needs. The school is nestled in the center of existing homes and was once a neighborhood middle school. It now is being expanded to address the needs of both middle school and high school age students. We believe this creates a problem as the site will not be conducive to such an expansion. According to the Guide to School Site Analysis and Development, "requirements in this guide can serve to assist in the program modifications necessary to make the best use of a reduced site size in areas where land is scarce and costly. " Site requirements for grades nine through twelve a � 11 � 1 � otl � I ' ell al � I11 II m o e o . o II s j 8 . 8 s ® .8 Physical Education 13.8 15.6 17.6 19.5 19.8 Buildings and Grounds i 3.3 4.0 5.1 6.3 7.6 Parking and Roads 2.1 3.6 4.4 5.2 6.1 Total acres without CSR 19.2 23.2 27.1 31.0 33.5 Guide to School Site Analysis and Development,2000 edition,California Department of Education,Sacramento,Ca. . � rk. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner February 17, 2009 Page three As stated earlier, the existing site should be sufficient to house their programs. The only justification to add a large facility to the site would be to expand the programs that would generate greater appeal in attracting students to enroll in the school. More time and community input is necessary to determine if this expansion project is necessary and even feasible. As can be seen on the above chart, the acreage necessary for this school should be between 19 and 23 acres. Based upon the foregoing information, we believe that the project is ill advised and should not be approved as presented. Further discussion and review of their long-term plans need to be presented and addressed with the community for further understanding. Until then we must oppose the proposed building project as it negatively impacts the surrounding residents. The increase in traffic, the noise, the issue of security and the site capacity are major concerns and issues that must be addressed and resolved. Sincerely, Alan Rasmussen, Ed.D. Janet Rasmussen 21061 Amberwick Ln Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 ATTACH NI ENT = February 6,2009 Rami Talleh Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 Re: Public Notice Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Negative Declaration Dear Mr.Talleh: We received the Public Notice regarding the above. In our review of the Draft Negative Declaration for the School Gymnasium Project,we find it interesting that with the Planning Department's review of the entire project description that you have concluded that there will be"No Significant Impact"or"No Impact"to our community. The proposed building is 100%inconsistent with what exists in our City. There are no other schools located in an interior residential neighborhood that have Iighted fields and high profile buildings. We have a number of concerns,most of them shown in the following sections: VI. Transportation and Traffic The Public Notice indentifies there will be"ancillary events catering to the surrounding community,churches and youth programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events. Because we currently deal with a number of traffic and speeding issues with the current school traffic and activities, in all probability,adding more events,extending hours,and adding more traffic will definitely be an issue for our neighborhood. Additionally, because of the absence of any statement in the documents,we're concerned this could possibly mean year round activities. With the added visitors and activities,you do not show any impact on the parking issue. Where will the added buses and visitor's vehicles park? Granted,the school proposes to add five additional spaces as they reconfigure the parking areas,but at this time,a number of staff and/or students don't park on-site. They park on the residential streets and the park's spaces. During the football season,we even had overflow parking on our street,one block away.And how do they intend to inform visitors that we have many young families in this residential community and to drive the speed limit coming and going to the site. How can this be patrolled? Are the residents going to be at more risk with these added vehicles? X. Noise It's indicated that an indoor facility,i.e.,the gym,will reduce noise. Noise during the school hours really isn't a current issue. However,the outdoor night games can be quite loud,as any sporting event is. And it's unlikely that the completion of the football games,and the departure of the vehicles, will end by 9:30 p.m. So,there is an impact on us. "�w1 _ << a X1. Public Services Given the proposed gymnasium will back to the Southern California Edison easement—the park —is it possible it might attract unwanted activity? We have occasional issues during the summer prompting the helicopter to fly over. With the building being a buffer from the street area this may increase. We do think it could have an impact on the neighborhood. XM. Aesthetics Your review doesn't identify lighting as an issue,nor that a 34 ft. high,27,000 sq.ft. building is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Also,the drawings show,but there's no written comment, there will be large signage on the east side of the building,along with two oversized roll-up doors;this is what will be seen as you enter from Brookhurst west on Effingham;the signage on the north side won't be as large,but still appears larger than current lettering,and will be seen as you go south on Strathmoor from Atlanta. The school indicates they will have portable lights for the football games. They have told us night use of the 701?. lights are for A SOP. However,they are also used by the school for night games. This past season,the lights have appeared much brighter than years past. They may have changed the wattage. The school had indicated to us they would try to adjust them as we have them shining into some of our second story windows,as well as impairing vision when driving west on Effingham. Based on the Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27,"all outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage"onto adjacent properties". The Aesthetics section does have an impact on us. Where it's our belief that the school has all good intentions to remain a good neighbor,we wonder why there wasn't more thought in meeting with the residents prior to having architectural plans completed and moving forward with such an expansion. In attracting new students to their school on their website,they indicate"Located in a quiet Huntington Beach residential neighborhood less than two miles from the beach,". This is why we live in this neighborhood and want to remain as such. With the intended expansion and the addition of activities resulting in more traffic,we believe this proposal will definitely have a negative impact on our community,to include safety issues,as well as possibly affecting property values. The gymnasium is oversized and does not fit with the current low-profile buildings or neighborhood and is inconsistent with other interior neighborhood schools' land use. Since y, Terry L.and Sharon L.Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca. 92646 714-93-0312 trerowther agearthlink.net cc: City Council,City of Huntington Beach JA ,_ February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning(Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: —2 Z�f e7 Name: 4-�F/c—. Signaturar---- Address • �/2 2 ,.9�'nc L February 7,2009 v{ Dear Neighbor: Last weep we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our rommunit-j should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we geed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 47 Name f Signature: -- Address : , TT T E1,4" February 7,2009 `;f, Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.if you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312-------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name- -- Signature: Address . 4�e- a4 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Eloping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ;L— t — 0 Name: Signature: Address : )1,0dZ1%AAJ �:i�' February 7,2009 F j 1,U Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.if you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Eloping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richunond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature:. Mzab"� Address : !/S � 4_ February 7,2009 - Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Doping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: / 0 Name: c \ V V Signature: ` Address February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last weep we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could he a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Moping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. 'ferry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: �Q l Name: Signature: Address CI -+ , FgRruary Is /(#09 L-Ast week we rece:veu a Public iNotite-froiiu�i the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian Schoti1 CymnRsimm Project. Afte loot ng at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department Because the proposed expansion and added actiAties cb"ge the entire profile of the school,Ye urge you to 'renew the informa ttion. As stated in our letter,we feel there cou d he a xegat�we impact or.car comalunity should this proposal be approved. `Sh—eald you agree with our ro,mernsi it would be great if you could send your comments.to the Pi�lknm mg Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Plasinner. kil-cumments must a to the Planner by S-001 p.m.,Tuesday,Februa.-J I 7,20069,With a pubL- tt eatatively sched-ok-d for early`itarch3F which we should all tte"d ` �:•»�• u agree t;ilai-ric Tucri't f8 isi�i7i'idin the lnlea['it�'of our neigh,•. -^v tanr enr§_ � 4 - J Berry and SSharon CruKrtheer 61 1 Richtno"d C here Huntington each,Ca. 91264t- 714=963-0317. _• ---------------------------------------------F_-_--,- ------------ l at3: 'a'iit i aalien;SeniorPla-u-ner 1s 71c> aeuio.Planner e Ctty of Huntiva on Rtmwia Manaiup a partmaaent _c. 5 f f Agreement of att-ach--i 1ptt�r• D4*... vk_tj7 446-011,4 Name- fit gr Address � 1% J�n Pi�K I�C�` 7 f �✓� T L-d 7t f-en 13 Uu IU:4La �,m wthe, 7i _u�`�i �' N.? February 7,2C-09 fear Neighbor: -Last week we received a Public Notice-from the City of Huntington Bch planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian I—S-hool Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Depaatement. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire proiiic of the school,we urge you to review the information- As stated in our letter;we feel there could be a negative impact on Our to"imunit�, should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would he great if you could send your comments to the Plan unuft Department as well,If you'd prefer;you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Plano F. All comments mast be to the Pi_anner by-5a00 p;m.;Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public bearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. ,-7--7, - � �"p,� Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 `o: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Sevier Planner City lafofintingto Beach anai�Departwe, Agreement of attached letter: ]Rate: l ;._ NnZ`a1e: J. Sig e: �: City of Huntington Beach FEB 13 2009 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature: Address AT T01 °_ . City of HuntiNton Beach February 7,2009 FEB 13 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ,&/ Name: Signature: Address : f j of Huntingy Q(� February 7,2009 FEB 13 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.if you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ®® Name: �. �� O®A4 Signature: A Address : M S�p"�k�O�k �0 I - AT T N -): _ - c1ty o� �lUnti��t®� 009 s February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early Larch,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: o Name: Signature: Address � , ATTACH EII, INY .: , Mug ��,...� City of Huntington Beach February 7,2009 FEB 13 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Eloping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: c� ' Name: Signature: Address : . �t SZ b6r-tJl6k In, 1V tlSrl City of Hunfingtnn February 7,2009 FEB 13 20`i:q Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 2- _ --0 Name: Signature: �'�---- Address O 2— e 2 b (L 6P—, 2--6 � � — ®T a � , ATIACHWAE a February 7,2009 00 �ntm WO '82LrJ1 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: b Y A Rq I I , �2— e9 Name: Iq / , C� Signature• � Warc Address • t � 1 C� J l c VIC fi/�q/OW C 141 February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we reecived a 'lublic Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declar tion for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school, we urge you to reviewv the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Flanning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Plann--r. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree,that we need to maintain the integrity,of our neighborhood. G� Terr-11 and Sharers Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 --- ----------------..----------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Plaarier City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: uAl Signature' tidr ss :_ �C��%-2 CCG06/3�h//-1 L AI i(J� ATTAQ H M "� February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Fast week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If_you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca. 92646 714-963-0312 --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: —/� Name �C� sL— C1/Ll /�St Signature: ��� Address : �/t�9a 0L70z)hQI'a �aaof l MENT � February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-%3-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: �-- -W iO Name: 2=s--, F70ri`( Signature: Address : Zi i Htjnti W"I teach February 7,2009 FEB 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Eloping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. 'ferry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 2— Name• Signature: �� r Address 016 oa3 ""; vii ,if Huntington beach February 7,2009 FEB 17 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the informatio►_a. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.if you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 02A/02��� Name• C Signature: c Address : 9 C 6r— i Y6n2L ;o o e. y� eg.� t r ;� ` 7— — February 7,2009 FEB 1 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,'Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we heed to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. 'ferry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami'Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: lr u 0 Name: �� ' r/� Signature:. C ---_-_ Address • 2/ / o/ (`� lit.-✓�i.�G J`� r U��-1 � f � � �Cz r lr .1 rw -------------------- ---------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Peach Planning Department FM j 7 2009 Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: V Signature: Address : 9-1 i 1.01 (� �Q OW 6 � ea per' ` r ; � - 1 To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner 11 City of Huntington Beach . b(;` � Qt --0 7 Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date:__ t Name• l`^ A 00 Signature: AIAJU1\ - fJS P Address • Itu h G- ' o�� l Ot 0 Lk-e c� • a Kt�`�, A -----""---------------------------------------------------"-------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Sensor Planner City of Huntington Peach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: _ZO 9 y C�Signature: Address• gdt�ytQ ` � w�w .u,x ? ,x a To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: G9, Name: r�Signature: Addressq2X6TT HI � IFNI � : 1 To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Manner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: (Name: Signature• — Address AA4a !- �iViC4CZ�AI' � To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department L L U Agreement of attached letter: Date: — / µ Name: ML l—I--- Signature•?" ` �--+ Address : )- ! 2 RIcA 60v( C2 3 � .:; ---------- - T�: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach ,(;ih Planning Department t of,I!unt!ngjO,, FED 13 Agreement of attached letter: Date: i�� "� � 2009 Nam . �'!�VL5 &Ap-,� 0 Signature• i Address : (� � �LtltCit� l\_ �_j qzp q T T A 0, �, I i Te:: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner { Sennior Planner l o ' City of Huntington Beach yunfinvo, Beach Planning Department FEB ) ZO®g Agreement of attached letter: Date: - a) -'09 Name: I CTOR ED 1TH -DWORAK Signature: I Address : 21161 I ICHMONK CIRCLE ATTAGFIMENT@ . --------------------------------------------------- ----.. `To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner �ea,Ch City of Huntington Beach Planning Department sir Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature• Address 'o: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department City of Huntington Beach Agreement of attached letter: Bate: p` - / 0- FEB 18 2009 -P Name: 'b f5f4 1 Le w Signature:-, Address : 1✓G/� r C � 7P4o- 1,�' 1 G. To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner 4 y City of Huntington Beach ® , � Planning Department City of HuntingtppL Beach Agreement of attached letter: Date: t I FFR i 7 2009 Name: Signature: Address : '2,f r �. s�� TA , _.»_ i -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner --nior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department FEB 17 2Q09 Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: 1 Signature: Address • � lot o To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Pianner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department vay Of Nuti Agreement of attached letter: Date: FEB 132009 .Sk9 ��-- Signature• _\ q Address : Z\V�\ \ Yy1,ak1 _ ✓' 1 To: Rami Tatleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: Signature: Address 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami,Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner � (1'1 w, l b�'�rh'► (••. 7�. Y�'� �` " City of Huntington Beach Q LJ Planning Department y , '' ! Agreement of attached letter: Date: / Name: Signatu e• �; Add �Q [yM M� n x5.L F y` CRY Of Huntington Beach February 7,2009 FEB 1 7 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the---formation. As sta*ed in--ur letter,we feel-there could be a n g tive im ac!on Our eommon;fy Jr should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior gianner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: 3 (f Name: J-0Y"-- Signature- 0 [ L4,el Address Our c��°'ii�e r,cl cQ t� l s a� ��/� �r� /,If l� �� /�ve (jars 1 /gyp J�yl hna k a� ! ioA5,6AGod cy- So cce '! • t 1 y' f i hock,., ` d Ott i 4 lS �( iyl f l a. r Yl 07 i an 01 � j February 7,2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter, forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department � Agreement of attached letter: Date: J l Name: ` 7 d;i i ) UL Signatu Addre � � 2�r�� ATTA The Crowthers make some compelling arguments against the Brethren Christian School gymnasium/expansion Project. Are what they state facts? We think there is some validity to their point of view. What are your positions/answers to their questions? J(�) AT TA rG February 7,2009 FEB 2 61009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion.and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department -`. ` �. C �' -�'�J Agreement of attached letter. Date: J�� Name: Signature: 14E Address f21) { d �-- To q rk" G _._ .��.....v��+ i v•1 1 1`1J f`f1J`fYJ r.1 Cif of Huntington Beach Fcsruary 7,2009 FEB 13 2009 Dear Neigbbor; Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beech Plaam:ng Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Cy■nnesium Pro;ert: After looldng at the drak we seat the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could he a negative impact on our community should this proposal he approved: Should you agree with our concerns;it would he great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well,If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must he to the Planner by 5:40 p-.m:;Tuesday,February 17;2009,with a public bearing tentatively�eheduled for early March;which we should all attend: Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington peach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: o, C> Name Signature: Address: 9 10- &1 (R-i6fr W6 A qZ�4A— r'" ti ------------------------ Te. Ram, -_'------------------------- alleh,Senior Planner -------- Sem:or Planner City of Huntington ,each Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: City®f f� j d Signature: S 3 2009 Address : 2 �� A _: a 9 To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Peach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: � �k� " (r� J OC 7 Name: V cd-. ch c Signature: iuf k, � 0 r < opA Address : CA b FEB 19 2p4� a City of Huntington Beach February 7,2009 k6 19 2009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: Name: tF-t V E f T Signature: Address a -f-J 6 r,. ATIFAC February 7,2009 City Of FluMVOn Beach FEB 19,7009 Dear Neighbor: Last week we received a Public Notice from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for a Negative Declaration for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project. After looking at the draft,we sent the attached letter to the Planning Department. Because the proposed expansion and added activities change the entire profile of the school,we urge you to review the information. As stated in our letter,we feel there could be a negative impact on our community should this proposal be approved. Should you agree with our concerns,it would be great if you could send your comments to the Planning Department as well.If you'd prefer,you could sign agreement of our letter,forwarding it to the Planner. All comments must be to the Planner by 5:00 p.m.,Tuesday,February 17,2009,with a public hearing tentatively scheduled for early March,which we should all attend. Hoping you agree that we need to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Terry and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach,Ca.92646 714-963-0312 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Agreement of attached letter: Date: ' Name: f 1►.►4 L ✓��� � Signature: /fl Address : Z 0Z21 STAI-iA 00IZ- 16 le v�h�� -hie sc��� 1 is �►�Pa�►�� 9fiR� City of Huntington Beach ®EAR MR. TALLEH: FEB 18 2009 WE LIVE ON STRATH-IMOOR LANE. ALREADY WE HAVE PROBLEMS PULLING OUT ONTO OUR STREET DAILY DUE TO THE CARS GOING TO AND FROM THE SCHOOL AND THE SOCCER EVENTS ON THE WEEKENDS. THEE ARE SOME WEEKENDS WE CAN NOT EVEN PARK IN FRONT OF OUR OWN HOME OR HAVE FRIENDS OVER BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE TO PARK. 'T'HERE ARE MANY ACCIDENTS AT ATLANTA AND STRATHMOOR AND WE HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. WE HAVE CALLED OFFICERS, TALKED TO THEM WHEN THEY WERE AT THE ACCIDENTS, WE HAVE EMAILED TO GET SPEED BUMPS, LIGHTS, JUST TO HAVE AN OFFICER GIVE TICKET'S TO THE RECKLESS DRIVERS THAT ON ANY DAY JUST MISS OUR CHILDREN AND ANIMALS—ANYTHING TO HELP US. OUR (NEIGHBORS' CARS HAVE BEEN HIT, OURS HAVE BEEN HIT AND NOW YOU WANT TO ADD MORE CALAMITIES TO OUR SITUATION? THIS IS UNFAIR. WE LIVE IN A NICE, MODEST HOME. WE DESERVE A NICE, MODEST LIFE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY COMPLAINS TO THE SCHOOL. WHAT THE SCHOOL IS PROPOSING TO BUILD IS RIDICULOUS FOR A SCHOOL SITUATED IN THE INTERIOR OF A NEIGHBORHOOD- I HAVE: LIVED IN HB ALL MY LIFE AND THE PLACES WITH THESE FACILITIES ARE NOT USUALLY LOCATED aNS.DE LIKEF T IS - SO ERS WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUCH BETTER FACILITY FOR THIS. THIS SHOULD HAVE SWAYED A JR. HIGH, NOT THIS SPORTS =T s THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT. E ARE AGAINST THIS 100 '& AND WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT IT FROM OCCURRING. IT ES TO Oup NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT TO MEN"-10E4 -_ - PROPERTY VALUE OF OUR HOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SINCERELY, AINGELA AND DAVID CASELLA INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK r February, 23,2009 Kevin A. Coleman City of Huntington Beach DevelopmentNet Co FEB 2 3 zogg 3130 Airway Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-754-4454 kcoleman@netdevco.com Dear Kevin., Sharon and I want to thank you for the message last Thursday thanking us for taking the time to meet with you. We also want to thank you for `walking your talk' when it comes to being a good neighbor by contacting the police department to have the driving speeds on our interior residential streets enforced. Also, thank you for saying you are going to pass out notices to inform our neighbors so they would be aware of why the police would be in our neighborhood. Where the three hour meeting was longer than my wife I had anticipated, we do appreciate all you had to say in an effort to demonstrate that you and Brethren Christian want to be good neighbors. After you left, we reflected on your comment about being a good neighbor and thought about if my wife and I were being good neighbors to Brethren Christian. We believe we were good neighbors by supporting the movement to save the school sites for future generations. We believe we were good neighbors when we went direct to the principal of Brethren Christian to express our concerns over the teachers, students, and parents driving at unsafe speeds in our neighborhood. We don't believe we were good neighbors when we wrote our letter to the City regarding the proposed expansion of the facilities at Brethren Christian and didn't contact or copy the principal. For that we apologize. This brings me to the question I asked you on Wednesday, "What benefits are there for us in the proposed expansion of the facilities at Brethren Christian?" And your honest reply was,"None." So, if the honest answer is none, and we believe it is, we're left with: Is Brethren Christian equally concerned about us as they are about themselves? 1 of 2 We don't have the answer to this question, but we do see what you're proposing and we believe what you're proposing with your expansion will: e Allow others, outside our neighborhood, to use your facilities increasing traffic beyond the 8.00 am—3:00 pm school hours, and beyond the school year. ® Add additional traffic on our interior residential streets and erode the safety of our neighborhood. ® Change the quiet residential character of our neighborhood forever. ® Further reduce our over$800,000 property value. Because of this, we are left with continuing to do what we can to demonstrate that your proposed expansion of facilities, inside a single-family residential community, is inconsistent with the surrounding land use. Sincere a Te and Sharon Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-963-0312 Cc: Rick Niswonger, Principal Brethren Christian Bami_TalteWSenior Planner, City of Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners, City of Huntington Beach: Elizabeth Shier-Burnett Blair Farley Barbara Delgleize Tom Livengood John Scandura Fred Speaker Council Members,City of Huntington Beach: Keith Bohr Jill Hardy Don Hansen Cathy Green Devin Dwyer Gil Coerper Joe Carchio 2 of 2 We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. Off" We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, �1 value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! Signed ���� /�.-• "7,t o 2.! 5 T,,0- ji rN1vci®ee 4.ANZ-7 Summary of Negative Impact of ethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know thisl When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land--the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"--then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with_ We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, ..:..a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S. EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, ��� value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! �tiNsto,�e 2��9 Signed Summary of Negative Impact o , . ethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler!and to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parants, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners--you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the,planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor" —then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers--we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. VVV,e , We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S,EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MO nECEN E D ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. MAR 2 7 2009 WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR Huntington Beach SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. PIANNING DEPT. We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! Signed &leb G'Vf I i�ee Summary of Negative Impact o rethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian_ ("BC" Hi 4-School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhoo s��l ool for ar old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. it will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usageldamage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from 6C. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending-activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners--you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"--then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings; oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, ..-...a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S, EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events" THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT 'WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR O SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. a insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, APR 25 2� value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! p1ANN Signed Ms.Awry Cavalier 21032 Stratinnoor Ln Huntingtn Belt,CA 92646 R Summary of Negative Impact of L—ethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham---drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor" —then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property.Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S,EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM-STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. We insist that the planning commission rul reserve the afety, value, welfare and se r ity s nei c l l!z Signe MA r.' P!� , Summary of Negative Impact of trethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers.Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usageldamage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go"through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"—then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a.small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S,EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, u welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! MPR �eaGSigne 4TTA F-= M ENT NO, Summary of Negative Impact of Brethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go"through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham---drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through; Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!--No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor" ---then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities---BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say"we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'$ EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, value, weld and sere y.ofthis neighborhood! nCD Signed. 9 Huntington Beach PLANNNG DEPT. Summary of Negative Impact of Brethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in-their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham---drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic: No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"'—then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—eve are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios; car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site--we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events' THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT GIANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. �DWE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. 2 4 1a09 APR W insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, ,,each value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! pU�NN1NG�Ep1. Signed Summary of Negative impact of.,,,ethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-9 9 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends"picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fait to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"--then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not-pleasant to.deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. ti xEN I NOrya We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S,EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE _ ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLE_R SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR U�► Q !J 1 !— MAR 2 4 2009 SPE EDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. Huntington Beach PLANNING DEP . VVX- t that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, `PT value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! - --- W-W &Linda Reuter. o SM Corrmbrook Drive Signed Hu itington Beach California 92646 Summary of Negative Impact of b,,Ahren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in_ The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners--you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"—then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site--we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S, EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHANI--STRATHMOOR O� SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! Q0 Signed �. Ev Summary of Negative Impact of b,-thren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already to_ tally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus foss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners--you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor" then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. .Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. AT..I Avst'P �`�i' E CtT NO, We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven .they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'SS,EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. E W,q E 0 We insist that the planning commission rule to reserve the safety, ��� p 9 P Y 2 3 ZQ09 value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! 317 6193 MAR y Huntington Beach ANNING DEVI. Signed P Summary of Negative Impact of Brethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around corners and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham—drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"—then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can.. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with_ We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site--we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S,EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM-STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. 0 ED W insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, MAR 2 3 2009 value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! Huntington Beach PANNING DEPT. Signed Summary of Negative Impact of,, #hren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas. of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around comers and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham---drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"—then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street.Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds; .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site--we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S, EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to.some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM-STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. [ IF TMAR �M[ D L We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety 23 2009 value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! Huntington Beach ! PLANNING DEPT. Signed t t10 tkA .G, n Summary of Negative Impact of Brethren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic,,noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around comers and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!--No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners--you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"--then this neighborhood totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sifting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with_ We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings,* oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S, EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. EHun �n D We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! R 2 3 2009Signedtington BeachNNING DEPT. Summary of Negative Impact of.,. .lithren Christian "BC" Gymnasium The neighborii&d astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around comers and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners--you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the'main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"—then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood,we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. q . 4 We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting ob garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S.EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR vp� 2 1QO9 SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. 3 u�ti�n9tO G pEP�' We insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, P� value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! Signed , ' UL Summary of Negative Impact of b.ethren Christian `BC" Gymnasium The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus loss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around comers and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go"through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham--drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"---then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers--we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a'trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S, EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. WE DO NOT WANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR �1 SPEEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. VV16 insist that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, value, welfare an renit this neighborhood! �L Jn r i LNG DEFT' Signed Summary of Negative lmpau,of Brethren Christian "BC" Gymnasiuri. The neighborhood is astonished over the city planning review of the BC proposed gymnasium having "No Significant Impact/No Impact" to our community. City planners have already totally changed the concept of Gisler site usage by allowing Brethren Christian ("BC") High School to move in. The original intended use being: a small, neighborhood elementary school for 5-11 year old WALKERS. City planners previously rejected Gisler land to be used for new housing development because of limited street access and electrical towers. Traffic and access was a major issue. We reject all ideas of FURTHER EXPANDING GISLER SITE USAGE for Brethren Christian, gymnasium construction, and facility rental opportunities open to the public. It will cause greater increases of traffic, noise, trash, property usage/damage in our neighborhood, plus foss of privacy, aesthetics and property value. Traffic At this time we cannot get out of our driveways when (BC) activities are commencing or ending. Streets and intersections leading to BC have become more dangerous than ever before. Students, parents, and "friends" picking up BC friends speed around comers and down the street as they head to and from BC. They go "through" other cars instead of using caution, slowing down, stopping for other traffic as is evidenced by the drastic increase in car accidents since BC has moved in. As BCers rush in and out of the school, they fail to give the right of way or benefit to anyone attempting to use the streets in their cars or walking. For specific examples: Heading west on Effingham---drivers rushing to school do not stop before crossing traffic as they enter the two parking lot entrances at the Strathmoor bend. At Effingham before the turn BCers tend to barrel straight through. Too bad for anyone heading south on Strathmoor! The corner of Strathmoor and Atlanta is even worse. We protest any more expansion at the Gisler site! More activities! More people! More cars! More traffic! More accidents! More noise!—No thanks! It is an impossible situation. The best rule is: NEVER USE STRATHMOOR AT 8 AM AND 2:40PM UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET HIT. Otherwise, accept risking a hefty smash up. Neighbors have already adjusted their lives to not use Strathmoor during BC beginning and ending activities. Expanding usage and increasing the number of irregular hours the property will be used creates a more dangerous and more difficult situation. City Planners---you know this! When the idea arose to knock down the school and add homes to the land—the planning commission rejected the idea. Why? The impact of traffic! No additional street or exit could reasonably be cut through the maze of electrical towers. Strathmoor is the main street to get to the school. Unless someone figures out other ways to access the Gisler property besides "mostly Strathmoor"—then this neighborhood.totally objects to the expansion of any activities at this site. Noise The larger the facility, the more people, more activities, the greater the noise! We are already dealing with everyday school noise, after school activity noise, buses and car alarms being set off. And since this is a High School with drivers—we are already contending with screeching tires, booming radios, car honking, yelling and smashing cars. As a neighborhood, we fully reject the idea of facility expansion. Trash, Property Usage/Damage, Privacy We are already picking up beer bottles, soda cans and trash out of our gardens, lawn and street. Gum on the sidewalk and splattered paint balls are not pleasant to deal with. Our garden is not a trash can. Our car window is not a target. Our sidewalk is not a carpool pick-up point.. Our cars are not "drive through" invisible spaces. We are not interested in attracting more people and cars into the neighborhood, as right now we are dealing with students hanging out in front of our houses, waiting for rides, sitting on garden walls and basically taking away some the original privacy and serenity we had in this neighborhood. Expanding activities and increasing the number of people passing through will further reduce our privacy, and add to problems we are already dealing with. We totally reject expansion! Aesthetics and Property Values Oversized buildings, oversized events, oversized signage, oversized parking lots, oversized lights, oversized crowds, .....a facility fully available to the public for rent...is something we do not want at the end of our street! And with that said---double all the issues stated above. A huge problem with Christian Brethren is that they request permission to do something and when permission is granted they double their intentions: Before they moved in: "We have another site---we won't be here that long. After they moved in: "We are a small private 4 year high school." "We will limit after school events." "Busing will be limited." That makes this neighborhood extremely worried about how they will double this statement: The gym will be used for "Expansion of the existing sport program to include evening and football and basketball matches" The neighborhood already has a difficult time dealing with BC daily activities—BC has already proven they cannot be trusted when they say "we will just keep it limited too...." No doubt there will be local, regional and for all we know state competitions and bus loads of people pouring into our block due to "BC expansion". THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOTALLY OBJECTS TO ANY EXPANSION OF BRETHREN CHRISTIAN'S. EXISTING SPORTS PROGRAM! What should we expect from BC's statement: "the gym will be used "for ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth sports programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events." THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT !AVANT OR NEED ANY MORE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE GISLER SITE. E DO NOT AVANT THE EFFINGHAM--STRATHMOOR. MAR 2 3 2009 S EEDWAY TO BE GET BUSIER THAN IT ALREADY IS. Huntington Beach PUNNING pEPWe i st that the planning commission rule to preserve the safety, value, welfare and serenity of this neighborhood! 7/Y We,76 �9 Signed a7W &D Al h(;IZRA ���� r �i� 966 9 rm u a gK ` 9�� A�n'TACHAIE I NO. F APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/ } CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 BRETHREN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM e s Applicant: Kevin A. Coleman Location: 21141 Strathmoor Lane May 18, 2009 1 ATTACHMENT N . REQUEST o ND analyzes potential environmental impacts j from the proposed development. o CUP • To permit the construction of an approximately p p P Y 27,000 sq. ft., maximum 34 ft. tall gymnasium, o host indoor sport games and practice including 10 basketball games after school hours (7:00 PM- 9:30 PM). o hold school activities such as drama, choir, band rehearsals and performances, graduation ceremonies, and other school events. o available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. 2 ATTACHMENT N-®. REQUEST (CONTINUE®) ® To permit use of an existing multi-purpose soccer field along the southerly property line as a football field o install bleachers with seating o use of up to four 30 ft. high light standards, and o host varsity football games and practice including approximately five games after school hours (6:30 PM- 9: 30 PM). 3 -T M 9 REQUEST (CONTINUE®) • To permit the following site improvements : o enhance landscape areas along street frontages o remove approximately 87 parking spaces o Construct/stripe three parking areas totaling 92 parking spaces, and o resurfacing existing parking areas through out the site. 4 c LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS ` - oDescription of c A project site pamr.14�m " � ' •Former Gilser _ � ! Elementary School. ., �l" g -Approximately 14 acres o Description of r surroundin area *North, east, and west: fg � Residential uses *South: 180 ft. wide SCE r 10 easement (Gisler Park) and residential uses beyond g 5 GYMNASIUM Proposed gymnasium ;. .��«� ma's• �;e.� ,'�: 6 FOOTBALL FIELD AND BLEACHERS Proposed football Field 00 00 00 Proposed Bleachers 7 BACKGROUND o 1986: Gisler Elementary School Closed. o May 26, 1998: City approved CUP 98-27 to establish BCHS with up to 500 students for a 2 year s \ . period. o April 28, 2000: City approved EPA 99-16 to . . permanently allow BCHS with up to 720 students and 75 employees. o 2008: BCHS signed a 35 year lease with the Huntington Beach City School District for use of the site. o March 8, 2009: Conducted a community meeting - 35 people attended. o March 10, 2009: Planning Commission Approved ND 08-018 and CUP 08-052 o March 20, 2009: Council Member Jill Hardy and Stephan Miles Appealed the Planning Commission approval of ND 08-018 and CUP 08-052 (0 p + 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION o Planning Commission Approved March 10, yr: 2009 : • Complies with all applicable Code y` requirements; • Provides recreational opportunities for the school and community consistent with the General Plan; • Includes several conditions of approval requiring neighborhood outreach and traffic monitoring, and ® Six-month review. 9 E .... 7 .. , N. Y APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION o Appeal filed by Council Member Jill Hardy on March 20 2009 : • land use compatibility, and • Increased traffic o Appeal filed by Stephen M . Miles on March 20, 2009 : • Approval violation of the State and municipal law including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's General Plan. 10 ANALYSIS s' o The proposed gymnasium and associated site improvements will not have a significant affect on the environment. o The proposed gymnasium and football fields will provide recreational and educational opportunities for the school. o The gymnasium and football field will not be used for events when other activities are occurring on-site. o Events at the gymnasium and will generate a peak of 228 vehicle trips. #b °; IT N1 �o ANALYSIS � e o Project is conditioned to provide a total of 209 parking spaces on-site to accommodate the r peak parking demand of the gymnasium and football field. o Noise generated by outdoor activities such as intermittent cheering, announcements, and referee whistling is exempt from the HBMC. 12 N.O. RECOMMENDATION H o Staff recommends approval of the ND based on the following : Project will have no significant adverse ;r environmental impacts. o Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 based on the following : ® Consistent with the General Plan policies advocating inclusion of recreational uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods and enhances the educational opportunities available to the youth of the community. 13 4 - i n RECOMMENDATION (CONT.) ® Complies with the applicable HBZSO site development standards and is conditioned to comply with parking. t Several conditions of approval including neighborhood outreach and traffic monitoring are proposed. . Hours of operation for the different activities found on the site will not overlap ® Traffic to and from the subject site will be directed by parking attendants located at each of the entrances to the school. PT IF"p-} ,0X!' E',NT NO, 4 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT' Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of ND 08- 018/CUP 08-052 (Appeal - Brethren Christian High School Gymnasium) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 18, 2009 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable ❑ Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached (Approved as to form b CityAttorne No Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable p Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached Not Applicable ❑ EXPLAHAT10H FOR NSSNG ATTACH�Iiv EHTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff r Deputy City Administrator (initial) t. City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ) City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: • • . • • RCA Author: SH:HF:RT Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE SS. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE A NGE ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday,May i COUNTY 1 1' g®C�1�1�Y 18, 2009, at 00 'p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council-will hold a public hearing on am the Citizen of the United States and a thefoll APPEplannF THE and zoning tams: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- 1 SION'S APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION resident of the County aforesaid; I am over NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.NO the age of eighteen years, and not a party 08-052 (BRETHREN NASIUM) Appellants:: Coun SCHOOL GYM- ouncilmlmember Jill.Hardy. ; and Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law'Group to or Interested in the below entitled matter. Applicort: Kevin A. Coleman, Net Development am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON ronmesta imp rtST.ass assolyzeciated the potential menenvi ' ronmental impectsassoclated with the,mpleman,. tation of the proposed project.,CUP: To permit BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of the construction of an approximately'27000 sq' ft. gymnasium, enhancements to existing.,land- .i general circulation, printed and published in scape areas, construction/'striping of three new parkthe City of Huntington Beach, County of areas, a resurfacing existixistinng kisp lot j areas, and expansion of the existing, sports 1 program to include evening football and basket- Orange, State of California, and the I ball matches..Proposed uses within the gymna- sium ; slum will consist'of school related,events in attached Notice is a true and complete copy addition' to'�aocjllaey_events catering to ,the as was printed and published on the ( surrounding community, churches, ;and"youth programs Locution 2114� Strathrnoor Lane' (east side of'Strathmoor Lane,south�bf Atlanta following date(s): Avenue).Project Planner:Rami Talleh NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that:the initial environmental assessment; for. dfem ,#1 .was processed and completed in,accordance with the i California. Environmental Quality:Act. It ;was determined that'Item #1 would not have:eaoy , significantenvironmental`effect and;-therefore, a negative declaration is warranted.The-Negative Declaration No. 08;018 is on file at the:City.of Huntington 'Beach.Planning' Department, '2000 1 Main,Street,and is available for public inspection I and comment by.contacting-the Planning Depart- i May 7, 2009 ment,or by telephoning(714)536.5271. . . ON FILE: A copy 'of the proposed request is I i on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main iStreet, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by Ah'e public. A copy ,of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City:Clerk's Office on Thursday, May 14, 2009. ` ALL INTERESTED' PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing,and-.express.opinions.or submit.evidence for or against the,application I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the as outlined on in o you challenge the City C raising only those a court, you,may be someone d,se foregoing is true and correct. raised only those issues you a someone else raised.at the,public hearing described in,this ; notices-or in written coriespondence'delivered to the City at, or prior to,.the public hearing.' If there are any further questions please call,the Planning Department at 536.5271 and refer to , Executed on May 7, 2009 the above items.Direct your written;communica tions to-the'City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk, at Costa Mesa, California City of Huntington Beach l 2000 Maifi Street;2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)536.5227 'Published Huntington Beach Independent'May 7 2009 051=627 Signatu4:;-- Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, State of California,under date of Aug.24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. `NOTICE,OEPUBUC HIANNG BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY ®F ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON MACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,May 18, 2009,. at. 6:00 p:m. in the 'City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street;Huntington Beach-, I am the Citizen of the United States and a the City Council. will hold a public hearing "on the following planning and zoning items: resident of the County aforesaid; I am over ❑ l.. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMIS SION'S APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION the age of eighteen years, and not a party NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO to or interested in the below entitled matter. 08-052 (BRETHREN`: oun lm SCHOOL GYM:= NASIUM) Appellants: RIS Councilmeniber Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law Grou Col p I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON Applicant:.Kevin A. emen, Net Development lit.cluBEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of ronment: imp is analyze the potential envi- ronmehtal impacts associated with the implement" general circulation, printed and published in the cons the proposed project. CUP;,To permit the construction'of-an`approximately'27000 sq� the City of Huntington Beach, County of scope areas, c enhancements toof three anw sca a areas, construction/striping m of-three new Orange, State of California, and the areas, and e, resurfacing existing'parking sports lot areas, and. expansion of the existing sports attacattached Notice is a true and complete copy I program h include evening football.and basket- hed ball.matches. Proposed uses within the gymna- sium will consist of school, related events, in addition to ancillary events catering- to the , fOIIOWIng date(s): surrounding community, churches, and youth programs: Location: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (east side of'Strathmoor La,pe south'.of,Atlanta Avenue).Proje,"it Planner;Rami Talleh =� NOTICE IS'HEREBY 11GIVEN. that the initial environmental assessment for', em,�41"'was i processed and completed in,accordance with the ' California Environmental Quality Act. It'was determined that-Item #1 would not ,have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a'negative declaration is warranted.The Negative Declaration No: 08-018 is on-Ale at the City,of May 7, 2009 Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Depart- ment,or by telephoning(714)1 536.5271. ON FILE: A copy of the,proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000.Main Street.,Huntington.Beach, California 92,648, for inspection' by.the public. A:copy:of the staff report will be available to interested,parties at the-City Clerk's„Office,on .Thursday, May 14, 2009. ALL. INTERESTED 'PERSONS are,invited 'to I I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the attend said hearing and express' opinions or submit evidence for or against the_ application as outlined above.' If you challenge y be the City foregoing is true and correct. , Council°s action in court,� ou may be limited to raising only those issues,you or someone else i raised' at the public. hearing described in this { notice',or in written correspondence delivered to the City_ at,,,or,prior to, ,the,public hearing. If i Executed on May 7, 2009 thare'are any further questions please refecall r to Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to at Costa Mesa, California the above items.Direct your written commuhica- Lions to the,City Clerk' ' Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of.Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,,2nd.Floor Huntington Beach',California 92648 (714)536-5227 Published Huntington Beach independent.May 7,2009 '' 051.627 Signature — - - - - - - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 18, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) Appellants: Councilmember Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law Group Applicant: Kevin A. Colemen, Net Development Request: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CUP: To permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, enhancements to existing landscape areas, construction/striping of three new parking areas, resurfacing existing parking lot areas, and expansion of the existing sports program to include evening football and basketball matches. Proposed uses within the gymnasium will consist of school related events, in addition to ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. Location: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (east side of Strathmoor Lane, south of Atlanta Avenue). Project Planner: Rami Talleh NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item #1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item #1 would not have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted. The Negative Declaration No. 08-018 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, May 14, 2009. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 C:\Documents and Settings\lugarr\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QNZBJOKX\090518 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) (2).DOC CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FORM A)D MEETING DATE: 0 SUBJECT: { +� DEPARTMENT: CONTACT NAME: , �— -� PHONE: N/A �YIEO ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ( ) Do the heading and closing of the notice reflect a hearing before the City / Council and/or Redevelopment Agency? ( ) ( ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? (✓� ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the / mailing labels? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the resident labels attached? ( ( ) ( ) Is Summary Report 33433 attached? (Redevelopment Agency items only) What is the minimum number of days from publication to hearing date? � What is the minimum number of times to be published? What is the specified number of days between publications? tj FOR ADMINISTRATION ARID CITY CLERK(USE ONLY Approved for public hearing Date noticed to newspaper Date published Date notices mailed RCA Process Training Manual 10-05-06 -24- Easy Peel-Labels i ♦ Bend along line to � AVERY@ 5960TM W Use AveryO Template 5160® j Feed Paper �°°® expose Pop-Up EdgeTM i California Coastal Commission 25 Clark Hampton 32 Sally Graham 39 Theresa I lenry Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Of 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circ 200 Oceangate, Floor Westminst 3 Hun each,CA 92649 Long Be-c , A 92802-4302 California Coastal Comrni sion 25 Stephen Ritter 33 Cheryle Browning 39 South Coast Area Of HB Union High isrict Meadowlark Area 200 Oceangate Floor 5832 Bols venue 16771 Roo t Lane Long Bea ,CA 92802-4302 Hun gton Beach, CA 92649 Hun * gton Beach,CA 92649 Ryan P. Chamberlain 26 Kevin A. Coleman Hearthside Homes 40 Caltrans District 12 Net Development 6 Executive Circle rrit9-- 3337 Michelson ve,Suite 380 3130 Airway Avenue Irvine,C 14 Irvine,C 612-1699 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Director 27 Goldenwest College 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid Waste Enf.Agy. Attn: Fred Owens 5200 blam�Aven'�ueO.C. Health Care Agenc 15744 Gol est St. Huntington649 P.O. Box 355 Hun - on Beach CA 92647 Santa , A 92702 New Growth Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors,Beach 36 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Huntington B�Poffice and Parks Dept. Evan Henry,Presidenn6771 Warner P. O. Box 4048 1812 Port T' acPl eHuritingto , 647 Santa Ana 2702-4048 New Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Bella Terra Mall 37 Stephen M. Miles Fountain Valley E School Dist. Attn: I'at Rogers-La Miles/Chen Law Group, P.C. 10055 Slater enue 7777 Edinger #300 9911 Irvine Center Dr. #150 Fountai alley CA 92708 Huntin each CA 92647 Irvine CA 92618 Dr.Gary Rutherford,Super. 30 Country View Estates HOA 38 OC Sanitation District 42 HB City Elementary School Dist. Carrie Thomas 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane 6642 Trotter Drive Fountain Vall 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Be CA 92648 David Perry 30 Country View Estates A 38 Eric Pendegraft,Plant Manager 42 HB City Elementary School Dist. Gerald Chapman AES Huntington Beach,LLC 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire Cir 21730 Newland Str Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntingto each CA 92648 Huntin ach CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington Beach rls Softball* 47 AYSO Region 56 47 9062 Kahului Drive Mike Erickson Commissioner John Gray Huntington Beach CA 92646 P.O. Box 3 9522 Smokey Circle HuntiiTgton Beach,CA 92605-3943 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 John Ely 42 AYSO Region 117 47 AYSO Region 55 47 22102 Rockport Lane John Almanza Commissioner Russ Marlow Huntington Beach CA 92646 19961 Bushard St 18111 Brentwell Circle Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Etiquettes faciles a peter Repliez a la hachure afin de, www.avery.com !��p Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®516�k Sens d chargemee nt reveler le rebord Pop-UpTM `-� // 0 1-800-GO-AVERY I tasy reel- caoeis A Bend along line to I ��/��>f® 5960TM Use AveryO Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM �J HB Coastal Communities Assoc. 43 Huntington Valley Little League 47 HB Field Hockey* 47 David Guido Joel Groth Manilal Padhiar 143 E. Meats Avenue P.O Box 5111 17782 Metzler Dr. Orange,CA 92865 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Downtown Business Association 44 AYSO Region 143 47 FIB Pop Warner Football** 47 Mr. Steve Daniels Commissioner Phillip Hice Paul Loflin 200 Main Street# 5552 Harold Place P.O. Box 5066 Huntington ach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Downtown Residents Association 45 Fountain Valley Pony Baseball* 47 North HB Soccer Club 47 Ms. Marie St. Germain Chris Mahoney President George Milton on Alabama 21212 Shaw Lane 18601 Newland Street,#94 Huntington ach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Chairperson 46 H. B.Jr. All-American Football** 47 Robinwood Little League 47 Gabrieleno/Tongva 1'ribal Council Randy Wooten Dona Cardona PO Box 693 P.O. Box 2245 P.O Box 1384 San Gabriel,CA 91778 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 46 Huntington Beach Soccer League* 47 Seaview Little League 47 Aciachemen Nation Felipe Zapata Brian Semmelroth 31411 La Matanza Street 18442 Steep Lane,#3 P.O Box 5305 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675-2625 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92615 South Coast Soccer Club** 47 Ocean View Little League 47 Westminster Village HO 48 President Martin Bannon Phil Shearer,President 5200 Blackpool R 8921 Crescent Drive 18141 Brentwell Circle Westminst , A 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 West Co_ Family YMCA* 47 South HB Girls Fast Pitch Softball** 47 Gary Brown 49 Michael Tumer Frank LoGrasso Coastkeepers 2100 Main Street 9432 Alii Circle 3151 Airway Ave.Suite F-110 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92663 Regional Environmental Officer for Calif 50 Fort Irwin 50 Fort Hunter-Liggett 50 Western Region Environ Office Lt. Col.Paul D.Cramer Mr_Peter Rubin US Air Force Director of Public Works Nat'l Tr Cntr Director of Public W s 333 Market Street Sui 5 P O Box 105097 Combat Suppo raining Center San Francisco C 4105-2196 Fort Irwin CA 923 B790 5t S Park A Dublin CA 945680 Sheila Donovan 50 Patrick Christman,Director 50 Gold Coast Extreme 47 Community Plans&Liaison ordinator Western Region Environmental Office Rick Bauer-President US Navy US Marine20501 Surburbia Lane Corps Bull 64 1220 Pacific High y Box 555246 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 San Diego C , 132-5190 Camp Pen on CA 92055-5246 South Coast Bayem Futbol Club 4 California Futbol Club 47 District 62 Challenger Division 47 Marissa Pena Hector Aguilar Gail Harder 22222 Eucalyptus Lane 10571 Davitaur 17961 Scotia Circle Lake Forest,CA 92630 Garden Grove,CA 92843 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Etiquettes faciles a pelerND ®g ^ l r; Repliez a la hachure afin de; /�'�©� www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 Sens de reveler le rebord Pop UpT"' ' 1-800-GO-AVERY ' j chargement j 1 Easy Feel-Labels i A ® Bend along line to i �\/��$Y® 5960TTM Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up eTM j V President I Huntington Harbor ' A 10 Sue Johnson l6 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 791 19671 Quiet Bay e 19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset Beac "A 90742 Huntington ach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dave Stefarudes 2 Orange County Assoc. of Realtors 25552 La Par Road Laguna Hills,CA 92653 President 3 Jeffrev M. Oderman 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Amigos De Bolsa Chica RU'1'AN &TU R LLP Society, Inc. P. O. Box 1563 611 Anton d_ 1411'Floor P.O. Box 10926 Huntington ch,CA 92647 Costa a CA 92626-1950 Costa Mesa,C 2627 Attn:Jar �othold Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B. Hist- Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum O.C. Ping.&Dev. Services Dept. PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 4048 Sunset Beac A 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana 2702-4048 President 5 Community Services Dept. 14 Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O. C. Resources & op. Mgt.Dept.. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P. O. Box 4 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa a,CA 92702-4048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council onVAging 15 Planning Director 20 BIA-OC 1706 OranCity of Costa Me�92628-1200 17744 Sky P Circle,#170 HuntingtonA 92648 P. O. Box 1200 Irvine C 2614-4441 Costa Mesa, Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Director 21 SCAG Seacliff HOA City of Fountain Valle 818 West 7th,12 oor 19391 Shady Harb Circle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angele A 90017 Huntington B CA 92648 Fountain Vall CA 92708 Jean Kirnbrell 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director 22 C/o E.T.I. Corral 100 Seacliff HOA City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood 19382 S. ane P.O. Box 1768 Huntington ach,CA 92646 Hunting; each,CA 92648 Newport Bea CA 92663-8915 Dave Guido 9 Lou Mannone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Westmins 21241 Lochlea Lane 19821 Ocean uff Circle 8200 Wes er Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntingto each CA 92648 Westminst ,CA 92683 Plann;ng Direct 24 Nancy Sebring 31 HB Hatnptons A 38 City of Seal ach Ocean View Elementary ool District Progressive mmumity Mgmt. 211 EigKchP 17200 Pinehurst Lane 27405 Pue a Real,#300 Seal B 90740 Huntington Beach 92647 Mission Viejo,CA 92691 Etiquettes faciles a pelerl V tJ W —I 0 I Repliez a la hachure afin de m2//��� www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 j ehSens dent reveler le rebord Pop-UpTM 1-800-GO-AVERY gtan-aaa piogaa al aaIanaa r§N� 149-082-01 I19-082-02 149-081-13 Cary Donovan R Stahl Jonathan R 9686 Blue 1Zeef Drive 9686 Blue Reef Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 I luntington Beach, CA 92646-7504 149-082-03 149-082-04 149-082-05 Berentz Crystal L- & Sara L Cerecedes John N/I & Margret Kiaui Kamhiz 21441 Coralita 9702 Blue Reef Dr 9706 Blue Reef Dr Lake Forest, CA 92630-8201 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7506 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7506 i 149-082-06 149-082-07 149-082-08 Landis Family Trust Partnoff Margaret A N/lanzo Manuel 9712 Blue Reef Drive Po Box 6706 1438 Broken Hitch Rd Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92615-6706 Oceanside, CA 92056-2224 149-082-09 149-082-10 149-082-1 1 Sward Jeffrey E & Andrea J Reyes Frank Quarnma Martin N 9742 Blue Reef Dr 9746 Blue Reef Dr 9752 Blue Reef Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7563 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 7563 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7563 149-082-12 149-082-13 149-082-14 Bruckmann L H Preheim Joan E Gomez Salvador & Cynthia 617 Avenida Acapulco 9746 Monte Carlo Cir 9742 Monte Carlo Cir San Clemente, CA 92672-2404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-;7519 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7519 149-082-15 149-082-16 149-082-17 Johnson Craig A & Sheri S Norris Carole J Carrick Carol Ann 9736 Monte Carlo Cir 9732 Monte Carlo Cir 9726 Monte Carlo Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7519 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-117519 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7519 149-082-18 149-082-19 149-082-20 Love L Lee Boss Sharon Narlene Ross Gregory A & Donna L 419 Main St#73 9706 Monte Carlo Cir 9702 Monte Carlo Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5199 Huntington Beach, CA 9264617519 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7519 149-082-21 149-082-22 149-082-23 Barnes Brenton Byron Maxwell Colleen M Walters Kathryn Roberta 9696 Monte Carlo Cir 9692 Monte Carlo Cir 9686 Monte Carlo Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7519 Huntington Beach, CA 92646/-7519 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7519 149-082-24 149-082-25 149-082-26 Cich Brian Peter Dayyat Linda M Graham Frieda 21871 Vacation Ln 9695 Port Royal Cir 9701 Port Royal Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8239 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 149-082-27 149-082-28 149-082-29 Schad Michael J Torre De Spencer Norma E Chestnut James Scott 9705 Port Royal Cir 20802 Woodlea Ln 1 9715 Port Royal Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6422 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 1C wia(haad Rao9ea Of Jafanaa S� n V39[,s(g>♦��0� !. 149-082-30 149-082-31 149-082-32 Riggio Vivienne Shoda Toshiro R Guiney Cathleen M 9725 Port Royal Cir 973 1 Port Roval Cir 9735 Port Royal Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 I luntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 149-082-33 149-082-34 149-082-35 Sally B. Snyder Catanzaro Michael J & Claudette B Brewer Mark 9741 Port Royal Circle 2660 E Coast 1-1Nvy 9751 Port Roval Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-2133 1-luntington Beach, CA 92646-7520 149-082-36 149-082-37 149-082-38 Salinas Jorge & Julissa Armour Sandra L Mclellan Brigette M 9751 Villa Pacific Dr 8242 Le Conte Dr 9741 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7570 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1522 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7570 149-082-39 149-082-40 149-082-41 Corrigan Christopher J Neighbors Douglas & Marie A Worrell Amy Po Box 493281 9731 Villa Pacific Dr 9711 Villa Pacific Dr Redding, CA 96049-3281 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7570 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7531 149-082-42 149-082-43 149-082-44 Lundquist Daniel & Suparna Moscaritolo Joseph & Eileen Bambeck Robert J 9705 Villa Pacific Dr 9701 Villa Pacific Dr 131 1 E Balboa Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7531 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7531 Newport Beach, CA 92661-1421 149-082-45 149-082-46 149-082-47 Johnson Seymour J & Margaret Lorenzo Gladys K Dowd Steven Terry 9691 Villa Pacific Dr 2 13 52 Via Straits Ln 25902 Nellie Gail Rd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7531 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7529 Laguna Hills, CA 92653-6138 149-082-48 149-082-49 149-082-50 Josenhans Robert J Jr Sutton David G Jones James Joseph 2085 Rob-in Rd 245 Clipper Way 2004 Calvert Ave San Marino, CA 91108-2831 Seal Beach, CA 90740-5955 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-3520 149-083-01 149-083-02 149-083-03 Conry Marjorie C Dolan Harry G Ii &Joanne K Wilson Carter Maulsby 9802 Blue Reef Dr 9806 Blue Reef Dr 921 Kingston Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7508 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7508 Mansfield, TX 76063-2659 149-083-04 149-083-05 149-083-06 Haugh Nathaniel & Samantha Oates R J Trust Yang Kwei-yau Yk & Ursula B 9816 Blue Reef Dr 9822 Blue Reef Dr 9826 Coral Cove Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7508 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7508 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 149-083-07 149-083-08 149-083-09 Boyes Joseph H & Elizabeth P Noteboom Spencer E & Karen D Smith Mark R 9822 Coral Cove Cir 21392 Via Straits Ln 9812 Coral Cove Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7575 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 I =-U5="U8zt I %jnVj-1Cb6 pjtieq;53 XDR'Aaa i %Ugts Rny' v 1!AU4 v Of EMT 149-083-10 149-083-1 1 1-19-083-12) Jonon Diane Bauman Jennifer Allison Weaver Janet L 19260 S_ Hedge Lane 9802 Coral Cove OF 9801 Jamaica Cir Spring 14111, KS 66083 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-750 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 149-083-13 149-083-14 149-083-15 Jackson Harold C & Clora L Kilo Oliver Thorpe Paul F 19951 Chesapeake Ln 9811 Jamaica Cir Po Box 3211 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3506 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-1211 149-083-16 149-083-17 149-083-18 Rice Louis C Sullivan Joanne Wanchek Kathleen B 9821 Jamaica Cir 9825 Jamaica Cir 9821 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7535 149-083-19 149-083-20 149-083-21 Barber Doug & Cristi Godinez Geary Hurley Eileen M 9815 Villa Pacific Dr 9811 Villa Pacific Dr 9805 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7535 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7535 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7535 149-083-22 149-083-23 149-083-24 Bruckmaiun L H Silcock James J Watt Thomas W 617 Avenida Acapulco 20541 Minerva Ln 21342 Bay Crest Cir San Clemente, CA 92672-2404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5832 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7502 149-083-25 149-083-26 149-083-27 Elitzak Jack M & Melissa A Bowman Dennis J Corrgian Beverly A 21346 Bay Crest OF 213.52 Bay Crest Cir 10196 Suan Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7502 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7502 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-1018 149-083-28 149-083-29 149-083-30 Kaplan Wayne J Karratti Matthew H & Tina M Medeiros Joseph W Jr 21345 Bay Crest Cir 21341 Bay Crest Cir 21335 Bay Crest Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7502 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7502 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7502 149-083-3 1 149-083-32 149-083-33 Chatman Gerald W Iii & Sheryl A Hunter Ina M Allen Thomas 21315 Seasprite Cir 21311 Seasprite Cir 21305 Seasprite Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 149-083-3 4 149-083-35 149-083-36 Pearson Susan Lauer Adrienne M Whitehall James L & Pohiwa L 21301 Seasprite Cir 21792 Seaside Ln 21291 Seasprite Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8232 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 149-083-3 7 149-083-38 149-083-39 Mccrary Daniel Selby Wesley R Brilhart Darren 1259 Milano Dr 944 21296 Seasprite Cir 21302 Seasprite Or West Sacramento, CA 95691-6017 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 jaaft-crueFriucea orJUI Add ii vvvcs Ana.7iVv 149-083-40 149-083-41 149-083-42 Anstey Brian & Patricia Sham Donald Drechsler Frank .) & Lillian G 21306 Seasprite Cir 8902 Henton Dr 21316 Seasprite Or Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7521 149-084-01 149-084-02 149-084-03 Krumbach Guenter F Evans Leon S Rogers Melodye A 21282 Wavecrest Cir 21286 Wavecrest Cir 21292 Wavecrest Or Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7538 Huntington Beach; CA 92646-7538 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7538 149-084-04 149-084-05 149-084-06 Holmes Minnie L Levsen Edward B & Jill D Freilich Kimberly M 21296 Wavecrest Cir 21302 Wavecrest Cir 20331 Bancroft Or Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7538 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7538 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4735 149-084-07 149-084-08 149-084-09 Winter Nicolaas D M Alai C Jamie Parrish John J 21316 Wavecrest Circle 1915 Ayon Cir 21326 Wavecrest Cir #72 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-3 5 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7516 149-084-16 149-084-17 149-084-18 Bradley Aldona Perkins Mililani Awana Gabriel Betty 213 l9th St 9881 Villa Pacific Dr 21342 Green Spray Ln Newport Beach, CA 92663-4507 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7567 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7560 149-084-19 149-084-20 149-084-21 Olavarria Nicolas Maria Wang Jun Dose Alicia D 21336 Green Spray Ln 21332 Green Spray Ln 21326 Green Spray Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7560 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7560 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7560 149-084-22 149-084-23 149-084-24 Fuller Malah Mattson Eric S Mannasmith Muriel I 21322 Green Spray Ln 21316 Green Spray Ln 21302 Green Spray Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7560 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7560 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7514 149-084-25 149-084-26 149-084-27 Snider Keith R Corado Julio & Vicky White Josephine M Po Box 8124 21292 Green Spray Ln 21286 Green Spray Ln Newport Beach, CA 92658-8124 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7514 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7514 149-084-2 8 149-084-29 149-084-30 Taylor Eric H & Kimberly R. L St Claire Laurie Gray Dina L 21282 Green Spray Ln 9862 Blue Reef Dr 9856 Blue Reef Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7514 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7562 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7562 149-084-3 1 149-084-32 149-084-33 Loshak Moises & Consuelo Sanchez Vincent C Kvinge Margaret 9852 Blue Reef Dr 9846 Blue Reef Dr 9842 Blue Reef Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7562 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7562 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7562 1C2L�'/�•��/�1h�43p'0M10'MM� i��#q��.YfFdUdIVJOOWX el rWAV.r --*0 wry�nYrjyi��® o�r��„w�e{x�,e�7 149-084-34 149-084-35 149-084-36 Chisholm Donald P Saiger Richard B & Kristi M Nettle Paul 9836 Coral Cove Cir 9842 Coral Cove Cir 9846 Coral Cove Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 Huntington Beach, CA 921i46-7�03 149-084-37 149-084-38 149-084-39 Murrav Nancy J Trust Rabbath Richard Sullivan Joanne 9852 Coral Cove Cir 9856 Coral Cove Cir 9862 Coral Cove Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7503 149-084-40 149-084-41 149-084-42 Jenrinch Christopher M Sargeant Heidi L Bowes Mitchell G & Debra .1 9861 Jamaica Cir 9855 Jamaica Cir 9851 Jamaica Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 149-084-43 149-084-44 149-084-45 Gleason Paula J Nagle Lloyd W Grafe Fritz W 9845 Jamaica Cir 9841 Jamaica Cir 9835 Jamaica Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7518 149-084-46 149-084-47 149-084-48 Rudolph Susan E Ellson Virginia K Lee D B & Tina Living Trust 9841 Villa Pacific Dr 9845 Villa Pacific Dr 1501 Robin Way Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7568 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7568 Fullerton, CA 92835-3712 149-084-49 149-084-50 149-085-14 Campos Frank Lava Stuart J Tabon Maureen D 9855 Villa Pacific Dr 9861 Villa Pacific Dr 9921 Barranca Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7568 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7568 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7525 149-085-15 149-086-01 149-086-02 Galluccio Fred James Rathmann Erna C Devore Living Trust 9182 Christine Dr 21371 Green Cove Cir 21375 Green Cove Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8316 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7512 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7512 149-086-03 149-086-04 149-086-05 Snider Keith R Mccrary Larry N & Daniel L Schenold James W Po Box 8124 Po Box 776 Po Box 7292 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8124 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0077 Huntington Beach, CA 92615-7292 149-086-06 149-086-07 149-086-08 Olson William H Jr& Ruthann Johnson Martin& Mary Ruo-rock Susan 9746 Villa Pacific Dr 9742 Villa Pacific Dr 9736 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7572 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7572 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7572 149-086-09 149-086-10 149-086-11 Schultz Susan C Giacom Gary R Snider Keith R 9732 Villa Pacific Dr 9712 Villa Pacific Dr Po Box 8124 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7572 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7532 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8124 waE � Q-j 6144a 3 1 j 1C� � =��=rltl =t ; Wpary=u�8 pJveJ��aa�axaa - r-Y�nu7,ev f..�.��., ,.� ,:,,•,, 1N831Ci�R�1�4�fiR a�HI S�Ifltl3�r�6+ qF�§l ISO 6§Slow4wW4v 149-086-12 149-086-13 149-086-14 Terry Lee D Bohner Risa E De Meester Daniel & Gisela 9702 Villa Pacific Dr 9696 Villa Pacific Dr 9692 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7532 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7532 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7532 149-086-15 149-086-16 149-086-17 Harryman Louise H Vlasek Robert L Di Francesco Scott & Teresa 9692 Brookhaven Cir 9696 Brookhaven Circle 9702 Brookhaven Circle Huntington Beach. CA 92646-75 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-086-18 149-086-19 149-086-20 Bas Peter Gangl Alfred H Seymour Levis W & Karleen D 9706 Brookhaven Cir 2021 Deer Springs Dr 9726 Brookhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7510 Henderson, NV 89074-4186 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7510 149-086-21 149-086-22 149-086-23 Griffith Charles W Horrocks Guy Tetley Donald S 9732 Brookhaven Cir 9736 Brookhaven Cir 9742 Brookhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7510 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7510 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7510 149-086-24 149-086-25 149-086-26 Balazs A W Sullivan Patricia A Morgan Geralund 21732 Branta Cir 9751 Brookbay Cir 13080 Pacific Promenade #402 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8205 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7509 Playa Vista, CA 90094-2 1 1 6 149-086-27 149-086-28 149-086-29 Loftus Caroline Strother Fearnley John W III & Joanna R Carrasco Carmela S & Richard Ii 9741 Brookbay Cir 9735 Brookbay Cir 9731 Brookbay Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7509 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7509 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7509 149-086-3 0 149-086-31 149-086-32 Heideman Lillian A Cuviello Vincent F Biba Pavel &Elizabeth 9715 Brookbay Cir 486 6th Ave 13441 Beach St Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7509 Lyndhurst, NJ 07071-1115 Cerritos, CA 90703-1422 149-086-3 3 149-096-34 149-086-35 Johnson Arlene G Drevick Beverly I Florian Luis O Po Box 429 9695 Brookbay Cir 17722 Gainsford Ln Union, WA 98592-0429 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7509 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4724 149-086-5 9 149-086-60 149-086-61 Micco Family Trust Sauer Ernest W Noteboom Karen D & Spencer E 21426 Via Straits Ln 21422 Via Straits Ln . 21392 Via Straits Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7530 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7530 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7575 149-086-6 2 149-086-63 149-086-64 Pappas Jerry A & Rosalie M Leenen Rona M Forster Margot E 21386 Via Straits Ln 21382 Via Straits Ln 3022 Ocana Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7575 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7575 Long Beach, CA 90808-3712 0 6C) l �( w � � ® 3ag gal .5—l/� O%' SIw� ]Mpg A �5f�aa�ee �Ss� M "� .1 1 *NSI� -��-�g -t I.jg1tin=tltiE puofgau al jolgnqu - ; Ovys�r Wn-a�iev 149-086-65 149-087-03 149-087-04 Taft Donald W & Rose Ivl Litz Merle Lockman Janet D 10041 Forrestal Dr 9852 Villa Pacific Dr 9840 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3 7 1 7 I-iuntington Beach, CA 92646-7571 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7571 149-087-05 149-087-06 149-087-07 De View Thomas H Smith Le Shia Nathenson David R 9842 Villa Pacific Dr 9582 Hamilton Avenue. 1i253 9816 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7571 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7536 149-087-08 149-087-09 149-087-10 Nathenson David Roy Rey C L & S A Living Trust Rios Richard A & Deborah N4 9812 Villa Pacific Dr 9806 Villa Pacific Dr 9802 Villa Pacific Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7536 149-087-1 1 149-087-12 149-097-13 Minar John J Living Trust Dangelo Ernam John Shaw Alice E & David M 9802 Harbor Point Cir 9806 Harbor Point OF 9812 Harbor Point Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7517 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7517 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7517 149-087-14 149-087-15 149-087-62 Gibson Tedd Craig Rona Carlene Richards Sandra R 11404 Coriender Ave 9822 Harbor Point Cir 21392 Green Cove Cir Fountain Valley, CA 92708-2417 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7517 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7512 149-087-63 149-087-64 149-087-65 Babbitt Kevin Anthony & Lisa Gromak Frank P Broccolo Catherine P 21386 Green Cove Cir 20202 Flax Cir 21376 Green Cove Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7512 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4518 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7512 149-087-66 149-121701 149-121-02 Powell Charles Schumann Bradley W & Debbie J Pang Edmund Kamekona & Wendy 21372 Green Cove Cir 21211 Richmond Cir 21201 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7512 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7319 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7319 149-121-03 149-121-04 149-121-05 Crowther Terry L Williams Rita Rea Dworak Family Trust 21191 Richmond Cir 21171 Richmond Cir 21161 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 149-121-06 149-121-07 149-121-08 Corbet Clifford P & Teresa S Tyloch Pamela Torressen Albert & Judith 21151 Richmond Cir 21141 Richmond Cir 21131 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 149-121-09 149-121-10 149-121-11 Abell-dent Bonnie K Me Closkey James Patrick Zombek Mark & Mary 21121 Richmond Cir 21111 Richmond Cir 21122 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7318 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 e� slaqejplead + `rIfi Rom_�b'0 'O�b��l S an-' oaVJ00 RA al rafanaa ---� § �i (6'U'! -j1Vn-"nv,..�y�.,o1 tkS83 �e9A`)011A 41 'eWP 149-121-12 149-121-13 149-121-14 Tuckfield Ralph L Frias Edgar & Christine 13crnedict Mar} Leslie 21 132 Richmond Cir 21 142 Richmond Cir ?1 152 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 I-luntington Beach, CA 92646-7 331 149-121-15 149-121-16 149-121-17 Barkfelt Warren R & Deborah J Decker Mark. Kaneko Brian & Kristin 21162 Richmond Cir 21 172 Richmond Cir 21192 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 149-121-18 149-121-19 149-121-20 Chadwick Stacey Davis Charles L Nealon Peter Michael 21202 Richmond Cir 21212 Richmond Cir 735 Balboa Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7331 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 149-121-21 149-121-22 149-121-23 Barker George T Palmer Ernest M Walton Michael & Jena 21201 Lockhaven Cir 21191 Lockhaven Cir 21171 Lockhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7320 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7321 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7321 149-121-24 149-121-25 149-121-26 Goldenberg Charles Isaac Madey Randall Clarke& Nancy Alice Gonzales John Jr 21161 Lockhaven Circle 21151 Lockhaven Circle 21141 Lockhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7321 149-121-27 149-121-28 149-121-29 Motschall Patsy J Schofield Family Trust Kapus Victoria M 21131 Lockhaven Cir 21121 Lockhaven Cir 21111 Lockhaven Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7321 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7321 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-121-30 149-121-31 149-121-32 Slavik Family 2006 Trust Dowell Timothy Hotsey Debra A Trust 21122 Lockhaven Cir 21132 Lockhaven Cir 21142 Lockhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 149-121-33 149-121-34 149-121-35 Stein Jack Larson Richard E & Cheryll L Sturges Family 2007 Trust 21152 Lockhaven Cir 21082 White Horse Ln 21172 Lockhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7051 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 149-121-36 149-121-37 149-121-38 Worthington Gary C Nicolaou Maria Me Comb Jane H 21192 Lockhaven Cir 21202 Lockhaven Cir 21212 Lockhaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7340 149-121-39 149-121-40 149-121-41 Louis Bonnie J Dittmar Albert W Spencer Charles E 21211 Binghampton Cir 21201 Binghampton Cir 21191 Binghampton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7317 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7317 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7300 1l`��llt l ib�g=8�8' =t dG'laWWd Flowi al lar"nax --sp 149-121-42 149-l 21-43 149-121-44 Yin Jack Ching-shah & Martha Vonrhein Glenn & Roxanne It,l N]urrav Peter M 2008 Trust Decker 21 161 Binglhanipton Cir 21 151 Binghampton Cir 21 171 Binghampton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7300 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7 300 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7300 149-121-45 149-121-46 149-121-47 Arnold Kurt J Klein Robin Miller Jerry L Po Box 5774 21 131 Binghampton Cir 21 121 Binghampton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92615-5774 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7300 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7300 149-121-48 149-121-49 149-121-50 Debacker "Thomas E Ii & Rachel D Fearnlev John VV lii & Joanna Provost Christopher Joe & Cathy 2111 Binghampton Cir 21 122 Binghampton Cir Lynn Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 21 132 Binghampton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 149-121-51 149-121-52 149-121-53 Cornett Robert A & Sywe Fang Pohl Philip C Smith Joseph Wm 21 142 Binghampton Cir 21 152 Binghampton Cir 21 162 Binghampton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 149-121-54 149-121-55 149-121-56 Drazkowski David V Christensen Paul E & Mary R Cangro Daniel N & Kathryn L 21172 Binghampton Cir 21 192 Binghampton Cir 21202 Binghampton Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7323 149-121-57 149-121-58 149-121-59 Miller Jason S Whelan Lois Nelson Hodgman Steven 21212 Binghampton Circle 21211 Amberwick Ln 21201 Amberwick Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7312 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7312 149-121-60 149-121-61 149-121-62 Karrer Bert W Jr &Joelle Visco Frank Joseph & Kim Kelly Gesch George W 21191 Amberwick Ln 21171 Amberwick Ln 21161 Amberwick Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 149-121-63 149-121-64 149-121-65 Yam Khoeung & Vann Johnstone Marian M Oconnell John& Kristine 21151 Amberwick Ln 21141 Amberwick Ln 21131 Amberwick Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 149-121-66 149-121-67 149-121-68 Gonzales Mary Jane Chang H W & J S Family Trust Steele Paul A & Dorothy A 21121 Amberwick Ln 21 111 Amberwick Ln 21112 Strathmoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7309 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7336 149-121-69 149-121-70 149-121-71 Mc Graw Patrice Ann Goodfellow William A Pham Dang Kim 21122 Strathmoor Ln 21132 Strathmoor Ln 22 Bridgeport Rd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7336 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7336 Newport Coast, CA 92657-1012 s�l �111)Oct-ld' �f 1 mil �� ? AVJAV=04=649=k I vaun=uod p-gei ei aei"w Op �YfddR@`MMnn ,4P N1I@ wfi4304 q @ 2611d64 ® , §Mv6psmumb,433 149-121-72 149-l 21-73 149-121-74 Tracy- James J & Maxine A Trust Broyles Samuel G Jr- Whisenand John Caton 21152 Strathmoor Ln 2 1162 Stratlunoor Ln 21 172 Strathmoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7336 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-73 36 I-luntington Beach, CA 92646-7 336 149-121-75 149-121-76 149-121-77 Barone James Kelly Don Michael La Bollita Grorgc '11honias 21192 Strathmoor Ln 21202 Strathmoor Ln 21212 Strathmoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7336 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7337 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7337 149-123-01 149-123-02 149-123-03 Kin John D Short Annetta B Perez Gregory _I 9792 Effingham Dr 9802 Effingham Dr 9812 Effingham Di- Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7327 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 149-123-04 149-123-05 149-123-06 Bouchea Noel P Bergevin Bruce & Carla M Beuerlein Michael A & Stephanie L 9822 Effingham Dr 9832 Effingham Dr 9842 Effingham Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 149-123-07 149-123-08 149-123-09 Thompson Ian M Tonelli P L Family Trust South Margaret K 9852 Effingham Dr 9862 Effingham Dr 2885 Ballow Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4205 149-123-10 149-123-11 149-123-12 Murray Peter George Ventura Liberty Voorhees Vera S 9882 Effingham Dr 9892 Effingham Dr 9902 Effingham Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7328 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7329 149-123-13 149-123-14 149-123-15 Puro James P & Paula E Gerardo Frank A Undlin Paul M & Heidi F 9912 Effingham Dr 9932 Effingham Dr 9942 Effingham Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7329 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7329 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7329 149-161-01 149-161-02 149-161-03 Solorzano David M Barnes Margaret J Higginbotham Steve G & Ilicia K 21342 Bulkhead Cir 21332 Bulkhead Cir 21322 Bulkhead Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 149-161-04 149-161-05 149-161-06 Kulpa Robert Nichols Karen L Cornella Frank 5221 Moya 21302 Bulkhead Cir 21292 Bulkhead Cir Laguna Woods, CA 92637-1822 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 149-161-07 149-161-08 149-161-09 Kurocik Ronald N Hunter Arnold Thompson Ronald E & Kristin P 21272 Bulkhead Cir 21.261 Bulkhead Cir 21271 Bulkhead Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 f Vb 09'/If r a a6p3 d�-dod esodxe ® • �I �.d���/�/O� w,u i W oup 6uole pues r i 149-161-10 149-161-11 149-161-12 Marino Christopher J I-louk Lee E Evans Jonathan h4 & Robyn K 21291 Bulkhead Cir 21301 Bulkhead Cir 21 31 1 Bulkhead Cir Huntington Beach. CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 1lt.untington Beach, CA 92646-7204 149-161-13 149-161-14 149-161-15 Champion Theresa D Willadsen Jeffrey L & Valerie E Ingraham James A & Susan Itlarie 21321 Bulkhead Cir 21331 Bulkhead Cir 21341 Bulkhead Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7204 149-161-16 149-161-17 149-161-18 Kim Bokhee Sutherland Mary Le Bas Misti Po Box 5007 21332 Compass Ln 21322 Compass I,n Garden Grove, CA 92846-0007 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7217 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7217 149-161-19 149-161-20 149-161-21 Kirkorn Jason F & Stacey Y Cullmann John L Biggers David J 21312 Compass Ln 21302 Compass Ln 21292 Compass Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7217 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7217 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7217 149-161-22 149-161-23 149-161-24 Kashiwagi Pui Mun Navidad Apolinario R Fox Dana Michael & Wynne M 21272 Compass Ln 9401 Southshore Dr 9391 Southshore Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7217 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7226 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7224 149-161-25 149-162-01 Marnocha Thomas J & Heidi A Nosel John 9381 Southshore Dr 149-161-26 21301 Compass Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7224 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7216 149-163-01 149-163-02 149-163-03 Shepherd Steven C Porter Danny L Andrews Julie A Trust 9462 Waterfront Dr 2020 Freda Ln 9442 Waterfront Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7228 Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007- Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7228 1419 149-271-01 149-271-02 149-271-03 Felix Sandra Zerewat Percival Betty Jean Kent John R 21002 Strathmoor Ln 21022 Strathmoor Ln 21032 Stratlunoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7334 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7334 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7334 149-271-04 149-271-05 149-271-06 Bailey M Jean Murrell J W & K S Family Trust Nealon Peter Michael 21042 Strathmoor Ln 21052 Stratlunoor Ln 21211 Lockhaven Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7334 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7334 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-271-07 149-271-08 149-271-09 Peterson Rick L & Deena S Mendoza Harvey& Carol A Wiegmann Rosemary S 21061 Hagerstown Cir 2271 Orchard Dr 21041 Hagerstown Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 Newport Beach, CA 92660-0727 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 wa4ls ; 1 � i i !gj tam Qri =lgJ=fltl1=1 NjdfFCWd P'�Xof M'n i I 1k183 �R�=RRRRAR ;a���y��.w+qt�+�����I � �§�It�► �a�1#t� 149-271-10 149-271-1 1 149-271-12 De Benon Ross L Jr & Thelma A NIccrosky Stanley & Amy P Nevy!elan Jerry W & StePhany 21031 Hagerstown Cir 2 102 1 Hagerstown Cir 21001 Hagerstown Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 1-Iuntington l3each_ CA 92646-7 30 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 149-271-13 149-271-14 149-27 1-1-� Burgmeier Lyman R :shad Paul Lewerenz William & Krista 4547 Everest Cir 21022 Hagerstown Cir 21032 Hagerstown Cir Cypress, CA 90630-2659 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 Iluritington Beach, CA 92646-7330 149-271-16 149-271-17 149-271-18 Stephens Timothy W Whitt Diana L & John J Smith Mark R & Karen M 21042 Hagerstown Or 21052 Hagerstovv7n Cir 21062 Hagerstown Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7330 149-271-19 149-271-20 149-271-21 Brown Charles J & Jerry A Barrett Michael J & Michele D Pennino Michael Domenic & Christine 21061 Shackleford Cir 21051 Shackleford Cir 21041 Shackleford Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-271-22 149-271-23 149-271-24 Scott Jeffrey Craig & Sandra Arlene Reno Charles S Fills Noreen Cecilia 21031 Shackleford Cir 21021 Shackleford Cir 21001 Shackleford Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 149-271-2 5 149-271-26 149-271-27 Montgomery Eric Dennis Randall Cross & Susan G Sorensen Chad &Jennifer 21002 Shackleford Cir 21022 Shackleford Cir 21032 Shackleford Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 149-271-28 149-271-29 149-271-30 Simpson Tommy C & Beverly J Charbonneau Neal A Tully Janice M 21042 Shackleford Cir 21052 Shackleford Cir 21062 Shackleford Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7332 149-271-31 149-271-32 149-271-33 Broccolo Frank R Cardullo John R Rosen Charles & S Family Trust 9831 Lapworth Cir 21051 Beckwourth Cir 21041 Beckwourth Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6541 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 149-271-34 149-271-35 149-271-36 Tafarella Erminio Sarria Sam D Jr Beck Morris A 1206 Park Street 21021 Beckwourth Cir 21001 Beckwourth Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 149-271-3 8 149-271-39 149-271-40 Becker Robert B Fennessy Craig James& Sharon Nalani Manley John A &Anna Maria 21022 Beckwourth Cir 21032 Beckwourth Cir 21042 Beckwourth Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 W6 Sbs5 j I C��' —/j, iaull suet@ pd� V r/Oy slagui @188®A§@3 widn-dod PJogaJ a1 JaIawaJ ap sueg~- i ®09t5®na�nv a!afsy����3� Rf1 MOYAJane-MMn► ap uye ajny�ey el a zaydaa ® laud a sad! y s t1211 M 149-271-41 149-271-42 149-271-43 Galbraith J W & M P Living Haidle Richard J & Debbie M Rasmussen Alan George 21052 Beckwourth Cir 21062 Beckwourth CIF 2t061 Amberwick Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7314 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7308 149-271-44 149-272-01 149-272-02 Holloway Charles NV Sarni Falakea N & Fiona S Nowling James R 21051 Amberwick Ln 21001 Strathmoor Ln 21021 Stratlunoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7308 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 149-272-03 149-272-04 149-272-05 Casella David Kelly Jo Ann F Cillay Donald D 21031 Strathmoor Ln 21041 Strathmoor Ln 21051 Strathmoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 149-272-06 149-272-07 149-272-08 Bloom D Phillip & M Jeanne Khakshour Heshmat Kalim Jennings Donald D & Sylvia D 21061 Strathmoor Ln 516 N Linden Dr 21091 Strathmoor Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3222 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7333 149-272-09 149-272-10 149-273-01 Hanks R Bruce Bradley Denise M Reuter Steven J& Linda 21101 Strathmoor Ln 211 1 1 Stratlunoor Ln 9772 Cornerbrook Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7335 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7335 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7355 149-273-02 149-273-03 149-273-04 San Vicente Ramon Glavinic Mark V Mosquiera Ann R 21832 Oceanview Ln 9792 Cornerbrook Dr 24001 Muirlands Blvd#286 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8217 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7355 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1712 149-273-05 149-273-06 149-273-07 Smith Anthony Eric & Bernice Anderson Terry Charles Chapman Dennis J 9822 Cornerbrook Dr 9832 Cornerbrook Dr 9842 Cornerbrook Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 149-273-08 149-273-09 149-273-10 Questa Gary S Crothers Kenneth& Sharon Musselman James J 9852 Cornerbrook Dr 9862 Cornerbrook Dr 9872 Cornerbrook Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 149-273-1 1 149-273-12 149-273-13 Demars Marc Cirelli Patrick J Skinner Paul A 9882 Cornerbrook Dr 9892 Cornerbrook Dr 9902 Cornerbrook Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7325 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7326 149-273-14 149-273-15 149-273-16 Price Brian T Kelton Stanley M Gillinger Gary M 9912 Cornerbrook Dr 9922 Cornerbrook Dr 9932 Cornerbrook Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7326 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7326 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7326 c i r wad dn-doi ased. jaded Paa4 �� / lS al -wM iiwAMM(DAI93M 44 awA 6UOF P<f ® / 7 D J �/���_ � dat�(� �P' Pesa try �rrtsa •-@—g - lfF iEla�/t =AbO��e ;OW utj@ @Mwvq @1 q'lid d@l@d @§opq§aspanitatW 149-281-01 149-281-02 149-281-03 Eastham Gary W & _Ionia Sue y'on Lossberg Pamela Obricn Charles B & Jennifer A 21371 Pinetree Ln 21381 Pinetree Lu 21391 Pinetree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7558 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7558 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7558 149-281-04 149-282-01 149-282-02 Hall Robert "I'homas Brac Charles Jr Gould Ronald J 21401 Pinetree Ln 21362 Pinetree Lane 21 372 Pinetree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7555 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7554 149-282-03 149-282-04 149-282-05 Soonthornpong S Living Trust Echmalian Charles S Smith Win Family Trust A & B 21382 Pinetree Ln 21392 Pinetree Ln 329 Rio Del Mar Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7554 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7554 Aptos, CA 95003-5035 149-282-10 149-282-11 149-282-12 Wells Chester Burt-us & Elisabeth M Korbonski Sylvia O Goodfellow William A 21401 Augusta Or 23581 Via Calzada 21381 Augusta Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7539 Mission Viejo, CA 92691-3625 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-282-13 149-282-14 149-282-15 Fung Escolastica V Keller Venice G Lunde Ty & Britton Kerry 21371 Augusta Cir 21361 Augusta Cir 21372 Augusta Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7539 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7539 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7539 149-282-16 149-282-17 149-282-18 Zaferis Demetrious & George Bonilla Edward A Wilfert Gary S & Laurie R 21382 Augusta Cir 21392 Augusta Cir 23191 Mindanao Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7539 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7539 Dana Point, CA 92629-3625 149-282-23 149-282-24 149-282-25 Bennett Roger R Benson Thomas M Cameron Sherri R Trust Po Box 5310 21391 Pensacola Circle 21381 Pensacola Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92615-5310 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 149-282-26 149-282-27 149-282-28 Clow William Curtis Neal James Patrick& Gina Marie Dorrel Martha P 21371 Pensacola Cir 21361 Pensacola Cir 21372 Pensacola Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 149-282-29 149-282-30 149-282-31 Hann Stuart & Janet Hsu Hao Wen Green Richard S 21382 Pensacola Cir 21392 Pensacola Cir 21402 Pensacola Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7549 149-282-36 149-282-37 149-282-3 8 Duncan Penny P & A Alcala Raul Hemmersbach Judith A 21401 Lemontree Ln 21391 Lemontree Ln 21381 Lemontree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7545 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7545 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7545 .Y ON6 fw&d wmwk paim //,f/0 "ait1ts Ni %puq � � �l�q@�®loud AS@3 VV 149-282-39 149-282-40 141)-283-10 Schrantz John M & I\1 D thrust Poulos James \' Owen Dolores G 21371 Lemontree Lane 21361 Lemontree Ln 21422 Lemontree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Hunnngtori Beach, CA 92646-7545 Huntington Beach, CA- 92646-7548 149-283-1 1 149-283-12 149-283-1 3 Medina Ornar Mcbride William Allmand Jacques 21402 Lemontree Lane 21392 Lemontree Ln 21382 Lemontree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7546 Huntington Beach_ CA 92646-7546 149-283-14 149-291-01 149-291-02 Me Govern Patrick Dickinson Dan & Allyson Pizkalla Baher 21372 Lemontree Ln 21341 Pinetree Ln 21 3 3 1 Pinetree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7546 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7553 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7553 149-291-03 149-291-04 149-291-05 Bruckmann L H Schneider Ronald Lee & Nancv L Solis Steve & Tarnra 617 Avenida Acapulco 21311 Pinetree Ln 21301 Pinetree Ln San Clemente, CA 92672-2404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7553 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7553 149-291-06 149-291-07 149-291-08 Bowman Steven D & Tracy N4 Bassaline Brian J & Teresa C Martin David K & Barbara H 21291 Pinetree Ln 9501 Chevy Chase Dr 9521 Chevy Chase Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7552 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 149-291-09 149-291-10 149-291-11 Buck J P Trust Sadler Robert L & Beverly Cochrane William Henry 9541 Chevy Chase Dr 9551 Chevy Chase Dr 9561 Chevy Chase Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 149-291-12 149-291-13 149-291-14 Juarez Marceline D Richardson Ted E Kress Jeffrey 9571 Chevy Chase Dr 9581 Chevy Chase Dr 9591 Chevy Chase Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7540 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-291-15 149-291-16 149-291-17 Payette Bruce A Krupka Nicholas Avila Richard & Michelle 9601 Chevy Chase Dr 9611 Chevy Chase Dr 11861 Gladstone Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7511 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7511 Santa Ana, CA 92705-2937 149-291-18 149-291-19 149-291-20 Obrien George M Bell E H & M R Living Trust Bonifacio Arturo L & Cherry F 9631 Chevy Chase Dr 9641 Chevy Chase Dr 21262 Lemontree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7511 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7511 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7544 149-291-21 149-291-22 149-291-23 Strock John Shaffer Anthony M & Irma M. Hindriksen Mary F 21282 Lemontree Ln 21292 Lemontree Ln 21302 Lemontree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7544 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7544 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7546 �' ��� *,/Vb ©s -4, 'r "� u�' —���1 p, ®o9r<s awl see w ai a: 11 $ _- ,- ;1 `U".n3tej n; "piq 1`-§@fl rr 149-291-24 149-291-25 149-291-26 Desai Shashin Latham Todd C. Fitzgibbons Jurhee R 18985 Fairmont Ln 21332 Lemontree Ln 21342 Lemontree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6124 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7546 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7546 149-291-27 149-292-01 149-292-02 Hamlin Alexander C Norman Gregory Thomas Crichton James 21352 Lemontree Ln 21342 Pinetree Lane 21332 Pinetree Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7546 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach; CA 92646-7554 149-292-03 149-292-04 149-292-05 Wulkowicz James NI & Michelle D Clary Henry Louis & Deanna Chen Morizio Family Trust 21322 Pinetree Ln 21312 Pinetree Ln 9542 Chevy Chase Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7554 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-7554 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7500 149-292-06 149-292-07 149-292-08 Blanciak William A Brown Jon C & Jaleah J Galuppo Ambrose 9552 Chevy Chase Dr 9562 Chevy Chase Dr 9572 Chevy Chase Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7500 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7500 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7500 149-292-09 l 49-292-10 149-292-11 Plank Irvin Simmons Deric & Elaine Nayersina Hooslunand 9582 Chevy Chase Dr 9592 Chevy Chase Dr 912 Waverly Cmn Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7500 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7500 Livermore, CA 94551-7502 149-292-12 149-292-13 149-292-14 Logan Family Trust Masuzumi Bobby Whitehead Darrel R 9612 Chevy Chase Dr 9622 Chevy Chase Drive 9632 Chevy Chase Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7541 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7541 149-292-15 149-292-16 149-292-17 Mitchell Jan Wang Li-shun Watson James E 9642 Chevy Chase Dr 9641 Indian Wells Cir 9631 Indian Wells Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7541 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 149-292-1 R 149-292-19 149-292-20 Sadao Frank Y Schoenberger Lilly K Wellenstein Peter J 9621 Indian Wells Cir 9611 Indian Wells Cir 9591 Indian Wells Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 149-292-21 149-292-22 149-292-23 Wellenstei n Peter J Da Cunha Walter L Oliphant William V 9591 Indian Wells Cir 9581 Indian Wells Cir 25345 Gallup Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 149-292-24 149-292-25 149-292-26 Freeman Barton Robert Lovett Norman L Huebel Eva M 9561 Indian Wells Cir 9552 Indian Wells Cir 9562 Indian Wells Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 �# r a )tlfnL �Il-d �1� i 1�a��v +�:.��Hy anaa 80 x ui19o8111 U sJ9+ �ia1l1AY i V MO:' anenAAM . ,,. , 149-292-27 149-292-28 149-292-29 Steward-line Beverly & Lynn Sorenson Family Trust N'lI ler Robert K & Mary Noonan 9572 Indian Wells Cir 9582 Indian Wells Cir 9592 Indian Wells Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 1-Iuntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 149-292-30 149-292-31 149-292-32 Glodery Gregory A & Christine NI Weschler Joseph R & Deirdre E Arriola Edmund W Po Box 5561 9612 Indian Wells Cir 9622 Indian Wells Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92615-5561 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 149-292-33 149-292-34 149-301-01 Hartman Fred & Barbara Roberts Ramey Mai Al Sheeks Family "Trust 9632 Indian Wells Cir 9642 Indian Wells Cir 21431 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7577 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 149-301-02 149-301-03 149-301-04 Brewer David L Jr& Jean E Wilson Paul Timmons Ted T 21141 Chubasco Ln 21151 Chubasco Ln 21171 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 149-301-05 149-301-06 149-301-07 Jackson M R & T M Living Trust Prentice James Dean Garrison Joseph R & Linda 21181 Chubasco Ln 21191 Chubasco Ln 21201 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6429 149-301-08 149-302-01 149-302-02 Hamilton R Thomas Wright Family Trust Marmont Howell R 811 Avenida Salvador 9562 Volante Dr 9552 Volante Dr San Clemente, CA 92672-2322 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6450 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6450 149-302-03 149-302-04 149-302-05 Tous Van Nijkerk David M Mcginty Donald P Byerley Wayne Michael )532 Volante Dr 9522 Volante Dr 9521 Blackfin Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6450 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6450 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 149-302-06 149-302-07 149-302-08 Morrison Dwayne L & Evalyn C Mccormick Barry D Oleary Donald J Ii & Kimberly B )531 Blackfin Cir 9551 Blackfin Cir 9561 Blackfin Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 149-302-09 149-302-10 149-302-11 Thompson David C Cernok John T Bell Ronald D J562 Blackfin Cir 9552 Blackfin Cir 9532 Blackfin Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 149-302-1.2 149-302-13 149-302-14 Holtz David A & Eveleen L Mcquaid William T& Tracy E Rudolph Richard C & Leslie Lim J522 Blackfin Cir 9521 Panacea Dr 9531 Panacea Dr Kuntington Beach, CA 92646-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6442 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6442 w� s®� 4L) ©f—l� or �"b ,�1 � a ` � 'ram �" �r SM Ptah=arrg piergar���iar�anat --�— W� �m a.w�waeomi 149-302-15 149-302-16 149-302-17 Burhans William A Dilts Richard L & Susan School Huntington Beach 9551 Panacea Dr 9561 Panacea Dr 770 17th St Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6442 Huntington Beach. CA 92646-6442 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-3426 149-302-18 149-302-19 149-302-20 Bullette G Bryan Johnson Raymond Alfred Edgerton Family Trust 9562 Panacea Dr 9552 Panacea Dr 9532 Panacea Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6443 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6443 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6443 149-302-21 149-31 1-01 119-31 1-02 Avalos Edward Conte Louis L Legere Michael Raymond & Danielle 9522 Panacea Dr 9571 Orient Dr 9561 Orient Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6443 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-64 39 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-6439 149-311-03 149-311-04 149-31 1-05 Dorman Jeffrey H & Karen N Kent John M Garvey Tim P & Linda A 9551 Orient Dr 9531 Orient Dr 9521 Orient Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6439 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6439 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6439 149-311-06 149-311-07 149-31 1-08 Gilmore Charles Edward Bonar James W Prendergast Dan & Maureen 9511 Orient Dr 21031 Chubasco Ln 21041 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6439 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6425 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6425 149-311-09 149-31 1-10 149-31 1-1 1 Flood Jack Edward Jr Hulme Stephanie L&Timothy Henry Bank Of New York 2005-ar4 21051 Chubasco Ln 21061 Chubasco Ln N/avail Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6425 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6425 N/avail, 149-311-12 149-311-13 149-311-14 Woltanski Theodore M Broussard James E Gilbert David 21091 Chubasco Ln 21101 Chubasco Ln 21111 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6425 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 149-311-15 149-312-01 149-312-02 Fay Michael J & Sandra Collins James L Phillips Gerald W 21121 Chubasco Ln 21042 Chubasco Ln 21052 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6427 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6426 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6426 149-312-03 149-312-04 149-312-05 Lewis Christopher D Luther Michael A Cananna Peter J 21062 Chubasco Ln 21082 Chubasco Ln 21092 Chubasco Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6426 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6426 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6426 149-312-06 149-312-07 149-312-08 Maddux Jimmy Ross & Shannon E Skolnick Elliot A Lamore Viet 21102 Chubasco Ln 9521 Volante Dr 9531 Volante Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6428 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6449 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6449 �� willyb3 ® 118U819 Ort>�-fi; m1driFtwdN -VMmps^m" i ®--ems-- uyLs pAaJnv•ucyero��t 9!{!1p1 imIw# aasad a Sawn ihh 149-312-09 149-312-10 149-312-11 Armino Michael Olin < E;imsuk Nlc Henry R E Hu Chi Yu 9551 Volante Dr 21 101 Inferno L,n 21091 Inferno Ln Huntington Beach, 92646-6449 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6437 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6435 149-312-12 149-312-13 149-312-14 Porterfield Thomas W Ruffino Joseph M & Kathleen K Paleo Paul & Kathy 21081 Inferno Ln 21061 Inferno Ln 21051 Inferno Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6435 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6435 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6435 149-312-15 149-313-01 149-313-02 Howarth Family Trust AIIanj1an Ted Graafmans Hans 21041 Inferno I_n 6832 Via Angelina Dr 21112 Inferno Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6435 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6682 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6438 149-313-03 149-313-04 149-313-05 Yomtoubian Manizlieh Miller Richard C Bollman Philip Po Boa 3595 21092 Inferno Ln 21082 Inferno Ln Newport Beach, CA 92659-8595 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6436 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6436 149-313-06 149-313-07 149-313-08 Soricellt John Jr Vaught Glenn M Green Family Trust 21062 Inferno L,n 21052 Inferno Ln 21042 Inferno Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6436 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6436 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6436 149-313-09 149-313-10 149-313-11 Sutton Elliott K Pancino Brian &Vicki Dian Johnson Susan L 21041 Red Jacket Cir 21051 Red Jacket Cir 7325 Steinbeck Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 San Diego, CA 92122-2822 149-313-12 149-313-13 149-313-14 Johnson John H La Brake John Kaae Adam J&Coleen D 21081 Red Jacket Cir 21091 Red Jacket Cir 21101 Red Jacket Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-313-15 149-313-16 149-313-17 Clapp Jack K& J R 1992 Trust Diponio John& Rita M Desai Anju Living Trust 1210 Main St 10589 Hillside Rd 21122 Red Jacket Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2721 Alta Loma, CA 91737-2411 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 149-313-1 8 149-313-19 149-313-20 Carr Robert L Knutsen Stephen M & Cathy M Schuberth David Alan 21912 Harborbreeze Ln 21102 Red Jacket Cir 21092 Red Jacket Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8255 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 149-313-21 149-313-22 149-313-23 Fanous Mohsen Beidleman James P & Shana Reynolds Marvin E 21082 Red Jacket Cir 1269 Donahue Ct 21052 Red Jacket Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 Pleasanton, CA 94566-3442 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 ;�wiUyhS Ull13H®1@ PN@9 ; s0age�®1aa�A501 �p sues— 1 o09ls @AU3Av;iaegeea�l mil±1�i salad a sajpe4 149-313-24 149-313-25 149-313-26 Krause Howard 1-,: Burkart Paul Thomas Kanda Milton J 21042 Red Jacket Cir 10699 E1 Soneto Ave 21051 Indigo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6444 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-4801 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-313-27 149-313-28 149-313-29 Weiss Mark C Trust Bywater Ronald J Miller Scott J & Jo Ann 21061 Indigo Cir 21081 Indigo Cir 21091 Indigo Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 149-313-30 149-313-31 149-313-32 Waterhouse Lawrence E Brown Bruce NV Hernandez Richard R 21101 Indigo Cir 21111 Indigo Cir 21 121 Indigo Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 149-313-33 149-313-34 149-313-35 Bublitz Michael W Eberwein Mary Evelyn Bailey Brian H 21 122 Indigo Cir 21112 Indigo Cir 21102 Indigo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-313-36 149-313-37 149-313-38 Oconnor Barbara Grosvenor Darren Lind Jo Ann 21082 Indigo Cir 21062 Indigo Cir 21052 Indigo Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 149-313-39 149-313-40 149-313-41 Whitcomb Jon B & Diane B Houle Normand A & Janis R Olson Masako Ubukata 21042 Indigo Cir 21032 Indigo Cir 21031 Cocobana Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6434 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6430 149-313-42 149-313-43 149-313-44 Spitaleri Marc & Michelle R Finley Stewart Difilippo Michael &Nancy 21041 Cocobana Ln 17682 Gainsford Ln 21061 Cocobana Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6430 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4723 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6430 149-313-45 149-313-46 149-313-47 Hamilton John E Iii & Katherine J Ferretti Joseph M & Lisa B Krueger Kenneth J & Nancy J 21081 Cocobana Ln 21101 Cocobana Ln 21111 Cocobana Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6430 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6432 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6432 149-313-4 8 149-314-0 l 149-314-02 Bertsch Paul & Pamela Soanes Joseph L Kelso Matt 21121 Cocobana Ln 9601 Orient Drive 9611 Orient Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6432 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6440 149-314-03 149-314-04 149-314-05 Nostadt Gerald& Stephania Gallimore Andrew Kiff& Ellen Gibb John S & Allison L 9621 Orient Dr 9641 Orient Dr 9651 Orient Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6440 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6440 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6440 �1 �iVa0pi od11 Owl@ PL" (1 r vvo r � wl���l l" tl o ao onfia lU,�W�fi 'j °� a V7�,�VNee, +I.le CU a lZaSI�� a i wo�•iGane•mmm a ui e aunt ie e��za da as a+! ? 149-314-06 149-314-07 149-314-08 Smith James L Blyth Steven E & Karen M Brelim Marvin 9661 Orient Dr 21061 Shaw Ln 9691 Orient Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6440 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7141 1u11tington Beach, CA 92646-6440 149-314-09 149-314-10 149-314-1 1 Jones Richard L Steinhoff Grace M Patch Brendan & Jennifer 9701 Orient Dr 9711 Orient Dr 21022 Cocobana Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6441 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6441 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6431 149-314-12 149-314-13 149-314-14 Smith Gordon & Janet Rumble Donald Lewis Jr & Jenine Glinskas Anthony G 21032 Cocobana Ln Marie 21052 Cocobana Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6431 21042 Cocobana Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6431 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6431 149-314-15 149-314-16 149-314-17 Killam William M & Debra A Naber Clayton D & Marie A Saunders Gene R& Robbie A 21062 Cocobana Ln 21082 Cocobana Ln 21092 Cocobana Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6431 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6431 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-314-18 149-314-19 149-392-07 Rezai Farhad Reiner Judith B Diep Michelle D & Linh S 21102 Cocobana Ln 21112 Cocobana Ln 9431 Shadwell Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6433 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-6433 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7213 149-392-08 149-392-10 149-392-11 Pham Danny S Le Hoang H Trout Tad A & Deborah K 9441 Shadwell Dr 9461 Shadwell Dr 21032 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7213 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7213 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 149-3 92-12 149-3 92-13 149-3 92-14 Mcdonald Patricia A Woo William O Jr& Donna L Do Muu Nhu 21042 Spurney Ln 21052 Spumey Ln 21072 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 149-392-15 149-392-16 149-392-17 Davis Daniel Lee Wong Larry M& Mary F Wilbert John Earl 21082 Spurney Ln 21092 Spurney Ln 21102 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7214 149-3 93-10 149-3 93-11 149-393-12 Naito Kiyoshi Cho Wilbert &Loretta C Goud Ramesh M & Ranjan R 9412 Shad-well, Dr 9422 Shadwell Dr 9442 Shadwell Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7212 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7212 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7212 149-393-13 149-3 93-15 149-393-16 Shao Chang Jung Kim Living Trust Farsakh Hisham & Carmela 9452 Shadwell Dr 9451 Darrow Dr 9441 Darrow Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7212 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-7231 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7231 4Twa©9b5 �a Jd NI)C)(� 4 ii wx�ip4A.d %j aagce, u �� � SM�w1096S a it ® a e ua A I r r, Ta �orxc�s w` o � 8� � �� 8J S 149-393-17 149-393-18 149-393-19 King Bernard Yeh Roger Y T I'seng James 9421 Darrow Dr 9411 Darrow Dr 9401 Darrow Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7231 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7231 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7231 149-394-1 1 149-394-12 149-394-13 Kumar Satish & Lalita Castro John Truong Daniel D 9402 Darrow Dr 449 S Westridge Cir 9422 Darrow Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7233 Anaheim, CA 92807-3733 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7233 149-394-14 149-394-15 149-401-10 Munoz Daniel E & Maria N Hoang Lien Minh Bieber Steven R 9442 Darrow Dr 9452 Darrow Dr 9391 Power Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7233 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7233 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7236 149-401-1 1 149-401-12 149-401-13 Chen Jerry & Grace Wright David E Jeng Hubert W H & Shu Cheng 9401 Power Dr 9411 Power Dr 9421 Power Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7237 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7237 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7237 149-401-14 149-401-15 149-402-11 Cheng Jung Kuan Nguyen Cat Dang Stroup Marcia R 9441 Power Dr 9451 Power Dr 9402 Power Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7237 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7237 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7235 149-402-12 149-402-13 149-402-14 Lu Vince Engdahl Paul D Schaum Craig O 13432 Erin Rd 9422 Power Dr 9442 Power Dr Garden Grove, CA 92844-2312 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7235 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7235 149-402-15 149-402-17 149-402-18 Luu Thuy Duc Genova Joe Xygt Jr Lang Steven R 9452 Power Dr Po Box 19097 9441 Lawton Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7235 Anaheim, CA 92817-9097 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-7245 149-402-19 149-402-20 149-402-21 Nguyen Rol Phu Husting Eugene P&Margaret E Kazarian John 9421 Lawton Dr 9411 Lawton Dr 9401 Lawton Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7245 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7245 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7245 149-402-22 149-403-32 149-403-33 Kewalrarnani C H & Saroj Me Clary Terry G Nguyen Kenny 9391 Lawton Dr 21252 Fern Cir 21242 Fern Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7244 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7247 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7247 149-403-34 149-403-35 149-403-36 Phillips Bruce Martin Koeller Charles D &Karen M Hata Living Trust 21232 Fern Cir 21222 Fern Cif 21212 Fern Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7247 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7247 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7247 ` T 81 i�yR1 tnas��t�ctx ���§� �R � �� I �t► 149-403-38 149-403-39 149-403-40 Nesbitt Edward H Headrick Daniel _t & Mary 1 Kelley Family "Frust 21211 Spurney Ln 21221 Spurney Ln 21231 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7243 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7243 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7243 149-403-41 149-403-42 149-403-43 Chun Hae Ja Jul Howell Margaret A Mars Andrew Foster & ChM] 21241 Spurney Ln 21252 Spurney Ln 21242 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7243 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7242 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7242 149-403-44 149-403-45 149-403-46 Ong Tan Vinh Nguyen Trung Tien & Hong Sam Thi Botros Samir S 21232 Spurney Ln 2t222 Spurney Ln 21212 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7242 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7242 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7242 149-403-47 149-403-48 149-403-49 Rubin Beverly P Trust Lee Debbie Fu-zu Arana Fortunato G & Lupe H 21202 Spurney Ln 21192 Spurney Ln 21172 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7242 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7215 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7215 149-403-50 149-403-51 149-403-52 Lu Joseph C &Josephine S Amborn Ron &Natalie D Woen Li Chyuan 21162 Spurney Ln 21152 Spurney Ln 21142 Spurney Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7215 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7215 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7215 151-231-13 151-231-14 151-231-1.5 Aversa Joseph G Sr Sardinas Hector D Griffin Nancy L 20931 National Ln 20941 National Ln 20942 Sparkman Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6545 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6545 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6530 151-231-16 151-232-39 151-233-03 Margules Leonard Wolf&Betty E Randall Michael G Valdez Robert Manuel & Barbara Marie 20932 Sparkman Ln 6771 Findley Cir 20931 Sparkman Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6530 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-3075 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-6529 151-233-04 151-233-05 151-233-06 Gustafson Katherine M Rudman Paul E Jacobs Jason G & Tamara L 20941 Sparkman Ln 20951 Sparkman Ln 9762 Kite Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6529 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6529 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 151-233-07 151-233-08 151-233-09 Mitchell Michael D Harriman Robert W & Susan M Heyer Robert F 9772 Kite Dr 9782 Kite Dr 9792 Kite Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 151-233-10 151-233-11 151-233-12 Kelly Steve Huante Lance Pin Ya Hu& Shun Chia 9802 Kite Dr 9812 Kite Dr 9822 Kite Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 gg gg OA160s-�� iT wtqi�dd asod Maul.� cPR3u NZESUM 151-233-13 151-233-14 151-234-01 Nguyen Nga Angie Pinterpe Sam Junior Parker Kathleen A 9842 Kite Dr 9852 Kite Dr 9872 Kite Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6536 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6540 151-234-02 151-371-08 151-371-09 Rusky Charles R Dana James J & Marti K Holland Mary Jo 9882 Kite Dr 20932 Queens Park Ln 20942 Queens Park Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6540 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6524 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6524 151-371-10 151-371-11 151-372-08 Udell Elizabeth Simons Herbert C Passarelli Frank Carl Po Box 5865 20962 Queens Park Ln 20931 Queens Park Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92615-5865 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6524 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6523 151-372-09 151-372-10 151-372-11 Moeller Wolfgang E Tsai Jul Tung & Ya-li W Bogart Mark S & Laura J 20941 Queens Park Ln 2181 Watercress PI 20932 Balgair Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6523 San Ramon, CA 94582-5035 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6424 151-372-24 151-372-25 151-372-26 Streit Terry L & Lois L Chagollan Manuel Robinson Lester A & Susan K 20931 Balgair Cir 20941 Balgair Cir 20942 Hunter Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6424 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6424 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6416 151-372-27 151-373-01 151-373-02 Everson Janet J Trust Slocum Terri Vernon Guzman Nelson A 20932 Hunter Ln 9702 Scotstoun Dr 24952 Via Del Rio Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6416 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6400 Lake Forest, CA 92630-2632 151-373-03 151-373-04 151-373-05 Anderson Marian & Dan Sorensen Rieke D &Rebecca M Mounier Living Trust 9682 Scotstoun Dr 9672 Scotstoun Dr 9662 Scotstoun Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6400 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6400 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6447 151-373-06 151-373-07 151-383-18 Tsai Jiin Yung& Mel H Megens David E Schoeningh Joseph 9642 Scotstoun Dr 9632 Scotstoun Dr 20931 Hunter Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6447 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6447 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 151-383-19 151-383-20 151-383-21 Bonev Bozana Hein Stephen E & Ann K Stortz Family Living Trust 20941 Hunter Ln 9591 Scotstoun Dr 9581 Scotstoun Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6415 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6445 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6445 151-383-22 151-383-23 151 383-24 Yomtoubian Manizheh Snyder Robert J & Rose A Rainer Michael A &Irene A Po Box 3595 9561 Scotstoun Dr 9541 Scotstoun Dr Newport Beach, CA 92659-8595 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-6445 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6445 oS 151-383-25 151-384-20 151-384-27 Fukuda Mike Toyoki Pino Alexander G Lorenzen Frederick C 9531 Scotstoun Dr 20941 Glencairn Ln 6421 E Bixby Hill Rd Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6445 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6409 Long Beach, CA 90815-4707 151-384-28 151-384-29 151-384-30 Hall Betty J Living Trust Diallo Ibrahima & Murtis Wright R & D Family Trust 9512 Scotstoun Dr 9532 Scotstoun Dr 9542 Scotstoun Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6446 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6446 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6446 151-384-31 151-384-32 151-384-33 Nguyen Khanh X & Hang T Dinh Vinh HIM Martindale Tom H 9562 Scotstoun Dr 9572 Scotstoun Dr 29831 Hiddenwood Huntington Beach. CA 92646-6446 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6446 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1940 151-384-34 151-384-35 151-384-36 Nguyen Tuan K Living Trust Shimabukuro Kenneth M Lee Steven A & Mary Ann 9592 Scotstoun Dr 9602 Scotstoun Dr 9612 Scotstoun Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6446 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6447 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6447 151-384-37 151-446-1 1 151-446-12 Moke Espiritu Llc Series 4 Williams Kelly L Jordan Willard S 9441 Gateshead Dr 20982 Crestview Ln 9442 Fireside Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8445 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5954 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5906 °�a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk FROM: Jill Hardy, City Council Member DATE: March 20, 2009 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL21,P . NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018 AND CONDITIONAL. �E�7 PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN HIGH--.$CHA0L`,; GYMNASIUM) ; C) r-0 am hereby appealing Planning Commission's actions on The Brethren Christian High School Gymnasium project. On March 10, 2009, the Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. The request is to permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 square-foot gymnasium for school related events and indoor boys and girls junior varsity and varsity sport games and practice. The gymnasium will also be made available for use by the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. The request also permits the use of an existing soccer field as a football field with bleacher seating and four portable light standards for boys junior varsity and varsity football games and practice. The primary reasons for my appeal are increased traffic and incompatibility with the surrounding land uses. I also wish to incorporate any additional issues brought forward by other parties. Pursuant to Section 248.18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. SH:HF:rt Attachment: Letter from Miles— Chen Law Group, dated March 20, 2009 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred Wilson, City Administrator Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Rami Talleh, Senior Planner ± ! n Linda Wine, Administrative Assistant Huntington Beach City School District, Property Owner a Kevin Coleman, Applicant ' °" y x '"-vt rye M0 LIES e (CH IEN L-Aw GROUP 9911 Irvine Center Drive,Suite 150- Irvine,CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Phone: 949.788.1425 - Fax(949) 788-1991 L AND USE E N V I R 0 N M E N T E NTITLEMENI na xr- r10 March 20, 2009 VIA PERSONAL DELIVER YAND ELECTRONIC MAIL[city.co unci1(JWsur/city-h b.orgJ Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council C:, c/o Ms. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL — Negative Declaration No. 08-018IConditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk: This firm serves as counsel to Ms. Sharon Crowther and additional community members of the unincorporated association known as "Neighborhoods for Safety & Quality" ("Neighborhoods") On behalf of Ms. Crowther and Neighborhoods, we hereby submit this Notice of Appeal of the aforementioned discretionary action taken by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on March 10, 2009 (the "Action"). The basis for this Notice of Appeal is that the Action is in violation of the State and municipal law including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (*'CEQA") and the City's General Plan. This Notice of Appeal is also based on all issues raised during the March 10, 2009, proceeding before the Planning Commission, including the agenda packet, all oral testimony, and the approximately 55 comment letters received by the City concerning Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052. This Notice of Appeal is further based on all other contentions and allegations set forth in the administrative record of proceeding. Of specific concern here, and a basis for this Notice of Appeal, is that the Planning Commission made specific inquiry about prior litigation against Ocean View School District over their illegal efforts to approve gymnasiums with a Negative Declaration. In the Orange County Superior Court case styled Neighborhoods fior Education First v. Ocean View School District (OCSC No. OICC10230) Judge Stuart T. Waldrip issued a judgment, statement of decision, and writ of mandate that rescinded the Ocean View School District's Negative Declarations and the School Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk March 20, 2009 Page 2 of 3 District, on remand, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the EIR was also challenged and ultimately the Court required enforceable mitigation measures that included busing plans and event limitations and capacity limitations). Neighborhoods for Education First was awarded its attorneys' fees for litigating the case under the Private Attorney General statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. The Action is identical (from a substantive and procedural perspective) to the action taken by the Ocean View School District that the Orange County Superior Court found fault with. Boiled down to its essence, the Orange County Superior Court ruled in the Ocean View School District decision that the capacity of expanded school facilities must be addressed in an environmental assessment and the Court specifically ruled out the use of enrollment figures as an excuse for not providing the appropriate analysis. Additionally, this Notice of Appeal is based on the following specific grounds: • A fair argument, supported by substantial evidence, exists that the Action will result in a significant, unmitigated environmental impact. Notably, the Action will result in unmitigated Land Use and Planning impacts, Air Quality impacts, Transportation/Traffic impacts (including parking and associated air quality impacts), Public Services impacts, and Aesthetics impacts. • The Negative Declaration fails to address greenhouse gas emissions as required by A.B. 32 and CEQA. • The Negative Declaration failed to account for a fair projection of additional community events that would be hosted by the proposed gymnasium and football field pursuant to the Civic Center Act. Substantial evidence also exists that the seating capacity for both the gymnasium and football field were understated to avoid conducting a peak hour traffic analysis. • The Action is improperly described in the Negative Declaration. Reliance on square footage of the proposed gymnasium provides limited to no useful information to assess the magnitude of the gymnasium's impact. The gymnasium capacity must be readily identified in the Negative Declaration to fulfill the public disclosure and informed decision-making purpose of CEQA. Once the capacity of the gymnasium is readily identified, the Negative Declaration must analyze the environmental impacts of the capacity in conjunction with the 624 seating capacity of the proposed football field. • The Negative Declaration contains illusory mitigation measures that do not effectively eliminate the potential for simultaneous events at the gymnasium and football field. • The Negative Declaration failed to address (and make a Mandatory Finding of Significance for) "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Reliance on a traffic study conducted almost a decade ago and prior to the enactment of greenhouse gas emissions laws (A.B. 32 and S.B. 375) cannot address "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts of the Action. Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk March 20, 2009 Page 3 of 3 An appeal fee of $2,379.00 is being submitted along with this Notice of Appeal. Our understanding is that Councilwoman Jill Hardy has or will be appealing this matter and, accordingly, this Notice of Appeal should not be subjected to an appeal fee. The appeal fee is therefore being made under protest. On behalf of Sharon Crowther and Neighborhoods, we thank you for your consideration of the Notice of Appeal and professional courtesy in hearing this appeal. If you have any questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, MILES O CI EN LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Stephen M. Miles SM:lak cc: Ms. Sharon Crowther Ms. Susan Y. Lee, Esq. CASH RECEIP CITY OF HUNTINGT N BEACH W City Treasurer — Sha L. Freidenrich = P. 0. BO 11 ® ,ao HUNTINGTON BEAC , CALIFORNIA 92648 DATE c - Issuing Dept. - U. Department Contact Phone# \ e FUNDS RECEIVED FROM d S 0`4"tx_- t} ' ADDRESS c:4 h°`Q. �. LLI W FOR AMOUNT RECEIVED , ; A ¢ O Cash a Check O Credit Card ® ° Prepared Re ived Fi ce B B Apprkval IF OBJECT= 5000 RU OOOO,FI NCE AP RO Al-REQUIRED Appr val Date LL {� Business Unit Obje Subs Sub-Led r y p w w ---- - -- ---- — — --- — rn — ——— — LU LL p_ L 1 TOTAL $ Please do not write in the box be[ 3�o-0 i ®a s `o FINANCE COPY NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date: 3/20/2009 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered N/A City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 3/20/2009 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 3/20/2009 City Council Office(1 Copy) Date Delivered 3/20/2009 Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 3/20/2009 Filed By: Councilmember Jill Hardy Appeal of Negative Declaration No. 08-018 And Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren RE: Christian High School Gymnasium) Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk (714)536-5227 Fee Collected: None Form Completed by: Kelly Mandic, Deputy City Clerk COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FOR MAY 185 2009 AGENDA ITEM #1 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NEGATIVE _. _. DECLARATION NO. 08-018 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-0529 BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM Page 1 of 2 Esparza, patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:00 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item-(notification) Request#502 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: SueAnn& Philip Pohl Description: SueAnn Pohl TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Huntington Beach, California We are long time residents, home and business owners in Huntington Beach having moved to the city in 1975. We are writing in support of Councilwoman Jill Hardy's appeal of the March 1 Oth Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium). We live on Binghampton Circle near Effingham and Strathmoor Lane. The traffic resulting from the school is dangerous as I can attest first hand. In December 2008 I was on my way to work and stopped at the stop sign at Strathmoor Lane and Atlanta Avenue behind a huge white Toyota Sequoia SUV. All at once the driver of the SUV shifted her car into reverse and backed right into my car. I honked my horn and shouted"please don't hit me" but she did. My Mercedes SL was no longer perfect. I have attached a picture taken at the corner of Strathmoor Lane and Atlanta the morning of the accident. The other driver's explanation of the accident was that she was dropping her kids at the school and saw her friend come around the corner from Atlanta onto Strathmoor and wanted to catch her attention to talk. She caught her attention all right. Fortunately no one was injured and her insurance paid to have my car fixed but I lost the use of my car for nearly two weeks and it still cost me $150 to insure the rental car. Drivers who do not signal into and out of the parking lot at the school and/or at the stop sign at Effingham and Strathmoor create dangerous opportunities for accidents. Many of those drivers seem to have a sense of entitlement to the right of way on our neighborhood streets because it's "their school". We purchased our home in this tract more than 20 years ago because there was a quiet, safe environment. The addition of a gymnasium to this site would exacerbate an already problematic traffic condition. The only way to avoid long lines waiting to turn from Strathmoor onto Atlanta is to avoid the hours when students and/or parents are using our neighborhood streets. The local residents would like the City Council to take an in-depth look at addressing existing traffic problems in our tract prior to approving the addition of a gymnasium on the proposed site. We would like to keep our children, grandchildren, elderly and pets safe and ou r property values from dropping further. I ask you to please support Councilwoman Hardy's appeal and deny this 3/30/2009 Page 2 of 2 project. Sincerely, SueAnn and Philip Pohl 21152 Binghampton Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 963-1411 sue@travelcenterhb.com Expected Close Date: 03/31/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/30/2009 II J � u H N t Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:50 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Cc: Esparza, Patty; Lugar, Robin Subject: RE: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request* 385 1 think that would be great Pat, if you know the item is bound for the City Council Meeting(as I suspect this one will be). From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:45 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request #: 385 Joan,when a citizen uses the pipeline to enter a comment it is assigned to Johanna and I am notified. Since the Council have seen it based on the citizen's selecting them,and since it is recorded in the pipeline system, I could send you a copy of my notification below until Bev has determined she can notify all those who need to receive it. Let me know what you think. From: Surf City Pipeline [mailto:noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:39 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request #: 385 Request#385 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Problem Request area: City Council - Contact A Councilmember Citizen name: Angela Casella Description: Hello everyone- My neighborhood has a small problem. Brethren Christian School would like to put in a gym. We, as a whole, do not have a problem with the gym. What we do have a problem with is the already terrible traffic from the school at certain times of the day M-F, and the athletic events on Saturdays and Sundays. With the construction of the gym and improvements to the field,they would like to make it accessible to outside parties. This will increase the already problematic traffic. We do not want to kibosh their gym, but were/are hoping to appeal the project long enough to come to some sort of traffic solution for the residents on Strathmoor and Effingham. Would at least one of you be willing to back us on this appeal? We have till March 20th. Again, we do not want to rip the gym out from them (a couple of our neighbors do but not most), but do not want it to go ahead without addressing the traffic situation first. I have also sent you emails from Pilatesang@aol.com to expl ain the situation a little better. Please contact me. Thank you for your time. Looking forward to hearing back from you and meeting with you soon, Angela Casella 714-965-1655 3/16/2009 February 6,2009 2M FEB 9 111111 33 Rami Talleh Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 Re: Public Notice Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Project Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Talleh: We received the Public Notice regarding the above. In our review of the Draft Negative Declaration for the School Gymnasium Project,we find it interesting that with the Planning Department's review of the entire project description that you have concluded that there will be"No Significant Impact"or"No Impact"to our community. The proposed building is 100%inconsistent with what exists in our City. There are no other schools located in an interior residential neighborhood that have lighted fields and high profile buildings. We have a number of concerns,most of them shown in the following sections: VI. Transportation and Traffic The Public Notice indentifies there will be"ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches and youth programs during school hours in addition to some weekend and nighttime events. Because we currently deal with a number of traffic and speeding issues with the current school traffic and activities, in all probability,adding more events,extending hours,and adding more traffic will definitely be an issue for our neighborhood. Additionally,because of the absence of any statement in the documents,we're concerned this could possibly mean year round activities. With the added visitors and activities,you do not show any impact on the parking issue. Where will the added buses and visitor's vehicles park? Granted,the school proposes to add five additional spaces as they reconfigure the parking areas,but at this time,a number of staff and/or students don't park on-site. They park on the residential streets and the park's spaces. During the football season,we even had overflow parking on our street,one block away.And how do they intend to inform visitors that we have many young families in this residential community and to drive the speed limit coming and going to the site. How can this be patrolled? Are the residents going to be at more risk with these added vehicles? X. Noise It's indicated that an indoor facility, i.e.,the gym,will reduce noise. Noise during the school hours really isn't a current issue. However,the outdoor night games can be quite loud,as any sporting event is. And it's unlikely that the completion of the football games, and the departure of the vehicles, will end by 9:30 p.m. So,there is an impact on us. X1. Public Services Given the proposed gymnasium will back to the Southern California Edison easement—the park —is it possible it might attract unwanted activity? We have occasional issues during the summer prompting the helicopter to fly over.With the building being a buffer from the street area this may increase. We do think it could have an impact on the neighborhood. XIII. Aesthetics Your review doesn't identify lighting as an issue,nor that a 34 ft. high,27,000 sq.ft. building is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Also,the drawings show, but there's no written comment, there will be large signage on the east side of the building,along with two oversized roll-up doors;this is what will be seen as you enter from Brookhurst west on Effingham;the signage on the north side won't be as large, but still appears larger than current lettering,and will be seen as you go south on Strathmoor from Atlanta. The school indicates they will have portable lights for the football games. They have told us night use of the 70 ft. lights are for ASOP. However,they are also used by the school for night games. This past season,the lights have appeared much brighter than years past. They may have changed the wattage. The school had indicated to us they would try to adjust them as we have them shining into some of our second story windows, as well as impairing vision when driving west on Effingham. Based on the Conditional Use Permit No. 98-27,"all outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage"onto adjacent properties". The Aesthetics section does have an impact on us. Where it's our belief that the school has all good intentions to remain a good neighbor,we wonder why there wasn't more thought in meeting with the residents prior to having architectural plans completed and moving forward with such an expansion. In attracting new students to their school on their website,they indicate"Located in a quiet Huntington Beach residential neighborhood less than two miles from the beach,". This is why we live in this neighborhood and want to remain as such. With the intended expansion and the addition of activities resulting in more traffic,we believe this proposal will definitely have a negative impact on our community,to include safety issues,as well as possibly affecting property values. The gymnasium is oversized and does not fit with the current low-profile buildings or neighborhood and is inconsistent with other interior neighborhood schools' land use. Sincere y, �p Terry L. and Sharon L.Crowther 21191 Richmond Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 714-93-0312 trcrowtherLD,eartlll ink.net Pc: City Council, City of Huntington Beach May 12,2009 Joan L. Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2Id floor Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 Re:Appeal of Negative Declaration NO. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 Submission of petition in opposition of proposed expansion at Gisler School Site. City Clerk, Please find attached an informal petition opposing the proposed expansion at the Gisler School site. This informal petition contains the signatures of over 370 Huntington Beach residents who live in the neighborhood's surrounding the Gisler School site.The "Neighborhoods for Safety&Quality"residents group requests that copies this petition to be made available to council members as soon as possible, and be included in the packets for the City Council hearing on May 18`h. Sincerely, Neighborhoods for Safety&Quality Attached:34 page petition. tV `} --- e N D �. U NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 ./A SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVETHE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. If.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-M III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHT FOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN E1R(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED, 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 5.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-0±8&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.OS-052 AND REO UESTS THE FOLLOWINGACTIONS FROM THE CITY OF HUNT/NGTONBEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVI EW TH E ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITYWITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATIONNO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-052,OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE / f ell e* NA(-0�kQ'Ial 31 I. NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TOPROVIDEASAFENEIGHBORHOODFOROURCHILDREN&RESIDENTSANDTOPRESERVETHECHARACTEROFOURQUIETRESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACH ERS AT THE BRET H ERN CH RI ST I AN SCHOOL SITE. I NEGATIVEDECLARATION NO.08-018/CONDIT/ONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT ►MPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 5,PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TO NEGATIVE DfCLARAt/ON NO.OB-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-052 AND REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS FROM TEE CITV OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THEACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVEDECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USEPERMITNO.08-052.OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAr14lIE ADDRESS SIGN A' & DATE NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTS AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERS AT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. IWEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHT FOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION`INSTEAD OF AN E/R(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD. 5.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES, YOURS/GNATURf DN THIS PEt/T10N RECORDS YOUR OPPOSIT/ON TD NEGATIVE DfCLARAT/ON NO.OS-0►8&CDND/T/DNA!USE PERM/TNO.tlB-052AND RfOUESTS THE FOttOW/NG ACTIONS FROM THE CITY OFHUNT/NGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-OS2. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF AN E/R (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCH►TECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-OS2.OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TOOCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE Eptz Row T46m N NEIGH_BORS_FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY �� MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION 1.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITN0.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTSALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPO UQN TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.Mom&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-052 AND REQUESTS THE FOLLQWINGACTIDN5 FROM THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEWTHE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITYWITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHERDENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATIONNO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USEPERMITNO.08-052,OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO OCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULDBEPLACED ONINDOOROR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THEN UMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& ®AYE ak a c�.� /' r r� 3-zz 7-7 -T Z (D �z- 10 NC.c 3`2Z"b? k4 rno )r Lco e Lli u/ �0- .rot V NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 y SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTS AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NErRATIVE DECLARATION"ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATION NO,08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATUREON THIS PETITION RECORDt YOUR OPAOSIT/ON TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-052 AND REQUESTS THE FOLLOWINGACTIONS FROM THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEWTHE ACTIONS OF THE PLAN NINGCOMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHERDENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-0S2,OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 8CHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULDBEPLACED ONINDOOROR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE t rt dulry3, 22 - -� - 9 Aw in � � - �t,rt�-- IMP NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLYAPPROVED"NEGATIVEDECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERS AT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08.018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FR/DAYN/GHT FOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT I M PARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE DN THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPpOS/T/ON TO NEGATIVE RMARATION NO.OB-018&CONDIT/ONAAt l/SE PERMIT -052 AND REomr5 THE, m EQLLOIN/NGACUM FROM THE C/TYOF HUNUNGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVEDECLARAT/ONNO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANE/R (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITYUMTH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052.OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIESSHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTSONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THEN UMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE INTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE 641Z GGC=S17� as 7 E'Cil<<<�L-3�.j �Z,G� Ic —Al r -41 �f ` _-- • _ z-1` *to DA+wl NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION 1.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVETHE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. e�c_" L II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVE DECLARA TION NO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) ` �J III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIESWILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 5.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIC"rum ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TO NEGATIVE DE. A ANON NO.08=018&CONDITIONAL USE BERMIENOWL-02 AND REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS FROM THE CITYOF HUNEWOMN BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USEPERMITNO.08-052.OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& ®ATE 9fiivah Gha,!2, 2l!l bar hl e c �,a'jt Ala, LCJ K-,,- V7 I \tC( 0 W ��ry lUl P? 0(2,&4 �Z,// -� MA41l � ��� ti � c �Avc t NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVETHE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUMAND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERS AT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATION NO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITN0.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED, 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 5,PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YDUR OPPOSITION TO NEGATIVE DECLA_RA UQU NO.OS-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052 AND REO UESTS THE FOLLk2wlNGACT/ONS FROM THE CITYDF HUNTINGTONBEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEWTHEACTIONS OF THE PLAN NINGCOMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF AN EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHERDENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-052.OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THEN UMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE f ti�t�► ) To&ka&pe, Gc� NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY 'MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOA :TOPROVIDEASAFENEIGHBORHOODFOROURCHILDREN&RESIDENTSANDTOPRESERVETHECHARACTEROFOURQUIETRESIDENTIALNEIGHBORHOOD. IL ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERNCHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVE DECLARAT/ON NO.08-028/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHT FOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN E1R(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 5.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIC+NATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPP05/T/ONTO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.DS-0'►g&CONDITIONAC U5E PERMIT NO.OS-052 AND REQUESTS THE EQLLOW►NGACTIDN5 FROM THE CtTYOF HUNT►NGTONBEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANE/R (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHERDENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018 A CONDIVONAL USEPERMITNO.08-052 OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONSON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTEDTO 8CHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. N'A1V�E ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE 417 L&Alle�l ew f C�z// - / NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE Gt eaZ se— a9 r T-loo,x ire. -� f� C G 6` r G' 'Z- J� N i G 1�r E2 rye 1 f1 olz- rive AV!r zva lo V�111 /I �ow /,//y I L (0) mad NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE Aj� py 0 v�e m 6 k NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE �- 02� v U -f�;- ►�. 4-5 LAN0 ,AA l.r� � v FAC, _ C K S L 191-k W,Woo i u-��/-20 a r� r _ WMIMI • MOM RMAN f � a �►� + � ' 1� i VIM�� Ill D. TE -Mid WAR MT,MVA ' TM FkAW-MAR WA FEMME do �'��►�.� rat,...t--_�� � � 1 - �,�.� •-c--- .-�.,- i �" �XF f 26,p-o-j coly) tu NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION 1.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-028/CONDITIONALUSEPERMITNO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. XQLLR SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TO NEGATIVE DECLABAIMN N0.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.OS-012 AND REOLI . Tt THE EOLLOWING ACTIONS FROM THE CITY OF HUNT/NGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVI EW TH E ACTIONS OF THE PLAN N I N G COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-OS2. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF AN EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTSON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITIONTHE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-028&CONDITIONAL USEPERMITNO,08-052,OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTEDTO BCHS EVENTSONLY(NO OUTSIDETEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAM ADDRESS 1GG1ATURE& DATE F �2tr� R.��r Jam - 94� t3q,�►-� ram.. / 0 NHL G OU.)06�e-ffr 26r- �� 3 Z Uq NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& ®ATE P,4 N+M At?p�o� -64 0�- _ Gh�,Lm:5 co Lv, _ z 07 1 �� C� 'aULe FAqo,& c(k,,uL, c, a A 6 :;7 �v C�C4 5 e� DK )4,1� 5 U 0i3 PL-, e t c:L,fY Ct/ ram' l ;2 (49 l3 �- �� mac{ 1 , . �3 �► �- iq to, iort1t, �l. ov, />l NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAA�E ADDRESS SIGNATURE& ®ATE Q c 1 �0 5�� I YYa iW ih 0LC u K — e 2,111 Z � r � v yr cv 72. 4u liwl�f6l cr �fl 5 211 ( - CF-i/1.91JI z �o a.s /=� ► !HAI urn -�—: 11;2 r 0� L Kri m 2-( (a2- s ,. � I NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAIVE ADDRESS SIGNATURE 1 ►� Z Z v-Z 2n �Ao r-w1� -3 /X250 s z a/oMCI lC� 3 a r�� 1.101 I.Vt IQ' • • • � ' 11• SIGNATURE& DATE / MAN NO In W MIN OWN ff moo� �, . / % Ilk. NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE ` w f 3ly �omw modej t&v--hdpw ca-de� _ vc A- u e I'kc /etj " ,� toe ��� NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION ,516AI5 NAME ADDRESS < kSiGNATURE& DATE L� l� Au 2 d .t NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22 2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& ®ATE 31 d� NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& ®ATE V/0 kALLL C, ill J&W hL F-1 gly dnvc e.r Z, tj,1 NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAIVE ADDRESS 5i NATURE& ®ATE -2 / 1 q',? 7 ellb&�- -�,i �' If-IUT 4101113,111 :•' ••I • ADDRESSDATE WK ''./ FI:. FOB 1541 �. PAM��! 1M"41 _ tl, i PAWOR,JA ��✓i�.� �,.. s w a NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE Lau �i / NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY - MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE kDA(M2 A& &&a TE r owl �� A-j,-- �� NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTS AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERS AT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE, (NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) 111.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIESWILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TD NEGATIVE DEC AItAT/0N NO.OS-018&CONDITIONAL Ll SE PERMIT N0.08-052 AND REOUES_TS THE 821.L0WMGACTIONS FROM THE 01OF HUNMill N BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONNO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-OS2. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDIT10NA1 USE PERMITNO.08-052.011 ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THEUSEOFTHESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO OCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ONINDOOROR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SiGNATYRE& ®ATE shkpQ -elm Z131Z �fwspri+e- �. �/ Vog, NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 �,ff, oma L� C SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTS AND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLYAPPROVED"NEGATIVEDECLARATION"ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERS AT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDA YNIGHTFOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. t'3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF-THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON T141S PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TO"NEGATIVE DEQARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.08-052 AND REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS FROM THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: l.-WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVEDECLARATIONNO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF ANEIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHERDENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-052,011 ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THEUSEOFTHESE FACILITIESSHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATUR & DATE /T t c t C `2,(l v cl, cb 4el „ � 1 � r! I 11 1 `.Y NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 w. SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNA URE& DATE sc z ,+^� I���c^-�- (.��5� `mil ��' � �-'`-�nC C1 � � �-, l-I -� • '��;,.�(.��,��.-, � z��. 2-21 0 31L-L 0�2 Coc wv v� Q 0 rK 2-I0� L(G-lDctvlc,- tr c a)iqjk7 3 Z Rovi i3 w �z --Cl(c %-z r Co(a be( ije,, 14-6 92-V(G pal�� Lila lam" - NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 ;. SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION INANE ADDRESS ISIG#A TUR & DATE 3 Dr , f 1"Z �C _ -c► Zz-j�-- /0,7 1 S �204(�2 r) dIle, / erg o Lin l-(6 r tt ant ' �4 �► Chou ��� ��-: N �j2� fy9 3� we�L- Aq �� r NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 (S SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE:THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVEDECLARAT/ON"ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHT FOOTBALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION'INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. 4.THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 5.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. YOUR SIGNATURE ON THLS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPDSITION TO NEGATIV DEC d AT/ON NO.OS-028&CONDITIONAL US PERMIT N0.08-052 AND R QUESTS THE FOLLOWJNGACT/ONS FROM THE C/TV OF HUNT/NGTON BEACH: IV, REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEWTHE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGAT/VEDECLARAT/ON NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08--052. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF AN EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACI LTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITYWITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHER DENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-0S2.OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDOOR OR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTS ALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THATARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME (ADDRESS SIGN/ATURE& DATE 2��►w ►.� `1 -� i rIx3 zF of v C i, 2 v 1J °\'8 3 z 52 k-epi otm gy. �vJ�>c5`�`�nSo� � � � � N c�•n� �a� � 3 �i NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGN ATURE& DATE 12 4! c'te- t�-. ld Z2�t-1 eizs 14ayltlyl pl)(Al\an 7 NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE& DATE All ljh,�f7- 3 o w ..,.0 02 D C N. 1;.2)1) �)!0� hoc ►4- Z.�/ /�_-��=�-'' �� r F � i�t= l� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 2009 MA Y 12 ANI 11: 42 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ih NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 18, 2009, at 6:00 p.,m, ..,,in -'e'4Qify Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will-h'61 a'-- public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: M 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-052 (BRETHREN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GYMNASIUM) Appellants: Councilmember Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles, Miles/Chen Law Group Applicant: Kevin A. Colemen, Net Development Request: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CUP: 1-o permit the construction of an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium, enhancements to existing landscape areas, construction/striping of three new parking areas, resurfacing existing parking lot areas, and expansion of the existing sports program to include evening football and basketball matches. Proposed uses within the gymnasium will consist of school related events, in addition to ancillary events catering to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs. Location: 21141 Strathmoor Lane (east side of Strathmoor Lane, south of Atlanta Avenue). Project Planner: Rami Talleh NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item #1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item #1 would not have any significant environmental effect and, therefore, a negative declaration is warranted. The Negative Declaration No. 08-018 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271, ON FILE- A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, May 14, 2nnc), ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those 'issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CADocuments and Setting s\lugarr\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QNZBJOKX\090518 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) (2).DOC Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#911 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Brian Scott Description: From: Concerned Resident [mailto:lock.haven@live.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Gisler Site Expansion Dear Huntington Beach City Council, I'm writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed expsansion at the former Gisler Middle School site. The reasons for my opposition are as follows: • Location - The subject site is located inside a residential neighborhood that was never intended to be used as a high school site. High school sites are located on major streets. Also, high schools are located on larger sites with the space required to support bleachers and gymnasiums. • Safety—As traffic increases the danger to residents in the neighborhood increases. Also, I understand that the proposed gymnasium will not be reviewed by the Division of the State Architect which sets safety standards for public school structures. As someone that cares about the safety of the children that attend the school it seems reckless to allow a gym to be built for children that does meet the standards set by the DSA. • Size—The proposed bleachers and gymnasium are much too large. The school is a small school with a small site and the facilities should be small as well. • Parking—The property has insufficient parking already as the residents will be happy to attest to. The current request ignores Huntington Beach's own parking standards in two ways. First, parking should be calculated on a cumulative basis. So, if you add a new structure you need to have the ability to add parking that can support the structure. To date, this fact has been glossed over. Second, per Huntington Beach code parking that is more than 250 ft away from the closest point of a structure can not be counted. One of the parking lots is approximately 500 feet away, but it has been included in the parking count anyways. Typically, if parking requirements need to be ignored it is because the project is being overbuilt, which is exactly the case for the subject property. • Design—The proposed building was designed to be cost effective, not 5/15/2009 Page 2 of 2 attractive. Unfortunately, this school is located in a residential neighborhood and, as such, it should be held to a higher standard, not the low standard that has been required to date. The applicant referred to it as "matching ugly with ugly". UNACCEPTABLE. Possible solutions: o Deny the applicant's request altogether - ideal in the eyes of the majority of neighbors. Place meaningful, enforceable restrictions on the use of the facilities (ie school related activities exclusively and no weekend use) a Do not allow the bleachers. There are plenty of high schools that don't play their football games at home including Edison, which is a football powerhouse with a school site much larger than the subject site. o Scale down the gymnasium significantly o Require landscaping islands in the parking lot and in conjunction with reducing the size of the gym add trees to break up the mass of the gym (a 3 ft planter is not sufficient). Thank you for your service to Huntington Beach. Please stop this project from moving forward. Sincerely, Brian Scott Expected Close Date: 05/18/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/15/2009 FROM :RICHRRD C. RUDOLPH, CPA FRX NO. :714-962-1596 May. 17 2009 09:22PM P1 TO: City Clerk of Huntington Beach, FAX: (714) 374-1557 PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY FOR EACH OF THE 8 COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR 5/18/Q9 MEETING Testimony of Richard and Leslie Rudolph to the City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009 We have concerns regarding the goal post installed on the west side of the School's proposed football field. This post is very close to the wall separating the Panacea Drive cul-de-sac from the School's field. The use of this goal post for kicking field goals, as well as overthrown passes toward the end zone area, whether in formal games, practices, or casual play, presents a clear and significant public safety hazard to the residents and property of this street. There are many young children that live and frequently play in this cul- de-sac, which is situated directly behind the wail. A child could easily be gravely injured if hit by an errant ball. There have already been instances where footballs have come over the wall into the cul-de-sac since the goal post had bebn installed. There is no guarantee that additional landscaping or even a net would prevent all future occurrences of this from happening. Furthermore, the close proximity of the end zone to the wall creates a danger to the sports teams and other users of the field. There simply is not sufficient space to accommodate the planned layout of this football field. It only takes one mishap to cause a serious injury. is the Council willing to forego these foreseen and preventable safety issues, along with the potential legal liability to the City by approving the School's Proposal? Richard and Leslie Rudolph, 9531 Panacea Drive, HB, CA 92646 Page 1 of 1 From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:24 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#930 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Jason and Deanna Miller %'Description: From: Jason Miller [mailto.jason@maalink.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Letter To City Council about Brethren Christian City Council Members, Please read the attached letter. Thank you. jason and deanna miller 21212 binghampton circle huntington beach, ca 92646 surf city usa 714-593-6475 Expected Close Date: 05/19/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. Late Kw( (a 1*0 01 5/18/2009 � z|zooinghooptonCircle ^ Huntington Beach,caoua46 � Surf City u.u/� ^ —~ � ` m�m� , ' � May )8,2O0V Huntington Beach City Council To All: Thanks for taking time N read myletter. On the subject of Brethren Christian building u gym,l would like for you no please consider ng'perspective. lumu resident nf the neighborhood adjacent to the school. {live oo the comer o[Effingham oud8in8konptuo. [have lived here four years and io Huntington Beach for over lOyears Op until last fall the property located atthe end Effingham and Strathnnoor(the school)had caaonduUy gone unnoticed hyme. However once the football games started l began k/take notice. U was not difficult. The field lights became brighter mfurther reaching orhowever you want mdefine their annoyance. The light from the field was reaching,and still does,into the second stories of homes three streets away. Bleachers and a score board were erected and with those came people,lots ' of people in lots f cars creatinglots o[traffic.With traffic come speeders. With speeders unsafe conditions are increased. Un game nights Effingham and Strudmoor were N90%capacity with � odrs. l understand that Effinghumand Snathnnonr are public streets however our aduutionie � ^ io that the people parking their cars iu our neighborhood for u Brethren event have no relationship with any of our residence. The result was extra trash on our streets, including beer �o��a� 9�uoctukoumomentn000uoidor�cidcaofhoerboK �|cybo�nQ|� boOrontofyourthree- quarter ofuidhon dollar home located inun interior tract. This was not u one time occurrence. -Not to long after the football games|was informed byu neighbor that Brethren Christian was going tohuildu�ym/ For�uut°|ymy neighbor also in�xmodruc that Bre±�euwas going tohnvdrthe neighbors io discuss the project. l participated io the meeting. b was clearly stated that QreUren`x intention was 10 rent the gym to other parties for profit. Kevin,the applicant,the builder,said money 'zuude from renting the gym was necessary to afford the project. I could not believe my ears. Brethren was already impacting my neighborhood negatively with football games and now they wanted to build ugym for their basketball and volleyball games and rent b out besides? Concerned by the negative impact of a gym for rent in the center of my neighborhood I stood up and asked the applicant,"What is in this for me,the resident?" He responded"Absolutely nothing". I am concerned about how a gym for both the school and for rent will affect my neighborhood with increased traffic,speeders and unsafe conditions.The new lights and the bleachers have already proven tu have u negative impact with traffic and trash. Brethren has not been u good neighbor tothis neighborhood. There was no notice to the neighbors about the lights,the bleachers,or the potential increase traffic in conjunction with the football games. They claimed there was u notice about the meeting on discuss the gym but l never received it. Then ut the meeting,l luckily attended,|was told there was 'absolutely nothing' in it for the residence. idonot want Brethren creating any more traffic inmyneighborhood. From my perspective this gym io bound to have u very negative impact on our neighborhood. Please,am/ny representative, consider my perspective on the matter. Thanks again for taking the time to read ng'letter. Jason h8illax' / e ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ " ^ , ° ° - ^ ^ , ^ ^ ^ ^ , ^ ^ ^ ^ May-18-09 10:28 From-GLA FEB 5629803448 T-370 P.001/002 F-986 do 00 jAk) Late bm "KA, (akion- Itg m # 1 �,- I$ -01 May-18-09 10:29 From—GLA FEE $629803448 T-370 P-002/002 F-986 May 17, 2009 Dear City of Huntington Beach City Council Members, I am writing in opposition of the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)that was approved by the City's Planning Commission for expansion of the Gisler School Site currently used by Brethren Christian. I live on 21212 Strathmore and face the school parking lot. I can tell you first hand that the current use of the school adversely impacts the community in the way of traffic and air quality. My husband is retired and now seriously ill, He is pretty much home-bound and does not handle noise well_ Ckir home and neighborhood is all he has to enjoy at this time in his life. I am concerned about the adverse impact on his health with the expansion of the school's physical structures and increased utilization. I am dumbfounded to think that your staff would say that there is no adverse environmental impact from the increased utilization—if they had bothered to visit any of the neighbors before they rubber-stamped the application for the CUP they could see the soot that is built up on my front door from the carbon emissions of the caravan of SUVs driving students to and from school—can you imagine how much more often I will have to clean my door with 7 times the current traffic expected to be subjected to this neighborhood with all the additional uses proposed by the applicant? The school is unable to control the current traffic, which is mostly students, parents and friends of the school so how do they think they can control all the outside users of the proposed gymnasium? As I sit with my husband, I daily watch,the traffic come and go every morning and afternoon! Daily I count in excess of 150 cars dropping students off at the school. They speed down Effingham and Strathmore as if it is a speedway, rather than the quiet neighborhood it is. Recently the school put up a stop sign coming out of their parking lot as one of their"concessions to mitigate the neighborhood's concerns about the traffic with the gymnasium" and I can tell you first hand—the parents and students still do not stop I Now the school is being used on the weekends by outside organizations,which means that even on weekends I cannot use my front yard or front curb because of the constant traffic and people parking in front of my house when the school's events firequently exceed their parking capacity. Based on the unrestricted use approved by the planning commission—this will be a problem every day of the year. This is not an acceptable way to live for me and my ill husband. I ask that you vote against the proposed expansion and take care of your constituents_ I am unable to attend the City Council meeting on May 1 S'' because I cannot leave my husband, but I will be there in spirit and I do ask that the City Clerk provide each of you a copy of may letter so that you will remember that your decisions have an impact on real people with real challenges. Sincerely, Marilyn LaBollita 21212 Binghampton Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Surf City U.S.A. May 18,2009 Huntington Beach City Council To All: Thank you for taking time to read my letter. On the subject of Brethren Christian building a gym,I would like for you to please consider my perspective. I am a resident of the neighborhood adjacent to the school. I live on the corner of Effingham and Binghampton. I have been living in this neighborhood for four years. I have been a Huntington Beach resident for over 10 years. Up until last fall,the property,(Brethren Christian), located at the end Effingham and Strathmoor had essentially gone unnoticed by me. However,once the football games started,I began to take notice. This is primarily due to the change in field lighting and traffic increase. The field lights became brighter or further reaching;however you want to define their`annoyance'. The light from the field was reaching,and still does,into the second stories of homes three streets away. Bleachers and a scoreboard were also erected and with these additions came an increase in people. Lots of people in lots of cars creating lots of traffic. With traffic came speeders. With speeders unsafe conditions have become increased. On game nights,the two main streets of my neighborhood, Effingham and Strathmore were at 90%capacity with parked cars. I understand that Effingham and Strathmore are public streets.However,our situation is unique in that the people parking their cars in our neighborhood for a Brethren event have no relationship with any of our residents. The result has been extra trash on our streets, including beer bottles and increased noise to an unacceptable hour on a Friday night. Please take a moment to consider the idea of beer bottles being left in front of your three-quarter of million dollar home located in an interior tract. This was not a one time occurrence. Not too long after the football games commenced, I was informed by a neighbor that Brethren Christian was going to build a gym. Fortunately my neighbor also informed me that Brethren was going to invite the neighbors to discuss the project. I participated in the meeting. It was clearly stated that Brethren's intention was to rent the gym to other parties for profit. Kevin, `The Applicant',and the builder,specifically said,"money made from renting the gym was necessary to afford the project." I could not believe my ears. Brethren was already impacting my neighborhood negatively with football games and now they wanted to build a gym for their basketball and volleyball games and rent it out for additional usage to generate funds? Concerned by the negative impact of a`gym for rent' in the center of my neighborhood, I stood up and asked `The Applicant', "What is in this for me,the resident?" He responded"Absolutely nothing". I am concerned about how a gym for the school and for rent will affect my neighborhood with increased traffic, speeders and unsafe conditions. The new lights and the bleachers have already proven to have a negative impact with traffic and trash. Brethren has not been a good neighbor to this neighborhood. There was no notice to the neighbors about the lights,the bleachers,or the increase traffic. They claimed there was a notice about the meeting to discuss the gym but I never received it. 1 consider myself to be an active and aware member of my neighborhood. To be told that there is `absolutely nothing' in it for the residents of my neighborhood, I was appalled at the lack of compassion for the homeowners and residents who will be forced to accept this GIANT gym and all the impacts that it will bring. — - - - Simply put,I,do not want Brethren creating any more traffic in my neighborhood. From my perspective,this gym is bound to have a very negative impact on our neighborhood. Please,as my . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rwK wi c� U 5- 16. 09 Ross, Rebecca From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:29 PIVI To: Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) From: Surf City Pipeline [maiIto:noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject; Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#934 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Alison Goldenberg Description: Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We neighbors were very disappointed yesterday to be invited to a meeting at the Brethren school, only fo find out that they would not tell us the supposed concessions that they were willing to make to their application being heard tonight. Their representative said specifically that he was not allowed to tell us any details. At that point, the group walked out- once the school made it obvious that the meeting was only a "rubber stamp" so that the planner could check off a box indicating that the school met with the neighborhood there was not(sic) reason for us to stay. Re those supposed concessions that we were told would be listed for us this evening: Before we walked out,the applicant, Kevin Coleman, called my husband over and told him that there are NONE! Sincerely, Alison Goldenberg Expected Close Date: 05/19/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. Lo b mmm If 5� ` - Oq Ross, Rebecca From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:17 AM To: Ross, Rebecca Subject: FW: Two statements for Council Packets for tonight's meeting Attachments: Council Meeting -John (2).doc; Council Meeting - Kathrene (2).doc Here are two more for late communications for tonight's Public Hearing. From: HANSEN, KATHRENE L [mailto:kathrene.hansen@dhs.gov] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:49 AM To: Flynn, Joan Subject: Two statements for Council Packets for tonight's meeting Joan— I apologize for sending these from my work address—I cannot access my AOL account from work and brought these files to work on a thumb drive as I did not have your e-mail address to send them over the weekend. The attached statements are for personal use and do not reflect the views of the Department of Homeland Security or the Federal Executive Board. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks for your help! Kathrene Hansen Executive Director Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3200 Long Beach,CA 90802 (562)951-6970 Fax(562)951-6902 Kathrene.HansenAditLM www.losanp,eles.feb.gov ►x-�'L Ni 9t11' `� t. la� � PK Testimony of Kathrene Hansen to the City of Huntington Beach City Council - May 18, 2009 Good evening Mayor Bohr and Members of the City Council - Last week I had the privilege of sharing a stage with the Mayor and Director of Public Works as we honored the work of some of the great City of Huntington Beach employees during our annual Public Service Recognition Week Awards. It is ironic that in my professional life I had the opportunity to commend the City of Huntington Beach for restoring a park and preserving open space (which is the reason I moved to Huntington Beach 5 years ago) while in my personal life I am joining with the Neighbors for Safety and Quality to protect my neighborhood and Gisler Park from over development. Thank you Councilwoman Jill Hardy for supporting our appeal of the Planning Commission's declaration that there was no Negative Impact to our neighborhoods from Brethren Christian's Application to grossly expand their existing structures and significantly increase congestion and traffic in our quiet single story neighborhood that is adjacent to Gisler Park—you get it! I now ask that the remaining City Council members take a good hard look at the proposed expansion and unrestricted use provisions of the CUP pushed through the Planning Commission and ask yourselves if you can honestly look in the mirror and say that building a 37 foot 27,000 square foot gymnasium (tilt up which will look like a warehouse) and permanent football stadium with negligible increase in parking places and unrestricted use (meaning it could be leased out 7 days a week to pay for the structure) has no adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhoods? Honestly - can you and the Council members really publicly support that position? I moved into a neighborhood with a middle school and was completely prepared for the current noise and traffic. What I did not sign up for is a High School with a Sports Complex that could be used by any organization, any day of the week at all times of the day. Since Brethren Christian got their lease renewed they have installed an electronic scoreboard without getting a permit in advance and held 5 evening football games - again without permission from the City. If they are behaving this badly without an "unrestricted use" permit - can you imagine how egregious their behavior will be with the blank check the Planning Commission recommended? I am alarmed that this major expansion was approved without any input from the neighbors, without an environmental impact study and without an updated traffic study. I understand that the last traffic study that was done for this neighborhood was in 2000 and that no traffic review of the site in Cerritos where Brethren Christian now holds their sporting events has been done (which is the traffic that will be coming to our neighborhood once the new sports complex is constructed). The world has changed since 2000 - I work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and I can tell you that we look at traffic egress issues a lot differently now than we did 9 years ago. The streets in this track were designed for the current houses and the school which was built as a community elementary school where most kids walked to school. Even with the current volume of school traffic (and evening and weekend events) - I can't get out of my driveway most days due to the caravan of SUVs racing through our neighborhood dropping off and picking up school kids that do not live in your jurisdiction. The public safety and liability consequences for the City in the event of a major evacuation are enormous. Again- can you honestly say that the proposed expansion has no negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods and the City? Are the City's budgets such that you are in a position to pay off lawsuits when residents are harmed because we can't evacuate our neighborhood in the event of an emergency due to a traffic jam from the additional 1,000+ people leaving the gymnasium and/or permanent football bleachers that You pushed through without doing due diligence? The neighbors are not the only ones who will bear the burden of this increased/unrestricted use. I live adjacent to the City parking lot and even without a gymnasium - frequently we have to go out to the parking lot after it has closed with lights to encourage revelers to leave and when they don't - call the police. Weekly we pick up trash in the parking lot because we don't want it left there until your staff does their rounds. I can tell you first hand that even with only a few evening events occurring at the school now-that parking lot is party central. This situation will be greatly exacerbated with daily evening events at the new gymnasium/football stadium - we all went to high school—we know there will be after event gatherings that will spill over to the City parking lot and Gisler Park. We can anticipate more graffiti on the park facing fences (which the City will have to pay to abate) and the very employees we honored earlier this week(and others) will have their workload increased exponentially and taxpayers will incur these additional public safety and maintenance expenses. As public officials that I voted for - It is your duty to protect your residents first and foremost, yet for some reason the Planning Commission is putting the needs of outside organizations above the safety of your constituency and the City we all love - I ask that when you vote on our appeal that you make the resident's safety as priority#1. Thank you for your time and your service. Kathrene Hansen Kin 9792 Effingham Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 969-6063 Kathreneh@aol.com daytime number (562) 951-6970 Testimony of John Kin to the City of Huntington Beach City Council—May 18, 2009 Good Evening Mayor and Members of the City Council. My name is John Kin and I live on Effingham Drive next door to the City Parking Lot that is adjacent to Gisler Park. The applicant- Brethren Christian School—is a non-taxpaying entity that claims to teach a faith-based curriculum, however they are not acting in a good-faith manner with their neighbors. I was always taught that the power of your example is more important than the example of your power. Throughout the process of their application for the CUP, it seems that all the applicant has done is demonstrate that they are powerful and they can do whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of who is hurt in the process as long as it doesn't impact their agenda. Not what I learned in Sunday School. I was raised in a farm in a rural area of Ohio where neighbors knew how to be neighbors - not one neighbor would make a decision about their own property if they believed that it impacted anyone else negatively —people were offered lots of money to put in landfills, commercial stockyards, and other very profitable ventures, but not one would consider it because of the adverse impact to the community - even though they owned the property and had no local planning restrictions—that is what good neighbors do. Based on the lack of due diligence by the Planning Commission and the way this project has been railroaded thorough the City's approval process it appears that Brethren Christian's agenda is not subject to any planning commission or neighborhood scrutiny— they want a gym and they are hell-bent on getting it regardless of the negative impact to the community. In order to pay for the gym they plan on renting it out on a daily basis, including weekends with no regard of the impact to the neighbors. They have intentionally withheld information from the community as to what they are building and how they plan to use it because they know that the community would oppose it. To demonstrate their arrogance—the first set of plans had tennis courts built in the Edison easement (which the City has a license for to use as Gisler Park), which can never happen—the plans were never submitted for review by Edison—the applicant just simply assumed the property. One of the"attempts to mitigate the traffic impact" was to request that the City (at taxpayer expense) put deceleration lanes on Brookhurst and Atlanta, which is also never going to happen because Edison has easements there with a pole line along Atlanta and an underground easement along Brookhurst. Shame on the planning commission for approving these ill thought out plans for unrestricted use at the expense of the neighborhoods. Why does the City care if the school has a gym or not? The School District gets the rent with or without a gym. How does this gym improve the city either financially or civically? The school was not designed as a high school. It was designed as an elementary school. Elementary schools do not have baseball teams. Elementary schools do not have football teams. Elementary schools do not have volleyball teams. Elementary schools do not have basketball teams. Elementary schools do not have marching bands. The applicant turned it into a high school and now demands that services for a High School be allowed in a community where it simply does not fit! The events planned for the new gymnasium and football stadium will result in thousands of spectators driving down a street that does not even have the lanes delineated by a yellow line. This is s residential street that was designed for the residents only—the school was designed for the residents' children to walk there! No one walks to this school now! The applicant claims they are going to buy the land where the school sits sometime in the future. If they don't renew and/or purchase the property the City of Huntington Beach will be responsible for the demolition or retrofitting of the new gymnasium that is on City property. I understand that the planning commission is not an elected body; however—you are. It is in your best interest as a City Council to require the school to best serve your constituents who elected you. Most of the students at the school are not in your jurisdiction, it is a special interest group that benefits you in no way except in contributing permit funds and possibly campaign contributions. The actions of this Council today will either reinforce the public's confidence in our elected officials or compromise the integrity of our local government. John Kin 9792 Effingham Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 969-6063 Skylinejohn@aol.com fIA E CHEN LAw GROUP 9911 Irvine Center Drive,Suite 150. Irvine,CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL C;C3RPORAI`iON Phone: 949.788.1425 > Fax (949) 788-1991 :A N D U 5 E • EL fir V 1 R 0 N M E N, T o f fN ? ' RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR OF �ffNMACZIL- 0 CLERK OFFIC ' JOAN L FLYwt CITY CLERKf � May 's 8, 2009 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERYAND ELECTRONIC MAIL[city.counciasurfcity-hb.org] Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council C/o Ms. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Rey Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk: This finn serves as counsel to Ms. Sharon Crowther and additional community members of the unincorporated association known as "Neighborhoods for Safety & Quality" ("Neighborhoods"), On behalf of Ms. Crowther and Neighborhoods, we hereby submit the following testimony and documentary evidence relevant to the discretionary action to be considered this evening by the City of Huntington Beach City Council. Given the substantial evidence in the record of proceeding that supports a potential traffic, parking, air quality (greenhouse gas emissions), land use, and cumulative environmental impact of the Gymnasium Construction and School Facilities Expansion Project referenced above (the `Expansion Project"), we respectfully request that the City Council reject Negative Declaration No. 08-018 and deny the Expansion Project. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 0 The Negative Declaration fails to address greenhouse gas emissions as required by A.B. 32 and CEQA. Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk May 18, 2009 Page 2of7 0 For the first time, the Staff Report includes a post hoe reference to greenhouse gas emissions. The Staff Report provides no citation or reference to any document that forms the basis for the conclusion that the Expansion Project "is expected to generate approximately 53 metric tons/year of [carbon dioxide]." The public is unable to determine how the City reached this conclusion. For example, how many annual vehicle trips did the City use to establish the stated amount? Did the City account for construction activities and construction trips? ® The City blindly asserts the 53 metric tons/year factor simply to compare it with a preliminary threshold recommendation by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") of 7,000 metric tons/year. What the City fails to mention is that the CARB threshold of'7,000 metric tons/year is for non-transportation sources (where transportation sources are addressed) and is a component of a proposal that has a stated objective for 90 percent capture of emissions from stationary sources under a programmatic EIR approach. Where the City of Huntington Beach has not adopted a Climate Action Plan that includes objectives and performance standards that comply with Assembly Bill 32's and CEQA's mandates for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the Staff Report's half-baked effort to establish a carbon footprint for the Expansion Project only accomplishes one thing — it illustrates the existence of a potentially significant and unmitigated air quality impact. ® As you are likely aware, the cumulative impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the Expansion Project are extensive and significant. Traffic and parking air quality analyses for 27,000 square feet of gymnasium (alleged 624-person capacity), a football field facility (alleged 625-person capacity), expanded use of a multiple purpose soccer field (capacity unstated), potential expanded use of school grounds generally (capacity unstated), and nearby development proposals, must address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprinting— an area of analysis that is notably absent from the Negative Declaration. With the passage of Assembly Bill 32 and its GHG directives, the City must address carbon neutrality issues for any necessary gymnasium construction and expansion of school facilities. MAGNITUDE OF THE EXPANSION PROJECT—THE CIVIC CENTER ACT ® The Negative Declaration failed to account for a fair projection of additional community events that would be hosted by the proposed gymnasium and football field pursuant to the Civic Center Act. ® The Staff Report and Negative Declaration fail to address the substantial evidence in the record of proceeding that the City has failed to quantify the potential magnitude of"school activities," non-school activities, Civic Center Act activities, or other activities that will potentially occur as a result of the Expansion Project. (See, Crowther, T. Potential Unrestricted Tralfzc and Use of Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion.) The Staff Report doesn't even attempt to respond to the comment that Civic Center Act activities must be addressed in the Negative Declaration. Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk May 18, 2009 Page 3 of 7 ® As the Staff Report confirms: "The [Negative Declaration] contains no mitigation measures." (Staff Report, p. 12.) Rather than adopting enforceable mitigation measures, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and report program ("MMRP"), the Staff Report references conditions of approval that were proposed within the context of the Planning Commission's approval of the Expansion Project. The post hoc conditions of approval do not effectively eliminate the potential for simultaneous events at the gymnasium, football field, adjacent multi-purpose athletic field, and school facility. ® The Planning Commission, recognizing that significant, unmitigated impacts will result from the Expansion Project, attempted to establish post hoc conditions of approval that fail to mitigate potential environmental impacts. For example, the Planning Commission conditioned the Expansion Project by stating that: "No school activities shall occur within the gymnasium and/or football fields on Sundays." This limitation does nothing to quantify the magnitude of activities that will potentially occur as a result of the Expansion Project (See, Crowther, T. Potential Unrestricted Tf°affic and Use of Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion.) ]Moreover, limiting "school activities" to Saturday through Monday does nothing to limit Expansion Project activities. The potential here is for all non-school activities to take place on Sundays — a likely occurrence especially where "school activities" is an undefined term and wholly unenforceable. ® The Expansion Project is improperly described in the Negative Declaration. Reliance on square footage of the proposed gymnasium provides limited to no useful information to assess the magnitude of the gymnasium's impact. The gymnasium capacity must be readily identified in the Negative Declaration to fulfill the public disclosure and informed decision- making purpose of CEQA. Once the capacity of the gymnasium is readily identified, the Negative Declaration must analyze the environmental impacts of the capacity in conjunction with the 624 seating capacity of the proposed football field. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS No Baseline Analysis a The TIA failed to provide any analysis of baseline traffic conditions. (TIA, p. 1, 2 [no level of service ("LOS") reference for current traffic conditions for surrounding street intersections].) For example, the TIA only describes three streets that access the school site and fail to address any intersections. (TIA, p. 1, 2 ["Effingham Drive, it is (sic) east/west residential street that provides access to the site from Brookhurst Street. One of the driveways to Lot C is located along Effingham Drive and is generally the most frequently used driveway do (sic) to the greater percentage of vehicular traffic coming into the school via Brookhurst Avenue."].) Accordingly, the TIA is unable to perfonn any meaningful Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk May 18, 2009 Page 4 of 7 analysis of the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Expansion Project. (See, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 [baseline described as the "existing physical setting" — which means 2009 conditions as opposed to Year 2000 conditions].) a "It (sic) is anticipated that if any event is scheduled during the evening peak traffic hours, the traffic flow on the adjacent streets would be no worst (sic) than a typical school day during drop off and pick up times." (TIA, p.4) Because a baseline traffic count was not conducted for adjacent streets in conjunction with the Expansion Project, this statement from the City's Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") is unsupported by any evidence. No Peale Hour Analysis ® "Any event held in the gymnasium or football field will occur after school hours between 7:00 [p.m.] and 9:30 p.m. and will not conflict with school traffic during afternoon pick up times." (TIA, p. 4.) This statement is inaccurate as football games will start no later than 6:30 p.m. With football games starting no later than 6:30 p.m., vehicle trips and parking demand for football players, coaching staffs, concessions staff, and supporting spectators will be generated during PM peal-, hours for surrounding streets. The TIA provides no analysis of actual impact of the Expansion Project on peak traffic hours. The extent of the Traffic Impact Study's analysis appears to be an unstated date for "site observations for both the AM and Afternoon drop off and pick up cycles." (TIA,p. 3.) ® "The estimate of new end trips, during the AM and PM peal., hours are (sic) zero as no new trips would be generated since the gymnasium would not be used until after the main school hours." (TIA, p. 3.) The TIA clearly failed to consider activities at the football field and adjacent multi-purpose fields, or joint activities involving both the gymnasium and the sporting fields. Where the gymnasium is arguably used after school hours, the traffic generated for the event will occur before and after the event hours. (See, Attachment 1, City of Irvine Comment Letter to Irvine Unified School District, January 29, 2009, Comment 2.) ® "For purposed (sic) of this study, it (sic) was assumed that the split between entering and leaving traffic was 50% entering and 50% leaving. This was due to the gymnasium being largely used for after school peak pick up time and never during the AM drop off time." (TIA, p. 3). We cannot make any sense of the foregoing statement. Faulty Traffic Generator 0 The TIA also relies on ITE Manual Land Use #435 "Multipurpose Recreational Facility." The TIA asserts that Land Use #435 utilizes a peak hour trip generation factor of "8.4 (3.7%) Trips per 1000 SF" and asserts 228 trips entering and 228 trips leaving. (TIA, p. 3.) The TIA further concludes, without any substantiating evidence, that all the trips generated by the gymnasium will occur between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (TIA, Figure 5.) The TIA's traffic generation utilizes a Land Use category that does not focus on capacity (i.e., bleachers and stands within the facility) and is therefore inaccurate. The TIA fails to Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk May 18, 2009 Page 5 of 7 address the potential capacity of the gymnasium -- "Additional gym amenities include bleacher seating with capacity for up to 625 spectators, restrooms, team rooms, weightlifting room, concessions area,, and restrooms for the adjacent: outdoor fields." (Staff Report, p. 3; Crowther, T. Potential Unrestricted Traffic and Use of Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion.) The TIA also fails to address the potential capacity of the proposed football field, the capacity of the adjacent multi-purpose soccer field, or the potential capacity of expanded school facility uses generally. (e.g., Language school, Crowther, T. Potential Unrestricted Traffic and Use o0rethren Christian Proposed Expansion.) Understated Parking_Demand a Substantial evidence also exists that the seating capacity for both the gymnasium and football field were understated to avoid providing adequate parking spaces for the Expansion Project. 0 The City's proposed parking ratio, based on "theaters and assembly" of"one parking space for every 3 seats" is not supported by substantial evidence. The City has failed to explain how the parking demand generated by a 625-person spectator event is met by one parking space for three seats. The City notes that: "The HBZSO does not provide a parking ratio for purposes of determining the parking requirement for stadiums, bleachers, or gymnasiums." (City Response EB-2.) The Expansion Project will generate far greater than a 209 on-site parking demand. (See, Crowther, T. Potential Unrestricted Traffic and Use of Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion,) Substantial evidence supports a finding of significant traffic and parking impact caused by the potential, unfettered use of the Expansion Project. (Id.) An appropriate parking measurement should apply a trip rate to the vehicular trips generated by the spectator event. For example, the draft Environmental Impact Report for the University High School Stadium establishes a .74 trip rate for spectators that would be generated for a football stadium event. Applying a .74 trip rate to a 625-person spectator event results in the need for 463 parking spaces as opposed to 209. (See, Attachment 1, City of Irvine Comment Letter to Irvine Unified School District, January 29, 2009.) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ® The Negative Declaration failed to address (and make a Mandatory Finding of Significance for) "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Reliance on a traffic study conducted almost a decade ago and prior to the enactment of greenhouse gas emissions laws (A.B. 32 and S.B. 375) cannot address "cumulatively considerable" air and transportation impacts of the Action. ® The Staff Report also fails to respond to the substantial evidence in the record of proceeding indicating that a potential, significant direct, indirect, and cumulative air quality impact will result from the Expansion Project as a result of the absence of any mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions. Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk May 18, 2009 Page 6 of 7 ® Even with the grossly understated capacity and vehicle trips asserted in the Negative Declaration, the result of the Expansion Project is increased traffic through the surrounding neighborhoods during weekday evening hours and on weekends when children are most susceptible to being struck by a motor vehicle (e.g., "Football games shall start no later than 6:30 p.m." (Staff Report, p. 3); "Additional on-street parking is available within the adjacent residential tract...with easy access to the front of the school. (TIA, p. 2) LAND USE IMPACTS ® Substantial evidence in the record of proceeding confirms that the Expansion Project will conflict with the City's Land Use Policies and the City's Design Guidelines. (See, Crowther, T., Reasons to Deny, citing LU Policies 9.4, 9.4.1, 9.4.2.) ® The Expansion Project conflicts with the following City Design Guidelines: (1) "In developed areas, new projects should meet or exceed the standards of quality which have been set by surrounding development." (Design Guidelines, p. 4-2.) (2) "Residential uses should be buffered from incompatible commercial development. Intensified landscaping, increased setbacks and appropriate building orientation should be utilized as a means of providing adequate separation between such land uses." (Design Guidelines, p. 4-2.) (3) "Building facades should be articulated with architectural elements and details. Vertical and horizontal offsets should be provided to minimize building bulk. Plain box-like structures are discouraged." (Design Guidelines, p. 7-7.) (4) "Long (over 100') unarticulated building facades [a]re not acceptable. Varied front setbacks are encouraged." (Design Guidelines, p. 7-7.) (5) "Front and side wall elevations should provide building offsets and architectural details." (Design Guidelines, p. 7-7.) On behalf of Sharon Crowther and Neighborhoods, we thank you for your consideration of this testimony and documentary evidence and respectfully request that you reject the Negative Declaration and deny the Expansion Project. Respectfully submitted, MILES ® CHEN LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Steph M. Miles SM:lak Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Madame Clerk May 18, 2009 Page 7of7 cc: Ms. Sharon Crowther Ms. Susan Y. Lee, Esq. ATTACHMENT 1 i.:i'n 1.:.>i'.. fl'r.. e 11mrk".!. i'":;'r0ghf i!r';' i"_._t!,_apr.'S.F.MAY'..j i sul.[lt[;k; DIOR (rr[.:UL RraPOV An 4.f y er ky I'igh 'a,chrof iIairr[<, -Ysr;... ±�[t.l (r:+�I';t: ," '�r1F.7�. •ti_[... _ ...,, ...("m It!_ Irv'_:.! „tile.., . ..°nu4 Wow! QX: t- ,:•ir[=:n�cn;�x.t: �sn��,!+- t+,} _R1 (,;=t; fit<[J�cs•� '�h . >r:;:;�{-7= ...==it.�F= ,. ,ard. �77 '-ti[::'7':Yiam, a vmownh 14 the Cal}i on'i11! [-,[;.IS7ilii4`c lot (CEC A) flaw H+.: s...._..,.'.:r':':., .... kI it=';tkjri: ir. it --t. :.[:ij +:"[IIkY cl f7' '-J S, .:�U O'r;a1 7.: f'.irw: �JS'�tfe�-'f ;ti(} >C '[:.. ::['S"i. to,7%.tt.'s"_,S:E: tir`g'a,lla',m rMirminxim amok;Y Pr[}! r t 00 ( r ? Oil r:r'tl;,it±; r t"' '[`'ge and: ..ai'ihl.iims yam t'tfS,i:4:ns A{14.::y'rEq;ti ', w i.,i;V(Yl0r'`7 ,,.,r.rc:.,Cl 7"_,,;i;;t.:.ia.i.=71rf f;.,.,.<•:wtd:'1 :r+' r:f'itt`±., `T?[:'f"dLP: pawl SyWi •.t"t.(i-:,ri C!'i-V t.'rr otu ;:h trr=,f'•and }N[.:erll`uuw,, t;zlF. _ s,-. -< „s�i arc '`+�e•= _ 4 ,, �„' irR; 7 ..�;`-,ii'..:it[_, rr.:;';±,c:i� ;ir,ri��,:�{0=7.71�{`i���i`I'I i-.. �_-7£•; �:,:�..:..�':f'��='rt�:rt .':; ;:.1'"J n•:i,l„!::ist;.., i '7;r;;ime Ma Dram 17114 a .=smr_,ah>'too :cie rl[.'tf cor{t'iit5 a [ cI'};,ftl[..t`•- r....i-;:4,"an'd I'.ti 1}.[i'1[;'i;+i t'. 11`I(.=:<�Y.t(7{s;::; �is`t�! fs",1>'!.�i;p�fY;i;;�1':?t.,l i°s. {;'['.,.me Me EM { I;i!�n:ol l..`(Ya`f i4'.'v9='. `3i<Ak W r_inr:;ipri:.u-'ltlyl on•rl Ir:I l;isn':'[[Iff{;4`ZCidude by 10 P.it and f'S ina!pa.--. 7'.tt.^`; l cit i7t!t71'..l i'ff} vildits[=.. af:°.It'ay ONO 1IA (ir e 'i 11y =-`very W5 the stilwun-1 so!4;4f{uni7 :vuH.i'a 0 p.m;, ahey t` u cri1a 11.E asm ut f.3°:r_wnhn r:rt.t:'7Ii7Y_l G,IMcpnd t':,ml IrngY,i±;as 0 Do*l±l'I'C7LNAhg III in<isaU .;ms •- i My Dow werw jWWOq 21 PxP2 ok' 3 Tully, 5 Y& 7, C.Una Pivywivown A pmoao U now it!4; 7W w9swun 40 mWiSm"isf Lif Hie kny, wi No It Won 1A in movilk P60: �n mexup MA WC4.000 on memsms v ba Mon U;jnvl�"" fokmi 6, TO puposen mimic!IN MAY ho O&W Q wwwo W WWWW�Pow to I WW W;1 janeA loom:yway Dom nmew or T&SORM No eviiinoq tm F.PWA -'hi'! it-tit dR,"V1, 1t'io wah ,..,,.:: ;Fuel'a' ri, rm nowwompos an as QA Ww" UOY nOWA IQWS :'fft:ikjilfnl 8 ft-.' one:`A noln gwwrxw�, awsw we pxmig 1:mqj C iq-j�_A- -4 ".l C'g is of vvN"q>IAmg p;ou!Mx"n Win"AX it as no Wads hzivc- pfovi�te�i. The rjojcri e,zevi-a! wakiamid W dMand Spumovin is iwadabs, Ulfrady Hip Six?PuNic Sally Wpr"W wA be the responsoh;agency for romljqinfj lfjif" nirld pm-'L'Irl+j A Pma 1 1 nZ m cut",;oam t pawma Ampshmsill a mm. cz,�,�t7l W hmp a ummg yvmq Psqqm. Kin WW rK nny 54 PQQQ 'Nep, MY* NO 9W mm"Sis WSW We mamay! oleo,nmeskotrytl mum NOT, Conamm;to Va owk, Pro [OW,P"'A 40ka W two 0 Pm. A e A 2 CA"y he h.jgq of RUS 01m 0 0)SW in, not lo-q vomm., h;d 14m: 01142 Way awn D fic.: Thll:- E.11..' 11 i;4ii 1,1 ConsWWn plomo"r lwqn is no-HI.-Sawk of 0101"I my mak,YGUBC;Q N: the nahoolskamuki rewmed Pmong SAW," Kom,Cown"Wo swoun'. 10 Yyy 5 1 to+ And t Noyhow Thu NOR. Points 10 tam lagn mahcel(coo rmso Minor and voles inym Cavilms); hommq M-,; soold Im mms powns one 5JA fmm CW-A NO and n,. snip ountrydiRm Qwns D"my h mm'd almor 1hV hou at coos Qn1v cm"ms DWQ Nwe nat 1A maid to WMAW as qw!c' rhmamyss Voliest*men POMN triffic. f-,r 1ile OR 1AFgams Q it, 5 110, G 111, 11110 11011 1 F", and 5A 0 U: Paved mi inboond mod ivir, :ef14.1[: 4{t t, t. 3da MW no moomwoOk wk W', f"Why W numq&u pf"JjulGl !iIle'via G.:! throLl�jl I froffi-. Cumbs.gh WC irl th�-lral'ic vno�Je%g, Me NQ Imne recann-tends.!hat Vabr-: il-Z':i."O "q ;'msun It,, 1f10. (-J ;Jvej Q!Avmind kijps lvjf'fqr.1 11 11o; Orive Lid! % Y 10 X-nvdwo a&lowmic"Imm myond,Wpm OAK no A PbAl!'! 10 low on woo AQ lamw nwomm on to XoNy K" %wh .1 i-Al Id 1c; j,0 afmon: winds to�twvice fal oath WKWwwrm. uv!Ind TwAvan WWAMMI py. 15YA M`-, Aw A waymom , 00 Aubgsbot t: li�,R SW •out&!0!on"Opm in�Wwo w;nmay P"i MIA I E a mynns I am::' n71 mW�VqS ngyb 3T 01 to hon 1-may CSrVaCVq M innVill sny Imp Am, To P m f.e i 1,e I-0 th 5 It 1 awmg AW C.qns h amid a on pun waly! Or hjgwanorawnCo m In WAUNg Way an! Sawspy ismAg paim"ymd=Nv vmhlxvv� em. WA AUMW AmiTl y A amon" Dwkmg WK. WK%U�Q Immk Sm"A =45 no can 1xv of pliblic. hk 90 UYI U11 and OV"AN V rW SAPOMbon hHPMP WU U01`100d. I n nx"Swiri jN mAgAm., 20 Pa"1511"N N rpmovar Nnv Rw InThyd mownNir CA yyy"q Rpmes was aubmt ;,r t:--.,,tsed rin'h(,. it l7f ziit=l A qwsalws eWede,A FrK inkstanc,:l,.; 'tfll is to mact appeommmay oni'l, Ouc. 1,0106 Vnloify�10fpjtro as too arderof 1291)MAY7 Spools Jnn�ay;29.260, v pan thiA cord Main op to 241 YwOwwn %W&MOPT • up lat.'.. Used to cf'!J fic-11.11i! nf man A.; y ant VON In at OPOWNU ki menu nbu CA pmkin"Spnos tn"Mal lVizi, nit OW f2v pu0no a PC AV avuld he NO Pan hq YR7K nom"No Wo 91 MKI scow, 4!v:d Haves psakyq KISK= 94g, be SK., ljv_!.*I:'-ve don a uwwnd 0 Vic PWQ-', 24 Pay a 5 T A9(ANK ThINUM, 110 00k A TY"W02 Pa&TQ I=1 00 "V!qhV-'j "!'! POKY on Sv"p,M 4�US&-wd sm?nW.0 Mm :'Ian ;,Wbg in te rwvNe pasin ,wmn : HI—oz hY It:INK: I! od Val Re janvool OvIvit' P; -.-'111!j No tjl'Loop SKIWIA Owns vc no knom wor 0,WWI WA thm I-o"Il he UAITO 7h;-d v':`i'-'d oweK luvi vulan Usti cod Q rnm NMI AIM"ho u 1hu Sy0fl1 bne; AMC& Wounnypn,00. COW Lowu ropyk 20 owl! 4 11 AS: it !';r-,'jeel the bwwonp 10#0 war of v;P;vvvg.Q Swangm Sde ON vt'- GaTgnq Mot will Th(-.- P--lfl 01mr nam No! 9W now 101down ama"If to ussi or Anymn lwvw lmkm'z� and W pywhyl Npany nomqMS WaRIVIE01-1 I'n I I In ljnfjf'f F.,I ry Its)III 't"I I I F*F I pa �G'or' f if I IT ills ana Q dev&4eOn UnW omr?s arl Owl Me Iknh!!�'d fql!'ISbr:f ':-1 Eli paaj._" Spa is P"nowev or Tind;J71 ,:,,j is. prol'!=!"'-.J na"viv ;I mw H h!rwri*"N 1"Idtiilcfiny!'L'! cfl'ol a.Ciked vn-i the padablv'- Know, Iwo"lom-i WYNK-"i 21 Carmcl:the text as faMys: Page 5101, Mw" zo Vemdvols', ''Age W1, SeWn 5 111,lowd.-I P-va-yaph' "MyesudmMMA, 2110:) PA V, pw 00 0 Y WON NA L"Mov 0 A ArM a�M Law 1 v T"Wif Palo 415?, OKI -1; vtit: ,1 if Y id Ran U�.;t�L' I. 'Ifiix ;",'-j cf hyry (;MjNaj FLaWa TaWej"7 own!ApHS 201 ;1WINny;mean and UW Von,do 101 mown own, Ham Hv A;my N*Own allaJwd Qq low 100MIAM ?q Fnign 10 A Aunds, to Un Pas bit Me 1011 ROM 10, 000 WMIM W"' toy!Wdaqv SW Gonm"6 an ANYS)MA 45Q NPY01 hw! WN OR lnwcv�n rn! cu>ruMv-t a VaRned AO 04 101 MOM WhYr ir RY; W�A"n"M Of Hsw An,VMS I a-all iskma va of 1 1 AD fovw fit iv Lvov Sk-xv,VOW Was j Tj�g Mum lardes, ASSWIM My Maoeg& i�illarnjol Cornu_,�, ot� kAAW Chef Gj'v)d NA'agga(d, ii%lilfirol IT Oil el;'cfr ol BAn Fsk Mawgcn. Pdicc Kam,L nu Mrrtstn Wsz, Seams Cof 00"W ARAG VAPH, Avon Mus"O, GOAW TUMOV Umnam"DOWYOMMt Kysf Tonoknmt !palm, loan(oink sqMOX AMMMY I Owl MM"l, Bane Plant NOW sooy Ol T! j alai 1 1 oil My name is Gary Worthington. I reside at 21192 Lockhaven Circle, Huntington Beach. I appear before you, the first time in my 43 years of residence, requesting two minutes to review a single word. WRONG! It was WRONG of the city Planning Commission to approve the "Conditional Use Permit" for the Brethren Christian School Gymnasium and disregard the impact it would have on the surrounding community. It is WRONG to violate three current Huntington Beach Land Use Restrictions, designed and implemented to protect local homeowners from this type of development. It was WRONG of city Staff to present a poor and incomplete report to the Planning Commission on this project. They ignored land use restrictions, and made NO attempt to include input from local homeowners. It is WRONG that about 300 local residents had to hire an attorney, to assist in "opening the eyes and ears" of this City Council, about the error of their Planning Commission and Staff. It is WRONG that these same residents must appear before you in mass, with little yellow signs like this, in order to protect their children, their property rights, and their current quality of life. They must do this to voice their displeasure on something that should have never been allowed to move forward in the first place. It is WRONG to allow a small school that has been a great neighbor, and an asset to the neighborhood, to offend local property owners and residents, by raising a 27,000 square foot, 34ft high, "ugly warehouse building" right in the middle of a quiet residential tract loaded with small children. This building, far larger than any gym on existing city school properties, will allow the campus to become a large "sports complex", attracting huge groups of local and out of area spectators to our small residential area. It is WRONG the Planning Commission "shirked" their job by approving this project with "NO RESTRICTIONS" on its use, refusing to protect our community from dangerous traffic problems, an influx of"out of area visitors", excessive noise from cheering, possible trash pollution, and overwhelming parking problems. It will be WRONG for the city to allow two residential streets, which must be used to access this parcel of land, to become a "high traffic" nightmare for local children and residents. Effingham and Strathmoor were never designed to handle traffic of this potential magnitude. It is only an accident waiting to happen! It will be WRONG if the City Council ignores the pleas of its residents, constituents, and tax payers, and allows this project to continue. Please consider carefully what you will be doing! Claudette & Gary Worthington, 21192 Lockhaven Circle, HBea 92646 714/ 6871?544 RECEIVED FROM AS PU9UC RECCR R ! 19 ETING OF CITY CLERK ICE PA9AM 1 M VGIM ^1'rV^1 rMY mic AN L.RLYt�,COY�i.EFtK�FlC� Testimony of Pamela Tyloch, residing at Richmond Circle to the City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009: I want to go on record that I am opposed to proposed Brethern Christian High School Expansion. Facts regarding this expansion are quite clear and evident that such an expansion is a detriment to our quality and safety liability of our neighborhood. It is my opinion, this proposed expansion is a travesty of our Huntington Beach's Planning Commission and our Huntington Beach's City council's "lack of due diligence". vllle EE7tl .K OFFICE' CITY cLERK Testimony of Ronald Bywater to �� � the City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009 The process of balancing the construction of a new gym against City ordinances intended to protect local neighborhood residents has broken down. • Staff estimated parking capacity is inadequate. • None of the pertinent neighborhood-impact City regulations are met. • Established City practices for school sporting facilities are violated. Buffer zones and absence of night event lighting at Edison High are example practices. • The proposed construction doesn't pass a sanity check pursuant to a staff study with regard to traffic, parking, noise, and structure appearance. • The City's failure to involve local residents beyond cursory notices is suspect. My expectations are that the City weighs any benefits associated with such projects against any negative impacts on affected residents. And especially when this is done outside of public view, the City should lean toward"no impact". Simply stated, the guiding principle is "first do no harm". I would stipulate the student/parent representations that the construction is beneficial for the students are true. However, that is not the point in contention. The governing factor is the detrimental effect on the local neighborhood. We in the neighborhood generally supported the continued presence of the school in recent deliberations on the disposition of the property. This out of scope expansion is an entirely different matter. Simply stated, the proposed facility by comparison with any other school in the City is too big for the given site in the interior of a residential neighborhood. I recommend the process be halted. If the council is not prepared to immediately rule in favor of"do no harm" then further discussion should be initiated. At a minimum, the staff should provide the methodology and details of the analyses which led to their published conclusions as they don't appear to be supported in fact. Although not a proponent of litigation, I'm fully prepared to support it in this case as this is a major departure from the principles Huntington Beach has generally held in its focus on the residents. Recent moves to enhance the downtown environment for families are examples of those principles which set us apart from some beach communities. On a personal note, I moved to this neighborhood in no small measure due to the quiet serene atmosphere. I was somewhat surprised to see the prominence of the buildings, the floodlights at night and hear the games, practice sessions and bull-horns in the evenings and early weekend mornings. However, I support the existence of such private schools and felt the compromise was acceptable. There must be some threshold for disturbance of the peace. I think we are at that threshold and will breach it with the proposed gym. FROM . .. Testimony of John and Margret Cerecedes to CITY CLF i r�0 Le FLYY3., ,;,;CLERK Huntington Beach City Council May 18th 2009 Dear Council, I live across the street from the proposed gym at the Brethren Christian site at 9702 Blue Reef Drive Huntington Beach. I do not think a gym of this magnitude should be allowed on this site. Certainly not as an unrestricted use facility. When we moved into this home 14 years ago we were aware that their was a middle school right across the park and that it might be opened up for use again. We went to the meeting at the time and were happy that Brethren Christian would be occupying the site. The property had not been maintained by HBCSD and was dark at night and a target for vandals and unwanted loitering. They made it clear that they had a property for there school sports and events and were only wanting to rent classroom space. Now they would like to have all of the amenities of a High school in an interior tack site that is zoned for a middle school. This gym will bring in much more traffic noise and into the neighborhoods. Why are they allowed to proceed with this project with out having to do an environmental impact study of the existing area? Why do they not have to get input from the existing neighbors for this project? I do not feel there is adequate parking for a gym of this size. The neighborhoods surrounding this site will be further impacted 7 days a week until 9:30 at night, 365 days a year. Other interior neighborhood school sites do not have a gym on campus that will bring this much traffic and noise into the area with out restriction. Our local sports fields cannot be used on Sundays due to the need to give neighbors a break. We cannot practice past a certain hour to be courteous to the neighborhood. Why doesn't Brethren Christian have to abide by the same rules? I truly hope you will consider the impact to the neighbors in regards to this project and the restrictions that need to t surround it. I chose my house because of its location on a park. I would not like to have to look at an ugly gym that spews noise and traffic and parking problems into my quiet tract. I would not like to see events going on until 9:30 at night on any given day of the year.. I feel if they are going to build a gym it should be a much smaller scale and with use restrictions imposed. Thanks Kindly for your time, John and Margret Cerecedes 9702 Blue Reef Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 M rr Reasons to Deny by Terry Crowther,Neighborhoods for Safety and RECO—RY--FOR EL P VITY 0" ' ERK OFFICE 103, -FLY N,CITY CLERK In v 0 ar inde resi'dentialland deVelopment busmess,,rhave6�,Ver s�en s'tch a or ei o �pseen staff so/lac I g a d* �zicem/s,,�ai�dl,'����/�-vene.,Ae kin t fol �_r� /- / x (-,,- (_,- e C s ffl4ntllimpact a nei.ghborhood. e7 here are some reasons to deny this CUP: Summary (See detail attached) Land Use Does not meet the requirements of LU 9.4 or LU 9.4.1 that the use support the resident needs within the residential neighborhoods and that they are compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Traffic Increasing the traffic from 228 trips per day for the school as it is today to a potential of I M 16 trips per event,just for the gym, will be a significant negative impact on the surrounding neighbors quality of life and safety. The combined traffic trips per year for all activities and events at the site has the potential of being a significant negative impact on the neighbor's quality of life and safety of their children. Design A building that is 34 ft. high and has a footprint that is 14 times larger than the homes and 7 times larger then the townhomes does not meet the requirements of LU 9.4.2 that requires the design to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Parkiniz The 212 parking spaces are inadequate for a potential of over 1,500 people in the gym building using the City's occupancy loads. At 3 spaces per person that equals 508 spaces needed, not including the parking needed for the athletic fields. And the required parking for 100 people in the gym, plus 624 people in the field bleachers would be 241 spaces and you still wont have parking for the players, cheer, band, coaches, trainers, sideline spectators, and support staff. I of 4 Reasons to Deny by Terry Crowther,Neighborhoods for Safety and Quality Land Use Building an under parked, 27,000 sq. ft.(27,526), 34 ft. high, building that has a gym space of over 22,000 sq. ft. gym does not meet the requirement of LU 9.4 that the use support the resident needs within the residential neighborhoods. Building a building that can accommodate over 1,500 people,holding all kinds events, and potentially generating over 508 cars per event,Monday—Sunday does not meets the requirements of LU 9.4.1, provided that the use is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. • There are no other 14 acre, interior residential school sites with a 34 ft. high, 27,000 sq. ft. (27,526) gymnasium building in the City of HB. • There are no 34 ft. high, 27,000 sq. ft. (27,526) gymnasium building in a residential neighborhood that can be used by outside users for any and all events. • The gym space of over 22,000 sq. ft. far exceeds other gyms located within residential neighborhoods. The gym space of the gyms in the Ocean View School District is 18,000 sq. ft.. Edison HS has a gym space of 16-18,000 sq. ft. for approximately 2,600 students. • Holding outdoor nighttime events with yelling, screaming fans 20 to 150 ft. away from residential uses will create a significant negative impact on the neighbors. • There is not adequate distance or a sound wall for buffering between outside yelling and cheering fans, coaches and players and the residential neighbors 20 to 150 ft. away. Traffic • Increasing the traffic from 228 trips per day for the school as it is today to a potential of 1,016 trips per event,just for the gym, will be a significant negative impact on the surrounding neighbors quality of life and safety. • The combined traffic trips per year for all activities and events at the site has the potential of being a significant negative impact on the neighbor's quality of life and safety of their children. • The potential impact on the air quality has not been analyzed. Desi n Building a 34 ft. high tilt-up concrete box with a footprint of 27,000 sq. ft. (27,526)that is 14 times larger than the footprint of the individual homes and 7 times larger then the largest townhome footprint and has walls over 100 ft. long with no substantial horizontal or vertical offsets does not meet the requirements of LU 9.4.2 that requires the design to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. • Building a gym 34 ft. high in a residential neighborhood that is substantially higher than the 25 ft. high gyms in the interior residential neighborhoods of the Ocean View School District does not meet the intent of LU 9.4.2. 2 of 3 Reasons to Deny by Terry Crowther,Neighborhoods for Safety and Quality Parking • There are only 212 spaces being provided. This is not adequate parking for a potential of over 1,526 people in the gym building using the City's occupancy loads. At 3 spaces per person that equals 508 spaces needed, not including the parking needed for the athletic fields. • There is not adequate parking for 100 people in the gym,plus 624 people in the field bleachers, plus players, cheer,band, coaches,trainers, sideline spectators, and support staff. • With 212 parking space, at 3 persons per car, and using the City's occupancy load on the plans of 15 sq. ft. per person you get a gym size of 9,540 sq. ft. And you still don't have parking for the players, cheer, band, coaches,trainers, sideline spectators, and support staff. 3 of 3 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 City Staff Deport Rebuttal Gymnasium Approx. 27,000 sq. ft. 27,526 Gymnasium capacity: 625 1,526� Gymnasium 22,080 at 15 sq ft Spectators with no calculation As shown on submitted per person. for teams, coaches,venders, or construction documents Support 5,446 at 100 sq. ft.per: support staff. ,Construction person documents shows bleachers hat. will seat 1,120 spectators Required Parking for gymnasium 209 508 fat 3 passengers per car, With 209 spaces at three pasongers per Hours of use for gymnasium Monday trough Friday 7:00 am to 9:30 pm and on weekends Multi-purpose soccer field 624 720 bleachers Spectators Add players, cheer, band, coaches,trainers,venders, support staff and sideline spectators you have a potential of 1497 Required Parking for Multi- None Shown 94 9 purpose soccer;field at 3 passengers per car Prior use by school football Program has already begun in The high school football team the existing lighted fields practice ends at 3:30 pm and the 7-8 grade football team practice starts at 3:30 pm and ends at 5:30 pm. The five Friday night varsity football games were held without City approval. Existing lighted fields Used by A.Y.S.O. and Sea View 70 ft. high lights were installed Little League and others youth around 1985 and approved by groups for 20 years the State Architect without a I hearing or input from the neighborhoods 1 The neighbors have complained for years regarding these lights. COU ray} s -ss -u8L;lo CLERK 1 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) Gisler middle school 860—574 This is a neighborhood school students (site. The City's Zoning and, 1998 CUP allowing 500 junior Subdivision Ordinance requires high and high school students. the design, location, ands 2000 CUP allowing 720 students operation be compatible iw th junior high and high school adjoining properties in the area students and did not explicitly 'It is requires findings that the include outdoor activities. proposed use will not bey detrimental to general welfare of I working or residing ink the vicinity nor detrimental for I value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. All high school sports activities have been held off site with the issuance of the 2000 CUP. The proposed expansion and bringing the ne igh time high school sports activities on site and opening the facilities I outside use will be detrimental Ito the general welfare and value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood F— Applicable Codes and General Complies with applicable Codes Does not comply with parking Plan and General Plan. requirements for occupancy loads. 2 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 Planning Commission Approval Majority of neighborhood The major concern of the concerns are a result of existing' neighborhoods is the increase of use of the fields for community traffic that will endanger the based sports groups dives of our children and destroy the quality of our lives raffic impacts will be' (This will not mitigate the' minimized by not overlapping Is ignificant negative impact that events F— ill take the traffic from 228; trips per day to a potential of 1,016 trips per gym event IJ The lights will be regulated by The HB School District tells us BCHS under new lease that BCHS has always been able agreement. to regulate the lights. Football games to start by 6:30 The football field is 20 ft. away pm. Band to stop by 9:00 pm. from the neighboring homes with children that go to bed before 9:00 pm. Field lighting is not to glare on You cannot prevent the lights adjacent properties(— from lighting up the adjacent properties that are 10 ft. away. (The City's Environmenta� 1 Board recommended that the illumination problems on locall residents and energy use be, I in full detail. There has been no discussion with the' neighbors. No school activities within the That leaves 312 days a year the gymnasium and/or fields on( That and/or fields can be used for 'Sunday other non-school uses F Land Use Compatibility Compatible with surrounding The surrounding land use is land use. residential where property owners expect to have peace and quiet in the evenings and on weekends. Gymnasium and football fields (There are no 27,526 sq. &I are allowed. gymnasiums on 14 acre school sites or lighted football fields 20 eft. away or permanent bleachers "0 ft. away from adjacent single family residences in HB� 3 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 Other school sites have similar The gyms in the Ocean View amenities within the City that are District are 16,000— 18,000 sq. surrounded by residential uses. ft. Can only be used by the students. Can only be used M— F and not beyond 6:00 pm. There are no permanent bleachers, score boards, or night time football games. The site is currently provided These lights were placed without with lighted fields. a public hearing and have been an issue for the neighbors for sense they were installed. IJ IThe gymnasium is designed to The building has 34 ft.high rr ^J be compatible with they concrete walls that are over Ol surrounding neighborhoo �ft. long with no vertical orb " �--- providing vertical and horizontal horizontal offsets. The City's,� T3 " E building offsets and landscaping. ,Design Guidelines you can not .Y have a wall over 100 ft. longs with no vertical and horizontal offsets. It also says landscaping used for buffering should e,� intensified. There is no landscaping adjacent to e 1 building on the East and North sides. There is no verticalF ,landscaping adjacent to thee, � building on the West. And there 1s only 3 ft. of onsite landscaping adjacent to the building on then South. The gymnasium and football IThe football field is only 20 ft.__, fields are sited so as to provide from a single family homes were the greatest amount of distance families with young children between the proposed facilities dive. The 22 ft. high by 95 ft. and surrounding residential uses. 1 no g pe` rmanent bleacher ars e lno y 150 ft. from the single family homes with young �children� The new gym and expanded There are no adequate sound activities will be adequately barriers between the football, buffered and controlled. field and adjacent residential structures.Wwould take a sound wall over 20 ft. high. 4 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 The proposed sports facilities There is no precedent set for the and activities are similar in site for the proposed use. The nature to the activities school site was operated as a historically and presently public middle school for 17 occurring on the site. years. Was vacant for 12 years. iBCHS has occupied the site for' �10 years with all high school sporting events being held pffsite. Youth sporting gro ps have used the site with noF_ permanent bleachers, score I oard,PA system or bands The gymnasium is a tilt-up he General Plan, Land Use concrete structure. Elements and Design Guidelines The 34 ft. high gym is similar in say the design must be' ' height to surrounding multi- compatible with the surrou do ni g - -- u family structures. use IThe proposed building has� The visual and physical scale footprint of 27,526 sq. ft. and is and character is compatible with 34 ft. high with no vertical and the surrounding neighborhood. horizontal offset on three elevation that have walls over, The building is designed and 100 ft. long. a r constructed of common materials IThe use of box like structures are consistent with schools discouraged in the City's design throughout the city in guidelines. Unarticulated� surrounding residential areas. building facades over 106 ft. are,not allowed. IThe City's Environmental Board suggest the overall building energy profile be reviewed 1 The physical scale and character - a of the largest townhome structures to the South has a footprint of 3,960 sq. ft. and is 20 to 27 ft. tall, with vertical and { horizontal offsets of 12 to 48 inches with mansard roofs. The physical scale and character of single family residential structures to the East, West and North have an approximate footprint of 2,000 sf., are 20 to 25 feet tall,pitched roofs and incorporate predominantly single story elements. 5 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 Strategic Plan Goal Create a plan for the use of This school site is located on the surplus school property to ens urto interior of a residential o cmpatible uses within the 1-1 neighborhood where its access is surrounding neighborhoods that by interior residential streets. meet community needs. Children,teens, adults and seniors ride there bicycles, walk, and life saving emergency vehicles require unobstructed access on these streets. �T eheh proposed expansion of the use of I school site is not compatible' with these neighborhoods 1 Traffic Impacts The traffic will not significantly Small children, teens, adults and impact traffic flows in the senior citizens live on surrounding local streets. Effingham, Strathmore and Bluefield and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Children,teens, adults and senior citizens use the streets to ride bicycles and walk during the, so called, off peak hours and require access of life threatening emergency vehicles. There is no report that addresses the cumulative impact of the traffic flow, i.e., residents, school, sporting events, emergency vehicles and the impact on the quality of life for residents of the neighborhoods. The 2000 traffic report was IThe updated report does not updated for the proposed address the legal occupancy of addition of the gymnasium. 1,526 of the gymnasium, the F— combined use of the streets, no does the site provide parking for the 509 vehicles F The peak traffic demand will be At three passengers per vehicle, 7:30 am and 8:05 am with 270 the peak traffic for the vehicles. gymnasium alone would be 509 vehicles. And the site does not provide arkng for 509 or 270, [vehicles During an open house on 4/2/09 there were 285 cars parked in the City parking lot and onsite. The proposed parking is 212 with 10 spaces in the City's parking lot. Add the 40 6 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet as of 5/18/09 additional City spaces and you get 252 spaces. That is 33 spaces less than you have today for 400 students. During the 2008 Friday night football games the City lot and the school site were full and cars were park four blocks away. (The City's Environmental Board requested that a significant impact be identified and realal lif assumptions be used for a variety I event scenarios to determine a realistic estimate of the total, spaces required. Ther sie a potential for 1,314 cars per day, six days a week, 12 months a year. See attached, Potential Unrestricted Traffic and Use of Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion. The surrounding local streets This does not account for the capacity is 1000 vehicle trips per (significant negative impact ofs hour with no impact on traffic taking the traffic for 228 trips peg flows. the 2000 Traffic Review for 420 students to a potential of over` 1,016 trips per event 1 A major event in the gymnasium The report does not calculate the or on the field will generate maximum capacity of the approximately 228 trips. gymnasium or the field or that 100 spectators and participants can use the gym during use of the football field. Traffic is to be monitored to his will do nothing about the regulate entering and exiting the significant negative impact of site during evening football added traffic load and the speeds games with a six month review. Hof the vehicles on the residential streets that will create an unsafe condition for the neighborhoods. 7 of 7 RECEIVED FROM 9 EUC RECORD FOR L=EETING OF c9TY CLERK CIFME JDAN L FLYWk CITY CLERK NEIGHBORHOODS FOR QUALITY AND SAFETY INCOMPATIBLE LAN® USE 1 LU 9.4: Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational, and service use that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods. ® LU 9.4.1: Accommodates the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, libraries, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community- service uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies. 1 The Proposed Use is a 27,526 sq ft building with 22,080 sq ft of gym and night time football games on 14 acres for 720 students. a � 1 'r - A � ; • Edison HS gym space is 16-18,000 sq ft for 2,600 students with no nighttime football games. Noise y BRETHPEN CHR!S`1AN — E' JUNIQR'z aEit(f]R NI3fl SCrb01, _ __ �� SF HOMES SF HOMES 0 a II fR e f� c �L.,,j" SF HOMES SF HOMES t f1 t,v F':"•"�"'• § BLEACHERS J GYM 2 Noise • Football field is 20 ft. from residential property with young children. Bleachers are 150 ft. from residential property with young children. • The Staff Report says there is adequate buffering. • It would require a sound wall over 20 ft. high to adequately buffer the noise! Design and Character LU 9.4.2: Requires that institutional structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. 3 Gym size The submitted plans shows a capacity of 1,526 people. Staff report says 624. 1 A S n v Design Proposed gym building has a footprint of 27,526 sq ft. Is a concrete tilt- up building, 34 ft. high ( 3-stories high) B 4 s k "u h ry�AWN r 3 -al ¢ dr A d P�• 'R � d'F 4 Our single family homes have a footprint of 2,000 sq. ft. with predominantly single story elements and are 20 to 25 ft. high v v Our multi-family townhomes adjacent to the park have a maximum footprint of 3,960 sq. ft., have 12"to 48"vertical and horizontal offsets, are 20 to 27 ft. high (2-stories). �w P 5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1-tJ t'F pc, L77;pl, ML, 7777 Existing traffic during current morning hours with 400 students Traffic • The current trips based on the 2000 traffic study with 420 students is 114 x 2 = 228 trips. • The proposed gymnasium building has a capacity of 1 ,526 people. • Using City's 3 passengers per car that = 508 vehicles. • At two trips per vehicle this = 1 ,016 trips per event. Safety a 7 Safety • To mitigate the traffic impact the City is saying the gym and athletic fields will be use by outside users during non school hours • The problem is, non school hours is when we the neighbors and our children walk and ride our bicycles on our street! Parking: Over 280 cars parked onsite at an open house on 4/2/09 School Parking • The proposed expansion only has 212 allowable spaces! • There were over 280 cars parked for the open house for 400 students. • The current approved CUP allows 720 students and 65 staff members. Gymnasium Parking • The proposed gym building has a capacity of 1 ,526 people. • Using City's 3 passengers per car that = a potential of 508 needed parking spaces. • Proposed expansion is providing 212 parking spaces. 9 Football Field Parking • The proposed permanent bleachers scale 90 LF of elevated seating, 12 rows high with a announcer/coaches box. This would make it 22 ft. high. • 90 LF x 12 = 1080 LF divided by 1 .5 ft. _ 720 spectators. The Staff Report says 624. • At 3 passengers per car that = 240 needed parking spaces with no parking for the players, cheer, band, coaches, trainers, sideline spectators, or support staff. Reasons to Deny - Use • Building an under parked, 27,526 sq. ft., 34 ft. high, building that has a 22,080 sq. ft. gym does not meet the requirement of LU 9.4 that the use support the resident needs within the residential neighborhoods. • Building a building that can accommodate 1,526 outside people, holding all kinds events, and potentially generating over 508 cars per event, Monday— Sunday does not meets the requirements of LU 9.4.1, provided that they are compatible with the surrounding residential uses. There are no other 14 acre interior residential school sites with a 34 ft. high, 27,526 sq. ft. gymnasium building in the City of HB. 10 Reasons to Deny - Use • There are no 34 ft. high, 27,526 sq. ft. gymnasium building in a residential neighborhood that can be used by outside users for any and all events. • The gym space of 22,080 sq. ft. far exceeds other gyms located within the residential neighborhoods. The gym size of the gyms in the Ocean View School District is 18,000 sq. ft.. Edison HS has a gym space of 16-18,000 sq. ft. for approximately 2,600 students. Reasons to Deny - Use • Holding outdoor nighttime events with yelling, screaming fans 20 to 150 ft. away from residential uses will create a significant negative impact on the neighbors. • There is not adequate distance or a sound wall for buffering between outside yelling and cheering fans, coaches and players and the residential neighbors 20 to 150 ft. away. 11 Reasons to Deny -Traffic Increasing the traffic from 228 trips per day for the school as it is today to a potential of 1,016 trips per event, just for the gym, will be significant negative impact on the quality of the surrounding neighbors lives and safety. • The combined traffic trips per year for all activities and events at the site has the potential of being a significant negative impact on the quality of the neighbor's lives and safety of their children. • The potential impact on the air quality has not been analyzed. Reasons to Deny - Design • Building a 34 ft. high tilt-up concrete box with a footprint of 27,526 sq. sf. that is 14 times larger than the footprint of the individual homes and 7 times larger then the largest townhome footprint and has walls over 100 ft. long with no substantial horizontal or vertical offsets does not meet the requirements of LU 9.4.2 that requires the design to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. 12 Reasons to Deny - Parking • There is only 212 spaces. This is not adequate parking for a potential of 1,526 people in the gym building using the City's occupancy loads. At 3 spaces per person that equals 508 spaces needed, not including the parking needed for the athletic fields. • There is not adequate parking for 100 people in the gym, plus 624 in the field bleachers, plus players, cheer, band, coaches, trainers, sideline spectators, and support staff. Reasons to Deny - Parking G With 212 parking space at 3 persons per car and using the City's occupancy load on the plans of 15 sq. ft. per person you get a gym size of 9,540 sq. ft. And you would still not have parking for the players, cheer, band, coaches, trainers, sideline spectators, and support staff. 13 ." EIgV�d�ED ...�my ��iY�F¢i�tiv c q.�NS zc—, Testimony of Sharon Crowther OF City of Huntington Beach City Council Meeting JOAN� FLYNN,CITY CLERK May 18, 2009 Re: Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion Honorable Mayor and Council Members: My name is Sharon Crowther. I live on Richmond Circle, a half a block from the school. I am one of over 375 residents that are opposed to the proposed expansion. City Staff has concluded there are "NO" significant impacts. Neighbors making up "NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY" have presented many issues that support there ARE potential negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Bringing the school's current offsite activities onsite alone will increase the traffic and safety issues. With the expanded activities, and the UNRESTRICTED USE AND HOURS of the facilities and fields, without studies of these impacts, how can it be determined there are no impacts to our neighborhoods. ® Traffic, Safety, Parking, Security, Noise Issues o Without a current study, addressing the maxium seating and attendance potential of all activities, how can it be determined there are no negative impacts? o The City's Environmental Board on February 17, 2009 requests there be a "significant impact" relating to parking. I don't see that Staff has done that. • Design and size elements do not meet the City's General Plan Objectives as listed on page 10 of your report. • Air Quality and Gas Emissions o Without a study, how can Staff conclude there are no impacts? Staff says major events will occur after peak hours. Is it logical to assume there will be ADDED peak hours, a potential negative impact, by expanding the use, that will add days/nights/weeks, year-round activities. And why would this be acceptable in a residential neighborhood? Staff has compared this school's proposal for a gym to the four middle schools in the Ocean View School District. They haven't included that by law these gyms were reduced in size to 18,000 sq.ft., restricted the use to ONLY the school, and restricted the hours M-T till 7pm — closing the buildings and fields at 6pm Friday to Monday. If Staff is comparing this private school to public middle schools, why not compare the size to public high schools. NO OTHER HIGH SCHOOL IS LOCATED IN AN INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD holding nighttime sports activities, and unrestricted use. • BCHS bldg. size 27,526 sq.ft.; gym size 22,080 sq.ft; enrollment Capped at 720. • Edison HS bldg. 35,000 sq.ft.; gym size 16-18,000 sq.ft.; enrollment approx. 2600. • Huntington HS bldg. 34,000 sq.ft.; gym size 13,338 sq.ft.; enrollment approx. 2600. ® FVHS bldg. 37,000 sq.ft.; gym size 18,000 sq.ft.; enrollment approx. 3200. Based on the proposal, the gym's seating capacity is 625. IF it were only to accommodate this many spectators, the size need would only be 9540 sq.ft. What is the reason the school needs a building this size? What is the reason the school will not agree to limit the use of the facilities and fields to their use only? What educational and athletic benefit to the student body results in providing outside organizations the use of the fields and gym? If this proposal is to create a sports complex and/or community center, IT IS NOT A COMPATIBLE USE in a residential neighborhood. There's been more consideration given to the school than has been given to the neighbors. And, for the record, the school has NOT reached out and met constructively with the neighborhood on several occasions, as has been stated. Please consider carefully in reaching your decision. Thank ou for your time. Attachment: Facts Regarding the Proposed BCHS Expansion FACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED BCHS EXPANSION The City Staff Report states there will be NO significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood areas with the BCHS proposed expansion. To construct a 27,526 sq.ft. 34 ft. tall, 184 ft. long gym and permanent bleachers on the football field with a coaches box and a PA system, adding sports activities, and UNRESTRICTED use of facilities and fields, there will be numerous NEGATNE IMPACTS to our neighborhoods. INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE Noise • Overuse of facilities and fields prevents residents full enjoyment of their homes. • There are no adequate sound barriers between the football field and residential structures. A sound barrier would need to be over 20 ft. high. Gym Size • Does not meet the physical scale and character of existing neighborhood structures. • Has the actual capacity to hold 1,526 people. This would require 508 parking spaces. Design • 3-story concrete tilt-up warehouse looking massive structure. • Box like structures are discouraged in the City's design guidelines. Unarticulated building facades over 100 ft. are not allowed per the City's design guidelines. • Design does not meet the visual and physical scale and character of the surrounding residential structures. This is the ONLY high school located in an interior residential neighborhood. The school site was originally for a middle school (14 acres) and is not adequate for the proposed expanded unrestricted use. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Traffic/SafetylParking • Traffic will increase with BCHS bringing all of their sports activities on site. If they are allowed to offer the facilities and fields to outside organizations,we will be faced with impacts 7-days/nights per week,year round. • Who will insure the safety of our children, our residents in the neighborhood? • Overflow parking will affect the majority of the areas. • Direct traffic to the school site is on 2 residential streets. • Air Quality and Gas Emissions have not been studied or considered. 1 of 2 FACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED BCHS EXPANSION City Staff Report Rebuttal Gymnasium Building Approx. 27,000 sq. ft. 27,526 Gymnasium capacity: 625 1,526 Spectators with no calculation for As shown on construction teams, coaches, venders, or documents: support staff. Gymnasium 22,080 at 15 sq. ft. Construction documents shows per person. bleachers that will seat 1,120 Support 5,446 at 100 sq. ft. per spectators person Required Parking for gymnasium 209 508 at 3 passengers per car Hours of use for gymnasium by Monday trough Friday 7:00 am to No restriction for outside users school 9:30 pm and on weekends 76 20, Multi-purpose soccer 624 47+ field/football bleachers Spectators 12 benches with 90 LF of seating each divided by 1.5 ft. Required Parking for Multi- None Shown 257 purpose soccer field at 3 With no parking for players, passengers per car coaches,trainers,band, or sideline spectators Conditional Use Permits(CUP) Gisler middle school 860—574 All high school sports activities students. have been held off site with the 1998 CUP allowing 500 junior issuance of the 2000 CUP. The high and high school students. proposed expansion and bringing 2000 CUP allowing 720 students the night time high school sports junior high and high school activities on site and openingthe students and did not explicitly facilities to outside use will T� include outdoor activities. detrimental to the general welfare of the neighborhoods. Other school sites have similar The gyms in the Ocean View amenities within the City that are District are 16,000— 18,000 sq. surrounded by residential uses. ft. Can only be used by the students. Can only be used M—F and not beyond 6:00 pm. There are no permanent bleachers, score boards, or night time football games. Edison HS: Building is 35,000 sq.ft.; gym area is approx. 16-18,000 sq.ft.; enrollment est. 2600 Huntington HS: Building is 34,000 sq.ft.; gym area is 13,338 sq.ft.; enrollment est. 2600 Fountain Valley HS: Building is 37,000 sq.ft.; gym area is 18,000 sq.ft.; enrollment est. 3200 2 of 2 IL EM F04, AT CLERK OF. AN L,F LYNN,CM,, Testimony of Alison Goldenberg to The City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Staff: My name is Alison Goldenberg and my husband and I live in the neighborhood surrounding the Gisler school. We recognized that our residential tract had a Middle School use as do many others in our city, but no where is there a full-fledged high school operation with a 27,000 square foot gym and a football stadium with all that goes along with them in the interior of a residential tract. What this means is that after the good Brethren students are home ELSEWHERE, back at their school in OUR neighborhood, on weeknights and weekends other groups of all kinds will be driving in and out to use the Brethren facilities. These high intensity high school uses are always on major arterial streets. My question to this council is why treat this little corner of Southeast HB differently?. Our concern is that the applicant requires the ability to open this facility to non-Brethren school uses. Listen when the applicant tells you that they need it because they just don't have the heart to say no to potential community users. Do you believe that or do you believe that they need to be able to raise revenue to defray future costs and expenses, which means greater outside use and greater burden on our neighborhood? I have attended meetings on this project and have seen how non-issues and red herrings get raised to obscure the real concerns regarding this application: 1: AYSO and the current traffic situation are not the issues Current traffic issues are only a harbinger of more problems to expect if this application is approved 2. It's been said that the CUP being sought is consistent with the site. But that begs the real question, which is that it is not consistent with the surrounding quiet residential neighborhood. 3. It's been said that there were no objections raised when the school plans were first put forth. What the people of our neighborhood mistakenly thought they were getting was the status quo, not a mega gym and football stadium that would be in almost constant use all year including nights and weekends! 4. Brethren students speak before the city about what a wonderful education they get at their school, but the quality of the education is not and has never been at issue..... S. The School likes to try to get the focus onto current traffic problems to avoid the overriding issue that this expansion will just bring TOO MUCH ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD! In tallying the number of supporters versus those in opposition to this application remember that the supporters are primarily sincere people with ties to the school, not residents of the neighborhood!! The road map for a resolution of the neighborhood's concerns is to follow the,format deemed appropriate for other schools in interior locations all over town. The road map is there. Why not skip the extensive and expensive litigation and community ill will that Ocean View went through and just follow the road map? It is the fair and right thing to do. - From. Alison Goldenberg<so nam(Lbnoca.rr.omn Subject: disappointment over Brethren Issue Date: May 18. 2O0S12:03:30PMPDT To- Devn Dwyer<0evin.dwynrP surf odyhb.nrg>,Joe Camhio<joamhiu@audoby-hb.org>. Gil Coerper^gooeqperO—Psurf cityr hb.org>. Jill ManUyxihavdygnudcity-hb.org>. Cathy Green<ogmen@eurfuky hb.urg>. Don Hansen <Uhonson��surf city-hb.o»g>. Keith Bohr<kbohr(�PsuU±ity-hb.o»g> Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: We are both extremely saddened and disappointed that the Planning Commission apparently did not do proper studies for trafficA ran spo rtation points and did not follow the general plan/land use ordinances for this application. What do we have them for if they can just be ignored to the detriment of an entire neighborhood? Sincerely, Chuck and Alison Goldenberg Residents nf The Neighborhood From: Alison Goldenberg<sognare@socal.rr.com> Subject: Yesterday's Meeting with Brethren Christian School Date May 18, 2009 9:09:15 AM PDT To: Devin Dwyer<devin.dwyer@surfcity-hb.org>,Joe Carchio<jcarchio@surfcity-hb.org>, Gil Coerper<gcoerper@surfcity- hb.org>,Jill Hardy<jhardy@ surf rcity-hb.org>, Cathy Green<cgreen@surfcity-hb.org>, Don Hansen <dhansen@surfcity-hb.orgt>, Keith Bohr<kbohr@surfcity-hb.org> Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We neighbors were very disappointed yesterday to be invited to a meeting at the Brethren school, only to find out that they would not tell us the supposed concessions that they were willing to make to their application being heard tonight. Their representative said specifically that he was not allowed to tell us any details. At that point, the group walked out-once the school made it obvious that the meeting was only a"rubber stamp"so that the planner could check off a box indicating that the school met with the neighborhood there was not reason for us to stay. Re those supposed concessions that we were told would be listed for us this evening: Before we walked out, the applicant, Kevin Coleman, called my husband over and told him that there are NONE! Sincerely, Alison Goldenberg ' A ,Aelta RECEIVED FROM ---- �'" AS PUBLIC RECORD FAR !� ET OF `� CITY CLERK ACE JOAN L FL Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, My name is Mike Beuerlein. My family and I live on Effingham Drive. We respect Brethren Christian School, particularly their Christian curriculum. Brethren Christian has been a good neighbor and we like the school as it exists today. In fact, along with our neighborhood, we supported Brethren Christian's successful pursuit of a new lease. But, we do not support Brethren Christian's expansion plan. The fundamental distinction between Brethren Christian and my fellow neighbors is that we do not lease space in the neighborhood. We live there 24/7! Our major concern is that the proposed expansion will increase traffic, endanger the lives of our children and destroy the quality of our lives. The Gisler School site is incompatible with Brethren Christian's intended use. Brethren Christian is the only. Huntington Beach High School located in a residential neighborhood. The only way to get to campus is to drive down Effingham or Strathmoor, two residential streets. As a result, we currently have a traffic problem and a corresponding speeding problem. It is not uncommon to see high school drivers speeding down Strathmoor or Effingham with their speakers blaring. Parents in our neighborhood fear for their safety of their children. Brethren Christian violated the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by installing a scoreboard and holding Friday night football games 5 times last Fall. The CUP was approved by the Planning Commission using a Negative Declaration instead of an EIR so the impact of traffic, architectural design, commercial use inside a residential neighborhood, and property values were not analyzed. The City did not look at alternative uses for the property. Brethren Christian has stated that they plan to increase enrollment by several hundred students in the years ahead. This will increase the number of potential sports being offered, practices, events and so on...as well as impact the traffic, parking and event noise levels. Negative Declaration #08-018 and Conditional Use Permit #08-052 state that there will be no significant impacts to surrounding neighborhood areas with the Brethren Christian proposed expansion. Constructing a 27,000 sq. ft., 34 ft. tall, 184 ft. long gym, and permanent bleachers on the football field with a coach's box and a PA system, adding sports activities and unrestricted use of the facilities and fields will result in numerous negative impacts to our neighborhoods. The Planning Commission's approval of the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit is a violation of state and municipal law including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's General Plan. Brethren Christian's expansion plan will result in significant, unmitigated environmental impact. Notably, the Action will result in unmitigated Land Use and Planning impacts, Air Quality impacts, Transportation/Traffic impacts (including parking and associated air quality impacts), Public Service impacts and Aesthetics impacts. r Inviting outside groups to use Brethren Christian facilities turns our neighborhood into a destination. Traffic will increase with Brethren Christian bringing all of their sports activities on site. If they are allowed to offer the facilities and fields to outside organizations, we will be faced with year round impacts 7 days and nights per week. Overflow parking will affect the majority of streets in our neighborhood and the current speeding problem will increase exponentially. Who will insure the safety of our children in the neighborhood? Thank you for listening and please help keep our neighborhood safe for our kids. ��C y D r p V-41 os��161�g�..P/r��®®'H'S'p��iVY®p, � ppo���^. ® �►a�Llc S1LC®C'1� B,+VV��i--.� Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members, R�®����-J CITY CLE My name is Tom Watt. I'm a homeowner in the Villa Pacific Community and a member of the Community Association's Board. Our tract is adjacent to the greenbelt across from the Gisler Middle School campus and is affected by events and activities held at the school site. Additionally, I would like to note that since 1995 I have also served as a representative on several HBCSD asset management committees. I am therefore very familiar with the site and its history in HBCSD. Recently, I have spent many hours in research and discussions on the currently proposed BCHS plans to build a gymnasium on the Gisler campus. Here are some of the important concerns raised by homeowners in the Villa Pacific community: 1. We beg the question, "Why do you have to build so large of a complex?" The plan calls for a 27,000 sq. ft. gymnasium on a campus that was never intended for such. BCHS is leasing a 14 acre campus set in an interior tract location that was designed for K-8 use, not a high school. I can't imagine that HBCSD would ever get away with turning that campus into a public high school or building a gym of that size there. Besides, the average public HS gym in our area has less than 18,000 sq. ft. of floor space. Brethren's school enrollment is two-thirds smaller than our local middle schools, let alone our high schools, yet their plan calls for a 27,000 sq. ft., 34' high monster gym that is larger than that of the typical public high school. Again, why is that necessary unless there are other motivations besides just a high school gym to facilitate 450 to 600 students? 2. How about the use limitations? BCHS leadership has indicated great reluctance to having any use restrictions like the public high schools, who typically shut down events on fields and in the gyms by 6 pm on Friday. According to page 13 of the city record, you have given BCHS great latitude to use the proposed facilities until 9:30 pm on weekdays, from 8 am to 5 pm Saturdays, and completely at their own discretion on Sundays. Our residents do not relish the idea of coming home after a long work week to that kind of noise. Nor do we like the idea of having guests over for a BBQ on the weekend and having no place for our guests to park on our own streets or having to compete with the noise factor. We bought in this community because it is peaceful and quiet, especially in the evenings. We would like it to remain that way at least Friday through Sunday. You also mention that "the gym will be available to the surrounding community, churches, and youth programs". It seems wide open for a great deal of uses other than BCHS; however, I noted that our local AYSO has already been pushed out of the picture and is unable to use the fields as they had for so many years. Again, it all sounds nice until you realize the potential impact this poses to traffic, safety, and noise pollution for local residents. 3. Parking..... VPCA residents along Blue Reef Dr. do not want to share the greenbelt parking with event attendees. That could become a major problem from the Association's view as well. We know it will happen because there is already not enough parking at BCHS for some events. We also know this because AYSO families used to park there on weekends and on some weeknights when they conducted their events at the field. They parked on Blue Reef Dr. and teams sometimes used the greenbelt space for pregame warm-ups. Please remember who maintains these streets, we do [the VPCA 1.....not the city. • w 4. Traffic control and traffic safety will be a big issue. Consider this: BCHS's clearly stated goal is to increase their enrollment by more than 30% in the next few years..... and we get that. We know they want to grow. However, it will also serve to increase the number daily drivers coming and going each day, the potential number of sports being offered, the consequent practices, the potential for added events and so on.... thereby impacting the traffic, parking problems, and noise levels on a daily basis. Their recent '08-`09 Open House exemplified these very issues, as their parking overflowed the number of available spaces on the campus and lined the streets with the additional vehicles. In conclusion, It is only logical that BCHS should recognize and honor certain limitations to the size and use of the proposed gymnasium as well as the stadium and field areas. We would like the city to halt the process until a more reasonable solution can be reached that will accommodate both our community and BCHS. We would like to note that our community has appreciated the way that BCHS has beautified the school, maintained the campus, and respected the community up to this point. We would like to see that relationship continue on a positive note in the years ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of residents in the Villa Pacific Community. Stephanie Beuerlein Tr 0 9842 Effingham Dr. ." F`.r-,PK OFFIO g �, v �R 0?11'CLrRg Huntington Beach CA 92646 May 18, 2009 Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Counsel City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RE: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Dear Members: My name is Stephanie Beuerlein and I live on Effingham Dr. with my son and husband. We moved into this neighborhood two years ago because of the quiet, well kept neighborhood and open space park. My son James loves to ride his bike and skateboard through the neighborhood and park. We also enjoy walking our dog through the park and we enjoy the beautiful green belts and open space. We utilize the neighborhood and park daily. We were happy to have Brethren Christian as our neighbors because they are a small and quiet school, but we had no idea of their intentions to expand their campus and endanger our neighborhood and children. They would be doing this by increasing the traffic throughout our neighborhood all day every day. The City's staff report and negative declaration is grossly inaccurate and unfair to the residents and children of our neighborhood. The lack of research and neighborhood input in the City's staff report will greatly affect this quiet neighborhood by allowing such a dramatic increase of traffic. For example,this gymnasium will increase the traffic on our streets not only during the school year but it will also increase the traffic during the summer time when our kids are home and outside playing. If the city staff had done their research on traffic increase and affects on the community, I believe that this conflict would not be where it is right now. Please consider the concerns of our neighborhood and children. Sincerely, Stephanie Beuerlein ffCEiVED FROM Ian&Jackie Thompson A; PUBLIC RECORD TY FQ ETING 9852 Effingham Dr. OF— ��0 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 CI CLE O JOAN L.FLYNK Ci s May 17,2009 Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Counsel City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RE: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Dear Members: My name is Ian Thompson,and I live at 9852 Effingham Dr., Huntington Beach. I am writing this letter to you to oppose the Gymnasium brought forth before you by Brethren Christian School. My family has been living on Effingham Dr. for 30 years. I remember when the school site was Gisler Junior High. My family and I have no problems with Brethren Christian School being at the school site. However, we are opposed to them building an unnecessarily large gymnasium. If Brethren Christian is allowed to build such a large gymnasium, this gymnasium will bring even more traffic into the neighborhood there by making our street dangerous for our kids. As it is right now, when the school is using the football fields there is a doubling of traffic on our street. Also, when the lights are on for school functions, the lights are extremely bright and are creating a blinding effect to drivers coming up Effingham towards the school. If this gymnasium is used for non school functions this will also continue to raise the traffic on our street. In addition, if this gymnasium is used for non school functions the times and days that the traffic will increase will now be unlimited making our street even more dangerous for our kids. Please reconsider this proposal for Brethren Christian School Gymnasium,and keep our streets safe for the children of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Ian Thompson r r Kim Thompson REGENED €cR01'. Cps p PUR'I-IC REO'Oi O R 'LPL ME�9 9852 Effingham Dr. E— C� Huntington Beach,CA 92646 CITE Ia -0—F AdE ,,RNO M I,f W4N,CITY CLERK May 17,2009 Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Counsel City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RE: Brethren Christian School Gymnasium Dear Members: My name is Kim Thompson, and I live at 9852 Effingham Dr., Huntington Beach. I am writing this letter to you to oppose the Gymnasium brought forth before you by Brethren Christian School. I have lived on Effingham for 29 years. I remember back when there was no school down at the school site, and my friends and I had no problems playing in our front yards. What I have noticed, since Brethren Christian School has taken over the Gisler School Site is that it has become increasingly dangerous for kids to play in the front yards. If Brethren Christian is allowed to put in their proposed Gymnasium,this is going to increase traffic in our neighborhoods. This will also increase the traffic after school hours when the kids are home and want to be outside playing. In addition, if Brethren Christian is allowed to rent out the Gymnasium to public and private use, it is going to increase the traffic not only in the afternoon, and nights, but it will also increase traffic during the summer time. If the traffic is increased, the danger also increases. As it is right now, when I have to go to work at 8am, I have to make sure I leave an additional 15 minutes early, just so I can get out of my driveway. If you allow Brethren Christian to have this Gymnasium and unrestricted use of it, this will make it even worse for homeowners to get in and out of their own homes. Let me conclude this letter with a question for you: What would you do if your neighborhood traffic was double every night, every weekend all year round? Would you rather have your children sitting in front of a television all day or outside playing and running around? Please reconsider this proposal for Brethren Christian School Gymnasium,and keep our streets safe for the children of the neighborhood. It would be nice to have kids playing outside, rather than in the house watching television or playing video game. Sincerely, Kim Thompson f YE R AS, FOR 1 �� d� OF d — �� '7dxdR E PLYNN,CITY CLERIC From Dennis and Shirley Bowman 21352 Baycrest Circle Huntington Beach,CA, 92646 714-849-1729 We live in Villa Pacific Homeowners Association and appeal the planning commission approval of negative declaration no. 08-018/conditional use permit no. 08-052 We feel as residents and tax payers in Huntington Beach that the city council should rethink there acceptance of there staffs decision to approve with out limitation Brethren Christian school Gymnasium. Regular schools within Huntington Beach would never be allowed to do what the Brethren Christian is planning. There has been litigation against Huntington Beach which Huntington Beach lost in the courts with similar issues occurred. I do not want to see our taxes spent to defend litigation. There is traffic considerations and safety and parking that need to be rethought With the size of the the gym and 1,526 people able to attend events - How could city staff not see there is not enough existing parking at Brethren and the problems that will come in large numbers of people using our streets. We in Villa Pacific Homeowners Association have to maintain our own streets and so not want additional safety problems in our community. J ennis Bowman Shirley Bo an 5/18/2009 a 1 RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR O OF CITY CLERK OFFICE JOAN L,MANN,CITY CLERK FROM DENNIS AND SHIRLEY BOWMAN --- RESIDANTS AND HUNTINGTON BEACH TAX PAYERS AT 21352 BAYCREST CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA., 92646 5/18/2009 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet City Staff Report Rebuttal Gymnasium Approx. 27,000 sq. ft. 27,526 Gymnasium capacity: 625 1,526 Gymnasium 22,080 at 15 sq. ft. Spectators with no calculation As shown on submitted per person. for teams, coaches, venders, or construction documents Support 5,446 at 100 sq. ft. per support staff. Construction person documents shows bleachers that will seat 1,120 spectators Required Parking for gymnasium 209 508 at 3 passengers per car Hours of use for gymnasium Monday trough Friday 7:00 am to 9:30 pm and on weekends Multi-purpose soccer field 624 720 bleachers Spectators Add players, cheer, band, coaches, trainers, venders, support staff and sideline spectators you have a potential of 1497 Required Parking for Multi- None Shown 499 purpose soccer field at 3 passengers per car Prior use by school football Program has already begun in The high school football team the existing lighted fields practice ends at 3:30 pm and the 7-8 grade football team practice starts at 3:30 pm and ends at 5:30 pm. The five Friday night varsity football games were held without City approval. Existing lighted fields Used by A.Y.S.O. and Sea View 70 ft. high lights were installed Little League and others youth around 1985 and approved by groups for 20 years the State Architect without a public hearing or input from the neighborhoods. The neighbors have complained for years regarding these lights. 1 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet Conditional Use Permits (CUP) Gisler middle school 860 This is a neighborhood school students site. The City's Zoning and 1998 CUP allowing 500 junior Subdivision Ordinance requilts high and high school students. the design, location, and 2000 CUP allowing 720 students operation be compatible with junior high and high school adjoining properties in the area. students and did not explicitly It is requires findings that the include outdoor activities. proposed use will not be detrimental to general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. All high school sports activities have been held off site with the issuance of the 2000 CUP. The proposed expansion and bringing the night time high school sports activities on site and opening the facilities to outside use will be detrimental to the general welfare and value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Applicable Codes and General Complies with applicable Codes Does not comply with parking Plan and General Plan. requirements for occupancy loads. 2 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet Planning Commission Approval Majority of neighborhood'\., The major concern of the concerns are a result of existing neighborhoods is the increase of use of the fields for community traffic that will endanger the based sports groups. lives of our children and destroy the quality of our lives. Traffic impacts will be This will not limit the increased minimized by not overlapping traffic which is our concern. events. The lights will be regulated by The HB School District tells us BCHS under new lease that BCHS has always been able agreement. to regulate the lights. Football games to start by 6:30 The football field is 20 ft. away pm. Band to stop by 9:00 pm. from the neighboring homes with children that go to bed before 9:00 pm. Field lighting is not to glare on You cannot prevent the lights adjacent properties. from lighting up the adjacent properties that are 10 ft. away. The City's Environmental Board recommended that the illumination problems on local residents and energy use be discussed in full detail. No school activities within the That leaves 312 days a year the gymnasium and/or fields on gym and/or fields can be used for Sunday other non-school uses. Land Use Compatibility Compatible with surrounding The surrounding land use is land use. residential where property owners expect to have peace and quiet in the evenings and on weekends. Gymnasium and football fields There are no 27,526 sq. ft. are allowed. gymnasiums or lighted football fields with permanent bleachers 20 ft. away from adjacent single family residences or in any other residential neighborhoods. Other school sites have similar The gyms in the Ocean View amenities within the City that are District are 16,000— 18,000 sq. surrounded by residential uses. ft. Can only be used by the students. Can only be used M— 3 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet F and not beyond 6:00 pm. There are no permanent bleachers, score boards, or night time football games. The site is currently provided These lights were placed without with lighted fields. a public hearing and have been an issue for the neighbors for sense they were installed. 01 The gymnasium is designed to The vertical and horizontal -fi A l, be compatible with the offsets are only 6 inches. The surrounding neighborhood by City's Design Guidelines say providing vertical and horizontal landscaping used for buffering building offsets and landscaping. should be intensified. There is no _ landscaping adjacent to the building on the East and North sides. There is no vertical landscaping adjacent to the building on the West. And there is only 3 ft. of onsite landscaping adjacent to the building on the South. The gymnasium and football The football field is only 20 ft. fields are sited so as to provide from a single family home were the greatest amount of distance a family with three young between the proposed facilities children live. The 22 ft. high by and surrounding residential uses. 95 ft. long permanent bleachers are only 150 ft. from the single family homes with young children. The new gym and expanded There are no adequate sound activities will be adequately barriers between the football buffered and controlled. field and adjacent residential structures. It would take a sound wall over 20 ft. high. The proposed sports facilities The school site was operated as a and activities are similar in public middle school for 17 nature to the activities years. Was vacant for 12 years. historically and presently BCHS has occupied the site for occurring on the site. 10 years with all high school sporting events being held offsite. Youth sporting groups have used the site with no permanent bleachers, score board, PA system or bands. 4of7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet '!. The gymnasium is a tilt-up The largest townhome structures concrete structure. to the South is 132 ft. long and The 34 ft. high gym is similar in 20 to 27 ft. tall, with vertical and height to surrounding multi- horizontal offsets of 12 to 48 family structures. inches with mansard roofs. The use of box like structures are discouraged in the City's design guidelines. Unarticulated building facades over 100 ft. are not allowed. The City's Environmental Board suggest the overall building energy profile be reviewed. F The visual and physical scale The physical scale and character of and character is compatible with single family residential -� � the surrounding neighborhood. structures to the East, West and ... N North have an approximate { footprint of 2,000 s£, are 20 to 25 feet tall, with stucco, siding, ON ►„ and masonry exteriors, pitched i f -- roofs and incorporate predominantly single story elements. The largest townhome structures ti to the South has a building footprint of approximately 3,960 sq. ft., is 20 to 27 ft. tall, with stucco, siding and masonry exteriors, with mansard and flat roofs. t The smaller townhome structures to the South has a building footprint of approximately 3,330 sq. ft., is 20 to 27 ft. tall, with stucco, siding, and masonry exteriors, with mansard and flat roofs. The building is designed and The General Plan, Land Use constructed of common materials Elements and Design Guidelines consistent with schools say the design throughout the city in surrounding residential areas. 100 spectators and participants can use the gym during use of the football field. 5 of 7 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet Strategic Plan Goal Create a plan for the use of This school site is located on the surplus school property to ensure interior of a residential compatible uses within the neighborhood where its access is surrounding neighborhoods that by interior residential streets. meet community needs. Children, teens, adults and seniors ride there bicycles, walk, and life saving emergency vehicles require unobstructed access on these streets. The proposed expansion of the use of this school site is not compatible with these neighborhoods. Traffic Impacts The traffic will not significantly Small children, teens, adults and impact traffic flows in the senior citizens live on surrounding local streets. Effingham, Strathmore and Bluefield and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Children, teens, adults and senior citizens use the streets to ride bicycles and walk during the, so called, off peak hours and require access of life threatening emergency vehicles. There is no report that addresses the cumulative impact of the traffic flow, i.e., residents, school, sporting events, emergency vehicles and the impact on the quality of life for residents of the neighborhoods. The 2000 traffic report was The updated report does not updated for the proposed address the legal occupancy of addition of the gymnasium. 1,526 of the gymnasium, the combined use of the streets, nor the site provide parking for the 509 vehicles. The peak traffic demand will be At three passengers per vehicle, 7:30 am and 8:05 am with 270 the peak traffic for the vehicles. gymnasium alone would be 509 vehicles. And the site does not provide parking for 509 or 270 vehicles. During an open house on 4/2/09 there were 285 cars parked in the City parking lot and onsite. The proposed parking 6 of 7 9 Brethren Christian 2009 Proposed Expansion Fact Sheet 1 � 1 will be reduced 28 including all of the City parking lot. During the 2008 Friday night football games the City lot and the school site were full and cars were park four blocks away. The City's Environmental Board requested that a significant impact be identified and real life assumptions be used for a variety of event scenarios to determine a realistic estimate of the total spaces required. There is a potential for 1,314 cars per day, six days a week, 12 months a year. See attached, Potential Unrestricted Traffic and Use of Brethren Christian Proposed Expansion. The surrounding local streets This is 17 cars per minute. It capacity is 1000 vehicle trips per takes approximately one minute hour with no impact on traffic to drive from the site at 25 MPH flows. and exit onto Atlanta or Brookhurst. At one car per minute exiting on Effingham and Strathmore it would take 4 hr. and 24 min. for 509 vehicles to exit and 2 hr. and 25 min. for 270 vehicles. A major event in the gymnasium The report does not calculate the or on the field will generate maximum capacity of the approximately 228 trips. gymnasium or the field. Traffic is to be monitored to It is the added traffic load and regulate entering and exiting the speeds of the vehicles on the site during evening football residential streets that will create games with a six month review. an unsafe condition for the neighborhoods. 7 of 7 0M '"CORD I E �' Cs ' CI.. ETM ERK OFFICE Honorable Huntington Beach City Council, �� ��COY CLERK May 18, 2009 My name is Larry Waterhouse and I have lived on Indigo Circle next to the school site since 1987. 1 grew up in Huntington Beach and attended Edison High which is on 20+acres, has a student body of 2600, a gym of 18,000 square feet and no on site Varsity football games or lighting. I am speaking about the conditional use permit findings as they relate to current Zoning Ordinance, specifically Chapter 241, section 02, subsection A. 1.Which covers "all conditional use permits"and reads "The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood;". Regarding outdoor noise, the staff report claims this site CUP "is not substantially different than the type of activities that currently occur at the site with regard to noise generation."For the record there is no amplified sound, marching band, or stadium seating allowed at this site after school hours. Additionally, there is no"similar site" in the City of Huntington Beach located inside a residential housing tract that allows these specific after school uses. The noise is not"intermittent"as is stated in the report. There is hardly a break from the beginning of the game to the end. Either an announcer is speaking, a band playing, or fans cheering. There is no lull in the noise as in baseball or soccer and now the fans will be elevated above the walls for more sound projection. Only five football games are referenced in the CUP yet BC has stated that there will be 6-7 this coming season. There is the potential to have many more events if no restrictions are placed. The Staff Summary Report claims"No net increase in vehicle trips."How is that possible when an additional 625 people attend a night event plus another 99 people in the gym?I'm not an engineer or planner but with additional use come people and vehicles which are additional vehicles to what the site currently creates. This is 100%increase by my estimation. From a risk management perspective you are taking a high risk group of drivers (teen agers and young adults as rated by the insurance industry)and doubling their trips down our streets. This is "detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity". Our group has attempted to mitigate the items most negative to the residents but have been offered nothing in return. Yesterday we were invited to a meeting by mailer from BC and were told we would be discussing issues and they would share restrictions they have proposed or put in place. However, at the meeting their representative told us he would not share them all until the meeting tonight. This tactic was misleading and demonstrates a lack of cooperation. Our group has always been totally frank and honest with all representatives of BC and City Staff. We expect the same in return, as would you. In closing, I ask that your decision be based on what-ou would request or accept as restrictions if you were the family that lived 40' away from the goal post and had three kids under the age of four. Your decision will affect this neighborhood and other neighborhoods like it significantly. We have submitted 380 signatures of this neighborhood's residents who are asking you to do the same. Granting of this permit without reasonable and consensual restrictions will open the door for other sites to apply for the same conditions and create the same problems for other residents and City Staff. Not to mention litigation. Larry Waterhouse 21101 Indigo Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 G'reetings, Neighbors! As you may know, Brethren Christian's application to build a gym on Its campus will, be reviewed by the city council on Monday, May 18, 2009. But first, on Sunday, May 17, 2009, Brethren Christian would like L_to invite interested neighbors to discuss concerns with our school board and administrators. Members of the City Council and City Planners will also be present. WHO: A You Ali are welcome. WHAT.- Discuss issues and concerns regarding the building of a gym. The school will present the list of restrictions imposed by the planning commission as well as other voluntary mitigating actions that have been taken to date. WHERE: Brethren Christian Jr. & Sr. High School 21141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach Drama room - (south side of campus) (714) 962-6617 WHEM: Sunday, May 17, at 3:00 pm. Also, additional sign-ups for the Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Committee will be taken. Hope to see you there! Brethren Christian Board of Directors school board(cbmai 1.bchs.net May 18, 2009 RECEIVE(? FROM �• ��, AS PUBLIC RE C FOR OEIMCIL MEETING - Mayor Keith Bohr OF 5-1 - CITY CLERIC OFFICE " Mayor Pro Tem Cathy Green ,LOAM L.FLYNN.CITY CLERK Joe Carchio, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Devin Dwyer, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Don Hansen, Council Member Re: Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) Dear Huntington Beach City Council, I have lived on Strathmoor Lane, one house in from Atlanta Avenue for thirty five years. The traffic entering and leaving my tract has increased significantly since Brethren Christian High School started leasing the old Gisler Middle School site. Not only do we have to patiently cope with the excessive amount of traffic to and from the Brethren school, we also have to deal with more noise, speeding,reckless driving, and accidents. This past Fall of 2008, I personally witnessed an adolescent driver completely spin out of control with his car as he turned right at an unsafe speed, onto Strathmoor Lane from Atlanta Avenue. The young driver then drove down and turned into the school parking lot. The Huntington Beach Police where notified of the incident. The most recent accident occurred on April 27, 2009, between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. (when Brethren's school day ends). When my mother heard the accident from inside our house, she went out front and saw that a car had apparently lost control, crashed into and knocked down the block wall across Atlanta Avenue while turning left off of Strathmoor Lane. Two weeks ago my mother witnessed reckless teenage driving on May 8,2009, at approximately 5:30 p.m. The excessive honking of car horns had caught her attention while she was gardening in our front yard. As she watched three cars head North on Strathmoor Lane towards Atlanta Avenue, the middle of the three cars swerved around the car in front of him into the oncoming traffic lane, and accelerated to exceed the lead car. The adult driver of the last of the three cars stopped in front of my house,visibly upset, and profusely apologized to my mother and promised she would notify the Principle(of Brethren Christian High School) of the incident. I am now pleading to each of you. PLEASE consider what is fair to the immediate local residents of this neighborhood. Please truly try to visualize the negative impact this gymnasium will add to the families who live here. Developing this gymnasium in the middle of our housing tract will dramatically increase the frequency of our current issues and our concerns. The Gisler Middle School site was not designed to accommodate a High School. If this gymnasium is built,the traffic will increase and it will continue to elevate the negative impact that we are already experiencing on our quality of life by essentially turning our streets within our residential tract into a commercial thoroughfare. I hope that each of you can appreciate the sacrifice and contribution the immediate residents have already made to our community since Brethren Christian High School moved into our neighborhood. This is our last chance to maintain what is remaining of our somewhat safe and quiet neighborhood. Please defend our quality of life and our rights as proud citizens of Huntington Beach. Respectfully, j Q-D Jennifercival 21022 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 (714) 943-7728 Testimony of Richard Huizenga, residing at Richmond Circle to the City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009: 1 want to go on record that I am opposed to proposed Erethern Christian High school Expansion. Facts regarding this expansion are quite clear and evident that such an expansion is a detriment to our quality and safety liability of our neighborhood. It is my opinion, this proposed expansion is a travesty of our Huntington Beach's Planning Commission and our Huntington Beach's City council's "lack of due diligence". y 2 rf 14 RECEIVED FROM �l� AS PUBLIC RECOR R COUNCIL MEE —/ —O CITY CLERK OFFICE JOAN La FLYNN,C17Y CLERK Testimony of Debbie Schumann to The City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009 My name is Debbie Schumann and I am a 39 year resident of Huntington Beach. I have been a home owner in the Gisler neighborhood for over 10 years on Richmond Circle. I am a stay at home mom and an AYSO mother of 2: I was also a huge school supporter up until this "proposed" site expansion. I am up here tonight speaking out against Brethren Christian's proposed expansion to the campus. I have many reasons why-I feet.so strongly against this. Let me give you, of what I feel are 22 of the most beautiful reasons for wanting to keep my streets safe from more traffic... Allison -age 5- Megan-age 8 Kaden age 8 Clay-age 6 Kai -age 1 Sophie -age 7 Tatum-age 4 Kalia -,age.8 Kiana,-age 11 Makena-age 10 Tayden age 1 Michael - age 9 Joey-age 11 Wylie -age 4 Alina-age 1 Samantha - age 8 Ella-age 6 Nicole-age 9 David -age 12 Mckenna-age 6 Carter -age 9 Miles -age 10 These names that I have read to you are just the children that reside on two streets, under the age of 12. This neighborhood is already busy enough with traffic. Passing the schools proposed expansion will not only make our quiet streets noisier but they will also increase the chances of one of these beautiful children getting hurt by the substantial increase in traffic. I am not willing to take that risk on any of their lives... Are you? RECEIVED FROM, As pUSUC RECORD FOR CO?NCIOM OF 7 CI CLTY ERIC�3FFICE JOAN L.M_YNN,CITY CLERK +.fir g..+' ,� '�`�.� .��° e'�P ':�-p �A��""`�•`. - ae �� .. 9- �11`• �; .x.� -.i�tie �iu�- 'j� E � 1 ID ' ZZ s RECEIVED FROM �� AS PUBLIC RECORD R . , !�ME IWWG CITY CLERIC OFFICE Ff o %IOM Lp Fi WJN,CITY CLERK May 18, 2009 To: Huntington Beach, City Council From: Ed Pang 21201 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Phone: (714) 964-4729 Email: edpang@earthlink.net Subject: Testimony of Edmund K Pang, to the City of Huntington Beach City Council, May 18, 2009 Dear Huntington Beach City Council Member, I trust that you represent the safety and security of the neighborhoods of Huntington Beach and secure the best interests of the use and spending of the Huntington Beach City tax dollars. I am writing this letter to you in hopes of gaining your support in opposition to the Brethren Christian High School expansion project to build a gymnasium. I live within 150 feet of Brethren Christian school on Richmond Circle, with the existing Gisler school literally in my back yard. I am married and I have four children and chose to live in Huntington Beach because of its safety and security for my family. During the school day, I notice a significant increase of traffic coming down Strathmoore from Atlanta and Effingham from Brookhurst. My concern is that this traffic will increase even more when the Gymnasium is built as part of the Brethren Christian Expansion Project. Additionally,because of no limitations in use, this traffic could be up to 7 days a week, throughout the evenings, not only on the school days. I believe that the city council is negligent if they allow the expansion project to continue. I believe that the data used and found in the staff report that the City Council has used to base their current findings is flawed. There is significant underestimation of the traffic flow, traffic increase, parking accommodations, environmental and neighborhood impact. The increase in traffic and parking will significantly impact the neighborhood surroundings, families, and public safety. I become emotional when I realize that there is a significant increase in the likelihood of an accident within my neighborhood as a result of the increase of traffic and inappropriate parking accommodations. To my knowledge, this is the only high school within Huntington Beach, internal to a neighborhood. The fact that Brethren Christian is proposing to build a gymnasium that is approximately 30% larger then Edison High School is unthinkable. At least schools like Edison High School and Fountain Valley High School have major street, adequate 5/18/2009 Page 1 of 2 parking, and traffic signals to control adequate access to the High School. Your allowance that would approve Brethren Christian High School to have their 27,000 Sq Ft gymnasium would allow 30%more traffic to access their facility than what would typically access Edison High School Gymnasium,but without the use of traffic signals or adequate parking. In the event that an accident occurs, where the city is found negligent due to the flawed data within the staff report, I am concerned that city tax dollars would be used for settlements and liabilities that could have otherwise been avoided. I would feel satisfied if the city council would take personal liability for accidents if found a direct result of the increased traffic or inadequate parking as a result of the gymnasium. Please understand that I would support a neighborhood gymnasium at Brethren Christian High School only if it was appropriately designed and compatible to the neighborhood where traffic flow and parking were considered into the appropriate sizing the of the gymnasium. When you consider approving this 27,000 Sq Ft gymnasium expansion project for Brethren Christian High School,the real question is, would you want it literally, in your backyard? Sincerely, Ed Pang 21201 Richmond Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Phone: (714) 964-4729 Email: edpang@earthlink.net 5/18/2009 Page 2 of 2 TIMOTHY DOWELL (714)968-3146 21132 LOCKHAVEN CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92646 • RECEIVED FROM � AS PUBLIC RE �F'1R�C L BEET Honorable City Counsel OF Huntington Beach, California CITY CLERK OFFI E L FLY.,�N,CITY CLERIC Dear Counsel Member We moved into our current house at 21132 Lockhaven Circle,Huntington Beach 25 years ago on Christmas Eve.We have added on to the house. We have had wonderful gatherings. We have good neighbors,feels like a small town.My wife has battled Breast cancer,and is a survivor. We plan to stay here when I retire next year. We raised two daughters,who both went through the Huntington Beach School system,who have gone on to become responsible productive members of society.We all have participated in many community activities.We really enjoy the quality of life we have in Huntington Beach and specifically in our neighborhood. We know this quality of life is only possible because of the leadership of the City Counsels that have had the vision to make this City one of the best places to live in the world today. I work in Los Angeles I choose to live in Huntington Beach for the quality of life I find here. This quality of life is now threatened by the possible building of a mega"gym" (business)in the middle of our quite peaceful neighborhood. The"gym"would be larger then the current high schools in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley on main streets with adequate traffic flow and parking. The Project has not been sufficiently vetted by the Planning Commission Staff.There are currently a little over 400 students, 75 live in Huntington Beach. We who live in the neighborhood are your constituency,not the people driving in from surrounding cities dropping there kids off-at this school. The mega "gym"would have the capacity to hold over 1,500 people,which leads me to believe it is being built for other purposes.They have not.studied-the impact this will have on our neighborhood. They are proposing to approve a project that does not follow City regulations with regards to noise,traffic;or parking. They are not placing any restrictions as far as hours or days the proposed mega"gym"may be used,exposing us to major events on the weekends and into the night. How does this enhance the Iocal community?To allow this to.be built-is just wrong. I strongly urge you to stop this now. r~ Sincerely, rr '� nothy, Dq ,ell 21132 Loci€hiaven Circle Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 { My name is Alicia Waterhouse and I have been a homeowner at 21101 Indigo Circle(North side of Gisler site,adjacent the fields)for approximately 22 years. I believe the proposed expansions at the Gisler Junior High School site will have significant negative impacts on the neighborhoods surrounding the campus. I am opposed to this project. The staff report contains a petition with 370+signatures opposing this project.Those signatures represent only residents from the surrounding neighborhoods. 95%of the residents we contacted signed this petition.All but 8 streets in the surrounding area are represented on this petition. My primary concerns include: 1. The increase in traffic,parking&safety issues related to additional"events"at an already over utilized facility.With this expansion,it is possible that we could see events at this site 7 days a week,from 8:00am-9:30pm. Along,with all these"new"events come additional traffic and safety issues. I found it interesting that BCHS only mentioned 10 boys'basketball games in the gym when they presented to the planning commission. If you take into account the current(2008-2009)schedule for boys&girls basketball and volleyball,there are potentially 50+evening or Saturday events during the school year.They also never mentioned the 3 "multi-day tournaments"BCHS has hosted in the past. The unrestricted use of the facilities by outside organizations would only add to the traffic and safety issues. If BCHS rents out the facilities,it raises the ethical issue of BCHS making the site a for-profit operation,increasing utilization and impacts to the neighborhood in order to offset BCHS operating cost. 2. The night-time football games(smith marching band and amplified announcing)and the construction of elevated"stadium"style bleachers for 600+fans at an interior residential site. Imagine trying to put a 4 year old to bed at B:OOpm when there are 600+ screaming fans,a marching band and a football game going on within 20 yards of their bedroom window? When will the needs of the neighborhood children and families be taken into consideration?Night time football games with amplified announcing are a burden we should not have to endure. It is inappropriate to build a stadium inside a residential neighborhood.To my knowledge,there is no other location in the City with a football stadium inside a residential neighborhood. I also find it interesting that BCHS held 5 night games at this location in 2008,prior to the approval of the CUP. Would that not be a violation of the CUP?During the planning commission meeting,the applicant even apologized for the"impact the games had on the neighborhood regarding traffic and parking". He stated"they had not anticipated such high attendance for the games". If they did not anticipate the high attendance for the football games,might we also expect they will have exceptionally high and unexpected attendonce for other events at BCHS?There are also no restrictions as to RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC REC6R __R_OOU MEETING EE ING CITY CLERK OFFICE JCAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERK how manyfootbal.1 games that may be held ot this location. Can we expect to have football games for other organizationsot this site every night of the week? 3. This design and construction is incompatible with the surrounding residential Members of the planning commission even expressed their disappointment in the lack of"design and aesthetics". I believe one commissioner even stated"it was ugW.The construction of this gymnasium will forever change the character of our quiet residential neighborhood. Once itis built vxe can't turn back. I am opposed to the overexpansion,overutilization and development of a "Sports Complex-like facility"in the middle ofrny residential neighborhood. The needs of the Brethren Christian High athletics programs should not take priority over the needs of the children and families residing inthe surrounding neighborhoods. |amn asking you to either deny this conditional use permit,orplace sufficient restrictions to mitigate the concerns mf the neighbors. Thank you. RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECORD I EEW OFU CITY CLERK FFIC Site Requirement for grades nine through twelve ,l'OANL.FLYN6.9,CITY CLERK Enrollment Enrollment 401 to 600 601 to 800 Gisler Site Useable Acres Useable Acres Area Used Required Required Physical Education 15.6 17.6 Buildings and Grounds 4.0 5.1 Parking and Roads 3.6 4.4 Total Acres 23.2 27.1 14 *Note If Field area L, Baseball Field, includes bleachers and dugouts,the site should be increased 0.3 acres If Field area M, Football Field and Track, includes a stadium,the site should be increased 1.7 acres If the school program includes aquatics and requires both swimming and diving pools, the site should be increased 0.6 acres Source: Guide to School Site Analysis and Development-2000 Edition .e GISLER SITE USE TABLE Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Sunrise 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 Sunset 8:00 9:00 10:00 Legend Hours of Use Day Light Hours Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 231 Page 10 of 20 231.06 Joint Use Parking In the event that two (2) or more uses occupy the same building, lot or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sure of each individual use computed separately except as provided in this section. (3334-6/97) The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in the total number of required spaces as part of the entitlement for the use or uses, or by conditional use permit when no other entitlement is required, when the applicant can demonstrate that the various uses have divergent needs in terms of daytime versus nighttime hours or weekday versus weekend hours. Such joint use approvals shall be subject to the following: (3334-6/97) 1. The maximum distance between the building or use and the nearest point of the parking spaces or parking facility shall be 250 feet; and (3334-6/97) 2. There shall be no conflict in the operating hours based on parking space requirements for the different uses on the parcel; and (3334-6/97) 3. Evidence of an agreement for such joint use shall be provided by proper legal instrument, approved as to form by the City Attorney. The instrument shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permit and/or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (3334-6/97) EXG. IAL4G %4 BLU EFIELD DR ------ FULL SIZE SOCCER F O ICull, g p 4�g � � • I I ...:.:_-i-1i:.:: :::.-5:_:.._.:.-.:.. ::�::':";amau::, .. I ,OrK/w.+A.D >,p..R �ay rw wI SHORT SIDEI ..:.... ........:..._........:-......- ;..•._:.».�.."." ..... f _ ............_....._. _... - - - I a SGL'CER3:�•'�:-;..........�;e-;; _......... ......... I co z BASEBALL __.._... -- - _......:..,�:_.._-.. .D.� FULL I E :..::..: Z — --- --- i cc — II 1 wut' It O EFF/NGHAM DR O Ttff . . ..x.. II PROPOSED GYMNASIUM T------ — --- 21.0055F. ll I 41Lt JiJ L LI .Y..r rw.... SCE EASEMENT GREEN BELT SCE EASEMENT GREEN BELT •.D y, rK w .� WWK, .bo.., O ® �(IJY.CP'•;M ,n �~ ^Y°,>'LD,WDM n,J ®r,w ouY� e e�vo7. ,o,K iaYaD.rY Wt�`R: IYd to r.•wd w�w.a s M su„n EXISTING °. •�+`eNvs nu PAPoC - SITE PLAN *-pD 1 Oil � .8, 4,.r .,-xF �a°[�'�P' -e -� � r- � a ��"L 7 r• - -n6-,gg`k�se. "' .,� -��'� *>.. � ,�.�La" "^,L=ty 5g, £�i -o r'�tw .br „irk` it c r ink : w MIR i• } '� x'; rFt a .fir .��� , ..r•� ?.�___..._. .,.., �,eaf- -'.... -..�.ram..___..___....... � ........ - ..._ ... ,-, �,..w __ _�3's,_..,.._,.._,,��.o.�.,_..=�. .a _fix. M �"`""`-•'Fed' ,1 e 3, ��- ��� � � ��� ,� �t ���.'' - - � � a .n"�'�r; f�rt�&mot�y '� r'' � '* '� .� -�' �.�•+'� ��. , • n 'Sf r-'�•i h'.: 'fit - '� ,r "e w, %, 1§ 1 1 RIC -n- AV 00 On r ��.��R d��--� _ tea"'- .._,:..e..�...._ _".��..•...,,�-:is""'_,�.._`_.;..�.��t._.c $ �iF .N WNR a Aie_d� 4 �• � ^t . v;� a .ry f^ ppad -� � jjp ,a`' „f,'L, •. �` , r�,{.,.<, "�# y YYrs `. ,.„ # 1t t�Y. +�.� .r�}i f, 'J •' f oME � tnllU -A,�}�A�' - F`m.��haP '� � ��tct`ram-:.+1�;�',�. �"�•�, 'z��. ,`�: �R� s ), �`x.. �"�y _•I�%` lill��+",n.�,^,,,� 5 .tom' nay' ` - -. .=�stapll_ '�''�`'r' 1 „,�i . ., �'e: �."F •x. �a 1 .,' i�,wa >`z"rl�t7, c � ..'r`z� r -"*L'.,.,,:' i '� I 4 �'=' ^ � r. '� ° i}{„f J,,°. Z z'a �' 4»'S - c*a,^, •y,� at.� �" 4 s . _ y' ..� F i.'1't cs�++�-�',A..Ir _ry ..:.-s;4+�.^`,•�.r—.l-:..�-+,f �. ��'8. - f '� y ��Y,'�^ �7 A di zZ qv Ze AL ell s t ^ 5"yp. �'*0 ) � ti,� zi�o� �,;z " L, � 5 •� �>rJ w _ 3 ,�. •�s 4 � r z '� •t 'r - •,�. •� ors `� KG����' ',� �t�` '� { 3 `n r 7 �z �. •4;* . A, a _ a� - �_c�.wr:A _,? _....�I� h: �•r, I 2I'c �'�}° yes afi;��a�s� �= �': �-�ax �' � H yyyy��'�■tt � 2��� Y .�'.•:,� ti: �'S1w j ? ate` i At � � I lam• d pp I NEIGHBORS FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY MARCH 22,2009 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I.GOALS:TO PROVIDE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN&RESIDENTSAND TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. II.ISSUE.THE RECENTLY APPROVED"NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,000 SQ.FOOT GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELD WITH BLEACHERSAT THE BRETHERN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SITE. (NEGATIVEDECLARAT(ONNO.08-018/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-052) III.NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS INCLUDE: 1.THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES WILL INCREASE EXISTING SAFETY,TRAFFIC,PARKING AND NOISE ISSUES. 2.THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FRIDAYNIGHTFOOTSALL GAMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERMANENT BLEACHER STRUCTURE. 3.THE CUP(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)WAS APPROVED BYTHE PLANNING COMMISSION USING A"NEGATIVE DECLARATION INSTEAD OF AN EIR(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT).THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILITIES,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN WERE NOT p n IMPARTIALLY EVALUATED. c=m 4.THE ARCH ITECTUAL DESIGN IS NOT COMPATIABLE WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. � �r- S.PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES. a c' 00 1-� m� YOUR SIGNA TURF ON THIS PETITION RECORDS YOUR OPPOSITION TO NEGATIVE DECLARA T/ON NO.OS-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.OS-052 AND R QUESTS THE 02 FOLLO WIN GACTIONS FROM THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: m IV. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: 0� 1.WE,THE CONCERNED RESIDENTSOF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING BRETHERN CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,PETITION THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL AND REVIEWTHE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERM/T m N0.08-OS2. AS PART OF COUNCILS REVIEW,WE REQUEST THE COMPLETION OF AN EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING TRAFFIC& SAFETY,PARKING,NOISE,AIR QUALITY,THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE FACILTIES INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,AND THE ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN COMPATIBILITYWITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. m 2.WE PETITION THE CITY TO EITHERDENY THE EXISTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-018&CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.08-OS2,OR ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS BY PLACING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATING TO USE OF THE GYMNASIUM AND FOOTBALL FIELDS.NAMELY, THE USE OF THESE FACILITIESSHOULD BE RESTRICTEDTO SCHS EVENTS ONLY(NO OUTSIDE TEAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS).ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED ONINDOOROR OUTDOOR EVENTS HELD AT BCHS,LIMITING THE NUMBER OF EVENTSALLOWED PER YEAR AND ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THEINTERIOROF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME ADDRESS SIGIYATU E& DATE A,87S�00A— mo�lia-ktmJ 7- 01 L � L -t o s Pc c, , `i oq ,��/ ext ,� Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:36 PM To: Stephenson, Johanna Cc: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Brethren Christian Gym Attachments: Brethren Christian Gym.doc; ATT246940.txt '11D Brethren Christian ATT246940.bct Gym.doc(38... (278 B) -----Original Message----- From: Deanna Miller [mailto:dmcolor@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: nfSQHB@gmail.com Subject: Brethren Christian Gym Please find the attached letter in regards to the proposed Gym located at Brethren Christian. Kindly, Deanna Miller Resident of impacted neighborhood 21212 Binghampton Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 � zoouingx^mptooCircle ^ Huntington Beach,c^pzo^o � Surf City um.x. AXR, Eli— May 27,2009 Huntington Beach City Council To All: Thank you for taking time to read my letter. On the subject of Brethren Christian building u gym,| would like for you to please consider myperspective. Iumu resident o[the neighborhood adjacent ro the school. I live oo the comer of Effingham and Bin&hompton. |have been living in this neighborhood for four years. I have been a Huntington Beach resident for over 10 years. Up until last fall,the property,(Brethren Christian), located at the end Effingham and Strathmoor had essentially gone unnoticed byme. However,once the football games started,l began to take notice. This is primarily due to the change infio|d lighting and traffic increase.The field lights became brighter or further reaching;however you want to define their'annoyance'. The light from the field was reaching, and still does, into the second stories of homes three streets away. Bleachers and u xoozebourJ were also erected and with these additions came unincrease in people. Lots of people io ^ ' ` |vts� �fcuroc��u1in�lotoof�nfDo VVith�ufOocun�opo�dcro VV�hspeeders unsafe cnndhdonuhave � � "'becomebncrouaed. On game nights,the two main streets ofmy neighborhood,Effingham and -Strathmore were uiV0%capacity with parked cars. I understand that Effingham and Strathmore are public,streets.However,our situation is unique in that the people parking their cars in our neighborhood for a Brethren event have no relationship with any of our residents. The result has been beer bottles and increased noise tuuo unacceptable hour oo � uFriday night. Please take umoment to consider the idea of beer bottles being left in front of your of million dollar home located ivau interior tract. This was not u one time occurrence. Nottool,long after the football games commenced, I was informed byu neighbor that Brethren ' Christian was going to build a gym.Fortunately my neighbor also informed me that Brethren was "going 10 invite the neighbors to discuss the project. l participated indemocdog. |t was clearly stated that Brethren's intention was to rent the gym to other parties for profit. Kevin, 'The Applicant', and the builder, specifically said, "money made from renting the gym was necessary to afford the psojoot." I could not believe ng'ears. Brethren was already impacting ng'neighborhood negatively with football games and now they wanted iobui|dagymKxthoirbuaketbal|und volleyball games and rent b out for additional usage to generate funds? Concerned by the negative impact o[u'gym for rent' in the center ofmy neighborhood,l stood up and asked'The/\ppliounr`, "What is in this for me,the resident?" He responded"Absolutely nothing". I am concerned about how a gym for the school and for rent will affect my neighborhood with increased traffic, speeders and unsafe conditions. The new lights and the bleachers have already proven no have u negative impact with oaffioand trash. Brethren has not been a good neighbor tothis neighborhood. There was uo notice W the neighbors about the lights,the bleachers, m the increase truffio. They claimed there was u notice about the meeting to discuss the gym but l never received it. i consider myself tobcon active and aware member nfoyneighborhood. Tohu told that there io 'absolutely nothing' iuk for the residents ofmy neighborhood,l was appalled u1 the lack of compassion for the homeowners and residents who will be forced to accept this GIANT gym and all the impacts that b will bring. S more traffic inmyneighborhood. From my very oc9abvo impact on our nnigh6nd � mnd� Please,as " ^ ^ ° . - . . . . , ^ ^ ^ " ^ ^ ^ ^ , , " ^ ^ ^ *�� May 27, 2009 Page 2 representative, consider my perspective on this matter. Thank you again for taking the time to read my concerns as a member of this community. Sincerely Huntington Beach Resident, Deanna Miller Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.comj Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:06 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 957 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Complaint Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Lisa Kolby Description: lkolbly@miles-chen.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Kolbly <lkolbly@miles-chen.com> To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: 'Stephen Miles' <smiles@miles-chen.com>; 'Terry L. Crowther' <trowther@earthlink.net> Sent: Mon May 18 16:50:25 2009 Subject: Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-052 (Brethren Christian School Gymnasium) Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: Attached please find comments for submission at this evenings City Council Hearing regarding: PUBLIC HEARING 1. (City Council) Public hearing to consider appeals filed by Councilmember Jill Hardy and Stephen M. Miles of the Planning Commission's approval of Negative Declaration No. 08-018/Conditional Use Permit(CUP) 08-052 for the Brethren Christian School gymnasium located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane. <http://records.surfcity-hb.org/sirepub/agdocs.aspx? doctype=agenda&itemid=3418> Please note that Miles Chen Law Group will be supplying copies for Council Members Please contact me immediately if you should have difficulties opening the attached. Lisa A. Kolbly, Paralegal MILES • CHEN Law Group a Professional Corporation 9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 5/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 Phone: 949.788.1425 Mobile: 714.501.2122 Fax: 949.788.1991 Lkolbly@miles-chen.com Expected Close Date: 05/21/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/27/2009 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Y C11 -1 W Office of the City Clerk v 1C S R E TFUIR N S E R -0 00 39"', P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 tu� 9- E- E� AGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ',I?jn Ya 1-Tu & Sjjujj Chia M, /1 22 Kite Dt- 1julitington Beach, ,4 5.6-17 N BE I 200F 06, 9:.)S -13/09 F-ORWARC--w EXP RTN '70 SP-ND lan-,76 MOUNT :3-MIA)ART CIR, FOUNTAIN VLY CA 927OS--S445 RE711 URN 'TO SENDER 90 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach N"v n, R E- � Office of the City Clerk L"R P.O. Box 190 L AL, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 T A G LEGALNOTICE - P LICH RING West Co.Family YMCA* 47 Michael Tumer 2100 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92646 NIXI 171 �--o 17 DE. i CIO 05Y 1;3j09 RE:TURN TO SENDER -S 'Sr M WIT DELIVERAMLE $1 ADDRE AE; UN A M L E- T 0 FORWARD JESQ: 9120400-19090 *1609--04166-1 09,2.N E L I 3 190 1 1 1))))1)1)1 IM 1 1)11))1 1 11 MM I 11)1))11 M 1)1))11))M I I I i Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0 Office of the City Clerk ,, RETURN eSERVICE P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Uj C', LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING S POSTA(`.E AYSO Region 117 47 John Almanza 49961 Bushard St. Fountain Valley,CA N M X I M. 92-7 OR 1 00 05/1.L/0i;I RETURN TO SENDCR NO SSUCH NUMMER UNAEBLC TO FORWARD a09- DC : 92649019090 'k 2 077--0 S)ED 15--11 -!.Z1 4 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk C il 2,L f 16 2 0 9 3 2 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk v < 4 RETURN SERV -L"C ix P.O. Box 190 7, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 V US POSIAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 'Fountain Valley Pony Baseball* 47 ris Mahoney --�:11212 Shaw Lane Huntington Beach,C D g �/ �"�11 FICE-rUFFIN TO SENDER M07 DELIVEIRABLIZ AS ADDREilsser-I � d D � UNA-111L.M TO FORWARIO a l l DC: 926400A'4090 90 111 k 11111 h)IM III 11))ldk))MII ld)d IM))I))11M)")M Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk < RETURN SERVICE 00.394 P.O. Box 190 7 - ': rr,,, u,i9 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7z TAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING IS POS 149-087-06 Smith Le Shia I W2 7 9582 Hamilton Av-- Huntington Beach, x 9127 MEBV. I- -400C 04- OS/10/09 FORWARD TIME E;-.X;zl RTN 'TO SEND Srj:r"j'H 0 LPE:. S S-� 9922 VIL-LA PACIrIC DR �-JUNTXNGTN MCH CA 92646--7536 6QRETURN TO SENDER Aso ll11IMI 111illJIMM111111IMIIIIII Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk j City of Huntington Beach F ZZ Office of the City Clerk ' ' n ,.z q R ETM I-ER P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A, E LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 149-123-12 "Voorhees Vera S 9902 EffinghamVVV Huntington Bea( 'RT E'rUR N LET �S EN0D9R OrL O� D .... 1 v00FRHErELS TE:MPORARIL.Y AWAY Fm'rURN 'TO SENDER EBC : 92646019090 *2t77-062)SO-10-16 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk t City of Huntington Beach w Office of the City Clerk RETURN ERV SICE f; P.O. Box 190 3 A �A,�:�eo Huntington Beach, CA 92648 iz LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING VIP 149-083-37 Mccrary Daniel 1259 Milano Dr #44 A10j West Sacramento CA 1-(,0 17 D ...� � � 1 N z x x 17, so, 7 is E-; 1 00 O"Z-%/IL 3,/09 RETURN TO SENDER �10 'Suc�-1 Nut,-IDE-Fi UNAMLV. rO F'ORWARD 9264CI019090 A'.2 47,2-00 4 1 o 4 4 9264900190 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk V w F, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA92648 'jc��j'�' 'z 2: FA LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING South Coast Bayern Futbol Club Marisa Pena 22222 Eucalyptus Lane Lake Forest,CA 92630 Cto 05/13/09 RE'TWPH TO A T T r— - - EMF -0 NOT WNOwN UNABLE', TO FTORWARD 92649019090 -16 0 o- o is 21 n 190 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk X K LJMU- P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 U1 1 50 .......... LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 49-392-17 5Wilbert John Earl 21102 Spurney Huntington Be, X 92 7 N P E* 1 4 0 0 C 00 0 S FORWARD TIME EXP RTN 'TO SE-:NO WILDEST RT'JOYIN 5 FIR AMERICAN WAY SANTA ANA CA 921707--SG-)13 � � � � a ����������� �,>>�>>z�>>>��>>>I��II����Itj>>>tf11��1„I>>.��,�>>�>>>�. RETURN TO SENDER Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk TURN SER '- "-g t`11- n R E P.O. Box 190 I Z Huntington Beach, CA 926484 'w LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ' O� 149-121-38 21mc Comb Jane H 212 Lock-haven Huntington Beach. W.T.*XT-E: JL JIM RE."TURN TO SENDER NOT DEL.ZVERAMLEZ AS' ADORESSMM UNAMLEZ TO F--oRwpRD MC : W-"R\14 _Woe I I I 1 1)1)1 1 h))I h)11)))))1)11 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach -'T Office of the City Clerk AM P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA92648 ��l P-4 a, L 7 13 VIM, f j— LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � � _ � � .t49-123-14 .6trardo Frank A 9932 Effingham I- N01 Huntington Bead RCTURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVE-AAMLE AS ADDRE:SSUD UNABL.E 'TO FORWARD MC.- 92640019090 Ge