Santa Monica City Council
May 10, 2022

`
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –

PROCEDURAL ISSUES
To the Members of the Santa Monica City Council: PLEASE CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO A LATER DATE. THE APPLICANT MADE SUBSTANTIAL AND

MATERIAL CHANGES TO ITS PLANS WHICH I RECEIVED LESS THAN ONE

WEEK PRIOR TO MY DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THIS DOCUMENT AND LESS THAN TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS HEARING. I THUS DID NOT HAVE

SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT OR TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING OR TO CONSULT WITH EXPERTS. HOLDING THE HEARING ON 5/10/2022 WOULD FURTHER DENY ME A FAIR PROCESS. THE CITY

UNFAIRLY COORDINATED WITH THE APPLICANT IN NUMEROUS OTHER

WAYS, TO GAME THE PROCESS TO MY DISADVANTAGE AND TO DENY ME OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
(This document is incomplete and not adequately edited and trimmed down because the City refused to allow me to have a reasonable amount of time to review the materially modified Plans, twice in one month, and sandbagged me on the scheduling.) If any of the Applicant’s Employees Make Public Comments at the Hearing, That Time Should be Taken Away From the Applicant’s 10 Minutes of Presentation Time During the Hearing, Otherwise the Hearing Process Will Not Be Fair The Format of This Hearing is Denying Many of my Neighbors, Who Support My Appeal, From Attending and Providing Oral Comment
Many of my neighbors and allies who ardently oppose the Applicant’s Project and who support my appeal have told me that they will not attend because of COVID fears. Many of them are mature and/or have other COVID related vulnerabilities. They are all longterm residents with deep roots in the neighborhood and in Santa Monica and they are all voters and many of them are very active politically. Please postpone this hearing and make arrangements so that they can participate in the hearing remotely.

The City of Santa Monica Has Denied Me a Fair Process and Has Denied Me My Due Process Rights
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has not conducted the appeal process in a fair manner. The City and its employees (“Staff”) have misled me and acted with bias. The City has unfairly favored the Carlthorp School (the “Applicant”) against my (and my neighbors’) interests as the Appellant.

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

(1) For the second time in one month the City allowed the Applicant to substantially and materially alter its plans very shortly before the hearing date scheduled for 5/10/2022, causing me to be unprepared to adequately analyze and address all of the changes in the updated plans and also have time to sufficiently prepare and provide my Supplemental Appeal Statement and adequately prepare for the 5/10/2022 hearing, despite my numerous requests to postpone the hearing or to hold the Applicant to its original plans. Staff is and has been clearly unfairly biased in favor of the Applicant and against me (and my neighbors). (2) The City allowed the Applicant to substantially alter its plans very shortly before the hearing date scheduled for 4/12/2022, causing me to be unprepared to adequately analyze and address all of the changes in the updated plans and also have time to sufficiently prepare and provide my Supplemental Appeal Statement and adequately prepare for the 4/12/2022 hearing, despite my numerous requests to postpone the hearing or to hold the Applicant to its original plans. Staff is and has been clearly unfairly biased in favor of the Applicant and against me (and my neighbors).
(3) The City did not notify me until weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant that that date had been set and more than 10 days after I first began making inquiries to David Martin and Jing Yeo that that date had been set based on rumors I had heard.
(4) The City committed to me before and after I filed the appeal to allow me to provide a Supplemental Appeal Statement that would be included in the record and which would be fully considered by Staff in their Staff Report and that Staff would provide me with a deadline for submitting my Supplemental Appeal Statement. Staff developed its Staff Report before giving me any such deadline to submit my Supplemental Appeal Statement prior to the 2/22/2022 hearing date.

Staff told me that it had refused to update its Staff Report. Nonetheless, I submitted my second Appellant statement, Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant, February 22, 2022, along with other supporting documents. But the only documents that were posted as coming from me as the Appellant that were placed on the City Council’s Agenda webpage were some photos and everything else was treated as mere public comment. The photos that I submitted had no context. Thus, I was denied the opportunity to provide a Supplemental Statement that would be treated as having come from the Appellant and that would be reviewed in the Staff Report.
(5) After the 2/22/2022 hearing was continued, David Martin agreed on 3/9/2022 to update the Staff Report relating to my Supplemental Appeal Statement but then later reneged and the City had continued to refuse to update its Staff Report despite my numerous pleas for such update of the Staff Report based on my Supplemental Appeal Statement. David Martin and other Staff unequivocally told me that the Staff Report would not be updated. Only after the Applicant substantially altered its plans at the last minute on 4/1/2022 and again on 4/26/2022 did Staff decide to update its Staff Report, but only based on the new plans that the Applicant generated. However, the City still continued to tell me that it would not update the Staff Report based on my Supplemental Statement,

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

for which I have been diligently conducting substantial research and analysis for more than a year. However, the City Council Report that was posted to the Agenda on or about 5/5/2022, does update issues relating to my original Appellant Statement, dated 11/18/2020, by claiming that I never submitted any additional statement or facts as I had referred to in my 11/18/2020 Appellant Statement, despite the fact that I submitted such documents on 2/22/2022 and related facts and arguments in numerous emails to Staff. The City Council Report didn’t just fail to address such items and issues, the City Council Report actually claimed that no such follow up documentation or statements were made. For example, regarding the privacy concerns that I raised in my original Appeal Statement (11/18/2020), the City Council Report says that “[a]s of the writing of this staff report, no additional information has been received.” (See The City Council Report, at 16 – 17.) That is simply a bald-faced falsehood. This subject was addressed in my second Appellate Statement on 2/22/2022 and in a series of emails that I sent to the Planning Department. And, because David Martin and other Staff insisted that Staff would not update the Staff Report and because Jing Yeo had extended my time to submit additional materials, I had not yet submitted this statement and other supporting materials, despite the fact that that issue and most everything else had already been drafted.
(6) For a year, there has been an outrageous pattern of the Planning Department refusing to cooperate and answer my questions and then suddenly springing a high-pressure deadline upon me and/or holding a sword of Damocles over my head by multiple times attempting to cram down an appeal date while refusing to answer my questions about the Zoning Code.

For these reasons, additional reasons specified herein and expressed through emails and phone calls with the City, reasons expressed in my initial appeal statement, various actions and inactions taken by the City, and for reasons that might be buried in documents withheld by the City and yet undiscovered documents and events, I have been denied a fair process and my due process rights. And, I have not been treated fairly by the City, as compared to the Applicant in this matter.

I made clear to the City on several occasions since before I filed this appeal that I intended to submit a supplement to my appeal statement (my “Supplemental Statement”) and that I needed to be informed as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my Supplemental Statement. And, the City gave me every indication several times over many months that it would inform me as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my Supplemental Statement. However, the City failed to provide me with any such deadline before the 2/22/2022 hearing date. The City improperly, therefore, published its Staff Report without my having submitted my Supplemental Statement. The process has not been fair.

The City stonewalled and sandbagged me throughout the process, usually refusing to even respond to my numerous phone messages and emails, all the while attempting to cram down a hearing date upon me without answering my questions regarding

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

fundamental zoning code questions that I have a right to have answered. David Martin told me last year that I had a right to have my Zoning Code questions answered and assured me that I would, indeed, have my questions answered. However, even my attempts to reach out to the Planning Director, David Martin, did not elicit responses from Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, or from David Martin. The only way I was able to obtain responses from Jing since May 2021 (and later from David Martin) was for me to contact the City Manager, which I found necessary to do several times beginning in July 2021. Then when Jing did respond, she would not answer some of my most crucial questions and requests for clarifications and confirmation of things she had told me during our telephone conversations on 4/27/2021 and 10/19/2021. She did answer some of my questions but she refused to answer, clarify, and confirm the most important of my questions and issues that I addressed to her in my emails. Her “answers” were generally vague and opaque and also absolutely not on point. (See email strings on the City Council’s Agenda web page.) And, I told her that she was refusing to answer my questions. Jing then insisted that she was not refusing to answer my questions. I responded that she absolutely was refusing to answer my questions. After more than eight months of “pulling teeth,” on 2/1/2022, I even simplified two or three crucial questions into yes or no questions with requests for explanations. Her response after nine months of repeatedly asking her these questions on 2/8/2022 was that my questions were not relevant and therefore she would not answer them – obviously admitting finally that she was and had been indeed refusing to answer my questions all along. However, such questions were relevant, which is proven by how she answered similar questions on the phone in April and October of 2021 and then later on 3/22/2022. (See below.) As I responded to her in my 2/1/2022 email, she did “not [answer my] questions and I [found] it to be outrageously disturbing that [she had] chosen to characterize [her] “answers” as having “thoroughly answered” my questions. Her statement was clearly disingenuous, as is the Staff Report’s Staff Response 8B, to “Questions not answered” (see Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant – Substantive Issues).

I told the City (Jing, Regina Szilak (“Gina”), David Martin, David White, and others) several times each in multiple emails over several months and on the phone that:

I still am waiting for answers and clarifications to crucial questions that are prerequisites to additional questions that build on such issues. It is completely unrealistic and certainly unreasonable to hold the hearing or even set a date until:

First I need answers and clarifications to my 7/26/2021 and 5/12/2021 emails; Second, I need to then formulate and ask the follow up questions that are now and have been pending; then Third, I’ll need Jing, the Zoning Administrator, to answer those additional follow up questions; then Fourth (assuming there would be no additional iterative rounds of questions), I would need time to prepare my supplement to my appeal; and then Fifth, Staff would need time to consider my supplement and then after that prepare the Staff Report, sufficiently in advance of the hearing.

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

I made it clear to Jing and Gina, prior to my even filing the appeal and dozens of times since, that I needed my Supplemental Statement to be incorporated into the Staff Report and that I need to know what the deadline would be for submitting my Supplemental Statement. Such deadline, of course, could not be determined until a hearing date would be set.

Eventually, after more than seven months of being stonewalled and sandbagged regarding getting my very relevant and crucial questions answered and having a hearing date crammed down without allowing me to get my questions answered – questions that I had been assured by David Martin that I have a right to have answered – I then emailed and left a voicemail for David White again on 2/2/2022. David White up until then had given me the clear impression that he would make sure that I would get my questions answered sufficiently in time for me to prepare my Supplemental Statement. (Every time after I emailed or spoke with David White, Jing would shortly thereafter email me regarding my questions, although much of it was vague, opaque, and off point.) Included in my 2/2/2022 email to David White, I said:
“Please intervene and require that the hearing date be postponed and please require that (1) the Zoning Administrator properly answer, confirm, and clarify my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications regarding the Zoning Code and the Applicant’s proposed project; and (2) require that the Planning Division not contemplate a hearing date until I have fully received the answers and clarifications that I have been requesting and expect to request.” David Martin called me that same day, February 2 – obviously in response to David White telling him to deal with me. I again told David Martin that I needed to get my questions answered before I could begin preparing my Supplemental Statement. David Martin again told me that he wanted to get my questions answered. When I hadn’t heard from Jing again, I emailed David White again on 2/6/2022 with similar requests as I had said in my 2/2/2022 email, and I left a voicemail for him on 2/7/2022. David White replied with an email on 2/8/2022, inviting me for a meeting with him and David Martin and to work with his assistant to schedule the hearing. David White’s assistant told me that the earliest a meeting could be scheduled was for 2/17/2022. Obviously, my purpose in accepting an invitation to such a meeting was to obtain a postponement and to set an agenda for getting my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations answered, for which I had been requesting for more than 13 months (at that point) and for which I had been stonewalled for the past more than nine months (at that point).

I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming. David Martin had assured me on 10/5/2021 on the phone that I had a right to have my questions answered.

I had a legal opinion from an attorney who works in this area of the law and who has close ties with the City that I had a right to have my questions answered. All of my emails to Jing and to Gina at least since October had been copied to David White and to David Martin. Every time that I reached out to David White (and John Jalili before him) complaining that I wasn’t getting my questions answered, I would get a quick response

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

from Jing, each time providing some response to my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications, but inadequate, vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point of my questions. I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming.

When David White on 2/8/2022 invited me to meet with him and David Martin, he led me to believe that he would postpone the hearing when we were to meet on 2/17/2022, but he ultimately refused. If he wasn’t going to postpone the hearing, he should have told me when he invited me to the meeting or at least in the ensuing nine days that he would not postpone the hearing. David White also sandbagged me regarding the 2/22/2022 hearing.

No one ever gave me, as had been promised many months before, a deadline for me to submit my Supplemental Statement. The Staff Report was completed at most only a day or two after I met with David White and David Martin when I finally learned that the City was definitely intending to go forth with the hearing on 2/22/2022, many weeks after informing the Applicant that that date had been set for the hearing. I was thus also denied the ability to provide my Supplemental Statement to the City in time for Staff to incorporate my Supplemental Statement into the Staff Report, despite Staff’s prior commitments to me.

After the 2/22/2022 hearing was continued, I pressed on. After the hearing was continued, David Martin agreed to update the Staff Report but then later reneged and the City has continued to refuse to update its Staff Report despite my numerous pleas for such update of the Staff Report based on my Supplemental Appeal Statement. But David Martin, the Director of Planning, did agree to another phone call with him and Jing to resolve remaining questions, which occurred on 3/22/2022. While not all of my very important questions were resolved, certain crucial questions were resolved. Those were questions that Jing had stonewalled me on and refused to answer, despite my dozens of attempts during the past year to get answered. Jing earlier had even asserted that such questions were not relevant. Jing had also several times since July 2021 provided direct “answers” to such questions by saying that she had examined the plans and determined that the plans comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Such response was, of course, not at all answers to my questions.

Finally, after an exhausting year of being stonewalled, during my 3/22/2022 call with David Martin and with Jing, I had enough of my questions answered so that I was thus able to explain how the Applicant’s plans failed to satisfy the Zoning Code. Essentially, Jing then admitted to me during that call that, indeed, the Applicant’s plans violated the Zoning Code. This was after more than a year of effort and ten months of being stonewalled. Essentially, after the Planning Department had failed to properly and adequately review the Applicant’s plans and apply the law to such plans, all the while stonewalling me and interfering with me and with my attempts to bring some justice to the process, which led to my performing the Planning Departments work and obligations. (This pattern of the Planning Department failing to adequately review the Applicant’s

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

plans and failing to properly apply the law to such plans had been occurring for more than two years. There were other clear and material failings by the Planning Department regarding applying the Zoning Code to the Applicant’s plans that I began showing them since prior to the original Planning Commission hearing date during and prior to May 2020.)
But the City was not done being unfair to me.

The City allowed the Applicant to substantially alter its plans very shortly before the hearing date scheduled for 4/12/2022, causing me to be unprepared to adequately review, analyze, and address all of the changes in the updated plans and also have time to sufficiently prepare and provide my Supplemental Appeal Statement and adequately prepare for the 4/12/2022 hearing date, despite my numerous requests to postpone the hearing or to hold the Applicant to its original plans. Staff is and has been clearly unfairly biased in favor of the Applicant and against me (and my neighbors).

On Friday afternoon of 4/1/2022 I became aware of the Plans with significant modifications. Most of the remaining portion of that day was lost with my scrambling to negotiate with David Martin, David White, and Staff to negotiate for more time and information. Prior to that date my deadline was Monday 4/4/2022 to submit this document but regarding 80 to 90% of that weekend I had prior commitments (scheduled more than a year ago) for which I could not cancel, beginning that Friday evening.

Only after the Applicant substantially altered its plans at the last minute on 4/1/2022 did Staff agree to update its Staff Report, but it ultimately only updated to deal with the Applicant’s last minute change in the Plans.

The City has not just incidentally provided an unfair process for me, but has orchestrated the process in an unfair manner. (See additional facts and discussion, in Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant – Substantive Issues, relating to my responses to Attachment E, #8A – D.)
Due to the above very unfair circumstances, I have had to focus on this statement and organizing and submitting documents for the hearing at the last minute to protect the record and I have thus not had time to notify and remind most of my neighbors who would be interested in attending the hearing. Therefore, it is likely that the turn out in favor of this appeal and against the proposed project will be substantially diminished, as compared to if I had been treated fairly by the City. And, most or all of the Applicant’s supporters are either students (and parents of students) or employees or consultants who the Applicant has paid to attend the hearing and who do not even live in the neighborhood or in Santa Monica.

Some of the few neighbors who I did speak to in passing who live within the notice radius have told me that they did not receive notice cards relating to this appeal.

Furthermore, this project impacts neighbors beyond the notice radius due to noise, traffic congestion, and particularly parking. The Applicant impacts on-street parking for a distance of multiple blocks because the Applicant has only approximately 34 parking

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022

spaces for a faculty of 80 and the parents of 280 children, many of whom park their cars to drop off and/or pick up their children, and for numerous large events.

The Staff Report, the City Council STOA, and the City Council Report are all confusing because they make references to exhibits and other documents that are not posted with these reports and on the Agenda and which are not readily available on the Agenda page.

And, these reports make ambiguous references to different sets of exhibits using the same referenced name but are referring to different exhibits. As such, the item is defective and it is confusing. Staff also failed to post crucial pages of Plans that were sent to me but were not disclosed to the public at large.

Staff members violated the City’s ordinances and its policies and procedures, including violating the City of Santa Monica Code of Ethics.

For all of the above, and below, reasons the City should postpone the hearing and/or rule in favor of my appeal.

The Planning Commission Hearing Process
Amongst other things that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning Commission hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public presented and spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns and began “solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly considering that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was preventing the Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in response to the Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been suggested in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such “solutions” would be introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed “solutions” some of which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for example, my discussion (Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant – Substantive Issues)) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point, in the section named The City Council Report.)1
For one, I don’t think it was proper for the
Planning Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to concerns in a manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was not permitted to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with expedience on issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa Monica residents.

1 References to the Staff Report, relate to the Staff Report, as published for the 2/22/2022 City Council hearing.

6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
To the Members of the Santa Monica City Council: PLEASE CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO A LATER DATE. THE APPLICANT MADE SUBSTANTIAL AND

MATERIAL CHANGES TO ITS PLANS WHICH I RECEIVED LESS THAN ONE

WEEK PRIOR TO MY INITIAL DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THIS DOCUMENT AND

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, WHICH THEY DID TWICE IN LESS THAN A MONTH. I THUS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO

PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT OR TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING OR TO CONSULT WITH EXPERTS. HOLDING THE HEARING ON 5/10/2022 WOULD FURTHER DENY ME A FAIR PROCESS. THE CITY UNFAIRLY COORDINATED

WITH THE APPLICANT IN NUMEROUS OTHER WAYS, TO GAME THE

PROCESS TO MY DISADVANTAGE AND TO DENY ME OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
(This document is incomplete and not adequately edited and trimmed down because the City refused to allow me to have a reasonable amount of time to review the materially modified Plans, twice in one month, and sandbagged me on the scheduling.) If any of the Applicant’s Employees Make Public Comments at the Hearing, That Time Should be Taken Away From the Applicant’s 10 Minutes of Presentation Time During the Hearing, Otherwise the Hearing Process Will Not Be Fair The Format of This Hearing is Denying Many of my Neighbors, Who Support My Appeal, From Attending and Providing Oral Comment
Many of my neighbors and allies who ardently oppose the Applicant’s Project and who support my appeal have told me that they will not attend because of COVID fears. Many of them are mature and/or have other COVID related vulnerabilities. They are all longterm residents with deep roots in the neighborhood and in Santa Monica and they are all voters and many of them are very active politically. Please postpone this hearing and make arrangements so that they can participate in the hearing remotely.

The Planning Commission Hearing Process
Amongst other things that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning Commission hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public presented and spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns and began “solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly considering that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

preventing the Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in response to the Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been suggested in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such “solutions” would be introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed “solutions” some of which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for example, my discussion (below) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point, in the section named The City Council Report.)1
For one, I don’t think it was proper for
the Planning Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to concerns in a manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was not permitted to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with expedience on issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa Monica residents.

Housekeeping Issues
I incorporate by reference the CEQA arguments and everything else in the letter from Frank Angel, dated 2/22/2022.

I also incorporate by reference all communications, including emails, between anyone and the City regarding the Applicant’s proposal, including communications within the City, and including regarding my appeal.

I. THE PROPOSED MULTIPURPOSE ROOM IS A CLASSROOM, AND

THUS THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE NO

ADDITIONAL PARKING IS PROPOSED
The Proposed Multipurpose Room is a Classroom
The Zoning Code requires additional parking to be added if the proposed project adds even a single classroom. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).

The proposed multipurpose room, in Planning Commission Hearing (11/4/2020) Attachment J, says that it will be used for "Orchestra practices" and "Theatrical practice" and an "Indoor climbing wall for PE" and "CPR training for employees" and "Professional development for faculty." These are all instructional activities involving

1 References to the Staff Report, relate to the Staff Report, as published for the 2/22/2022 City Council hearing.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

instructors and students. (Regarding training for employees and professional development for faculty, such activities do involve instructing students, except that regarding these activities, the employees and faculty members are the "students.") As such, by definition, when any of these activities are taking place, the multipurpose room would be serving as a classroom.

The Applicant has repeatedly said, dating back to its initial application in 2019, that it would be conducting such instructional classroom activities in the proposed multipurpose room. All three of those applications (one of them is actually an amended application), clearly state that the Applicant intends to use the Multi-purpose room for teaching classes. (See on the City Council Agenda web page [1] “19ENT-0250 (438 SVB – CUP),” [2] “20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd. Maj. mod,” and [3] “amended modification Pages from Discretionary Permit App 2020.03.26” (displaying two of the respective applications in full, only the first 5 pages of the amended modification application); see attached, at the end of this statement, the first three pages (four pages for the amended application) of all three of those respective application documents where I’ve marked on the 3rd page (4th page for the amended application) of each respective documents (on “Page 2” for all three respective documents) which says that the multipurpose room “will be used only for School-related performances and other K-6 educational activities, which included music and performing arts classes.”) Obviously, the Applicant intends, and always intended, for teachers to be instructing students in the proposed Multipurpose Room.

The Applicant admitted that its proposed “subterranean multi-purpose room” would be used for teaching classes and as classroom space when it said that the proposed expansion would be used for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which include music and performing arts classes.” (See City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd, for a Minor Modification (not dated or signed), attached sheets Project Description (“Minor Mod Project Description”), at 2, which is partially attached to this document.) It made such admission three times in three separate applications over the period of almost a year, relating to this proposed project. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).

In May 2020, I pointed out to Jing Yeo, Planning Manager at the Santa Monica Planning Department, that the Applicant specified in its applications that it intended to use the multipurpose room for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which include music and performing arts classes,” and therefore the Applicant’s proposed project violates the Zoning Code because the Applicant does not propose adding any classrooms.

Jing Yeo told me that she immediately notified the Applicant about my assertions. The Applicant and the Planning Department evidently collaborated to develop a scheme to avoid the zoning code requirement that the Applicant is required to add parking spaces

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

because it is proposing to add classroom space. The Applicant is required to add parking if it adds even a single classroom, which this proposal does.

Within approximately a week after I pointed out to Jing Yeo that the Applicant intended to use the proposed multipurpose room as a classroom, the Applicant produced a statement denying that it intended to use the multipurpose room as a classroom, despite having already admitted multiple times that it intended to use the multipurpose room as a classroom. That statement evolved into Attachment J, which the Applicant ultimately presented to the Planning Commission for the 11/4/2020 Planning Commission hearing.

Attachment J absurdly asserts that the multipurpose room will not be used as a classroom, despite mentioning several activities in which it is clearly obvious that students will be given educational instruction. And, the Planning Department disgracefully accepts such obviously false assertion.

The Planning Department added Condition 17 to purportedly prevent the multipurpose room from being used as a classroom. However, Condition 17 is self-contradictory because it says that the “multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner described in Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom,” except that Attachment J contains multiple uses that are clearly classroom activities, and thus Condition 17 is self-contradictory.

And, Condition 17 is unenforceable. The proposed Multi-purpose room is subterranean and any teaching activity would be undetectable and the City continues to refuse to enforce ongoing violations of existing CUP Conditions and SMMC violations at the school. (For many years I have filed multiple complaints against the Applicant but Code Enforcement and the police have never done anything. All the more so, the City would not likely enforce Condition 17, because any violations would not be visible to the naked eye.)
Thus, allowing the Applicant to build the multipurpose room will add classroom space without requiring the requisite increase in parking spaces that the Applicant already lacks compared to the amount of parking that it needs. (See section, below, Parking Issues, describing how the Applicant is already deficient in the amount of parking that it needs and how the Applicant deceived the City and the neighborhood regarding its need for parking when it expanded approximately 25 years ago.) The Planning Department has bent over backwards to allow the Applicant to defy the Zoning Code with its absurd embrace of Attachment J and creation of the self-contradictory Condition 17 that is unenforceable even if the City’s enforcement agencies had the will to enforce it.

Because the Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, Additional Parking Spaces Are Required
Because the multipurpose room is a classroom, the Applicant must add parking spaces.

Because the proposed project does not call for adding parking spaces, the proposed

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

project does not satisfy the Zoning Code and the Appeal must be accepted and the proposed project must be denied by the City Council.

II. THE APPLICANT’S and STAFF’S PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS of the PROPOSED PROJECT ARE INCORRECT and
EXCEED the ALLOWABLE LIMIT UNDER the CODE, INCLUDINNG WITH THE MINOR MODIFICATION THAT the APPLICANT REQUESTS
The first part of this section refers to a 9-page set of Plan pages that were put forth by the Applicant in 2020 – 2021, but was very recently altered to become rather misleading and confusing. Both sets of documents are incorrect for both similar and the same reasons, but the 2021 set is much easier to explain because (1) the 2021 version displays the three Levels of the existing building in the north and east wings with clear color coding Dark Green for the Lower Level, Dark Blue and Medium Blue for the Main Level, and Dark Pink for the Upper Level, whereas, (2) the Current May 2022 version re-labels the Levels and incorrectly mixes up the Levels onto separate Floors. Essentially, both versions incorrectly pretends that two people of the same height could be standing next to each other on the same level looking squarely into each other’s eyes, but be on different floors.

Parcel Coverage Calculations
Crucial to determining Parcel Coverage is the determination as to whether, and to what extent, the building might have a Basement because the Zoning Code excludes Basements from being included in the Parcel Coverage calculation and because if there is a Basement in the building, that would determine which area of the building is a First Floor (or Story), a Second Floor, or a non-conforming existing Third Floor or an illegal Third Floor proposed addition.

On the City Council’s online Agenda page for 5/10/2022, under my appeal item for the Carlthorp School’s excessive expansion proposal, is Item number “p.” which is named Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (“Parcel Coverage – May 2022” or “PC 5-2022”), which is a 9-page set of Plan pages. Parcel Coverage – May 2022 is incorrect, misleading, and confusing. The Applicant’s building has essentially three wings in the shape of a horseshoe with squared-off edges, comprising of north, east and south wings. The north and east wings (including the southeast corner of the building) have essentially three levels: the Lower Level, the Main Level, and the Upper Level. These three levels are displayed much more clearly in an earlier version of the 9-page Parcel Coverage and Floor Diagrams, which is attached to this Supplemental Statement (the “Parcel Coverage 2021” or “PC2021”).

Pages 6, 7, and 8 of PC2021, which are Plan Pages A120-C, A121-C, and A122-C, respectively displays the Lower Level in Dark Green, the Main Level in both Dark Blue and Medium Blue, and the Upper Level in Dark Pink. The PC 5-2022 version also on the 6th, 7th, and 8th, pages, also display Plan Pages A120-C, A121-C, and A122-C,

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

respectively. The PC 5-2022 version mixes up the separate levels, on those same corresponding pages, to distinguish between floors (or stories), according to an extremely flawed interpretation of the Zoning Code that defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics and the English language. This flawed interpretation of the Zoning Code also deviates from a clear set of rules, as specified in the Zoning Code, and provides opportunities for the Planning Department to create discretion in determining building size, when no such discretion is actually warranted or necessary. A year ago, I explained to the Zoning Administrator Jing Yeo the flaws in such interpretation. Jing admitted to me that I was correct more than once over the past year on the phone, although she was generally vague, ambiguous, and evasive regarding the issue in emails.

Essentially, both versions of the Plans, PC 5-2022 and PC2021, incorrectly pretend that two people of the same height could be standing next to each other on the same level looking squarely into each other’s eyes, but be on different floors.

The Applicant’s Building’s Lower Level is Not a Basement, it is the First Story
In response to my questions, on 4/27/2021, on 10/19/2021, and on 3/22/2022 on the phone, Jing, the Zoning Administrator, unequivocally told me that everything in Dark Green on Plan page A120-C is all on the same level for any and all purposes and applications and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. (See PC2021.) On those calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Blue and the Medium Blue areas on Plan page A121-C are all on one level for all purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. (See id.) On those calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Pink area on Plan page A122-C is all on one level for all purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. (See id.) As noted, above, the Applicant’s plans, calculations, and the proposal assumes that, what the Applicant referred to as the “Lower Level” as a “basement,” (see id), however, in fact the existing building does not have a “basement” as defined under the SMMC.

Basement, is defined by the SMMC as:

9.52.020.0230 Basement. The level(s) of a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.

Up to 4 wall surfaces of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade may be exposed above Finished Grade, so long as this exposure does not exceed 40% of each of these wall surface areas. Each wall surface area is calculated by multiplying the height

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

by the length of the wall. In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the Building Code. A basement shall not be considered a story.
(SMMC 9.52.020.0230.)
Despite Jing being the Zoning Administrator, her understanding of the definition of a Basement defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics. (She was stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in such structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics, and English, because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated another way, in zero dimensional space.) On the phone on 4/14/2021, I explained to her that it is impossible to reconcile the language of the definition of a basement in the Zoning Code with her understanding. When we spoke again on 4/27/2021, she admitted to me that I was correct. As described above and below, she admitted to me again on the phone on 10/19/2021and on 3/22/2022 that the entire Dark Green area on Plan Page A120-C, (see PC2021), were all on one “level” for all interpretations of the code and for purposes of applying the Zoning Code to the Proposed Plans. However, Jing reneged on her accepting what I propound as the logical and clear meaning of SMMC 9.52.020.0230.

Essentially, the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation and application of SMMC Section

9.52.020.0230 (defining Basement) pretends that two people of the same height could be standing next to each other on the same level looking squarely into each other’s eyes, but be on different floors. To comprehend why Jing’s interpretation is nonsensical and incorrect, it is useful to analyze the first sentence of SMMC 9.52.020.0230.

Analyzing the First Criterion in the Definition of a Basement The first sentence of Section 9.52.020.0230 says:
“The level(s) of a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.” The Applicant utilizes Average Natural Grade (“ANG”) in all of its plans and in its proposed project, which means that the Applicant can only use ANG and not switch back and forth between ANG and Segmented ANG and Theoretical Grade. In other words, only ANG can be applied in analyzing the Applicant’s proposed project. According to the City’s Zoning Administrator (before she reneged on her unequivocal statements) and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

the plain text of the ordinance, if any portion of the Lower Level projects more than 3 feet above ANG, then the entire Lower Level is not a basement, and would therefore be the First Story.

However, Jing is now back to being stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure – despite the plain language of Section 9.52.020.0230 saying that a basement is “[t]he level(s) of a structure located below [ANG where] no portion of the level directly below [ANG] projects more than 3 feet above ANG” – is based on a single point in such structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding infinite points in a structure. (Emphasis added.) Such notion defies the plain language of Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining Basement) and defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics and English because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated another way, in zero dimensional space.

And whether the Planning Department has discretion or has used such a warped interpretation of the Zoning Code in the past, it does not have the discretion to deviate so far from logic and the plain and explicit language of the ordinance.

As can be seen on Plan page A300-B/C, (see either or both PC 5-2022 and PC2021), ANG is at 104 and ½ feet (104’-6”), and 3 feet above ANG is at 107 and ½ feet (107’-6”) (104.5’ + 3’ = 107.5’). ANG on Plan page A300B/C is also depicted as a horizontal broken red line. As can be seen on Plan page A300B/C, the Lower Level projects above ANG. Plan page A120-C, (see PC2021), shows the floor of the Lower Level at 97 and ¼ feet (97’3”), which is 7 feet below ANG. The Lower Level projects all the way to the surface of the floor above it. (SMMC 9.52.020.2320 defines Story as: “That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above. . . .”) Looking at Plan pages A120-C and A121-C, (see PC2021), it is clearly evident that the Lower Level projects 4 and ¼ feet (or 4’ 3”) above ANG. (See the Dark Blue portion of the Main Level on Plan page A121-C, which displays the floor of the Main Level and upper range of the Lower Level as being 1 and ¼ feet (1’ – 3”) above the Light Blue portion of the Main Level, which has a floor level of 107 and ½ feet (107’ – 6”), which is already 3 feet above ANG (107.5’ + 1.25’ = 108.75’; also, 108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (See PC2021.) Thus, the Kitchen, the Board Room, the Reception Front Office, both of Classroom – 1st Grade and a lot of other space on the Main Level, have their floor at more than 3 feet above ANG and thus, the Lower Level space below it all projects 4 and ¼ feet above ANG, which is more than 3 feet above ANG. Because the Zoning Code’s definition of a basement says that “no portion of the level directly below” ANG may project “more than 3 feet above” ANG, the entire Lower Level is not a basement and is thus the First Story. (SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230, emphasis added.) Jing confirmed this to me on the phone in April 2021.

The Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion approximately 25 years ago also display the same result. Those plans, Plan page A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts large portions of the Applicant’s Lower Level as projecting all the way to 108.75’ (108 and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (See also Plan

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

page A-6.2 (dated May 02, 1997.) (I requested that the plans from approximately 25 years ago, depicting the existing building, be included in the exhibits, however, the Planning Department refused my request.)
Nothing about the above analysis has changed from the 2021 version of the Plans to the Current May 2022 version. Since, as the SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining “Basement”) says, “[t]he level(s) of a structure located below [ANG], in which no portion of the level directly below [ANG] projects more than 3 feet above [ANG],” but because some “portion” (actually a large portion) of the Lower Level “projects more than 3 feet above [ANG]” the entire Lower Level is not a Basement and therefore is the First Floor (or First Story).

After more than a year of effort regarding the definition of a Basement, and nine months of being stonewalled by Jing, which eventually led to my 3/22/2022 call with David Martin and with Jing when I explained how the Applicant’s plans failed to satisfy the Zoning Code, Jing admitted to me during that call that, indeed, the Applicant’s plans violated the Zoning Code. Jing then told the Applicant that the Plans that were to go before the City Council did not meet the Zoning Code, as I had explained to Jing. The Applicant then submitted modified plans, which I received on 4/1/2022, only a few days before this document was due and putting me under enormous pressure. After the Planning Department approved those new plans, having purportedly reviewed them, the following week during conference calls with David Martin and Gina, I explained how those modified plans were also illegal.

The City postponed the 4/12/2022 hearing date and eventually scheduled the hearing for 5/10/2022, despite misleading me into thinking that the hearing would not occur until at least July 2022. The Applicant again submitted substantially modified Plans to the City, which I received a few days before the end of April 2022.

The new modified Plans that exist today still fail to properly follow the Zoning Code.

The new modified Plans still denies the existence of actual “Levels” in applying the definition of a Basement, even though the term and concept of a “Level” is fundamental to the definition of a Basement. (See SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230.) As a result of the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the definition of a Basement, the Parcel Coverage calculations were, and still are, incorrect.

The Effect of the City Misinterpreting and Misapplying the Definition of a Basement
The Parcel Coverage Calculations, as performed on Plan pages A121-B and A122-B, both in the Parcel Coverage – May 2022 (PC 5-2022) and the Parcel Coverage 2021 versions (PC2021), are and were inaccurate and substantially understate the actual parcel coverage of the proposed project. Such calculations have several errors. One such error

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

is that it treats the “Main Level” as depicted on Plan page A121-C, (see PC2021), as the First Floor and the “Upper Level” as the Second Floor. (See Plan pgs. A121-B, and A122-B, both PC 5-2022 and PC202, for the Parcel Coverage totals.) The “Lower Level,” as depicted in Plan page A120-C, is actually the First Floor – or First Story – and the “Main Level,” as also depicted in Plan page A121-C, is the Second Story. (See PC2021.) The “Upper Level,” as depicted in Plan page A122-C, is actually a nonconforming Third Story. (See id.) The “Lower Level” does not meet the definition of a basement, as defined by the SMMC. (See SMMC 9.52.020.0230.) The First Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation is incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Storage room in the southeast corner of the building, as depicted on Plan page A120-B, (both in the PC 5-2022 and PC2021 versions). The Second Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation is also incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Classroom in the southeast corner of the building and much of the blue-shaded area, as depicted on Plan page A121- B. (See PC2021.)
The Parcel Coverage – May 2022 diagrams are still based on the Zoning Administrator’s warped interpretation of the definition of a Basement. These diagrams staggers portions of the building onto what appears to be different levels on Plan Pages A120-C, A121-C, and A122-C, excluding certain portions of the Lower Level from being counted in the First Floor Parcel Coverage calculation and excluding certain portions of the Main Level from being counted in the Second Floor Parcel Coverage calculation. Thus, the Applicant has understated the Parcel Coverage results and the proposed project is illegal.

The correct approach to determining Parcel Coverage is to treat the entire Lower Level (as shown in PC2021) as the First Floor because, according to the correct and plain reading of SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining Basement), none of that Lower Level is a Basement because some “portion of [that level] projects more than 3 feet above” ANG.

Prohibited Third Story Addition
Furthermore, the Applicant proposes adding to its nonconforming Third Story, which is strictly prohibited under the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code only permits two story structures in the Applicant’s zone. (See SMMC 9.08.030 (Development Standards) (limiting number of stories in the R2 District to 2 stories).) For example, the Applicant unlawfully proposes elevator(s) that are on the Third Story.

Analyzing the Fourth Criterion in the Definition of a Basement The Lower Level, which the Applicant claims is a basement rather than the First Story, is not a basement also because walls of the Lower Level have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The fourth sentence of SMMC Section

9.52.020.0230, defining “Basement,” says:

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

“In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the Building Code.”
This means that if even one visible wall surface height of a level exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade, then the entire level is not a basement. Several of the Applicant’s Lower Level walls have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan page A120-C, depicts the Lower Level. Three of the walls of the Storage room in the southeast corner of the building all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) The westerly, southerly, and easterly walls of the Storage room all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) The wall containing the entrance to the Lower Level, which abuts the Break Out Room and the hallway adjacent to the Break Out Room on the Lower Level also appears to have a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) Even without the photos, it is obvious that the Storage room in the southeast corner of the building has a visible wall surface height that exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan page A300-B/C, on the top portion of the page, “E/W Section Through Elevated Court Level Diagram shows 3 feet of the Storage room on the Lower Level above Finished Grade. That wall of the Storage room that abuts the Existing Parking, as depicted on Plan page A300-B/C, together the portion of the wall above ANG and the portion below ANG that is above the surface of the Existing Parking is a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The wall of the Storage room, referred to here, is on the western side of the Storage room, even though it is depicted on the right side of the Storage room. That is because the diagram at the top of Plan page A300-B/C is viewed from the North.) What Plan page A300-B/C doesn’t show is that the walls of the Storage room on the South and on the East of the room also have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. This diagram doesn’t show that the Finished Grade on the South side of the building where the Storage room is located is almost exactly the same as the Finished Grade where the surface of the Existing Parking lot abuts the Storage room. (See photos.)
The Lower Level is clearly not a basement. A similar perspective can also somewhat be seen in the Carlthorp School Plans from approximately 25 years ago, page P-3, dated October 22, 1997, and approved under a previous zoning code, 11/12/1997.

The Lower Level also violates other aspects of the definition of a basement. (SMMC

9.52.020.0230.)
No Basement, Three Stories, Incorrect Parcel Coverage Calculations, Minor Modification Application is Insufficient to Build Proposed Project, and Prohibited Third Story Additions

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

Therefore, the Lower Level is not a basement as the Applicant asserts. (Perhaps the City’s Planning Department failed to actually inspect the property and instead relied only on the plans in determining that the Applicant’s proposed project satisfied the zoning code.) Instead, the Lower Level is the First Story, the Main Level is the Second Story, and the Upper Level is the Third Story. All parcel coverage calculations are based on the wrong information and are incorrect and thus the public disclosures are all incorrect and the public has not been adequately notified and the City has not adequately reviewed the project. The actual parcel coverage exceeds the amounts being asked for in the Applicant’s application. Additions to the Third Story are being proposed, which are strictly prohibited by the Zoning Code. Staff should not have recommended that the proposed project be approved and the City Council should confirm my appeal and deny the Applicant from being granted approval.

The Area on the Main Level that is Designated as Porch in the North Wing and Immediately South of the Stair Landing That is Located Next to the 6th Grade Classroom Was Incorrectly Excluded from the Parcel Coverage Calculation, Even Applying the Zoning Administrator’s Illogical Interpretation of Basement, in SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230
The Area on the Main Level that is designated as part of the Porch in the North Wing and immediately south of the stair landing, and the stair landing, that is located next to the 6th Grade Classroom is part of an area that is above a portion of the Lower Level that projects more than three feet above ANG. Therefore, this area is not on the First Floor but is on the Second Floor, even applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the Zoning Code definition of a Basement. (See SMMC Section

9.52.020.0230.) Plan Page A121-C, in the PC2021 set of Plans, shows that that area has a floor that is 1.25 feet higher than the rest of the Porch. Such area has a floor that is at 108.75 feet, which is 4.25 feet higher than ANG, indicating that the Lower Level in that area is not a Basement. (See SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230.) This fact can also be seen in the Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion approximately 25 years ago, which also display the same result. Those plans, Plan page A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts the stair landing on top at the higher level, indicating that the floor area beneath in the Lower Level as projecting all the way to 108.75’ (108 and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (As mentioned above, I requested that the plans from approximately 25 years ago, depicting the existing building, be included in the exhibits, however, the Planning Department refused my request.) In fact, this set of Plans show an area larger than the stair landing as being on the Second Floor (even applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the Zoning Code definition of a Basement).

Referring now to the PC 5-2022 set of Plans, that stair landing area and the area immediately south, is incorrectly excluded from being counted as part of the Second Floor, (see PC 5-2022, at A121-C), and the area immediately beneath those two areas is not Basement space but is part of the First Floor, (see PC 5-2022, at A120-C), even

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the Zoning Code definition of a Basement. And, the area immediately beneath the area that is immediately south of that stair landing should have been included in the First Floor Parcel Coverage calculation, but it was not. (See PC 5-2022, at A121-B.) Thus, the First Floor Parcel Coverage calculation is incorrectly understated. These Plans are thus not legal, even applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the Zoning Code’s definition of a Basement. (See SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230.) Verification of the Parcel Coverage Calculations
A few times over the past two years, I requested to receive plans that more accurately and completely portrayed the dimensions of the existing building and of the proposed building. None of the Plans that I received were complete regarding the dimensions of the building or of the proposed building. More recently, I told the Planning Department a few times that I wanted it to verify the Parcel Coverage calculations. And, recently and also not so recently, I told the Planning Department that I also wanted to verify the Parcel Coverage calculations. Definitely not until the afternoon of 5/9/2022 – the day before the hearing – did I receive a copy of the Plans that might have sufficient information to verify the Parcel Coverage calculations. I did not receive such plans sufficiently in advance to conduct that verification and I received such plans so late that I do not have sufficient time to confirm whether such Plans have the requisite dimensional information to conduct a verification of the Parcel Coverage calculations. The Planning Department has told me that it never verified the Parcel Coverage calculations. Considering that the Applicant has submitted many sets of Plans contending that such Plans are legal, that turned out were not to be legal and were filled with mistakes relating to excessive Parcel Coverage, the Planning Department should have agreed to my requests to verify the Parcel Coverage calculations, but they refused. Furthermore, I object to the City Council accepting such unverified Plans and granting any entitlements on such unverified Plans.

At least I should be given an opportunity to verify such Plans. This is another example of me being sandbagged.

III. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES
Parking Issues
From the STOA Conditions that was passed by the Planning Commission in 11/4/2020:

Condition # 6 calls for special planning only for events that are expected to exceed 150 vehicles. That is an absurdly high number for this neighborhood. The School only has approximately 34 parking spaces for its 80 employees. The Condition is all but impossible to enforce.

First, the Condition doesn’t clarify if the expected number of vehicles includes employee vehicles or only additional vehicles. Second, the school can always say that it “expected”

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

fewer vehicles. There is no advance mechanism to assure the neighborhood that reasonable precautions will be made and followed.

When the Applicant expanded 25 years ago, it obtained its variance on parking, based on statements and information provided to the City, including that it intended to expand its total faculty from 22 people (15 full time and 7 part time) to 32 people (15 full time and 7 part time), which was a comparable percentage increase to their planned enrollment expansion of slightly less than 50% at that time. (See Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995, at 1.) The Applicant in 1996 received a variance to allow for their parking configuration, which would have been sufficient to support their “planned” staff of 32 people. However, the Applicant’s staff swelled to 80 people after receiving their CUP and variance in 1996. When the Applicant received its variance and its CUP in 1996, it deceived the Planning Commission and the City. When the parking analysis was conducted, the City relied on the Applicant telling the City that it was only expanding to 32 people (including part time employees), rather than expanding the staff to 80 people.

By no means does the Applicant have sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate its needs, and thus heavily burdens its neighbors, in the surrounding blocks and further.

The Applicant violated its commitments to the City regarding faculty size and should not be permitted to expand further. In fact, the Applicant should be required to reduce its faculty to the level that it committed to the City and its neighbors 25 years ago at approximately 32 people. The granting of any expansion should require such a condition.

The Applicant now says, again, that it won't increase its faculty size. Nonsense.

Empirically, the Applicant has demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word then; it should not be trusted to keep its word now. And, this expansion is substantial and will likely result in a much larger operation requiring more staff.

The school’s deficient parking causes faculty and visitors to the school to park in the surrounding neighborhood, taking away space from local residents.

The Applicant has argued in the past, as it did to the Planning Commission, that it somewhat mitigates these parking concerns because it is friendly with a neighboring landlord who leases residents to some of its faculty. Such argument should be completely disregarded because the Applicant does not have an entitlement to use such parking spaces and it is completely possible that in the future, no such relationship will exist.

Noise Concerns
I cannot overstate how much of a burden that the noise that the Applicant generates is upon its neighbors. The noise study that the Applicant presented is misleading. The noise pollution that the Applicant generates disrupts the peace and quiet in the neighborhood in a major way.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

Some of the noise concerns are: Children screaming, whistles, P.A. systems and loud speakers, loud noises from vehicles and people congregating in the large open parking lot off the alley (Georgina Place), organized cheering and screaming, outdoor amplified music and rallies. The school also uses “Walkie-Talkies” and whistles, which are particularly grating upon the nerves. Sometimes the Applicant invites musical and other groups that bring in their own amplification system. The Applicant should be prohibited from doing any of these.

The Applicant should also be prohibited from bringing in temporary speakers and amplification, such as for an event. The Condition 9 language should be modified to include prohibition of speakers anytime, not to exceed 3 minutes during morning assembly and not at any other time, except for emergencies. Even use of amplified speakers during morning assembly is unnecessary and invasive to the community and should be prohibited.

The noise study that the Applicant submitted cited incorrect decibel limits from the SMMC that were higher than the code actually indicates. The noise study and its analysis and conclusions are flawed and should therefore be disregarded.

Regarding any activities involving music, events (including sports), amplification, percussion, etc, the neighbors should be notified in advance. The neighbors should be notified in advance regarding all outdoor activities so that the neighbors can plan their schedules. Few things are more disruptive as to working, on a conference call – particularly in this era of work-from-home – concentrating, hosting guests, or sleeping when suddenly loud noise disrupts such activity. Particularly on warm and hot days it is necessary to have the windows open. The Applicant should be obligated to set a schedule of specified outdoor activities with described clear and comprehensive details that the neighbors are aware of well in advance.
(See also, discussion relating to Attachment E, #6A – D.) Privacy
The Applicant’s plans indicate that an open staircase will be built on the western side of the south-side building wing. Either the staircase should not be permitted at all on the west side of the play court or it should be fully enclosed without any windows, except possibly opaque skylights. An open staircase would be a source of loud noise from racing children pounding up and down the stairs and loud yelling, screaming, and talking at random times only approximately 15 feet from neighboring residences. Also, the frequent presence of children and adults upon the staircase would be extremely invasive of the privacy of the residents in the adjacent building to the west. Nothing would prevent people upon the stairwell from stopping and gazing into the windows of the adjacent building, substantially devastating the privacy, comfort, and peace of mind of residents in the adjacent building. The staircase should not be permitted. But if it is, the

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

staircase on the western side of the south-side building wing should be prohibited from being used except for emergency exit purposes.

To address the privacy concerns regarding this outdoor staircase, the City imposed a requirement that a landscape screen be used on the staircase. However, the landscape screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy concerns. That “solution” is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent residential building across from that area of the school and would fail to protect the privacy of such residents. It would only serve to protect the privacy of the school but would do the opposite for those residents.

Landscape screens are opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is up close. Such screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major) that are completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or anywhere close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on the east side of the adjacent residential building. And, people inside those residences would not even be able to detect that someone is peeping into their windows, thus creating the constant concern and anxiety that someone (or even a hidden fixed or handheld camera) could be watching at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive disruption to the privacy of the people in the adjacent building. The solution is very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be built. Short of that, don’t allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short of that, require the stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the outside side of the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.

Windows should not be permitted on the west side of the playfield facing towards the building to the west. Such windows would be highly invasive of residents’ privacy.

Traffic
Traffic caused from employees and also parents dropping off and picking up children is excessive. Twice a day a line of cars circle the block, double-parked and blocking traffic, creating excessive traffic for vehicles and substantial hazard for vehicles, pedestrians, and animals.

Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from school.

Sunshine, Sunlight, and Heat
Building the rooftop play court would block sunlight and direct sun from my windows, and reduce sunlight that enters my home. The rooftop play court should not be allowed.

I rely on the sun entering my windows facing the Applicant to grow, ripen, and mature most of the food that I eat. I have a right to that sunshine and sunlight and I need it for my food. The sun in the morning helps to jumpstart the warming of my home, particularly in the late winter, springtime, and the early fall. The sun in the morning also helps to jumpstart me, to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder, from which I struggle

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

with. The Applicant should not be permitted to build the rooftop play court, or at least not within approximately 40 feet of the western side of the existing building.

Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement”
(This section was prepared in anticipation of the 2/22/2022 hearing date, based on the Staff Report as it stood at that time, and has primarily not been updated.) Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement” (“Attachment E”), is littered with misleading statements and ignores the actual facts and the law.

Topic 1A) Upper level exceeds parcel coverage: Staff has ignored the fact that the parcel coverage calculations were conducted incorrectly. (See, above, The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.)
Topic 2A) Operating detrimental to surrounding properties: Obviously Code Compliance or anyone else failed to inspect or visit the Applicant’s site at night where it would have seen powerful flood lights that shine into neighbor’s windows all night long. I’ve complained to Code Enforcement and to the police numerous times regarding various violations but they never do anything. (See photo.)
Topic 2B) No further permits should be allowed to be issued due to CUP violations: The 95CUP-012, Condition #31 says that if the Applicant “fails to comply with any conditions of the [1996 STOA], no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” Staff admits that there are at least two ongoing violations of conditions of the Applicant’s existing CUP (95-CUP-012). These violations (and others) have existed since prior to this century, without any mitigation. Staff is acting irresponsibly by recommending that the Santa Monica City Council ignore the fact that the Applicant is a serial violator of its CUP conditions. Condition #31 is a standard condition in virtually all of the CUPs that the City grants, and I think is a requirement under the SMMC. The Santa Monica City Council should abide by the City’s own policy of requiring compliance before granting any additional entitlements to the Applicant. If Staff were truly objective – as it should be but for which it is obviously not – Staff would not be recommending that the Santa Monica City Council deny my appeal. (See 2E and 2F, below.) Topic 2C) Existing Landscaping exceeds height limits: The trees on the westerly border of the Applicant’s property are planted excessively close together and, thus, are a de facto hedge and/or wall, and exceed height limits.

Topic 2D) Existing plan for pick-up/drop-off does not work: The neighbors should have been directly solicited regarding this issue, before any additional entitlements are granted.

The chain of vehicles that line up around San Vicente Blvd, onto 4th Street, and onto and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

way up Georgina Avenue for pick-up and drop-off creates a serious safety hazard for the community and causes serious traffic interference for the neighborhood. Drivers of these vehicles commonly violate the Motor Vehicle Code and block intersections to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This issue is a very serious matter due to the dangerous and hazardous conditions imposed by the Applicant and because life is so precious. This neighborhood is a very quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood – except for the Carlthorp School.

Topic 2E) Grass surface replaced without approval: In Attachment G (to the 11/4/2020 Planning Commission hearing), the Annotated 1996 STOA, the Applicant admitted that it defied Condition #59 of its existing CUP, essentially disrespecting the City and its neighbors by unilaterally tearing out its grass – that it is required to have and maintain – and replacing it with artificial turf that, instead of emitting fresh oxygen as grass does, emits harmful noxious fumes that adversely affect the health of its neighbors and caused my dear sweet mother to suffer and contributed to her demise. The Applicant apparently misled the Planning Commission and the public again, here, by rationalizing and not disclosing the real reason the Applicant replaced the required grass with artificial turf: so that the Applicant could produce noisy outdoor activity all day long instead of only on a limited basis. The Applicant has admitted that it is – and has been for many years – in violation of this condition of the 1996 STOA; Condition #31 prohibits the Applicant from receiving any additional entitlements “until such violation has been fully remedied,” which it has not (with respect to this Condition #59 and other Conditions); and therefore, the Planning Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s proposals. Artificial turf also prevents rainwater from seeping into the soil and down into the water table. (See 2B, above.)
Topic 2F) Obstructed clear view through front fence:

The Applicant is, and has obviously been openly defying its CUP for a number of years on a continuing basis, not in compliance with this Condition. This Condition requires that the front yard fence and landscaping shall be “installed and maintained so as not to obstruct a clear view through the fence.” It is plainly obvious to anyone passing by the Applicant’s parcel in the front on San Vicente Boulevard that the view through the fence is completely obstructed. Photos taken 21 months ago depict that obstructed view. (Please see photos attached to my 5/20/2020 comment letter that were taken on 5/19/2020.) The view today is still obstructed. I have photos taken on the day of the November 4, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, and on 2/20/2022, which prove that the view is completely obstructed. The Applicant is also in open defiance of SMMC Section 9.08.030.F.4., which requires that Applicant’s courtyard “shall be visible and accessible from the sidewalk.” Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Santa Monica City Council should not approve the Applicant’s application because the Applicant was not in compliance with its existing CUP. (See 2B, above.) 2H) Inconsistency of prior assertions by applicant regarding student enrollment and number of staff: Staff misunderstands my assertions. I am saying that the Applicant made representations to the City and to the public that it would only increase its

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

employee staff from 22 full and part time employees to 34 full and part time employees and that the City and the public relied on such representations when the process occurred in granting the Applicant its current CUP. The City should require that the Applicant reduce its staff level to approximately the level that it represented to the City and to the public when it was granted its current CUP. If any entitlements are granted to the Applicant, such entitlements should be conditioned upon limiting Applicant’s staff to approximately 34 people. And, certainly any language in any conditions should not prevent the public from asserting these issues in the future. In other words, any entitlements and conditions should not say or imply that the Applicant may have a staff level as high as any specified number above approximately 34 people. 3A) Number of stories: Staff overlooks the fact that the Lower Level of the building does not meet the code requirements to be a basement and is therefore a three-story building. (See section, above, named The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.) 3E) Offices within apartment: This conversion occurred for several years earlier this century and through much of the last decade. (I did not say that the conversion was still ongoing. They closed those offices probably in preparation for their current application.) I referred to that conversion to illustrate that the Applicant has disrespected and flouted the Planning Commission and the laws of the City and to suggest that the Applicant is cavalier regarding respecting City ordinances, its CUP conditions, and its neighbors. 3F) School did not engage in neighborhood outreach: There was a public meeting, which I went to, but the meeting was very brief, substantially shorter than had been announced.

I had various questions that I raised after the meeting but still within the scheduled time.

Before I had an opportunity to ask all of my questions, several other members from the public that had remained and I were all asked to leave. I, not the Applicant, reached out by calling Tim Kusserow a few months later to discuss the project, but that was like speaking with a block wall. A few neighbors and I later arranged a conference call with Mr. Kusserow (or possibly someone else at the school), but that experience was also fruitless. Mr. Kusserow left the call after a short while and I was not permitted to even speak during the call. I later reached out to the Applicant’s law firm, who responded by having Melissa Sweeney contact me. But she had no authority to consider actual public concerns. She told me that she would get back to me but she didn’t, even after I subsequently tried to reach her. I am not aware of any other so-called outreach. The only public outreach was a perfunctory effort to present minimal information to the public. It was not true public outreach because there was zero receptivity by the Applicant regarding any and all public input. The Applicant was completely dismissive of any public input. It is disingenuous to describe the Applicant’s contact with the public as actual “outreach.”
4A) Parking requirement for classroom vs multipurpose room: The Staff here has it backwards. The Applicant has provided a description of the multipurpose room, which

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

clearly states that it WILL be used as a classroom. (See section named The Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, above; and see, Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom). ) And, Condition #17, which purportedly is intended to deal with this issue is self-contradictory and unenforceable. (See id.)
6A) Noise and privacy: The mitigation measures that are proposed are inadequate and in some respects aggravate the problem. (See above, Noise Concerns.) 6B) Noise is excessive when windows are open: This is an example how Staff is only concerned with whether the Applicant is in compliance with the “letter” of the existing CUP and its conditions, as opposed to the spirit of not imposing upon its neighbors and the community; or if it can artificially justify the bending or actual breaching of the existing CUP and its conditions. Here, double-paned windows were proposed, when the existing CUP was created, for some of the Applicant’s neighbors, to mitigate the outrageous noise created by the Applicant. However, such measure is completely ineffective during warm and hot days (and when cooking and also in bathrooms because the bathrooms do not have alternate ventilation) when it is necessary for such neighbors to open windows for air circulation. That amounts to more than half of the school year (plus summer school). I’ve been raising this issue throughout the process these past two years, but the Applicant, Staff, and the Planning Commission have ignored this issue.

The City Council should not grant any additional entitlements until the Applicant and Staff actually and sincerely reach out to its neighbors and solve this issue. For more than 20 years this has been a major problem. I have complained numerous times to the Applicant and to law enforcement and nothing has ever been done to mitigate this extremely imposing problem. Children at random suddenly scream with high-pitched voices as loud as they can. Adults suddenly blow whistles, lead organized and synchronized cheering, and use walkie-talkies that grate the ears and nerves. The P.A. system suddenly is utilized. Without advance notice, suddenly an event occurs with amplified music, singing, talking, yelling and cheering. All of them randomly and suddenly yell at the top of their lungs. All of this causes enormous stress on the nerves, prevents concentration, and prevents speaking on the phone. And, for the size of the space and the proximity to its neighbors in this otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood, the Applicant very unreasonably imposes itself upon its neighbors and the Planning Department and the City has made unfair rationalizations on behalf of the Applicant.
6C) Excessive noise: This is another example how the existing CUP conditions were not well planned. The existing Condition #56, which requires staggering of playtime, is part of the problem. It would be better to have all playtime occur all at once and get it over with, rather than have it be loud throughout almost the entire day, as is the case now.

That way, on warm and hot days, windows could at least be open part of the day, rather

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

than forcing neighbors to swelter and suffocate the entire day. And, this could occur on a set schedule so that neighbors could have control over their day, rather than the school controlling the neighbors’ days. The City should reverse this condition to require the Applicant to have all playtime coordinated during shorter portions of the day on a set schedule.

The City Council Report suggests that designating “a neighborhood liaison to facilitate communication between the school and its neighbors” as a condition will solve the noise problem. A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and with numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses. I’ve complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing ever gets solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and have no authority that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests. Before anything is approved, strict limits must be imposed upon the school that incorporates neighbors’ needs. Relying on the Applicant’s half-baked commitments didn’t work 25 years ago when it committed to increase its staff only from 22 to 32 full and part timers (and now they have a Staff of 80), (see 6/13/1995 letter from the Applicant’s consultant Arthur Kassan to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, the Santa Monica City Parking &Traffic Engineer), or 35 years ago when the Applicant assured neighbors that it would not increase its enrollment or faculty, (see 9/25/1986 letter from the principal of the Applicant, Dorothy Menzies, to Dr. Granzow, of 407 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90402. 6D) Excessive noise: The existing Condition #57 requires playgroups to be dispersed.

However, the opposite is occurring during loud organized cheering. Also, I don’t see how the noise could be much worse so probably the Applicant is not adhering to this condition in other ways.
7A) Privacy impacts: See my fourth bullet point under The City Council Report, relating to page 8 of that report. Also, as I’ve said before in another earlier submission: Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from school.
8A) Documents withheld: I still have not received all of the documents that I have requested from the City pertaining to this appeal
8B) Questions not answered:

Staff asserts in its Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members.” Such statement is grossly misleading. Since I filed the appeal, there were three – and not more than three – phone calls since I filed the appeal when I presented substantive questions.

The first phone call was on 4/14/2021 with Jing Yeo. Most of that call dealt with my asking a threshold question that had to be asked before I could move to the actual questions that I needed to ask. However, Jing was stuck on giving me an answer that defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics. (She was

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in such structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated another way, in zero dimensional space.) We ran out of time for that call so I asked her to think about it and we’d pick that up on the next call, which we planned for 4/27/2021.

Almost as soon as we began speaking on 4/27/2021, Jing had already come around to my way of thinking.

There was some important progress that I made in asking my questions during those two calls in April and one important question (or group of very similar questions) that was answered on 10/19/2021, which covered only about five minutes of that call in October. (Some of the detail of those answers has been explained above.) But almost everything else about the call on 10/19/2021 was a waste of time, whereby Jing outright refused to answer my questions. There was a trail of thought that I was taking Jing down using diagrams from the Plan pages, in which I was leading her to questions that I was trying to ask and she was finally being receptive. However, David Martin had set that call up with him, Stephanie Reich, and Gina also on the call. I need and needed specific questions answered regarding the zoning code and Jing is the Zoning Administrator, who has the responsibility to explain and clarify the zoning code. My questions were directed at Jing and not Stephanie. However, as I explained to David Martin in my email of 10/29/2021:
“However, my questions are of the nature, which are for the Zoning Administrator, particularly because some of my questions are complicated, and about complicated issues and definitions.… Jing is the Zoning Administrator – not Stephanie. . . . [I]t is her responsibility to make these determinations, and yours I guess as the Director. Multiple times Stephanie disrupted the flow of my questions and descriptions, interrupting because she had difficulty following along, as she indicated. [And, e]ach time Stephanie interrupted, it was just as I was about to get [to where I needed Jing to go in her mind and with the diagrams for me to ask my questions].”
Thus almost all of the 10/29/2021 conference call was a waste of time and I still hadn’t gotten to ask my questions.

Staff’s Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members” is grossly misleading.

Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly FALSE. Staff has stonewalled me and refused to answer my questions, while simultaneously attempting to cram down a hearing down upon me. I began requesting that the Zoning Administrator, Jing Yeo, answer my questions more than 13 months ago

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

in early January 2020. She was very busy for a couple of months and then I had an injury that delayed a couple weeks. In April 2021, Jing and I got off to a good start in phone calls on 4/14/2021 and 4/27/2021, whereby we resolved to continue the process by email.

On 5/12/2021, I sent her an email with various questions and requests for confirmations of what she had told me during April on the phone. She told me that I would receive answers within or shortly after a couple weeks. I followed up with approximately a dozen emails and phone calls when she was not forthcoming. Jing went completely dark on me, failing to respond in any way whatsoever. After that, the only times Jing contacted me was by email and then only after I would explain the circumstances to the City Manager (first John Jalili and then David White) and that I wasn’t getting my questions answered. My first contact with the City Manager, John Jalili, was in early July 2021, and Jing followed up with an email addressing some of my questions. But her answers were vague and opaque and mostly not on point and incomplete. For more than the following seven months, I would promptly reply to her emails regarding my questions, asking her to actually answer my questions. But she would not respond to my email replies, unless and until I contacted the City Manager again, and then and only then would she reply to my emails. I also attempted to reach out to David Martin, the Director of the Planning Department, with numerous emails and phone calls, attempting to get him to motivate Jing to properly answer my emails. The only times David Martin got back to me was shortly after I contacted the City Manager. Additional detail is explained, above, in the section discussing the unfair process. (The email strings with Jing Yeo and David Martin, since 5/12/2021, are being included along with this Supplement.) Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly FALSE.
8C) Premature Planning Commission hearing: “Multiple hearing delays were granted” implies that such delays were granted due to my causing that to be necessary. All delays relating to the Planning Commission hearing were due to the City choosing on its own to delay the hearing date or because the City had failed to follow through on commitments to provide me with information, answers to questions, and documents. Almost all of the delay occurred due to the City’s own choosing for its own reasons. The two delays relating to the City not following through on commitments to me was only one week in May 2020 and approximately two weeks in October 2020, and I still had not received all of the documents that I had asked for when the hearing was held on 11/4/2020.

Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8D in Attachment E, “Multiple hearing delays have been granted” is very misleading. Any and all delays in bringing this matter before the City Council is due to delays caused by the City, except for an approximately two week delay that I needed due to an injury that I suffered in late March 2021. All other delays in this process were due to Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, being too busy to answer my Zoning Code questions during the winter of 2021, and then since 5/12/2021, her refusing to respond to me and her answering my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations of oral statements in a vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

manner and also her refusing to answer my questions. (See detailed discussion in response to 8B and in discussions above relating to the unfairness of the process and attached email strings with Jing Yeo, David Martin, Regina Szilak, and David White.) 8D) Requested appellant to confirm February 22, 2022 appeal hearing date on November 29, 2021: The City here makes a false and misleading statement. The City notified me weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant that the hearing date had been set for that date. The City’s email on 11/29/2021 did not ask me to confirm the 2/22/2022 date for the hearing; it only mentioned 2/22/2022 as a potential hearing date. I responded on 12/8/2021, rejecting such date by indicating that setting a hearing date at that time was “premature and grossly unfair until I have had the opportunity to have my questions and requests for clarifications properly addressed and fully vetted.” I was not notified that the City wanted to proceed with 2/22/2022 until 2/1/2022, which was weeks after the City had notified the Applicant that that was a set date and more than 10 days after I first started requesting that the City confirm or deny whether that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. (See submitted email strings with Regina Szilak, Jing Yeo, David Martin, and David White.) And, I didn’t really know that 2/22/2022 would be the hearing date until 2/17/2022. (See email strings with David White, and particularly my email to David White, dated 2/18/2022.) The City deceived me and misled me and failed to properly notify me as to the hearing date and gave substantial deference to the Applicant against my interests as the Appellant, and the City has done that throughout this process.

The City Council Report
The City Council Report states in the context of “the impact of loading/unloading and parking on the surrounding neighborhood[, that] [n]o new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal.” (City Council Report, at 7.) That is an absurd finding. The Applicant has said that it intends to hold music and dance performances in the proposed multipurpose room. The multipurpose room will at times serve as an auditorium/theater with a substantial capacity. And the addition of the proposed multipurpose room and the proposed rooftop play court will add substantial space for events that are more intense than are currently held. The Applicant will be able to host larger crowds of visitors, which would require larger numbers of staff to monitor the events. At large events, the Applicant might choose to even hire temporary workers for the event, particularly if valet parking is permitted, which is a very bad idea. The school already commonly hires (or invites) musical bands and other performing arts, and various other services when it conducts events. The school will likely hire catering services. All those people have to park somewhere if they drive there. All of these people will impact parking needs that will impact the community and the surrounding neighborhood. There are many other examples that would impact the neighborhood.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

The City Council Report describes conditions to “provide concrete direction and guidance to further … dialogue” with the neighborhood. (City Council Report, at 8.) Those conditions are joke:
 A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and with numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses.

I’ve complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing ever gets solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and have no authority that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests.  Netting surrounding the upper-level play court would be ugly, as would the 30+ high wall surrounding the play court, and it would exceed the height limit in the zoning code.
 As discussed, above, the Conditions (Condition 17) is self-contradictory and unenforceable and would not ensure that the multipurpose room would not be used as a classroom.
 The landscape screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy concerns. That “solution” is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent residential building across from that area of the school and would fail to protect the privacy of such residents. It would only serve to protect the privacy of the school but would do the opposite for those residents. Landscape screens are opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is up close. Such screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major) that are completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or anywhere close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on the east side of the adjacent residential building. And, people inside those residences would not even be able to detect that someone is peeping into their windows, thus creating the constant concern and anxiety that someone (or even a hidden camera) could be watching at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive disruption to the privacy of the people in the adjacent building. The solution is very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be built. Short of that, don’t allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short of that, require the stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the outside side of the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.
 The Applicant should absolutely not be permitted to have valet service. It would create enormous stress on the neighborhood and only compound the parking and traffic impact on the neighborhood.

The City Council Report when in reviewing my Appeal Statement fails to consider issues brought forth here in this statement and additional issues that I still wish to formulate and present because:

The City refused to answer my zoning code questions after having committed to me that it would answer such questions sufficiently in time for me to provide additional follow up

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022

questions that build on such zoning code questions, and sufficiently in advance of scheduling a hearing date. (See above.)
The City also failed to fulfill my information requests, and in a timely manner.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and LIST of ATTACHED EXHIBITS
Exhibits Relating to the Multipurpose Room:
[1] The first 3 pages of “19ENT-0250 (438 SVB – CUP)” (CUP Application), with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence. [2] The first 3 pages of “29ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd. Maj. mod” (Application), with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence. [3] The first 4 pages of amended modification Pages from “amended modification Pages from Discretionary Permit App 2020.03.26,” with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence.

Exhibits Relating to Parcel Coverage:
[4] The 9-page Parcel Coverage and Floor Diagrams set, prior to the Current set of Plans (named “Parcel Coverage 2021” and “PC2021”), which contains a packet of 9 Plan Pages from an earlier (2021) version of the proposed project.

Exhibits Relating to Neighborhood Issues
[5] Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995.

Exhibits Relating to Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement”
[6] Letter, dated 9/25/1986, from the principal of the Applicant, Dorothy Menzies, to Dr.

Granzow, of 407 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90402.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Exhibits Relating to the Multipurpose Room:
[1] The first 3 pages of “19ENT-0250 (438 SVB – CUP)” (CUP Application), with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence. [2] The first 3 pages of “29ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd. Maj. mod” (Application), with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence. [3] The first 4 pages of amended modification Pages from “amended modification Pages from Discretionary Permit App 2020.03.26,” with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Application No.:

CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION

DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION
Applications must be submitted at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall. City Hall is located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. If you have any questions completing this application you may call City Planning at (310) 458-8341. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: ____________
DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Attach additional sheets as necessary to fully describe the proposed project)
_____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT (Note: All correspondences will be sent to the contact person) Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Email:

CONTACT PERSON (if different)
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Email:

Relation to Applicant:

PROPERTY OWNER
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Email:

I hereby certify that I am the owner of the subject property and that I have reviewed the subject application and authorize the applicant or applicant’s representative (contact person) to make decisions that may affect my property as it pertains to this application.

Property Owner’s Name (PRINT) Property Owner’s Signature / Date This part to be completed by City staff
Application No.: Amount Paid: $
Received By: Check No.:

Date Submitted:

EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS.

FOR FURTHER DETAILS SEE ATTACHED.

MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 0.06% GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE.

TIM KUSSEROW, HEAD OF SCHOOL / KEN PARR, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
310-451-1332 [email protected]

KENNETH KUTCHER
1250 SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
(310) 451-3669 [email protected]

ATTORNEY AT LAW

CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
310-451-1332 [email protected]

TIM KUSSEROW
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
//ss//

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Discretionary Permit Application Page 3 DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED (check all that apply):

Conditional Use Permit Minor Use Permit Major Modification Development Review Permit Development Agreement Variance Waiver

NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION
PLANNING APPLICATION – SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Demolition Permit 5HYLHZ5HTXLUHG (For Structures 40 Years or Older) A demolition permit is required for demolition of any building or structure on the property (primary or accessory structure.) The Landmarks Commission must review demolition permit applications for structures that are 40 years or older. The Landmarks Commission may exercise its authority to nominate the property for Landmark Designation, and/or designate the property (structure and or parcel) as a Landmark, Landmark Parcel, or Structure of Merit in accordance with and based on findings established in Chapters 9.56 and 9.58 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

My property contains a structure (or structures) 40 years old or older and the proposed development of this property will require a demolition permit.

My application for a demolition permit has been reviewed by the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission and the 75-day review period has expired.

$SSOLFDWLRQZLOOQRWEHDFFHSWHGXQWLOWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWLVFRPSOHWH

Application Form
One original and 6 copies of application form. All the information requested on the application must be provided.

Application Fees
The payment of an application fee is required. Please see current list of fees in Room 111 of City Hall. A check payable to the City of Santa Monica or credit card will be required at the time of submittal of all planning permit applications to the Permit Coordinator.

Rent Control Status Form
Certification by the Rent Control Administration of the Rent Control status of the property is required. Applications submitted without this form will not be processed by the City Planning Division. Forms are available in the Rent Control offices, Room 202 in City Hall.

Other Project-Related Applications
If applicable, copies of any application materials for other required planning permits. Information on required planning permits and application materials is available at the City Planning Division public counter, Room 111 of City Hall. ✔
COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 2, 2019 AT THE MONTANA AVENUE PUBLIC LIBRARY. ✔
✔
✔
✔
Amendment of
N/A
(Previously on file)
(Previously on file)
✔ Minor Modification

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and APPLICANT: CARLTHORP SCHOOL
ADDRESS: 438 SAN VICENTE BLVD.

Carlthorp School | Project Description | Discretionary Permit Application Summary
The proposed project involves the construction of new educational support space at the existing Carlthorp School (“Carlthorp” or the “School”) campus located at 424-438 San Vicente Boulevard. Part of that space (5,575 SF) will be located below ground under the existing outdoor play field; the existing lunch seating area (844 SF) in the center of the campus with be enclosed, and a second-story addition (840 SF) above the lunch seating will be constructed for school administrative offices. An elevated outdoor sports and recreation space will be established next to the rear alley, and the Kindergarten play area will be refreshed with new playground equipment.

The proposed project will not expand existing enrollment (remaining approximately 280 students), number of staff (remaining approximately 80) or number of K-6 classrooms (remaining two per grade-level plus various specialty classrooms) at the School, but instead would provide modest improvements, including a new subterranean multi-purpose room, elevated outdoor recreational space, additional administrative space, and an enclosed lunch seating area in order to optimize the operation of the School. The proposed project triggers a total floor area increase of 7,259 SF. The project will also include modest improvements to an atgrade recreational space at the eastern portion of the campus, although neither these improvements nor the elevated outdoor recreational space constitutes additional floor area.

This project will expand the footprint of the existing school campus by only 1,310 SF through the enclosure of the existing exterior cafeteria seating area and two new elevators and an exterior stair on the second floor. This added parcel coverage requires a Minor Modification under the Zoning Code. All other aspects of the School campus will remain functionally the same. An amendment to the School’s existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-012) is required to permit the expansion of a school in the R2 District. No changes are proposed to the tuck-under parking area accessed from the alley, and no project features will exceed the Zoning Code’s height limits. Although the School is located in a designated Historic District, the School itself is not a “contributing building.” The Landmarks Commission raised no concerns regarding project at the October 14, 2019 preliminary review hearing.

Background
Carlthorp was established in 1939 and is the oldest independent school in Santa Monica. The school has remained in its present location since 1941 and has coexisted compatibly with its surrounding residential neighborhood since then.

Carlthorp is a kindergarten through 6th grade (“K-6”) elementary school, and its campus site has grown only modestly over time since its establishment. The most substantial expansion involved acquiring and demolishing the neighboring vacant apartment building which became structurally dangerous and red-tagged after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. That lot was then converted to outdoor physical education and pupil play space as part of a CUP approved in 1996 for expansion of the school site. When the School merged with that adjoining lot, Carlthorp also renovated its classroom facilities to better support its elementary education needs and repair earthquake damage. The current application requests an amendment to that CUP 95-012 for improved educational support space, as described below.

Throughout its history, Carlthorp’s basic educational philosophy has remained largely the same: focusing on the child as a whole, helping each student to grow academically, socially, and ethically. Carlthorp provides a strong academic foundation in a diverse and nurturing school community that emphasizes respectful values, responsible work habits, and excellence in order to prepare its students to achieve their highest potential in education and life. Carlthorp continues to enjoy a reputation for academic excellence that is demonstrated by the high acceptance rate of its graduates to the secondary school of their first choice.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Exhibits Relating to Parcel Coverage:
[4] The 9-page Parcel Coverage and Floor Diagrams set, prior to the Current set of Plans (named “Parcel Coverage 2021” and “PC2021”), which contains a packet of 9 Plan Pages from an earlier (2021) version of the proposed project.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL

LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"

LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"4' - 0"
3' - 8"

BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"

NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW

ELEVATOR

TIERED SEATING

STORAGE

CLASSROOM -

BREAK OUT ROOM

CLASSROOM -

SPANISH

EXISTING CLASSROOM/

MULTI-PURPOSE RM

CLASSROOM -
MATH

READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL

STORAGE

FACILITIES
OFFICE

MAIN POWER

SHUT OFF
ELEV

ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR

RESTROOMS

FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
5' - 0"
HVO

EXISTING READING ROOM

TO BE CONVERTED TO

RESTROOMS

NEW STAIR AND

PARTITION

CORRIDOR
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-B
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A120-B

BASEMENT FLOOR

PLAN - PARCEL

COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
* BASEMENT AREAS SHOWN DO NOT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION.

FLOORING ABOVE THESE BASEMENT
AREAS ARE ALL 3 FEET OR LESS
ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE.

SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))

UP UPDN
DNDN
UP

NEW ENCLOSURE

OF EXISTING

LUNCH SEATING

OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM

BELOW GRADE

HANDICAPPED PARKING HANDICAPPED PARKING PLANTER

BIKE RACK
HEDGE

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

RECEPTION/

FRONT OFFICE

BOARDROOM

KITCHEN

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CL OF ALLEY

NEW BIKE RACKS
10' - 0"
139' - 11" 35' - 11"
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C

EXISTING

PARKING CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM PORCH

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

EXISTING OPENING AT

END OF UNENCLOSED

CORRIDOR TO REMAIN

OPENING IN NEW

WALL AT END OF

EXISTING

UNENCLOSED

CORRIDOR

OPEN/UNENCLOSED
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 843 SF
TOTAL NEW MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF

EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:

PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY):

FIRST FLOOR (MAIN LEVEL):

EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING = 18,536 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) = 20,998 SF
NEW = 2,462 SF

NEW MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:

TOTAL MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)

FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
NOTE: THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY ARE

TREATED AS THE UPPER LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS

CALCULATION OF PARCEL COVERAGE PER THE
DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SEE FLOOR LEVEL DIAGRAMS FOR MORE INFO.

AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 1,231 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:02 PM
As indicated CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A121-B

FIRST (MAIN)

FLOOR PLAN -

PARCEL COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) +119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN

OFFICES
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
PL

LIBRARY

CLASSROOM -

COMPUTER LAB

OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE

CLASSROOOM -

ART ROOM

CLASSROOM -

READING
ROOM

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

NEW STAIR
1 A300-B/C
1 SEE FIRST FLOOR/
A300-B/C

MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-B

SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE

OVERHANG OF ROOFTOP

PLAY COURT ABOVE
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C

CLASSROOM
PORCH

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (G)

SEE FIRST FLOOR /

MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B

THIS PORTION OF STAIR

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)

OPENING AT END

OF EXISTING

UNENCLOSED

CORRIDOR, SEE

FIRST FLOOR/MAIN

LEVEL PLAN

FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE

PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,531 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 840 SF
SECOND FLOOR (UPPER LEVEL):

NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 16,985 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING = 16,985 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) = 18,516 SF
NEW = 1,531 SF
90% OF MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE

ALLOWED BASED ON MINOR
MODIFICATION INCREASE TO 45.29% OF
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:

TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,516 SF
( < 90 % OF MAIN LEVEL

PARCEL COVERAGE)
20,863.13 SF
x .45
MAIN LEVEL PARCEL 46,362.50 SF

COVERAGE
ALLOWED BY CODE:
18,898.2 SF
x .90
20,998 SF
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 401 SF

MAIN LEVEL PARCEL

COVERAGE ALLOWED BY
MINOR MODIFICATION (45.29%)
20,998 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:40:02 PM
As indicated CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A122-B

SECOND (UPPER)

FLOOR PLAN -

PARCEL COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))

NEW ROOFTOP

CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"

EXISTING ROOF
PL
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW

OFFICES
BELOW
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:06 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A123-B

ROOF PLAN -

PARCEL COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE
TO THE LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION.

SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) (E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' - 6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' - 0"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' - 6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' - 6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' - 0"
Top of Court
+126' - 6"

NEW ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAY COURT

EXISTING PARKING

EXISTING

CLASSROOMS
8' - 0"
30' - 0"

PLAY COURT

STORAGE

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE

CLASSROOM

MAIN LEVEL

UPPER LEVEL

MAIN LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
3' - 0"

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND BUILDING

ENVELOPE
7' - 6" 7' - 0" 9' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0"
5' - 3"
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' - 6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' - 0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' - 6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' - 3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' - 6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' - 6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' - 0"
Basement Floor Lower
+89' - 8"
(E) Roof
+130' - 3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' - 6"

NEW ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT

EXISTING

CLASSROOM

EXISTING

PARKING

EXISTING

MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
NEW

ADMINISTRATIVE

ADDITION
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
BEYOND

NEW ENCLOSURE OF

EXISTING LUNCH SEATING
3' - 9" 3' - 10" 7' - 0" 9' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 4' - 3" 7' - 7"

EXISTING STRUCTURE

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BUILDING
30' - 0"

UPPER LEVEL

MAIN LEVEL

LIBRARY

UPPER LEVEL

CLASSROOM

MAIN LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL

CLASSROOM
PORCH

CLASSROOM
PORCH

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND

BUILDING ENVELOPE
(THIS PORTION OF

CLASSROOM PORCH

IS ON MAIN/FIRST
LEVEL)
(THIS PORTION

OF CLASSROOM

PORCH IS ON

UPPER/SECOND
LEVEL)

CLASSROOM PORCH

EXCLUDED FROM

PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

CLASSROOM PORCH

EXCLUDED FROM

PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)&(G) OPEN
8' - 0"

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE
5' - 3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:39:07 PM
1/8" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A300-B/C

SECTION DIAGRAMS

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT LEVEL

DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &

ELEVATED COURT - LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
SMMC 9.52.020.0180 Attic. The area less than 7 feet in height, located above the ceiling of the top story and below the roof that is not usable as habitable or commercial space and is not accessible via a permanent access structure. An attic shall not be considered a story.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) +97'-3"
PL
+89'-8"
+89'-8"

LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"

NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW

ELEVATOR

TIERED SEATING

STORAGE

BREAK OUT
ROOM

SPANISH

EXISTING

MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH

READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL

STORAGE

FACILITIES
OFFICE

MAIN POWER

SHUT OFF
ELEV

ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR

FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"

EXISTING READING ROOM

TO BE CONVERTED TO

RESTROOMS & SHOWERS

NEW STAIR AND

PARTITION

CORRIDOR
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
LOWER LEVEL (+97' - 3")
+0' - 0"
-7' - 7"
-5' - 7"
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A120-C

BASEMENT FLOOR

LEVEL DIAGRAM
(LOWER LEVEL)

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) UP UP
DNDN
DN
UP

NEW ENCLOSURE

OF EXISTING

LUNCH SEATING

OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM

BELOW GRADE

HANDICAPPED PARKING HANDICAPPED PARKING PLANTER

BIKE RACK
HEDGE

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

RECEPTION/

FRONT OFFICE

BOARDROOM

KITCHEN

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CL OF ALLEY

PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C

MAIN LEVEL
+0' - 0"
MAIN LEVEL (+107' - 6")
+0' - 0"
+1' - 3"
-6' - 0"

CLASSROOM
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C

EXISTING PARKING

CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

CLASSROOM PORCH
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:38:02 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A121-C

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL

DIAGRAM (MAIN
LEVEL)

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) +119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN

OFFICES
PL

LIBRARY

CLASSROOM -

COMPUTER LAB

OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE

CLASSROOOM -

ART ROOM

CLASSROOM -

READING
ROOM

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

NEW STAIR
UPPER LEVEL (+119' - 6")
+0' - 0"
1 A300-B/C
1 SEE FIRST FLOOR / A300-B/C

MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-C
-9' - 6"

SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

SEE FIRST FLOOR / ELEVATOR

MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-C
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:05 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A122-C

SECOND FLOOR

LEVEL DIAGRAM
(UPPER LEVEL)

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C

EXISTING ROOF

NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW

OFFICES
BELOW
PL

ROOFTOP PLAY COURT
126' - 6"
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:08 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A123-C

ROOF PLAN LEVEL

DIAGRAM

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Exhibits Relating to Neighborhood Issues
[5] Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP Exhibits Relating to Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement”
[6] Letter, dated 9/25/1986, from the principal of the Applicant, Dorothy Menzies, to Dr.

Granzow, of 407 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90402.

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gardner, Rory <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 1:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Regina Szilak
Subject: 438 San Vicente Blvd, Carlthorp School Continued Expansion and Adverse Impact on Environment

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
Regarding the Tuesday May 10th hearing for the 438 San Vicente Blvd continued expansion of the Carlthorp School, as a homeowner on 4th Street I am completely opposed to this. The School’s continued growth and expansion has occurred with no consideration for the extra traffic, monopoly on local parking, and increased trash from the daily foot traffic that staff, parents, and students leave behind. The proposed expansion is just another effort to increase enrollment to justify higher compensation (noted below from their 2019 tax filing) for school executives at the expense of the quality of life for local residents.

Also included below is the balance sheet detail pursuant to the last publicly available “non‐profit” tax return filing (tax year 2019). With stated net assets in excess of $35M the school can certainly either:
1) Find a location that has appropriate parking so they do not continue to adversely impact a residential neighborhood.
2) Establish off site parking with a shuttle service to ensure staff and parents do not dominate local parking, adversely impacting the residents of the community in which the school resides. 3) Fund a local sanitation crew to ensure the residents around the few blocks that surround the school do not continue to bear the adverse impact of a growing and careless customer base.

Total Revenue $11,352,256
Total Functional Expenses $10,825,640
Net income $526,616
Notable sources of revenue
Percent of total
revenue
Contributions $1,723,61415.2%
Program services $8,524,18775.1%
Investment income $847,4667.5%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $248,8432.2%
Sales of assets $0
Net inventory sales $0
Other revenue $8,1460.1%
Notable expenses
Percent of total
expenses
Executive compensation $887,7988.2%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 Total Revenue $11,352,256
Total Functional Expenses $10,825,640
Net income $526,616
Other salaries and wages $5,680,62852.5%
Other
Total Assets $42,705,873
Total Liabilities $7,699,885
Net Assets $35,005,988
Key Employees and Officers Compensation
TIMOTHY KUSSEROW (HEAD OF SCHOOL) $497,942
KENNETH PARR (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE) $252,900
LYNN WAGMEISTER (DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS) $179,833
STEVE SPRINGER (PRINCIPAL) $165,555
ROBERT MORIARITY (DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY) $135,833

MAUREEN POLLACK (DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNICATIONS) $131,461
RONALD BURWICK (FOURTH GRADE INSTRUCTOR) $112,245
Rory Gardner
President
Pacific Urban Investors
11999 San Vicente Boulevard
Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA  90049
Office     310.474.0514 ext 201
(Cell)      949.439.0557
[email protected]
www.pacificurbaninvestors.com
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Arnold Seid <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 5:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Thorpe School

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I have reviewed the descriptions of the proposed plans for construction at the Carl Thorpe School.

I feel that the plans would result in too much increase in noise and traffic at the school. As we all understand the school is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The height increase and the increased noise will make the environment very difficult for the neighbors.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Arnold Seid
427 16th Street
Santa Monica. 90402
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Regina Szilak
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 438 San Vicente Blvd. Carlthorp school
From: Michelle Greco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I live on San Vicente Blvd in between 4th and 7th street on the north side of the street. Nearly everyday my neighbors and I deal with excessive traffic and parking nightmares due to Carlthorp. It's so bad that I coordinate my day around the pick up carpool time at the end of their school day. I can't even begin to imagine the added nightmare if their projects are approved. The construction for a possible 5 year completion date would be incredibly unfair to residents living on San Vicente Blvd between 4th and 7th street. Please deny this request and put the people first!! Thank you!
Michelle
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A - Carlthorp School Expansion Vote NO

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The expansion plan as configured will negatively impact the neighborhood. Please do not support this flawed expansion plan, stop the added noise, dirt, traffic congestion and burden to street parking sought by the Carlthorp School, enough is enough.

A very concerned neighbor,
Fred alexander
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 Vernice Hankins
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: phillis dudick
Subject: ITEM 6-A APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CARLTHROP SCHOOL EXPANSION

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Sue Himmelrich and Councilmembers:

After much consideration, I fully support this appeal. While understanding the school's desire to expand, it is extremely important to consider the impact of this expansion upon residents, including renters, condo and homeowners. This is by no means a minor expansion for this quiet, peaceful residential neighborhood on San Vicente Boulevard.

In fact, many of us believe reality is telling us that Carlthorp School has already reached its maximum growth for this parcel of land and should be encouraged to develop an additional site off campus to house some of their programs and activities.

Is it fair to residents to endure five to seven years of summer construction five days a week?  Is it fair to residents to be bombarded with the noise factor of a rooftop athletic field five days a week during the school year, regardless of statements to the contrary?
The projected underground community room will undoubtedly serve as an auditorium for theatre and musical presentations as well as a special event space, no longer necessitating holding such programs off grounds. Of course, these activities will bring numerous cars to the area, where parking for residents is already a major concern.

It is my hope that Council will consider peace and tranquility for residents and the inevitable negative impact of traffic and the taking of parking spaces on our neighborhood streets needed by residents in an already overburdened situation.

Thank for your attention to the urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Paula Kayton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 9:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
I support the appeal for the Santa Monica City Council NOT TO APPROVE the expansion of the Carlthorp School.

The expansion, if permitted, would impact the safety of the students and others in the area.  I live a few blocks away and think if the council members ever went to the area around 4th and San Vicente when school was letting out and saw the traffic and the cars lined up they would not approve the expansion to make this situation worse.  In addition, the noise from the children using the rooftop expansion would lower the quality of life for people living nearby.

Why was additional parking not required on the school grounds if the expansion was approved?  Currently there is a shortage of parking on the street.

Please APPROVE THIS APPEAL AND DO NOT PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF THE CARLTHORP SCHOOL.

Thank you.

Paula Kayton
722 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
[email protected]
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jennifer Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
I had sent the below email a few weeks ago but just received an email with this updated contact so sending another one to ensure it goes to the correct place.

Thank you.

Best,
Jennifer Kramer
--------
Jennifer Kramer April 8, 2022
446 San Vicente Blvd Unit 104
Santa Monica CA 90402

To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, CA 90401

Re: Appeal 20ENT-0275

I have lived next door to Carlthorp Elementary School for the past 12 years and I am against the proposed expansion of the school. I am 48 years old and also own a brick and mortar business on Broadway in Santa Monica. That I own a business AND a condo here in Santa Monica leads me to be extremely invested in and involved with my community.

I’m concerned that my (and my neighbors') well being and overall enjoyment of life here in the Santa Monica area is being constantly challenged due to the disruptions going on next door at Carlthorp.

What was once a pride point (how lucky am I to live next to such a quality high-end, exquisite and Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 5 established education center?!) is now turning into a deflating and overwhelming feeling of unfortunate circumstances.

There is constant traffic and congestion in and around the school on the corner of 4th and San Vicente every morning and every afternoon when school lets out. This traffic and congestion loops way around the corner on the block of Georgina, sometimes all the way down to 7th Street. It’s a mess and I see all of us who live here struggling to access our once peaceful and smooth public city streets. Cars are honking, people are upset, and there is no way to pass along the narrow and quaint 4th street. This congestion is gradually getting worse, as enrollment increases.

If the new proposed open-air roof with basketball court and gym classes happen, this will:

 Devalue my home
 Increase congestion and flow of traffic on our beautiful quaint streets  Elevated amounts of excess outdoor noise, bouncing basketballs, etc  Construction will up to 5 years of peaceful summers away (dust, debris, noise, pollutants, trucks, privacy of our roof deck, etc)

I am in favor of making a community stronger and better. While adding additional parking and tripling the playground of the school next door will be great for the school, I wonder if you might put more thought into what happens to the COMMUNITY around it should that happen. Had the proposition been to move the school to a new location (if they truly needed more space), or keep the enrollment where it is to sustain a cohesive and harmonious operation within itself and the community is resides in, or *at a minimum* (I feel I’m stating the obvious but needs to be mentioned): why would they decide to only do construction in the summer if not to avoid having themselves inconvenienced with the noise, pollutants, traffic, etc and yet all those living around the school, THE COMMUNITY, is at the mercy? That doesn’t feel amicable or peaceful.

The proposed development next door at Carlthorp will directly impact my enjoyment of living in my home and I am NOT in favor of this project being approved. I support the appeal.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Kramer
‐‐
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 6 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

JENNIFER KRAMER

CLINICAL DIRECTOR
extraction ninja
www.correctiveskincarela.com To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lisa Cherry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Carlthorp School Expansion

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I live a block away from Carlthorp School and it already causes a traffic nightmare on 4th St and Georgina going onto San Vicente Blvd every weekday. The expand the school would be a disaster and nightmare for our neighhood in many ways!! A huge disaster that I am willing to fight it ever taking place. And I am not alone All my neighbors feel the same. I encourage you to vote NO on this matter if you care about Santa Monica and it’s residents.

Sincerely,
Lisa Cherry
310‐663‐9279
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Sara Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Item 6.A - Carlthorp School Expansion Vote NO

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,

The expansion plan as configured will negatively impact the neighborhood. Please do not support this flawed expansion plan, stop the added noise, dirt, traffic congestion and burden to street parking sought by the Carlthorp School, enough is enough.

A very concerned neighbor,

Sara Johnson, San Vicente Santa Monica Resident
‐‐
Sara L. Johnson
(301) 247‐0408
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Darlene Lancer, LMFT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Carl Thorpe improvement hearing

EXTERNAL
I am a neighbor of the school. Currently it disrupts traffic on San Vicente Bl. and 4th street and limits public parking severely. Any additional office space and limitation of their current parking garage will only add to the current problems that the school is causing. They appear to have closed their parking for office space, which further limits parking to residents. This is not supposed to be zoned for offices, but that is what they are trying to do, and there isn't sufficient street parking as it is currently.

Thank you,
Darlene Lancer
350 San Vicente Bl.

Santa Monica, 90402
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Douglas Brian Martin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I live across the street from the Carlthorp School and have put up with the increasing noise and congestion for some time. What used to be only on school days during school hours now invades the nights and weekends as well. Carlthorp School student drop off and pick up clog our streets. Lack of parking for staff clogs our neighborhood parking.

Continuous noisy playground activities have had a negative impact of life on San Vicente Boulevard ‐ peace and quiet are a thing of the past due to Carlthorp School.

Carlthorp School Expansion Plan will make residents endure years of construction noise and filth as well as even more noise with an elevated playground that will disrupt even further whatever peace and quiet remain in the neighborhood.

Carlthorp School claims there will be no increase in noise while at the same time explaining they will soundproof their own windows. This nonsense is ignored by the City Staff as they recommend this project over the complaints of hundreds of residents in the neighborhood.

As our elected officials voted in office to protect the interests of the residents of Santa Monica you should do just that, protect the residents, not merely the desires of a private run for profit school seeking even more profits at the expense of the residents with plans, explanations, and arguments even a moron would be able to determine are fanciful and insulting.

If Carlthorp School can spend millions of dollars on construction for a skyscraper playground and a giant underground classroom it can afford to revise its Expansion Plan to provide parking for its staff and realistic noise abatement for those living nearby.

All requests for revision of the existing plans have been ignored by the school and approved by the City Staff. The City staff is supposed to act in the best interests of the residents of Santa Monica yet appears to be advocating for the expansion of the school at the expense of community standards and the residents. This is wrong.

Please uphold the appeal and stop this Carlthorp School Expansion Plan as it exists until it is revised to reasonably protect the residents from noise, filth, and congestion.

Thank you
Douglas Brian Martin
437 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica CA 90402
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Richard Michaelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
Dear SM Counclimembers
We reside directly across the street at 435 San Vicente Blvd.

Our household is AGAINST the expansion plans at Calthorp School and we SUPPORT THE APPEAL.

We are lifelong Santa Monica residents and active SM business owners for the last 20 years.

Please help preserve our quality of life which has already diminished significantly over the last decade with out of control expansion, vagrancy & crime.

Thank you
Richard Michaelsen
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente John Nockleby & Lucie White
446 San Vicente Blvd. #207
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit proposed by Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd, Appeal 20ENT-0275
To the Honorable Santa Monica City Council:

We reside at 446 San Vicente Blvd. #207, Santa Monica. We write in support of the Appeal of the grant of the Conditional Use Permit requested by Carlthorp School, and respectfully ask the Council to deny the permit.

Our objections to Carlthorp’s development proposals can be summarized as follows :

1. The proposed open air basketball court imposes harms on residents 30 feet away that cannot be mitigated despite a facially defective “noise mitigation” study of the current playfield that ignores real-world noise generated by pounding basketballs on an openair rooftop basketball court.

2. The proposed 5 year timeframe that enables Carlthorp to hold its neighbors hostage for five summers while it raises money from wealthy benefactors depreciates property values through 5 summers of construction dust and noise and greatly impacts the quality of life of the neighborhood.

Who we are. We have resided at 446 San Vicente Boulevard for over 25 years. My wife and I live and work 10 feet from school property and 30 feet away from its building and the proposed top floor open-air basketball court. We directly face the East Side of the School and from our second-floor condo look directly onto what is proposed to be the hard surface of the open-air rooftop basketball court filled with 40 excited youngsters pounding basketballs that the School proposes to build atop its current 2 story structure. This proposed arena is so close that it would pose no difficulty for us to toss a basketball from our unit onto the floor of the proposed court. We’re terrified that the noise emanating from this rooftop basketball court 30 feet from our ears will drive us from our home.

My wife and I are lawyers, law professors and scholars, ages 68 and 72. During the academic year, I teach at Loyola Marymount University, where my focus is constitutional law, civil rights, torts and social justice. Most of our professional work time is at our home (this is regardless of Covid). We research and write, and have daily online live interactions with lawyers, judges, and, in my spouse’s case, scholars around the world. I hold a live online course that I have taught for over a decade from my dining room table. Our home is our workspace. I also regularly work in my home “office” -- our second floor exterior deck-- located 30 feet from the proposed open-air basketball court. During most of the year, we leave our windows and sliding glass doors open to our deck to receive the welcoming breeze. We do not have air conditioning, and indeed live in Santa Monica to avoid it.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Our Westside-facing condo unit directly faces the eastern edge of the School. Our deck overlooks the outdoor ground space between our building and the school, from which we can regularly hear teachers and students conduct classes as their voices are clear and penetrating.

The proposed open air, rooftop basketball court filled with 40 youngsters pounding balls will severely disrupt the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood, and is completely inconsistent with the Historic Recognition of our neighborhood.

The proposed rooftop open air basketball court configuration allows for dozens of 6th grade students to practice their basketball bouncing skills on a hard surface, their basketball-hurling skills against rigid backboards 8 feet in the air, or their soccer kicking skills against the hard sides of the structure, between 8:00am and 5:30pm, while several coaches holler or blast whistles at any moment. While both my wife and I support education at all levels, and have invariably supported public school bond issues, it is ridiculous for a wealthy private school catering to clientele who don’t have to deal with such disruptions to be permitted to impose such uproar on their neighbors. Carlthorp brings to our neighborhood hundreds of students from wealthy areas, and we are unaware of a single student, parent, nanny, or school employee who will personally be adversely affected by the proposed development.

Carlthorp’s proposed disruption is especially true in a building such as ours, located in an Historic District, where an open air, rooftop basketball court comprising 9,000 s/f, nearly 3 times the size of our building’s footprint, is completely inconsistent with architectural standards of our neighborhood. We embrace how the Historic District designation insists that architectural changes to the character of the neighborhood be consistent with that designation.

Nothing in an open air rooftop basketball court comes within the area code of Historic Designation.

Moreover, over half the residents in our building at 446 San Vicente Blvd are retired and dependent on the peace and solitude of a quiet residential community. Why should older folks and writers who need peace and quiet and have lived in the building for decades be put to further disruption and stress on their daily lives?
The alleged “mitigation” study did not include real-world evidence pertaining to the proposed open-air rooftop basketball court
The Council have been presented with a so-called “mitigation study” (“Study”) that allegedly considered the potential noise factors that would be experienced by neighbors by the operation of an open-air, hard surface, rooftop basketball court a mere jump shot from our building. The Study authors, employed by Carlthorp to make recordings at a time when Carlthorp could control the noise level, make clear what their sound instruments were set to learn: they “monitored the current playfield for a continuous period of 40 minutes, which included lunch hour.”
Putting aside the obvious inference that the School took pains to quiet noise over the lunch hour when the sound recording instruments were deployed, the reality is that the supposed Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente “sound study” of the current playground has no relevance to the sounds emanating from a rooftop, open air basketball court with 40 excited youngsters pounding basketballs on a hard surface.

The truth is, the Study’s purported simulation of conditions did not utilize a single actual, realworld factor, factors that will greatly exacerbate and broadcast the noise emanating from this new structure. Indeed, from the rooftop, the proposed hard surface court will amplify pounding balls, yelling coaches and screeching whistles throughout the entire neighborhood. Here’s what the Study failed to address:
 Even though the Study looked at the current play field which employs the deadening effects of artificial turf at a time when students were not using it, the study did not examine the noise level of 40 basketballs pounding against a hard surface, which will be characteristic of the proposed rooftop open-air basketball court.  In looking at the current play field, the Study demonstrated that noise emanating even from sedate lunch hour activities under conditions controlled by the School occasionally exceeded the City’s noise limitations. This is so even with the sound-proofing provided by artificial turf during 40 minutes of a “lunch hour” when many students were eating.

The Study did not examine noise levels in the current playfield during actual playtime with coaches yelling and blowing whistles, and students hollering.  The Study did not measure the sounds emanating from a hard surface basketball court by 40 excited 6th graders battering basketballs against backboards, kicking balls against the side walls, from an open-air rooftop court 60 feet in the air.  The Study failed to consider whether a hard surface surrounded by 8 foot walls, would amplify and concentrate rather than deaden, the noise from pounding balls. The Study here failed to address whether pounding basketballs on a solid surface surrounded by solid walls would amplify the raucous noise throughout the neighborhood.

Instead of examining the real world noise level of 40 excited youngers pounding basketballs and hitting the side walls of the proposed open air rooftop court, while several coaches were yelling and blowing whistles, the Study inputted irrelevant details (the quiet-time lunchtime data from the artificial turf under the School’s supervision) and drew conclusions unsupported by realworld experience.

Moreover, the parameters of the “black box” computer simulation utilized in the “sound study” have never been identified. What this means is that even if the appropriate variables had been inputted into the “computer simulation,” the actual factors that controlled the outcome cannot be examined by others.

In short, the so-called “mitigation study” does not include any relevant variables (screaming kids pounding basketballs on a hard surface open air rooftop court while coaches yell and blow whistles), and therefore cannot justify any conclusion that the plastic barriers will actually reduce as opposed to broadcasting sounds throughout our community, disturbing the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood and historic district.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente The 5 year development proposal considers only Carlthorp’s convenience and threatens our community for the next 5 years.

Carlthorp seeks 5 years to complete its project, utilizing the summer months so as not to inconvenience its school year activities. However, this means that during the hottest months of the year when residents would ordinarily keep windows and patio doors open, the neighborhood can expect the dust and construction noise to destroy the neighborhood’s peace and quiet. It is completely unfair to allow construction activities to take place on Carlthorp’s convenience, and disruptive to the neighbors.

In Carlthorp’s current configuration, we tolerate much disruption from noise emanating from the school, along with excited kids yelling, and coaches hollering at the top of their lungs every single afternoon. On a daily basis, we also tolerate lack of nearby parking plus the traffic hazards created by dozens of pricey SUV’s lined up for several blocks surrounding the school and blocking other vehicles during pickup hours. So yes, Carlthorp School already imposes significant burdens on and requires daily accommodation from their neighbors.

What we cannot tolerate, however, is an open-air rooftop basketball court 30 feet from our home, filled with 40 or more excited kids drumming basketballs on hard surfaces, with two or three coaches hollering (as they currently do), a mere jump shot from where many in our building are trying to live, read, study, write, or simply to be left alone in peace. Therefore, we strenuously object to any approval of an open air basketball court.

We request that peace and quiet be preserved in our historic, R2 zoned community. It’s unfair for a private school catering to wealthy patrons who retreat to their own private domains, and which already imposes significant inconveniences on its neighbors, to be permitted to develop its facilities that so drastically alters the noise level in the neighborhood as to drive older residents and productive citizens from their homes of decades.

We support the appeal.

Sincerely,
John Nockleby
Lucie White
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 4:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Carlthorp School Proposed Expansion

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I live next door to Carlthorp School.  My kitchen window overlooks the playground.  When I first moved in over twenty years ago the school was smaller.  School ended at 3:00 p.m. and it was peaceful after that. The playground noise now is overwhelmingly loud and constant due to almost all day recess.  The noise starts full blast in the morning  from 7:45 a.m. with an assortment of (screaming, whistles, dance music, loud amplified announcements, the coach yelling at the top of his lungs to instruct the students for the games being played) and does not end until 5:00 p.m.  Sometimes it’s even later depending on evening events the school has planned. Last Saturday morning their tree trimmers started at 7:25 a.m.  The school acts with impunity and shows no consideration to residents that will be impacted by their activities.

When the last playground expansion was planned Carlthorp promised the neighbors that their noise abatement plan would mitigate the noise.  It hasn’t.  The wall that they installed with the foliage that was supposed to abate the noise has blocked the view I used to have and darkened my apartment without accomplishing the purpose that was intended.

The double paned windows that were installed helped slightly but the noise still comes through.  The windows need to be replaced as the seals have broken over the years.  It’s now so loud that even when I close the windows all day and run a loud fan it’s still too loud. In order to cope, I have given up spending time in my apartment during the work week.  I leave in the morning and don’t return until the evening when it’s quiet and I can open the windows to let in fresh air.  My quality of life has been seriously impacted and diminished.  I can’t imagine how untenable it will be to live there if their next expansion is approved as is.

Carlthorp now wants to make residents endure years of construction noise and dirt as well as even more noise with an elevated playground which will further disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.  Carlthorp claims that there will be no additional noise.  I don’t believe it based upon past promises that didn’t work out as they said they would.  How can the City recommend this project over the complaints of hundreds of residents in the neighborhood?  Residents who would otherwise be happy in their apartments shouldn’t be forced to move and pay double the rent they can’t afford to pay to avoid their noise or else be miserable.  There are many seniors in the building that can’t leave their apartment physically or economically.   If Carlthorp School  wants to spend millions of dollars in construction it can afford to revise their Expansion Plan to provide parking for their staff and realistic (and far more effective) noise abatement.  All requests for revision of the existing plans have been ignored by the school and approved by the City Staff.  The City staff is supposed to act in the best interests of the residents of Santa Monica yet appears to be advocating for the expansion of the school.  This is doing a very real disservice to the residents surrounding the school.  We are imploring you to take our valid and reasonable concerns seriously.  Please uphold the appeal and stop this Carlthorp School Expansion Plan as it exists until it is revised to reasonably protect the residents from noise, dirt and congestion.  If the school won’t move to a larger more suitable location to accommodate their growing population (which would be the most sensible and fair solution), the least we can ask for is a better plan. Thanks for your consideration.

Janet

JANET PARKER
office services administrator

RPA ADVERTISING
2525 colorado ave. santa monica ca 90404
T 310-633-6121
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 rpa.com
____________________________
This email may contain information that is confidential or is otherwise the property of RPA or its clients. Any use of this information for purposes other than that for which it was intended, including forwarding the information to unauthorized parties or using the ideas or materials contained in this email, may violate U.S. or foreign laws, and is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Margaret Bach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 3:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: Fwd: Appeal of CUP for Carlthorp School

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, I am resending the letter I submitted in February, to call attention once again to the serious issues with the Carlthorp School CUP proposal and to voice my support for upholding the appeal before you tonight.

Please do the right thing for the neighborhood and approve the appeal.

Thank you,
Margaret Bach
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margaret Bach <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: Appeal of CUP for Carlthorp School
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed plans for Carlthorp School and its application for a Conditional Use Permit to add additional facilities and improvements to their already highly congested site. The Appeal before you raises serious, legitimate questions about the school's plans and its impact on the neighborhood.

Three issues must be addressed as you consider the Appeal:

I. What is the threshold beyond which a conditional use, that is, a non‐conforming use, no longer can be justified for its site. When does a use exceed its envelope. or capacity of the site, without negative impacts to its neighborhood?

2. Has Carlthorp adhered to the conditions of its last approved CUP, which was based on an assumption of a particular staff size as well as student body size. In 1995, staffing was at 32, it now stands at 80; and the student enrollment, reportedly, was approximately half of the current 280 K‐6 enrollment, yet neighbors were assured that enrollment would not increase beyond its then‐current level.

3. Does the current plan meet Santa Monica's code requirements? The school campus is situated on an R‐2 parcel yet borders an R‐1 district. Do the various setbacks meet code? Does the Multipurpose room constitute a classroom with its requirements for additional parking? Does the proposed sports use with its 8‐foot walls on the roof of the South building constitute a third story in an R‐2 district? In short, does the proposed project meet all of the requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code?
Many neighbors of the school have weighed in regarding the impacts on parking and traffic, as well as noise levels, that are generated by the school. These issues need to be taken seriously by the City if Carlthorp School continues to occupy Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 4 its site with its current and proposed uses. Post‐construction mitigation of the rooftop noise is destined for failure, and the proposed plan does not address the existing neighborhood impacts on parking and traffic.

But ‐‐ in the big picture ‐‐ is it time for Carlthorp to identify another site for its educational program, in its entirety, or a portion thereof? I understand that this is not the issue before you, but the ongoing debates about the school's proposed plans suggests that the school's programs, ambitions and physical resources have simply outgrown its site on San Vicente Boulevard.

I urge you to uphold the Appeal before you and remand the CUP application back to the Planning Commission with guidelines as to what might constitute an appropriate modification in Carlthorp School's campus plans.

Thank you for your consideration,
Margaret Bach
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White; Clerk Mailbox; Susan Cola Subject: 6.A. Appeal of PC Approval of CUP for Calthorp

EXTERNAL
Please stop the current
Carlthorp School Expansion and uphold the resident's appeal.

This expansion is flawed and abuse to the residents of the area. It will add noise, dirt, traffic congestion and more burden to the already difficult street parking issue.

I find it disheartening to have watched the Planning Department staff "do as told'..by the corporate and wealthy of this City with zero regard for the quality of life for the residents.

Please start doing it.

Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Judith Samuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

The following issues must be addressed when you consider the Appeal:

1. What is the limit beyond which a conditional use, that is, a non-conforming use, no longer can be justified for its site. When does a use exceed the capacity of the site, without negative impacts on its neighborhood?

2. Has Carlthorp adhered to the conditions of its last approved CUP, which was based on an assumption of a particular staff size as well as student body size. In 1995, staffing was at 32, it now stands at 80; and the student enrollment, reportedly, was approximately half of the current 280 K-6 enrollment, yet neighbors were assured that enrollment would not increase beyond its then-current level.

3. Does the current plan meet Santa Monica's code requirements? The school campus is situated on an R‐2 parcel yet borders an R‐1 district. Do the various setbacks meet code? Does the Multipurpose room constitute a classroom with its requirements for additional parking? Does the proposed sports use with its 8‐foot walls on the roof of the South building constitute a third story in an R‐2 district? In short, does the proposed project meet all of the requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code?
I maintain that the appeal for expansion of Carlthorp will have a negative impact on the neighborhood.  I live on San Vicente Boulevard between 4th and Ocean Avenue.  Each afternoon a long line of cars is double‐parked on Georgina and 4th Streets.  This seems to disobey parking codes and disrupts the flow of traffic. If staff grows, there will be a need for additional parking, impacting residents of the neighborhood.  The ongoing noise of construction will also impact the livability of residents in the neighborhood.

The Carlthorp School has outgrown its current location.  Because of the wealth of student families, benefactors, and any school's endowment, the wise decision will be for the school to locate a larger, more suitable location with adequate grounds for sports and outdoor activities, rather than the proposed one rooftop in a residential neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Judith Samuel
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: info Pioneers&Innovators <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 6:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Carmen
Subject: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal/ 20ENT-0275

EXTERNAL
My name is Carmen Piccini and I live at  446 San Vicente Blvd.

I strongly object to the School proposed expansion project.  I am asking the Council to reject the proposed development.

I am concerned about our mental and physical well being. I have some health issues, and this project will affect me deeply.

In addition, the majority of us were not aware of this proposed development project. The school did not send detailed documentation of their intentions to us.

Also, the mail during the pandemic was often not delivered and a small flyer can easily get lost with junk mail.

Here are my concerns about this massive proposed development:

Demolition debris, chemicals exposure, bad smell, dust, dirt, trucks, banging, drilling loud sounds and noisy construction for 3 ‐ 5 years? That is not acceptable.

All of this could cause us some serious chronic health issues. Dust and debris can cause serious eye, nose, and throat irritation, infection or even asthma attacks. Demolition dust is toxic.  Some chemicals can cause lung problems.

Construction site noise is not only loud, but can also be hazardous to one’s hearing.

None of us will be able to open windows & balcony doors of our home due to all the debris, dust, & noises from construction & proposed‐baskeball‐court. Are you aware that some of us don’t even have AC in their homes? This is not acceptable.

The value of our homes will decrease dramatically. At 446 SV, I currently own 2 units.  This project will have a long‐ term negative‐impact of the market value of my 2 units and all my neighbors properties. Not acceptable! A basketball court? Who is proposing this? Perhaps they do not care or are oblivious to how far the noise travels. Our ears will constantly be assaulted by the students screaming, coach yelling, constant pounding of the ball, and the whistles that go along with the game. I suggest outlawing basketball hoops in neighborhoods where there’s less than 500 feet between houses. A baseball court on a residential area is absolutely NOT acceptable! The proposed project will further exasperate the traffic problem that already exist due to all the trucks & construction machinery, making it unbearable for us to access our homes.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 Dorothy Menzies who was the Head of Carlthorp School of recent, in her 1986 document, stated and promised the following: “…the enrollment of Carlthorp school will not increase… and due to the size of the playground, there will be positively no increase in the future.”  This is a residential area, is it not?  Instead of proposing a plan of expanding which will be disrupting the lives within this historic neighborhood ‐ perhaps they should consider moving the school entirely.

I am 100% NOT in favor of this project being approved.  United with my neighbors, I strongly oppose to this proposed‐ project.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Carmen Piccini
Homeowners of two units at San Vicente Blvd.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Evelyn Lauchenauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
Good morning,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed plans for Carlthorp School and its application for a Conditional Use Permit to add additional facilities and improvements to their already highly congested site. The Appeal before you raises serious, legitimate questions about the school's plans and its impact on the neighborhood.

Three issues must be addressed as you consider the Appeal:

I. What is the threshold beyond which a conditional use, that is, a non-conforming use, no longer can be justified for its site. When does a use exceed its envelope. or capacity of the site, without negative impacts to its neighborhood?

2. Has Carlthorp adhered to the conditions of its last approved CUP, which was based on an assumption of a particular staff size as well as student body size. In 1995, staffing was at 32, it now stands at 80; and the student enrollment, reportedly, was approximately half of the current 280 K-6 enrollment, yet neighbors were assured that enrollment would not increase beyond its then-current level.

3. Does the current plan meet Santa Monica's code requirements? The school campus is situated on an R-2 parcel yet borders an R-1 district. Do the various setbacks meet code? Does the Multipurpose room constitute a classroom with its requirements for additional parking? Does the proposed sports use with its 8- foot walls on the roof of the South building constitute a third story in an R-2 district? In short, does the proposed project meet all of the requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code? I think it is time for Carlthorp to select another site for its educational program, in its entirety, or a portion of it. I understand that this is not the issue before you, but the ongoing debates about the school's proposed plans suggests that the school's programs, ambitions and physical resources have simply outgrown its site on San Vicente Boulevard.

I urge you to uphold the Appeal before you and return the CUP application back to the Planning Commission with guidelines as to what might constitute an appropriate modification in Carlthorp School's campus plans.

Thank you for your consideration,
Evelyn Lauchenauer

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:45 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please take a moment to imagine the windows of your home being within feet of Carlthorp School's playfield in use.

Now imagine doubling the activity and sound. Placing an open‐air rooftop play court on an already overloaded residential property exacerbates an already intolerable circumstance. Uphold this appeal.

Neighbors of Carlthorp are looking to you for help. Residents of Santa Monica want to be assured you, our elected council members are protecting our wellbeing and the peace and quiet within our homes.

The Carlthorp School is looking to you to allow them to expand beyond their property and into the homes of their neighbors. Please stop them.

Carlthorp already dominates the residential street parking and now seeks to compound the parking burden by adding more cars during sporting and other events. Please stop this.

Carlthorp School has obviously outgrown their property. It is now incumbent on you to protect the neighbors and neighborhood from Carlthorp School’s avarice and indifference towards neighbors.

Please uphold this appeal.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Lerer
San Vicente Boulevard resident
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente May 10th, 2022
Planning Commission
Planning and Community Development
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Re: Carlthorp School 19ENT-0250 (Conditional Use Permit) & Minor Modification 20ENT-0066
Dear Planning Commission & Staff,
Planning Commission should NOT have approved the Carlthorp School’s Application for additional entitlements and accept the current Appeal, due to:
1) Brown’s Act. The majority of the residents next door at 446 San Vicente Blvd. were not directly notified by the City or Carlthorp School about their modification applications or plans. Please postpone any decisions to allow the residents time to review and comment on Carlthorp’s intentions.
2) Noise impact studies need to be redone since some studies occurred during Covid quarantine times (in May 2020), when the school was not at full student/teacher capacity. Also, the noise levels studies need to be current to reflect the growth in student body over the years and current audible noise levels. The PA systems need to be banned as they exceed the noise ordinance levels and disturb neighbors.

Hardscape playgrounds should also be banned due to it’s R2 zoned designation.

Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 3) Carlthorp proposes building a rooftop play court, which would exceed the limitation of two stories in an R2 zone. (See SMMC Section 9.08.030 (Development Standards). Parking from the alley is considered 1st Floor, not basement, the 2nd story is classrooms, 3rd story is the proposed large play court. The 3rd story play court (9,142sf ) would also have walls that would exceed 10ft., thus making it an obvious 3rd story. Hardscape playgrounds should not be allowed due to their noise level.
4) The proposed Basement/Lecture Hall should be considered a classroom if it is used by the students daily or the majority of the school week. This would require additional parking requirements.
5) 1978 Carlthorp had 170 students. Today in upwards of 280 (+65%). Please guarantee that enrollment cannot expand in the future as they intend to expand/renovate the school.
6) Carlthorp is located in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District, which was designated by the City Council on January 12, 2016. The Landmarks Commission needs to conduct a formal review and revisions BEFORE any approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
7) Enforcement and banning of school associated vehicles parked in the alley beyond the 32 allocated tandem spaces.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Christian Granzow and Inge Granzow
407 Georgina Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (310) 451-2131
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente May 10, 2022
To the Santa Monica Planning Commission,
The Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica (SMBGC) is proud to endorse the work of Carlthorp School. Carlthorp have been active members of the SMBGC community for many years. The Carlthrop community been extremely generous every year at the holidays providing Thanksgiving meals and dozens of toys every Christmasfor our kids and families. Not only have they consistently shown up and done those things for our families every year but they have provided professional development for our staff members. They’ve conducted trainings for our team around English Language Arts instruction and will be offering trainings around Classroom Management, Common Core Math and educational culture and leadership.

The mission of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica is to enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens. Its vision is for youth to develop healthy physical and emotional habits, succeed in their chosen educational and career pathways, achieve self-efficacy and confidence, and become leaders in their communities.

We feel strongly that Carlthop supports us in achieving the mission and vision of SMBGC and highly value their partnership and thought leadership.

Sincerely,
Chief Executive Officer
The Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Terence Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: COMMUNITY COMMENT FOR MAY 10, 2022 AGENDA ITEM 6A

EXTERNAL
IN REGARDS TO AGENDA ITEM 6A

6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Deny Appeal 20ENT‐ 0275 and approve Conditional Use Permit 19ENT‐0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT‐0066 for a 7,280 square foot expansion to the Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29% increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage, based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this report. 2. Adopt the CEQA Findings in this Staff Report under “Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.” Good Evening Councilmembers and community-my apologies for being unable to be present this evening.

I address this room as a longtime Santa Monica Resident having purchased my Ocean Park residence in 2000 and have remained inside the city since, and now have a child who will graduate from Carlthorp next year. I have appeared before in support of projects that I feel continue to elevate the built environment in this city towards inclusivity, cultural innovation and resilience. As an Architect and design principal at Gensler, a worldwide design firm focused on walkable cities, I am in support of this project. This is another great example of the city’s balancing act of cultural investment and community sensitivity. The school practices sensitivity towards it’s neighbors, while practicing inclusivity in admissions -holding scholarship fundraising to help make their excellent education available and affordable to the community. Approving the Conditional Use Permit for this innovative expansion
invests in quality education for it’s neighbors, could assist the school to continue operations during further pandemic disruptions, and maintain the sensitive fabric of the parkway-like experience of San Vicente.

Terence Young
Principal
+1 213.327.3807 Direct
+1 213.327.3600 Main

Gensler
500 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
USA
Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 6.B
1 of 25
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Deny Application to Designate 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0247, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the designation of the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark; and

2. Deny Designation Application (20ENT-0119) to designate the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the revised findings contained in this report.

Summary
On April 27, 2020, the Appellant, H. Joseph Soleiman submitted Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0015 on behalf of Mid Century SV LP, owner of the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. The application materials included an historic assessment report that was prepared for the subject building by Audrey von Ahrens of GPA Consulting (GPA). (Attachment B). The GPA report concluded that the “building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord”, and did not analyze whether the property met any of the other six Landmark criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 9.56.100(A).

6.B
Packet Pg. 1257
2 of 25
At the request of the City, and due to a change in process precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC) prepared a Peer Review Assessment of the GPA report. (Attachment C). The OAC Peer Review Assessment concluded that the property does not appear to be eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion 5. Staff evaluated the Appellant’s materials, including the GPA Report, as well as the OAC Peer Review Assessment and recommended the Commission deny designation of the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a Santa Monica Landmark.

On October 12, 2020, Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark. For consideration in making its decision, the Commission was presented with evidence, including the Appellant’s application materials and materials presented by GPA, oral testimony from GPA, the OAC Peer Review Assessment, the analysis and recommendation included in the oral and written staff reports, and all public correspondence received prior to and during the hearing.

The materials can be found on the Landmarks Commission’s agenda for the October 12, 2020 meeting (Item 10-C).

6.B
Packet Pg. 1258
3 of 25
After consideration of all the evidence and full discussion, the Landmarks Commission determined that the property does not meet any of the designation criteria for the property to be designated a City Landmark and denied the application for designation.

On October 22, 2020, the Appellant, on behalf of the property owner, Mid Century SV LP, filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the application for designation (Appeal 20ENT-0119), attached.

The appellant makes three primary arguments to support its appeal: 1) the application was held to a new and different standard than other applications to designate a Landmark because the City did not obtain a full historic assessment of the property prior to the Landmarks Commission’s hearing; 2) public comments in support of the designation application were not considered; and 3) the Peer Review Assessment prepared by OAC contains inaccurate statements about the information included in the nomination application.

Staff has reviewed the Appellant’s three primary claims. The designation process was conducted in a manner consistent with the Landmarks Ordinance and emergency procedures in place at the time. The comments Appellant claims were omitted from oral public comment were forwarded to the Commission and posted online prior to the meeting in a manner consistent with procedures in place at the time. The statements Appellant claims were inaccurate are supported by the record.

With the appeal, the Appellant submitted a second historic assessment dated December 30, 2020 that was prepared by GPA. In the updated/additional analysis, GPA found the property eligible for designation under four criteria for designation as a City Landmark: Criterion1, as an important example of its type; Criterion 2, as having aesthetic interest; Criterion 4, as embodying distinguishing characteristics of the MidCentury Modern style; and Criterion 5, as a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1259
4 of 25
As with the assessment that was submitted with the application materials, the City requested that OAC provide a peer review of the updated GPA assessment. OAC conducted a thorough analysis including:
• Reviewed the initial landmarks Designation application; • Reviewed the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria, various ordinances and survey updates;
• Reviewed all the materials considered at the October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission hearing;
• Conducted additional research on the property history; • Reviewed relevant National Park Service (NPS) guidance; and • Analyzed the assessment report and findings included in the GPA updated assessment.

Based on the materials submitted by the Appellant with the application and the appeal, including the GPA assessments, the analyses provided by OAC, evidence received prior to and during the Commission’s public hearing on October 12, 2020, staff finds the property does not meet any of the City’s designation criteria for a City Landmark set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and recommends that Council 1) deny the appeal; and 2) deny the application to designate the property a Landmark.

Background
Historic Resource Designation Application
The applicant (property owner) for the designation application submitted information to support designating the property located at 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark under criterion SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(5), “It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect” as part of their April 27, 2020 application.

After the appeal was filed, GPA provided a revised/additional assessment, dated December 30, 2020. The revised assessment found that the property is eligible under four of the six criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.56.100(A): 1, 2, 4, and 5. The

6.B
Packet Pg. 1260
5 of 25
appeal/revised assessment asserts that the property is an important example of its type (1), has aesthetic interest (2), embodies distinguishing characteristics of the MidCentury Modern style (4) and is a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord (5).

Upon close analysis, the property appears to have undergone significant changes after the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, and therefore does not retain sufficient integrity to embody the characteristics described in the GPA report. Further, if the property remained fully intact, it would not necessarily be a representative or exceptional example of its type, style, possess aesthetic merit of its style, or represent a significant example of the work of a notable architect.

City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) 9.56
Adopted in 1976, the stated purpose of the City’s Landmark and Historic District Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is:
[T]o promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing such procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to:

A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.

B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas.

C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.

D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents, tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to business and industry.

E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City.

The ordinance further establishes procedures and standards intended to achieve these purposes. Among these procedures, the SMMC grants the Landmarks Commission the

6.B
Packet Pg. 1261
6 of 25
power to designate Landmarks and Structures of Merit. The Commission has the option to designate an improvement as a Landmark or Structure of Merit to allow the City to protect and enhance improvements that are found to meet certain criteria to support either designation. Currently, there are 136 designated City Landmarks, 14 designated Structures of Merit, and 5 Historic Districts within the City.

To guide the exercise of discretion by the Landmarks Commission in designating Landmarks and the Council in approving or disapproving the actions of the Landmarks Commission, SMMC 9.56.100(A), sets forth six Landmark Designation Criteria:
[T]he Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature, or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

In accordance with the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council reviews the Commission’s designation of a Landmark, as well as any related decisions de novo when an appeal is filed. The Council may review and take action on all determinations,

6.B
Packet Pg. 1262
7 of 25
interpretations, decisions, judgments or similar actions taken that were in the purview of the Commission, and the Council may approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the prior determinations and decisions of the Commission.

Property Information and Architectural Description
The building, constructed in 1961, is rectangular in plan and organized around a courtyard with a swimming pool in the front setback. While the building contains details in the courtyard that are well-designed, the building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is of simple design and construction primarily clad in stucco with simple stucco and metal railings, and aluminum windows.

The GPA materials (application and assessment) identifies the building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as designed in the Mid-Century Modern style. The Mid-Century Modern style was prevalent in the Los Angeles region from the 1930’s through the 1970’s and has experienced a resurgence in popularity over the past 10-15 years.

There are many fine examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural design in singlefamily residential structures. Multi-family structures tend to be primarily characterized by the simplicity of features and construction.

The subject building exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, popular from the 1950’s thru the 1970’s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low/simplified style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. The smooth stucco surfaces, clean rectilinear volumes, aluminum frame flush set windows, slider balcony doors, floor-to-ceiling glazing, integrated parking, flat roof with light wells, and the insular stark aspect of the elevated interior courtyard is typical of this style.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1263
8 of 25
Figure 1: Photo of Subject Property
Property History/ Integrity Evaluation
An original key design element of the building along its primary façade featured rows of long, wide geometric fascia boards set as decorative trim at every floor level that spanned the entire front of the building and horizontally connected the balconies and engaged plastered planter boxes in a linear rhythm. This notable design feature; however, is no longer extant on the building, but for the single remaining fascia board trim at the front eave. The loss of this key stylistic feature has greatly impacted the architect’s original Mid-Century Modern design intent, as shown in the original perspective, below.

Figure 2: Original Rendering of Subject Property
In reviewing the original rendering for the building obtained from the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the University of California Santa

6.B
Packet Pg. 1264
9 of 25
Barbara (UCSB) campus as well as the extant fascia board at the front eave line, this unusual architectural feature added some stylistic distinction to the building’s overall design composition and gave some street presence to a rather mundane, typical façade. A review of the permit history on file with the City indicates this series of decorative fascia trim boards was most likely damaged and removed following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Immediately after the earthquake the City’s emergency response teams began conducting building inspections throughout the community. The building and subterranean parking area of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building were inspected by the City for structural soundness on January 19, 1994. Notes on the “Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Forms” completed by the City’s structural engineer stated the building had severe cracking of walls with obvious severe damage and distress. The property was then “yellow” tagged for limited entry. On February 1, 1994, the building was re-inspected with field notes that stated the anchor bolts on the building had bent and displaced the south (front) wall. The “ornamental wall face at front of building” was also noted as having cracked sufficiently enough to expose additional anchor bolts (this is probably when the “ornamental face” aka geometric fascia boards were removed). The assessment report also notes that the front balcony slabs had displaced, but posed no immediate hazard. Upon concluding the second inspection, the building was issued a “green tag” and in the coming months was stabilized and repaired, as required.

Unfortunately, the extensive seismic repairs made to those areas of the building visible from the public rights-of-way visually and physically impacted the original Mid-Century Modern stylistic design intent as envisioned by its architect Samuel Reisbord. The front elevation at grade level is now dominated by an offset paved area for parking, the driveway leading into the parking garage, and the nondescript solid curving brick wall that encloses the swimming pool from the street. The side and rear elevations of the structure still have planar, unornamented wall surfaces that are punctuated by flush set aluminum sliders and recessed balconies with simple metal rails. In consideration of the prior alterations made to the exterior of the building, its original appearance, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. OAC’s peer review states, and staff

6.B
Packet Pg. 1265
10 of 25
agrees, that the property’s historical integrity of design, material, workmanship, and feeling has also been affected. Therefore, the property does not appear to maintain all aspects of integrity. Below are the aspects of integrity:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

While the property has maintained its location and setting, its design, materials, feeling and association have been significantly compromised.

Architect Samuel Reisbord
The GPA report states that the “building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord.” However, as the initial OAC peer review found, and staff agrees, that while Mr. Reisbord was a prolific architect whose collaborative work spanned three decades, he does not appear to be a “notable architect” in Santa Monica or the larger Los Angeles region. And while his work has been archived at UCSB, it does not necessarily correlate that Mr. Reisbord was notable, as the collection is expansive, including many California architects over many decades.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1266
11 of 25
Typically, to be identified as a notable or “master” figure in a field (architect, builder, designer, engineer, landscape architect, craftsman artist, etc.), the person is generally recognized because of his or her consummate skill whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. Depending on the sphere of geographic influence a notable person may be recognized locally for their quality of design and skill or on a broader scale at the state or national levels (such as Frank Lloyd Wright). While Mr. Reisbord was a prolific architect during this period, it does not appear that he was a leader or innovator, or made significant contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere. As stated in the OAC report(s), there are seven known buildings designed by Mr. Reisbord in Santa Monica, and it does not appear that they should be considered significant or representative works by the architect. If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be considered a notable architect.

Historic Context San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District As with much of Southern California and Los Angeles County, Santa Monica’s population skyrocketed during and after World War II. The Douglas Aircraft manufacturing plant in Santa Monica employed thousands of local residents from the 1940’s into the postwar years. Following the war, the RAND Corporation provided employment for hundreds of Santa Monica residents in the fields of mathematics, aerodynamics, engineering, physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology. As housing demands quickly exceeded supply, courtyard apartment complexes replaced smaller multi‐family dwellings and the remaining single‐family residences along San Vicente Boulevard.

Santa Monica’s population boom in the postwar era prompted the restructuring of the City’s zoning ordinance to allow for higher density, multi‐family residential development.

Changes to Santa Monica’s zoning ordinance were further provoked by the rejection of

6.B
Packet Pg. 1267
12 of 25
an application for the construction of a 120‐unit apartment building on San Vicente Boulevard in 1952. Through the 1950s, a contentious battle ensued between homeowners who opposed multi‐family residential development in their neighborhoods, and developers who looked to profit from higher density construction.

By 1960, the block of San Vicente Boulevard between 4th Street and 7th Street was zoned R3, Multiple Residential, limiting buildings to 45 feet (roughly four stories); the block between 4th Street and Ocean Avenue was zoned R4, limiting building height to 12 stories. In 1975, due to concern for the “quality of life” for residents living in areas zoned R3 and R4, new height restrictions enforced a 40‐foot (roughly three story) height limit in R3 zones and a 6‐story height limit in R4 zones. Both R3 and R4 zoning required minimum setbacks and a certain amount of private open space per unit. By the 1970s, condominiums had surpassed lower density courtyard apartments as the most prevalent form of multi‐family housing along San Vicente Boulevard. Today, the District comprises courtyard apartments, apartment houses, and condominiums, dating from the late 1930’s to the mid‐1990’s. The area is currently zoned R2, Low Density Multiple Residential, and building heights are limited to two stories.

The San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District was designated a Historic District by the City Council in 2015. Its period of significance is defined as buildings constructed between 1937 and 1956. As the subject property was constructed in 1961, it is outside the period of significance and therefore a non-contributor to the Historic District.

Landmarks Commission Action
The application was submitted shortly after Federal, State and local declarations of emergency were issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, due to actions taken to promote social distancing, the deadlines for reviewing and taking action the application were extended and the public hearing was conducted remotely. Further, due to the devastating impacts of the pandemic on the City’s budget, rather than

6.B
Packet Pg. 1268
13 of 25
obtaining a separate historic assessment to evaluate of the application, City staff obtained a peer review of the materials Appellant submitted with its application.

Specifically, due to measures taken to implement social distancing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, deadlines for reviewing and acting on applications governed by SMMC Article IX, including processing timelines for applications to designate a City Landmark, were suspended in accordance with the Revised Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (“Executive Order”).

The deadlines were subsequently tolled and then extended for two years under subsequent supplements to the Executive Order due to the continuation of measures to implement social distancing requirements, including the closure of City Hall and other City facilities, that resulted in unavoidable delays in the City’s processing of planning and permit related applications. In accordance with those supplements to the Executive Order, the deadlines for the Landmarks Commission to review and take action on the application were automatically extended.

From the time the application was filed until the matter was heard by the Landmarks Commission, the Landmarks Commission’s meetings were governed, in part, by provisions of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by the Governor on March 17, 2020, which suspended the Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing, provided that notice and accessibility requirements were met, the public was allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and the legislative body had a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, specifying that this suspension would remain in place during the period in which state or local public health officials have imposed or recommended social distancing measures.

Prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency, although not expressly required by the Landmarks Ordinance, the City’s standard practice was to obtain an historic resource assessment for every designation application at the City’s sole cost. Applicants could elect to submit their own assessments, which were considered by both City staff when preparing a recommendation to the Commission, and the Commission when making a determination.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1269
14 of 25
With the devastating and unprecedented impacts to the local economy and the City’s budget caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, the City became unable to obtain historic assessments at its own cost. On June 23, 2020, the City Council amended the application fees for designating a property as a City Landmark to include the cost of obtaining an historic assessment. This allowed the City to obtain an historic assessment of a property for which a designation application had been filed at the applicant’s cost.

However, the Appellant submitted its application prior to this change in fees, and during a time when the City’s budget did not permit for obtaining an historic assessment for the property that analyzed all six Landmark criteria. Accordingly, the City elected to obtain a more cost-effective peer review of materials received from the applicant in order to complete its evaluation of the property and make a recommendation to the Landmarks Commission for consideration. Other similarly situated applications were also evaluated through the peer review process.

On October 12, 2020, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark. The Commission was provided with the designation application materials which included GPAs original evaluation and OAC’s peer review, as well as the staff report and written public correspondence that was either provided prior to the meeting or read into the record during the hearing.

In consideration of all evidence, including written and oral testimony from representatives for the Appellant, oral and written staff reports, historic preservation consultant reports, and any other materials introduced into the public record, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard.

The audio recording of the October 12, 2020 meeting is posted on the City’s webpage:
http://santamonica.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=4578.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1270
15 of 25
On January 11, 2021, in accordance with SMMC 9.56.120(H), the Landmarks Commission adopted a Statement of Official Action (attached) setting forth the findings to support its decision.

Appeal
On October 22, 2020, the Appellant filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision. The appellant makes three primary arguments to support its appeal: 1) the application was held to a new and different standard than other applications to designate a Landmark because the City did not obtain a full historic assessment of the property prior to the Landmarks Commission’s hearing;2) public comments in support of the designation application were not considered; and 3) the Peer Review Assessment prepared by OAC contains inaccurate statements about the information included in the application materials.

The Appellant’s materials include an historic assessment prepared GPA dated December 30, 2020 that analyzed whether the property was eligible for designation as a City Landmark under all six of the Landmark criteria. In the updated/additional analysis, GPA found the property eligible for designation under four criteria for designation as a City Landmark: Criterion1, as an important example of its type; Criterion 2, as having aesthetic interest; Criterion 4, as embodying distinguishing characteristics of the MidCentury Modern style; and Criterion 5, as a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord.

Appeal Analysis

1. Application for 305 San Vicente was held to a new and different standard due to process changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Appellant argues that the application for designation of 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark was held to a new and different standard because the designation process changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the City did not obtain an historic assessment that analyzed the property’s eligibility under all six Landmarks criteria. As discussed previously, staff did not solicit an independent assessment by

6.B
Packet Pg. 1271
16 of 25
a historic preservation professional to evaluate the property against all six landmarks criteria due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the City’s budget.

However, the Landmarks Ordinance does not require that such a report be obtained by the City as part of the designation process. Rather, SMMC 9.56.120(C) requires staff to “conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a recommendation to the Commission as to whether the improvement merits designation.” While the City did not obtain an historic assessment that analyzed each of the six criteria under the Landmarks Ordinance, staff did conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and made a recommendation to the Landmarks Commission based on the information provided in the application and the OAC Peer Review Assessment of the application materials, including the contention that the property was worthy of designation because of its association with Samuel Reisbord, a notable architect.

Additionally, for the appeal that is before the Council, staff has conducted a full evaluation of additional materials that were submitted by the property owner. And, staff further evaluated information received from the City’s consultant, OAC, who conducted a peer review of the appeal materials and also obtained original renderings and performed an analysis of the building permit history including an analysis of historic integrity of the subject property.

Staff’s evaluation of the application and appeal materials is consistent with the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, and the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the application for designation was based on substantial evidence presented to staff and the Commission. Nonetheless, Council has been presented with additional evidence for consideration on appeal.

2. Public comments, including multiple letters of support, were not properly considered during the Landmarks Commission’s hearing.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1272
17 of 25
Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, all written correspondence received by noon the day of the meeting was posted online and forwarded to the Commission.

Any correspondence received after noon on the day of the meeting was read into the record during the hearing. At the time of the hearing, instead of receiving “real time” oral public comment, the Commission was accepting “real time” written public comment. Members of the public could submit written comments to be read into the record during the hearing in addition to any comment that was received after noon the day of the meeting.

The correspondence identified by the Appellant was received prior to noon on the day of the meeting. In accordance with the procedures in place at the time, the comments were sent to the Landmarks Commissioners for their review prior to the meeting and were not read into the record at the meeting. Therefore, the correspondence was treated according to the protocols for public comment in place since the start of the pandemic, which were consistent with Executive Order N-29-

20. 3. The appeal also contends that OAC’s peer review contains inaccurate statements.

Appellant argues that the Peer Review Assessment provided by OAC, which analyzes the materials provided in the designation application, contains inaccurate information. The Peer Review Assessment concluded that certain statements contained in the GPA report submitted with the initial application are not fully supported by evidence.

In the additional information provided by GPA on appeal, there appears to be explanation of why this supporting evidence was not included with the initial application materials, and the Appellant has provided additional information.

However, the statements made by OAC in the initial peer review were not inaccurate. For example, the OAC peer review states that:

6.B
Packet Pg. 1273
18 of 25
“…upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there is question as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the city…At this time, there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose office was located in Los Angeles, was accomplished in his field and made contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere”
The initial application outlines Samuel Reisbord’s career, identifying several wellknown architects he worked with. However, the initial application does not include a substantive argument as to the importance of his contributions to the field of architecture or the local community. While GPA might disagree with this statement, and others included in the OAC report, the Appellant’s assertion that the OAC peer review contains inaccurate statements is not supported by the record GPA provided information regarding the property in the initial application, and it was not a full assessment. Initial applications are not required to be full assessments.

Similarly, the peer review report by OAC was not a full assessment and focused on the information included in the initial application. The OAC provided a peer review of the initial application, based on the information included in the application materials.

The subsequent assessment by GPA dated December 30, 2020 provided grounds for the appeal and additional information regarding the subject property. Additional information was provided as part of the assessment received as part of the appeal, that in part, responded to OAC initial peer review comments. OAC also provided a peer review of the GPA assessment.

Eligibility as Landmark Designation and Proposed Findings To designate a property as a City Landmark, the Landmarks Commission, or the Council on appeal, is required to find that the property meets one or more of the six criteria set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and discussed in detail below.

The City hired OAC to provide a peer review of the GPA historic assessment provided by the appellant/property owner. Based on the findings as provided in the OAC peer

6.B
Packet Pg. 1274
19 of 25
review report, the consultant finds and staff agrees that the property does not appear eligible as a Landmark under the City of Santa Monica Landmark as outlined below.

The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:

Criterion 1
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The property does not exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history or development of Santa Monica.

The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multifamily buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the post-World War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to its primary (front, south) façade thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling. Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1275
20 of 25
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 1.

Criterion 2
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

According to the guidance from the National Park Service (NPS), “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” Although the NPS guidance is not incorporated into the Landmarks Ordinance criteria, it has been the City’s practice to refer to NPS guidance to inform discussion of the criteria.

The subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley.

Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.

As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960’s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 2.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1276
21 of 25
Criterion 3
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important events in local, state, or national history.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 3.

Criterion 4
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the region. The subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-ofway, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.

The subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950’s,

6.B
Packet Pg. 1277
22 of 25
1960’s, and early 1970’s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-of-way.

As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.

The apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture. There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 4.

Criterion 5
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings,

6.B
Packet Pg. 1278
23 of 25
schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career and was a prolific architect. However, he was not a leader or innovator and did not substantially contribute to the canon of architecture.

Reisbord’s professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s). The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career.

If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be considered a notable architect.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 5.

Criterion 6
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does

6.B
Packet Pg. 1279
24 of 25
not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy Criterion 6.

At its October 12, 2020 meeting, the Landmarks Commission denied the designation of the property commonly known as 305 San Vicente Boulevard. Staff agrees that the property does not merit designation and recommends the City Council deny the appeal and deny the Landmark designation based on the findings set forth above and contained in the draft Statement of Official Action, attached.

Alternatives
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may consider the following if supported by the full evidentiary record:

1. Articulate alternative findings, approving the subject appeal and approving the subject property as a Landmark.

Environmental Analysis
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency disapproves. Based on the recommended action, CEQA would not be applicable.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended action.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1280
25 of 25
Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA B. 305 San Vicente City Council Appeal notice
C. 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application
D. 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application
E. SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 F. STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial
G. GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced H. SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc
I. 10-12-2020 LC Minutes

6.B
Packet Pg. 1281
1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF

THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DENIAL OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 20ENT-0247 LOCATED AT 305 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD

AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. On April 27, 2020, the property owner, H. Joseph Soleiman representing Mid Century SV LP, filed a nomination for the multi-family residential building located on the subject property for the property to be considered for designation as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on October 12, 2020 hereby finds that the subject building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not meet one or more the of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100. On October 22, 2020, the property owner, MID CENTURY SV LP, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s determination. The City Council, on appeal, having held a Public Hearing on May 10, 2022 hereby denies the designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the following findings:

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multi-family buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the postWorld War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to its primary (front, south) thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling.

Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 1.

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 2 SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

According to the guidance from the National Park Service (NPS), “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” the subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley. Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.

As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 2.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important events in local, state, or national history.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 3. (SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the region. The subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 3 not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-ofway, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.

The subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-ofway. As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.

The apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture.

There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 4.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord he is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings, schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career, and was a very prolific architect.

However, he was not a leader or innovator and did not substantially contribute to the cannon of architecture.

Reisbord’s professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).5 The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 4 typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career.

If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be considered a notable architect.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 5.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.

Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 6.

SECTION ll. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica on May 10, 2022 as determined by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record of the proceedings relating to this designation. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 5 particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

Respectfully Submitted
May 10, 2022
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
Attest:

Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 20ENT-0247 Appeal of Denial of Designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark
APPLICANT: H. Joseph Soleiman
PROPOERTY OWNER: MID CENTURY SV LP
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:

Appeal 20ENT-0247 of the Landmarks Commission’s determination to deny Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119 of the multi-unit residential property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark.

DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:

The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public hearing via email to [email protected] or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.

You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed instructions on how to comment in person.

Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: Appeal: Denial of Designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Stephanie Reich at (310) 458-2200 ext. 5460, or by e-mail at [email protected]. For disability-related accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.

ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-2275.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: 305 San Vicente City Council Appeal notice [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark City Planning Division (310) 458-8341
Planning and Community Development Department www.smgov.net 09/18
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION

DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Landmark Structure of Merit
Applications must be submitted by appointment at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall, located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. To schedule an appointment or if you have any questions completing this application please call City Planning at (310) 458-8341. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:

Land Use Element District: Zoning District:

Assessor Parcel: - - Lot Size:

APPLICANT
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Email:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Subject improvement is generally known as:

Existing use(s) of site:

Rent control status:

Status: Occupied Unoccupied
Recognized in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory: Yes No Condition: Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated Ruins Unexposed Threats: None Private Development Vandalism
Public Works Project Zoning Other:

This part to be completed by City staff
Received By: Amount Paid: $
Date Submitted: Check No.:

NOTES TO

APPLICANT
Please complete all
applicable sections
of this application
and submit all
required materials.

Incomplete
applications will not
be accepted for
filing.

Landmarks
Commission meets
on the second
Monday of each
month.

The applicant,
representative, or
legal owner familiar
with the project must
be present at the
Landmarks
Commission
meeting.

A decision on
designation is
rendered at the
hearing. All
decisions by the
Landmarks
Commission are
subject to a 10-day
appeal period. An
official appeal form
and fee schedule is
available at the City
Planning Division
Public Counter.

Appealed projects
will be scheduled for
a hearing before the
City Council.
305 San Vicente Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90402
Low Density Housing R2
4293 002 015 22,391 sq ft
H. Joseph Soleiman
(310) 770-5199
[email protected]
CONTACT PERSON (if different) (Note: All correspondence will be sent to the applicant) Name: Audrey von Ahrens, Architectural Historian II, GPA Consulting Address: 617 S. Olive Street, Suite 910, Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90014 Phone: (310) 792-2690 Fax:

Email: [email protected]
Relation to Applicant: Historic Preservation Consultant

PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
(310) 770-5199
Multi-family residence
Rental
Registered
X
X
X
X
X
2800 Olympic Blvd. Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90404
ex. 125
Mid Century SV LP
2800 Olympic Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90404
20ENT-0119
Scott Albright 851.90
04/27/2020

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
~ Please Note ~
The following property and historical information identified below must be provided in order for your application to be determined complete by the City Planning Division.

You may provide information on additional sheets of paper.

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Description of site or structure, note any major alterations & dates of alterations:

Statement of architectural significance:

Statement of historic importance:

NOTES TO

APPLICANT
For more information
on designation
procedures, refer to
SMMC Section 9.56.

Please see Attachment A.

Please see Attachment B.

N/A

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Person(s) of historic importance:

Local State National
Statement of other significance:

FOR STRUCTURES ONLY:

Date of construction: Factual Estimated
Source:

Architect/Designer/Engineer:

Contractor/ Other builder:

Architectural Style:

Historic Use of Structure(s):

Present Use of Structure(s):

Is/Are structure(s) on original site: Yes No Unknown
Is/Are structure(s) threatened with destruction: Yes No Unknown If yes, state reason:

N/A
None.

Documents and publications that relate directly to proposed improvement (bibliography):

Please see Attachment C.
1961 X
Los Angeles County Tax Assessor
Samuel Reisbord
Mid-Century Modern
Multi-family residence
Multi-family residence
X
X

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

APPLICATOIN REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS – all items must be provided
Completed Application.

Payment of Fee, if applicable.

Payment of Fee is WAIVED for Non-Profit Organizations. Documentation demonstrating Tax-Exempt Status must be included with this application and at the time of filing to be eligible for a Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application fee waiver.

Staff will confirm non-profit organization status prior to deeming this application complete.

Eight (8) sets of labeled Color Photographs of the building elevations or improvement on 8½" x 11" paper (Color photocopies are acceptable).

Any information you feel would be of assistance in reviewing the application, such as original plans, old photos, or other historical information.

For structures only: if applicant is requesting approval of modifications, please submit all materials requested for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application.

I hereby certify that the information contained in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge. ____________________________________________________
Applicant’s Name (PRINT)
_________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Signature Date
X
X
X
X
H. Joseph Soleiman

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description

ATTACHMENT A - DESCRIPTION

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description

Description
The Imperial Apartments at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a multi-family apartment building originally constructed by then owner Joseph L. Lyons in 1961 as a four-story, wood-frame building with 36-units on the upper three floors over ground floor parking.1 The Imperial Apartments building was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord.

The building takes up the majority of its rectangular parcel. It has a rectangular plan organized around a central court and a network of exterior, elevated walkways. The building is oriented southeast towards San Vicente Street. It is set back from the sidewalk by an in-ground pool west of the main entrance constructed in 19622 and surface parking to the east, where there is also a Mid-Century Modern sign that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS,” designed and constructed by Local Neon in 1962.3 The pool is protected from the street by a curved wall made of square concrete blocks. In the center of the front setback there are two trees planted within one tree well. The building has a narrow setback from the adjacent buildings on each side and abuts a rear alley on the northwest.

The building has a flat roof clad in rolled roofing. On the primary elevation, the eaves extend out over balconies but are flush with the exterior wall otherwise. The extended eaves have wide fascia boards clad in smooth stucco. The fascia boards at each balcony are connected by thinner boards, creating an open gap between the thinner fascia boards and the exterior wall. The result is the appearance of a light, continuous, notched band along the façade’s roofline. On the other elevations, the roof eaves overhang the exterior walls and feature simple, flat fascias.

The exterior of the building is clad in smooth stucco. The primary elevation is divided vertically into two parts. The first story is asymmetrical and its design expresses its functions of providing vehicular and pedestrian access. The three upper stories are symmetrical and express their functions as apartment units.

The first story is divided into three parts horizontally. At its center is a wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage. The primary pedestrian entrance is to the west. It is recessed beneath the upper stories and faces east, perpendicular to the street. The door is aluminum and glass. Flooring at the entrance is terrazzo. The exterior wall to the east of the pedestrian door is clad with white and gold ceramic tiles. The exterior wall to the west of the pedestrian door is floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames. Two round columns clad in small, square, white ceramic tiles with gold tiles scattered throughout, separate the glass walls from the pool area to the south and support the overhanging upper stories. East of the central vehicular entrance the exterior wall features are tall, narrow, rectangular openings that provide light and air into the ground floor garage.

Fenestration on the upper three floors is organized into four bays. The inner two bays have sliding aluminum windows above planter boxes adjacent to wide balconies accessed by large sliding aluminum doors. The balconies have simple metal railings. The upper balconies shelter the balconies below. The outer two bays consist of smaller corner balconies on each floor, also with aluminum, sliding sash doors. The front wall plane of all balconies on the primary elevation extends below its corresponding floor level creating a notched appearance similar to the roof fascia. 1 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Building Permit No. B29952, June 16, 1961. 2 Building Permit No. B30967, January 22, 1962.
3 Building Permit No. B31470, April 20, 1962.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description

The east elevation is asymmetrical. On the north end of the first story are three, recessed metal doors for storage/utility spaces, including a trash enclosure, and a stairwell to the upper floors. The doors are accessible via a concrete walkway from the rear alley. Fenestration on the first floor consist of short, fixed windows with textured wire glass protected by metal security bars. On the upper floors there are recessed balconies within rectangular openings with slightly projecting concrete slab floors and simple metal railings. They each have sliding aluminum doors and are flanked by a number of aluminum sliding-sash windows. Small louvered metal vents are along the floorplates of each floor. The west elevation is similar to the east elevation with punched window and balcony openings.

The rear of the building overlooks a narrow alley. The elevation is a simplified version of the primary elevation. The first story is recessed beneath the upper floors, supported by round concrete columns. At the center of the first story is a rectangular opening to the ground floor parking. The opening has an accordion-style metal gate. The driveway has a gradual slope that descends into the garage, flanked by low concrete walls. The vehicular opening is flanked by two bays of parking on each side, at grade with the alley, such that they overlook the ground-floor parking within the first story of the building. This opening is partially enclosed by metal security bars on the west. The east side is partitioned off from the garage by concrete walls. Fenestration on the upper floors is similar to that of the primary elevation and organized into four similar bays. The openings are almost exactly the same with the addition of a narrow opening at the center of the second story that leads to the interior courtyard. A balcony extends the full length of the interior two bays on the second story. Like that of the primary elevation, the interior two bays have aluminum sliding sash windows flanked by wide, recessed balconies with sliding sash doors. There are no built-in planters on this elevation. Within the balconies, each side wall has short jalousie windows. The end bays consist of narrow balconies with sliding sash doors flush with the exterior wall plane.

The apartments are all arranged around a large, rectangular interior courtyard on the second floor. The courtyard is accessed by a stairwell leading from the recessed main entrance. The exterior walls within the courtyard are clad with a lightly textured stucco. The floor is concrete with bands of terrazzo tile that extend the width of the courtyard, framing the paired apartment entrances on the second story. The courtyard has an open floorplan, interrupted by large, geometric, poured in place concrete planters. Shelter is provided by walkways that connect the apartments on the upper two floors. Narrow walkways extend the full length of the courtyard from the south to north. These walkways are lined with low walls clad in stucco with metal caps. Two wider walkways extend the width of the courtyard and are flanked by floating planters that are elevated from the concrete slab floor of the walkway by two metal poles, creating a “floating” effect. The top of the planters have been sealed off by metal and wood covers. On the fourth floor, only the wide walkways that extend the width of the courtyard are covered by a flat roof; the narrow walkways that span the length of the courtyard remain unsheltered. The doors to the apartment units are wood slab doors. Fenestration within the courtyard consist of groupings of large, floor to ceiling jalousie windows. Lighting consists of recessed can lighting within the exterior courtyard.

Alterations
The Imperial Apartments building is in overall good condition and is remarkably intact. Other than ongoing maintenance, such as re-roofing, re-painting, and replacing the structural beams of courtyard walkways, there have been no major alterations to the building’s exterior. The plexiglas panel on the freestanding sign was present at the time of the site visit, but due to obvious damage, it has since been removed. See Attachment E for copies of building permits.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance ATTACHMENT B – STATEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance

Statement of Architectural Significance
The Imperial Apartments building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord.

Samuel Reisbord4 (1904-1985) was born in Kiev, Russia to Jewish parents Wolf and Bessie. They immigrated to the United States in 1905 and resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to the 1910 United States Federal Census, his father was a proprietor in the iron railings industry.5 By 1920, Sam and his family, which now consisted of three sisters and brothers, resided in a home they owned on Ludlow Street in Philadelphia.6 He attended the University of Pennsylvania and graduated in 1929 with his Bachelor’s degree in Architecture. Upon graduating, Reisbord worked in local Pennsylvania offices. In 1931, he married Philadelphia native and journalist, Jeanette Markowitz.7 In 1932, Reisbord and Jeanette moved to the Soviet Union where he spent the next seven years. Reisbord began working with Albert Kahn who at the time was consulting architect to the State Industrial Design Trust in Moscow and designed buildings and assisted in the creation of the Moscow subway. Jeannette worked for the Moscow bureau of the New York Times and the Russian Fur Trading Board. They were ordered out of Russia at the beginning of World War II and Riesbord, Jeanette and their two sons escaped via the Trans-Siberian railroad to Japan and landed in Hawaii in 1940.8 In 1940, Reisbord and his family resided in Honolulu where he worked as an architect at U.S. Military bases Hickam Field and Pearl Harbor.9 Between 1943 and 1944, Reisbord was an architect for the Canol Project, a sub-Arctic pipeline and refinery project for Bechtel, Price, Callahan and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Alaska.10 By 1944, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he and his family moved to Los Angeles, where he would remain until his death in 1985.

From 1944 to 1946, Reisbord worked as a designer for Los Angeles-based master architect Paul R.

Williams.11 In 1946, Reisbord became principal of his own firm and also appears to have worked as an associate at the firm Eisenshtat and Lipman in the early 1950s.12 In the late 1950s, he partnered with architect Fred Posner on many projects. He then joined forces with Jerrold M. Caris in 1965 and formed Reisbord & Caris, a partnership that lasted until 1969 when he established his own firm, Sam Reisbord & Associates. Reisbord was an AIA member from 1947 until his death. 4 Various spellings of the last name, Reisbord, have been recorded throughout the years, including: Reisburd, Reisborg, Relsbord and Reisdorf. 5 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793. 6 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078. 7 Ancestry.com, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phstart=successSource. 8 Legacy.com, “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-reisbord&pid=92744. 9 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286. 10 Online Archive of California, “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168, accessed March 10, 2019, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/; Samuel Reisbord papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. 11 Online Archive of California.
12 “Community Center Has Preview: West Side Jewish Installation to Be Dedicated April 26,” Los Angeles Tomes, April 14, 1954, A1.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance

Reisbord had a prolific career as an architect. His association with more well-known master architects, such as Albert Kahn, Paul Williams, and Sidney Eisenshtat, speaks volumes of his talent, though his work stands alone. Reisbord’s many projects included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and schools, and commercial buildings, as well as community centers; however, the bulk of his work was multi-family apartment buildings, specifically Mid-Century Modern and courtyard apartments, for which he is best known.

Over the course of his prolific career Reisbord’s list of notable projects include: the Beverly Carlton Apartments in partnership with Alvin Lustig, now the Avalon Hotel (9400 W Olympic Blvd, Beverly Hills, 1948); Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center (1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles, 1951); Westside Jewish Community Center as associate at Eisenshtat and Lipman (5870 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, 1953); 16-unit Modern-style apartments at 2046 14th Street (Santa Monica, 1954)13; the Wilshire Twilighter Hotel, now Dunes Inn14 (4300 Wilshire Blvd, 1958); and Plush Horse Inn Hotel (1700 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, 1960).

Other examples of his Mid-Century Modern Apartments include: Holt Villas15 (432 S. Holt Avenue, Los Angeles, 1954); Jewell Gardens Apartments, now Westwood Chateau (456 Landfair Avenue, Los Angeles, 1955); Carlton Park Apartments (5916 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, 1956); and 823-25 Fairview Avenue Apartments in partnership with Fred Posner16 (Arcadia, 1958).

While the above works are all extant, many of Reisbord’s projects have been demolished over time, particularly those apartments and commercial buildings located in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Some examples include: 8567 Beverly Blvd; 1676 N Orchid Avenue; 712 N Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia; Sunset Center Hollywood (no address found); Warner Victory Center (no address found); Mark-Stephens office building (8467 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles).

The Imperial Apartments is a highly intact and significant example of notable architect Samuel Reisbord’s work in Santa Monica. It was constructed toward the middle part of Reisbord’s lengthy and prolific career. He practiced until at least 1969. The building is also one of only two known apartment buildings of his extant in Santa Monica.

The Imperial Apartments exemplify Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to the multi-story apartment housing type. The building’s simple but striking geometric forms create a dynamic composition on both the exterior facade and interior courtyard. The courtyard in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining bold, geometric forms and simple details that when viewed together create a surprisingly intricately designed space and interesting composition of solid and void. The courtyard walkways are also strategically arranged to provide efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an elegant design of intersecting volumes and planes. The Imperial Apartments is, therefore, a representative work of notable architect Sam Reisbord and eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion 5.
13 2046 14th St. was identified as an “architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park,” in the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement; Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement, (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018), 134. 14 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel was picked up by SurveyLA as “an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”; HistoricPlacesLA.org, “Dunes Inn,” accessed April 4, 2020, http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54; “Completion of $1 Million Hotel Set for April,” Los Angeles Times, Mar 9, 1958, G13. 15 “$150,000 Unit,” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1954, E8. 16 “Near Completion,” Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1958, F15.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance