ATTACHMENT E
DETAILED RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT
The following provides a response in greater detail to the items listed in the appeal and numbered to correspond with the eight complaint categories identified in the report.
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
1. Incorrect Plan Exhibits
1A) Upper level
exceeds parcel
coverage
9.08.030 SMMC Does not comply
with Code
Staff has confirmed
that the parcel
coverage complies
with Code
2. Violations of CUP 95-012
2A) Operating
detrimental to
surrounding
properties
95CUP-012,
condition #25
Excessive light,
noise, vehicle
queueing, not
enough parking,
landscaping
Code Compliance
has investigated
and found no
violations, took no
action and closed
the complaint
2B) No further permits
should be
allowed to be
issued due to
CUP violations
95CUP-012,
condition #31
Applicant is in
violation of
current permit
and therefore no
further permits
should be issued
Consistency of
project and
operations with
CUP approval and
conditions has been
confirmed by staff
with two exceptions;
staff recommends
amendments to
CUP to remedy
issues (See 2E and
2F, below)
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
2C) Existing
Landscaping
exceeds height
limits
95CUP-012,
condition #36
Hedges along
front and western
side of parcel
violate height
limits; trees along
western
perimeter are too
tall
Tree and hedge are
separately defined.
There is no height
limit for trees,
hedges consistent
with condition #58
blocking views from
residence(s) into
play field.
2D) Existing plan for
pick-up/drop-off
does not work
95CUP-012,
condition #39
Pick-up and drop
off plan is
hazardous
The existing pick-up
and drop-off plan
would be amended
with current CUP to
include a Parking
and Loading
Operations Plan
and procedures for
special events
2E) Grass surface
replaced without
approval
95-012, condition
#59
Grass play yard
surface was
replaced with
artificial turf
Grass surface was
replaced with
artificial turf;
applicant requests
amendment to the
condition as part of
proposed project
2F) Obstructed clear
view through front
fence
95-012, condition
#61
Clear view
through the front
fence is not being
maintained
Applicant requests
a condition
amendment as part
of proposed project.
If condition
amendment is not
approved, applicant
must comply with
original condition
which would require
clear view through
front fence.
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
2G) Periodic
compliance
reports
95-012, condition
#62
Applicant has not
submitted
required
compliance
reports
Periodic compliance
reports are/were not
required. The
condition was
satisfied prior to
issuance of a
building permit.
2H) Inconsistency of
prior assertions
by applicant
regarding student
enrollment and
number of staff
Reference to
written or verbal
correspondence;
not a condition of
approval
School exceeds
staff and student
limits
The CUP does not
limit current staff or
student populations;
School student and
staff population
limits proposed with
(current) CUP
condition
3. Non-Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
3A) Number of stories 9.08.030 SMMC Project exceeds
number of stories
and does not
comply with Code
Staff has confirmed
that the number of
stories is consistent
with Code
requirements,
proposal is in
compliance.
3B) Rear setback
incorrect
9.08.030 SMMC
D1 and D2
R2 zone
“adjoining” R1
zone
Staff has confirmed
compliance with
Code of the rear
setback. The R1
parcel is across the
alley from the
subject property
and not adjoining.
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
3C) Parking for
community
assembly use
Parking SMMC
9.28.060
Additional parking
is required for
addition of
multipurpose
room
Staff has confirmed
compliance; the
proposed
multipurpose room
is not a community
assembly use that
would require
additional parking
3D) Courtyard
required
Courtyard SMMC
9.08.030 (F) 4&5
Carlthorp School
is in violation of
the courtyard
development
requirements
As an existing
condition, the
courtyard is
allowed to remain;
No additions to the
courtyard are
proposed that
would require
compliance with the
current courtyard
standard
3E) Offices within
apartment
complaint Apartment being
used for school
office
Code Enforcement
has investigated
this complaint,
found no violation,
and took no action
3F) School did not
engage in
neighborhood
outreach
encouraged policy School did not
engage in proper
outreach
Both a public
meeting and
additional outreach
were conducted
4. Use of Multipurpose Room
4A) Parking
requirement for
classroom vs
multipurpose room
Parking SMMC
9.28.060
Additional parking
for the
multipurpose
room should be
required because
it will function as
a classroom
The
school/applicant
has provided a
description of the
multipurpose room
which clearly states
it will not be used
as a classroom
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
5. Procedural Flaws
5A) Application
submittal
procedures
Common
Procedures
SMMC 9.37
Minor
Modification
accepted in error
Application for the
Minor Modification
was submitted
electronically; email
verified and
properly submitted.
6. Noise Impacts
6A) Noise and privacy Noise Ordinance
SMMC 4.12
Unreasonable
noise from the
school site
Mitigation measures
are proposed in
CUP conditions #8,
#9 and #11
6B) Noise is
excessive when
windows are open
95-012, condition
#49
Replace windows
of building to
west with sound
rated glass
The condition of
previous CUP was
satisfied
6C) Excessive noise 95-012, condition
#56
Limit outdoor
activity hours
Outdoor activity
limited with
proposed CUP
conditions
6D) Excessive noise 95-012, condition
#57
Disperse groups
of children
Outdoor activity
limited with
proposed CUP
conditions
7. Privacy Impacts
7A) Privacy impacts
not identified
Appeal Statement Intent to amend
appeal
As of the writing of
this staff report , no
additional
information has
been received
8. Access to Information
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
8A) Documents
withheld
95 CUP file and
current project;
Santa Monica
Municipal Code
Sections
Documents
withheld by staff
Staff has provided
digital and xerox
copies of all
available
documents; some
documents from
1995 may not exist
8B) Questions not
answered
Code Sections,
interpretations
applicability to
plan exhibits
Staff refused to
answer questions
Staff has responded
to questions during
multiple phone and
virtual meetings
with multiple staff
members; staff has
provided written
correspondence to
comprehensively
answer all
questions
8C) Premature
Planning
Commission
hearing
Applications filed
6/25/2019 (CUP)
and 3/13/2020
(Minor
Modification)
Process is unfair Multiple hearing
delays were
granted; Planning
Commission
hearing held on
November 4, 2020
8D) Premature City
Council hearing
Appeal filed
November 18,
2020
Staff did not
answer
questions,
therefore appeal
statement not
amended
Multiple hearing
delays have been
granted; requested
appellant to confirm
February 22, 2022
appeal hearing date
on November 29,
2021