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