Santa Monica City Council
August 23, 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.

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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,

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.r
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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,

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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:

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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”

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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//

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : 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.

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and

9.A.s
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and From: [email protected]
To: Regina Szilak
Subject: Carlthorp School
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2022 9:35:35 AM

EXTERNAL
In regards to the recent notice of expansion, when will the parking garage be restored for parking if ever? The residents were not notified of the change as it appears to be used for parties. I assume the employees park on nearby streets.

Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
[email protected]

9.A.t
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp From: Vernice Hankins
To: Regina Szilak
Subject: FW: Carlthorp School Appeal 20ENT-0275
Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 3:16:05 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Paige Segal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp School Appeal 20ENT-0275

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I oppose the expansion of the Carlthorp School. This causes a lot of disruption in the lives of the fellows who live here. I live directly across the street from Carlthorp, 425 San Vicente Blvd. For some, the noise alone is a huge issue. For me, it’s the parking. The expansion of the school, means a bigger staff, and less space to fit all our cars. I live with my husband and my child. Circling the block several times to find a spot near my house is a huge issue.

Please spot this plan for moving forward.

Thank you for your time,
Paige Segal
819.970.1487

9.A.t
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp From: Vernice Hankins
To: Regina Szilak
Subject: FW: Carlthorp School Appeal
Date: Friday, March 4, 2022 10:48:33 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Brecht <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp School Appeal

EXTERNAL
City Council,
I am writing to urge you to uphold the appeal against Carlthorp School’s expansion. As a ten year resident of San Vicente Blvd., I can attest to the fact that the quality of life in our neighborhood is significantly lower when the school is in session. Given their existing impact on the neighborhood, the idea that the school would expand further is ludicrous. It is troubling to me that city staff would recommend this expansion.

Specific issues which will impact your constituents in this neighborhood:
- A multipurpose room which will be used for events will bring more traffic, less parking, and more noise. - A rooftop basketball court will exacerbate the school’s existing noise pollution. They are installing double pane windows on their school to mitigate the noise they experience in classrooms. - Years of commercial construction will take place in the middle of an R1 Zone The school already presents numerous issues which should be curtailed:
- The school has 30 parking spots and 80 staff. Staff of the school take spots away from residents, forcing us to park far away from our homes.
- The school produces constant noise throughout the day. It can be heard in every room of my home. It is difficult to work from home. It is difficult to have peace in my home. Please come to San Vicente during a school day and hear it for yourselves.
- Student pick-up and drop-off cause dangerous traffic situations and even greater parking issues.

This school has a history of bad-faith expansions. They should not be able to expand further.

This school reduces your constituents’ quality of life. Their impact on the Historic San Vicente district should be investigated by the city.

Thank You,
Jeff Brecht
415 San Vicente Blvd

9.A.t
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp From: Vernice Hankins
To: Regina Szilak
Subject: FW: Carlthorp School Expansion & Rooftop Playcourt.

Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:08:07 PM
From: Jim Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp School Expansion & Rooftop Playcourt.

EXTERNAL
My name is Jim Robertson and I live next door to the school in unit #306. I oppose expansion of the school in this quiet residential area and in particular oppose the proposed rooftop playcourt.

Almost every day I go to my rooftop community patio for prayer, quiet meditation, and relaxation. A ROOFTOP PLAYCOURT would be very disturbing and a huge overreach.

Thank you for hearing my comment and request,
Jim
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943

9.A.t
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp From: Jim Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp School addition (Carlthorp School Appeal).

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
This is Jim Robertson, resident of 446 San Vicente Bl, Unit #306, Santa Monica (directly next door to carlthorp school).

I am opposed to the expansion that Carlthorp School proposes (gymnasium on roof, etc.) We already have excessive noise from the school yard and I'm amazed that they still use speaker amplification for some of their outdoor events in such a small area. I find it quite intrusive.

Placing a gymnasium on the roof would certainly magnify this noise and greatly intrude upon the peace, quiet, comfort, and enjoyment of our homes. In other words our homes would become a less healthy place to live.

Thank you for listening to me.

Respectfully.

Jim
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
From: Jim Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp school expansion.

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
This is Jim Robertson again resident of 446 San Vicente Bl. Here's a little addition to my prior comment.

My parents were the very first tenants of 446 San Vicente (directly next door to Carlthorp School). They moved here in 1961 and lived here until the day they died. I visited them often. Approximately 1985 my mother asked me to move in with her because she needed assistance and I stayed with her until the day she died in 2001and continue to live here.

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente I've been living here in this same unit for thirty seven years and I think it's good for you to know that I'm quite familiar with the unwelcome noise levels coming from Carlthorp school, and am opposed to this expansion plan that would surely increase the disturbing noise (due to basketball court on roof, etc.).

Thank you for listening,
Jim
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 Carlthorp School-438 San Vicente Blvd.

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
In regards to the above appeal please advise who approved and what authority, without a resident hearing, the blocking off of the existing alley entrance entire parking area for other than parking purposes. It is not that I object however this appears to be a violation of the parking requirement for the school.

Has another area been designated by the city and will accommodate all the employee parking? Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
502 San Vicente Blvd.

[email protected]
From: Jim Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal

EXTERNAL
This is Jim Robertson, age 82, long time resident (almost forty years) of 446 San Vicente Bl., Unit #306, submitting another comment regarding the Carlthorp School expansion plans.

Please understand that although maintaining a peaceful, quiet, harmonious, healthy place to live for myself and my neighbors is a high priority for me, this does not mean that the welfare of the children isn't also a very high priority for me. After all, this is why for over 20 years I've been volunteering for

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente State Parks, National Parks, and other parks, taking groups of school children of all ages into our mother nature (almost every week), teaching the kids ancient aboriginal, indigenous, ancestral skills.

Of course I care deeply about all children, but this does not mean that they need a gym with a basketball court on the roof of the school that is so very close to its neighbors. The noise would be too much. A gym underneath the ground floor would be a much more reasonable option.

Thank you for listening.

Jim
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
-----Original Message-----
From: s saez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp expansion objection

EXTERNAL
Hello I am an owner of a condo on 502 San Vicente Blvd and I object to the expansion of the school They already have traffic lined up daily with cars that disturbs the neighborhood and now they want to expand. They have been in noncompliance with a parking lot classrooms setup that is very noisy Scott Saez.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:26 PM
To: Regina Szilak <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Appeal of Carlthorp Expansion--20ENT-0275

EXTERNAL

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Janeice Schwartz
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105
Santa Monica, California 90402
Dear Council Members,
My name is Janeice Schwartz and I have had the good fortune of living at 446 San Vicente Blvd. #105, since March of 1996.

When I purchased my unit, I had a beautiful panoramic view from my balcony on the first floor of an undeveloped grassy, green field. I was told that the school was planning to make this area a soccer field. Unfortunately, that is not what came to pass. Classrooms were constructed where I was told the soccer field was to be located. I accepted this. I was working at the time as an elementary school teacher, and actually did not have the time to object. As time progressed, very tall trees were planted on the property line. Since I live on the first floor, the trees blocked the sunlight I receive in my front room area. Then, the school placed a storage area beneath my master bedroom window. These school improvements have not enhanced the aesthetic appeal of my home.

I am sure the school is not aware of the resulting negative impact their improvements have generated for their residential neighbors. We have tried to be good neighbors, but this new proposed expansion will effect our quality of life for five summers and further add to the noise we endure every school day. It will make it difficult to get to and from our underground garage, as the alley will be filled with workers and their equipment. It is already difficult with sanitation trucks and contractors working in different buildings.

One of my greatest fears is the resulting rodent problem that will inevitably occur when the digging begins for the proposed multipurpose room. The rats can easily climb on the gigantic trees and gain access to our balconies.

If the expansion were to occur, our daily lives would be further affected by the school. Our building's residents are primarily retired or still working from home, as a residual effect of the pandemic. The noise during the school day is very overwhelming at certain times of the day. I can't imagine what the level of noise will be with an addition of an open-air basketball court! If this expansion results in an increase in enrollment in future years, traffic will be even a greater issue than it is at the present time. Our open area sunroof would be out of commission for five summers, during the construction.

As I mentioned before, the population of our building is primarily older, many with health concerns. I myself have asthma and the dust and pollutants from the proposed project will be detrimental to my health. I do not have central-air in my unit, so I must have open windows during the summer months.

Other residents also do not have central-air. The noise pollution from the project will be a significant deterrent to our enjoyment of our homes, during this project. That could lead to major stress and negatively impact us physically, emotionally and mentally.

Also, a long term consequence of this proposed expansion will most likely result in lower property values for our units. This would be very sad for twenty-two units! Please approve this appeal AN DO NOT approve this expansion.

I definitely support the appeal.

Janeice Schwartz
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105, Santa Monica, California 90402

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 8:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp School

EXTERNAL
Kindly see the attached petition. We do not need 5 years of construction noise, dust, alley/parking congestion, etc. If built a basketball court on the rooftop will be especially noisy for the neighbors.

Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
502 San Vicente Blvd.

From: Eli Lester <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 12:15 PM
To: [email protected]; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>
Cc: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlthorp School Appeal 20ENT-0275

EXTERNAL
Frank and Jean Lester March 27, 2022 446 San Vicente
Blvd., Unit 201
Santa Monica, California 90402
To the esteemed members of the Santa Monica City Council; We are sending you this letter (in the body of the email and attached as a pdf) in advance of the meeting on 4/12/2022, in which the Carlthorp School planned expansion will be discussed. We oppose this project as proposed, and we wish to support the Appeal 20ENT-0275 properly, following the correct procedures and protocols. To that end, we are also separately sending a copy to the City Clerk Please verify receipt of our letter. Thank you.

Frank and Jean Lester

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 446 San Vicente Blvd. Unit 201,
Santa Monica, CA 90402
To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room102, Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Appeal 20ENT-0275
As resident homeowners who have lived within 10 feet of the Carlthorp School for 27 years, we have reasonable and serious concerns about the proposed expansion of the school. Our issues are based on the actual history of how we have been impacted by previous Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expansion requests, which after approval, resulted in violations of the conditions included in the CUP.

I am 80 years old and my wife is 85. In the past we have been quiet and cooperative with previous expanded use requests without knowing how the actual uses would get modified over time by the school. We are concerned about our wellbeing, our health, and the comfortable use of our home without constant disturbance. We are sure that founders of the Carlthorp School never meant to cause the disruption of peace and harmony in our neighborhood, but at this point, our peace and the quiet enjoyment of our home is at the mercy of Carlthorp School and the City of Santa Monica. This time, the expansion is way too much and much to our detriment.

That which we have personally observed is as follows;
1 Gradually increasing congestion and interrupted traffic flow at, and around the school. Reduced unfettered access to public streets, public alley ways and private driveways on residential streets. Impeding the safe transition of northbound public traffic attempting to turn right onto San Vicente Blvd.
2 Trees planted at the property line which were not to exceed 16 feet in height, have grown way beyond that and now block out the sun to residents adjacent to the trees. 3 Gradually increasing noise levels from the school as enrollments increased over time In addition to the practical experiences of previous expansion work right outside my windows, and seeing first-hand how usage has changed, we have reviewed hundreds of pages of the history of how the school has received approvals for certain conditional expansion exceptions to the zoning laws in this residential area, only to expand beyond those conditions. After examining this latest requesting for yet further conditional expansion, I see no mechanisms for preventing or remedying excessive expanded use, if once again they go beyond initially granted use exceptions. How will it be different this time? This is no ‘minor’ modification. Creating a huge elevated playground within a few feet of residential units is unquestionably bad judgement and without consideration for the neighbors quiet enjoyment of their homes, and will certainly interfere with anyone who works from home or is a writer. 1 While no “technical” increases in the number of “classrooms” are contained in this application, the eventual use of the newly created space and structural modifications for instructional and learning purposes, with minor adjustments, could easily accommodate an increase in enrollment at a future time. By not using the term “classroom”, the request avoids the need for providing additional parking as well as other required conditional use issues.

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 2 The construction process, not withstanding, both the general and periodic noise levels created by adding second story recreational space only a few feet from our building, is outrageous.

There are no guarantee, even with an audio analysis, that the future sound levels, depending on actual use, will not be disturbing to neighbors to the east, the west, and the south of the school. 3 During the protracted construction time, we and our neighbors will be subjected to; a. Continual exposure to dust, debris and pollutants
b. Repeated excess noise, especially “down wind” of the project c. Disrupted access to and from our parking garage through the alley d. Restricted use of our rooftop lounge areas during work being done e. Inability to safely open windows in the summertime for ventilation f. Older owners are very concerned about their health and wellbeing. g. This project, as planned, could potentially cause mental, physical and spiritual damages. h. Great distress and discomfort to residents near the school.

Some of the fallout of having the expanded school right next to us is; 1 A long term negative impact of the market value of our homes 2 Permanently reduced enjoyment and quiet use of our home 3 Continued and perhaps increased disruptive traffic congestion 4 Anything but harmonious operations
Major question;
If not to eventually increase enrollment, then why spend so much time and money to embark on such a huge three to five year development project in spite of the overt objections of so many residents close to the school?
We are not in favor of this project going forward, and we support the Appeal 100% FRANK LESTER 3/27/2022
JEAN LESTER 3/27/2022
446 SAN VICENTE BLVD., UNIT 201, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90402 From: Jennifer Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Regina Szilak <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Appeal 20ENT-0275 Carlthorp

EXTERNAL
Hi Regina,
I see this bounced back when I sent it to you so not sure if you got it.

Thank you!
Jennifer Kramer

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jennifer Kramer <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:46 AM
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 Carlthorp
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
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 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

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente • 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
--

JENNIFER KRAMER

CLINICAL DIRECTOR

EXTERNAL
Janeice Schwartz
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105
Santa Monica, California 90402
Dear Council Members,
My name is Janeice Schwartz and I have had the good fortune of living at 446 San Vicente Blvd. #105, since March of 1996.

When I purchased my unit, I had a beautiful panoramic view from my balcony on the first floor of an undeveloped grassy, green field. I was told that the school was planning to make this area a soccer field. Unfortunately, that is not what came to pass. Classrooms were constructed where I was told the soccer field was to be located. I accepted this. I was working at the time as an elementary school teacher, and actually did not have the time to object. As time progressed, very tall trees were planted on the property line. Since I live on the first floor, the trees blocked the sunlight I receive in my front room

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente area. Then, the school placed a storage area beneath my master bedroom window. These school improvements have not enhanced the aesthetic appeal of my home.

I am sure the school is not aware of the resulting negative impact their improvements have generated for their residential neighbors. We have tried to be good neighbors, but this new proposed expansion will effect our quality of life for five summers and further add to the noise we endure every school day. It will make it difficult to get to and from our underground garage, as the alley will be filled with workers and their equipment. It is already difficult with sanitation trucks and contractors working in different buildings.

One of my greatest fears is the resulting rodent problem that will inevitably occur when the digging begins for the proposed multipurpose room. The rats can easily climb on the gigantic trees and gain access to our balconies.

If the expansion were to occur, our daily lives would be further affected by the school. Our building's residents are primarily retired or still working from home, as a residual effect of the pandemic. The noise during the school day is very overwhelming at certain times of the day. I can't imagine what the level of noise will be with an addition of an open-air basketball court! If this expansion results in an increase in enrollment in future years, traffic will be even a greater issue than it is at the present time. Our open area sunroof would be out of commission for five summers, during the construction.

As I mentioned before, the population of our building is primarily older, many with health concerns. I myself have asthma and the dust and pollutants from the proposed project will be detrimental to my health. I do not have central-air in my unit, so I must have open windows during the summer months.

Other residents also do not have central-air. The noise pollution from the project will be a significant deterrent to our enjoyment of our homes, during this project. That could lead to major stress and negatively impact us physically, emotionally and mentally.

Also, a long term consequence of this proposed expansion will most likely result in lower property values for our units. This would be very sad for twenty-two units! Please approve this appeal AN DO NOT approve this expansion.

I definitely support the appeal.

Janeice Schwartz
From: Corin Nelson <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 in advance of 4/12/22 mtg re: Carlthorp planned expansion Date: April 3, 2022 at 4:03:45 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: Frank Salcedo <[email protected]>, Frank Lester <[email protected]>, Tony Barsocchini <[email protected]>, Carmen Piccini <[email protected]>, Danielle Litak <[email protected]>, John Nockleby <[email protected]>, Tammy Starr <[email protected]>, Sandy Savett <[email protected]>, Venke Blyberg <[email protected]>, Janeice Schwartz <[email protected]>, Corin Nelson <[email protected]>, mary ling <[email protected]>, Jennifer Kramer <[email protected]> Good Afternoon to our esteemed members of the Santa Moncia City CouncilI’m sending you this letter (in the body of the email and attached as a pdf) in advance of the meeting on 4/12/22 in which the Carlthorp School planned expansion will be discussed. I oppose the project of

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente course though I wish to do so properly, following the correct procedures and protocols. So, please just let me know if this is ok or I should send my letter elsewhere? Also can you let us know what time the mtg is on 4/12? We have been told 5:30 and 6:30 by different people Thanks so very muchCorin Nelson
446 San Vicente Blvd. Unit 304,
Santa Monica, CA 90402
To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room102, Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Appeal 20ENT-0275
April 3, 2022
My name is Corin Nelson. As a resident homeowner who has lived within 10 feet of the Carlthorp School for 15 years, I have reasonable and serious concerns about the proposed expansion of the school. I bought this condo at 446 San Vicente largely because of the peace and quiet of the neighborhood community which was to be welcome respite from my daily work in television. However, my only objection to living here through the years has been the increasing noise coming from the school, the traffic issues because of it and, also the rats that found their way to our condo from the school when it was tented a few years ago. I certainly never would have bought a condo next to a school that had plans to grow vertically with an open-air roof with basketball games, gym classes which will also likely be the site of school parties for the kids and parents – that will devalue my home and take 3-5 years of my peaceful summers away from me with massive construction for expansion going on.

I can’t imagine why should the City Council approve a plan that so drastically undermines the quality of life of people in the neighborhood? As a neighbor of the school, I have been already impacted by previous Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expansion requests, which after approval, resulted in violations of the conditions included in the CUP. I’m sure that founders of the Carlthorp School never meant to cause the disruption of peace and harmony in my neighborhood, but at this point, my peace and the quiet enjoyment of my home has been left up to Carlthorp School and the City of Santa Monica.

Here are just a few of my concerns with this project:
• Noise, dirt, demolition, building, trucks, construction for 3 - 5 years? That’s insane. Just because they don’t want to inconvenience the school during the school year so they’ll just do it in the summer? They think that 5 summers of us having to live next to a huge construction site is ok? No it is not ok. The dust, debris, noise, pollutants, trucks, privacy of our roof deck, west façade and windows destroyed – unbearable. This project will impact me and my neighbors mentally, physically and spiritually. There is nothing harmonious about the way the school or its desire to grow has been harmonious. They did not even attempt any community outreach to see what their neighbors’ concerns were about the project and try to offer solutions or compromises. It is not ok.

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente • There has already been gradually increasing congestion and interrupted traffic flow at, and around the school. This will only get much worse with the project at hand. Reduced unfettered access to public streets, public alley ways and private driveways on residential streets. Plus, the trucks and disruption will affect the safety of northbound public traffic attempting to turn right onto San Vicente Blvd. As it is, no one can park on this street or even pull up to our building easily during school hours – it was not that way when I moved in here.
• Trees planted at the property line between our condo and Carlthorp which were not to exceed 16 feet in height, have grown way beyond that and now block out the sun to residents adjacent to the trees.
• There has already been increasing noise levels from the school as enrollments have increased over time and with this expansion it will be unbearable. What was the number of students enrolled 5 years ago? What is it today? What do they project it will be in 5 years when they finish construction? • The new project suggests an unregulated and excessive expansion of use. The school does not seemingly currently abide by any rules or consideration of what is appropriate usage of their grounds. It’s like the school dominates this end of San Vicente and we all just live with it.
• The value of our homes will decrease greatly. At 446 SV, I currently own a little condo by the beach but with this expansion, it’s more like I will own an apartment in the center of town. What could have been described as a “peaceful beach community condo” becomes “a busy, bustling, active, noisy condo conveniently located next to one of the wealthiest schools around” – with open-air basketballs games, 2 flights up and 25 feet from our windows. It's comical when I read that previous sentence back to myself because it is so absurd! To be clear – this project will have a long-term negative impact of the market value of my home. • If you see the letter I have attached from Dorothy Menzies (who was the Head of The School until recently)she promised in 1986 “…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.” So now they’re tripling the playground and one would assume then that they plan to have many more students (hence their need for the proposed underground parking garage). At what point does the school realize that their ambitions for the school have outgrown the spot they are in. Instead of expanding vertically and adding a new floor beneath and a new floor on the top of the existing building, why don’t they consider moving the school entirely?.

I am 100% not in favor of this project being approved, and I support the Appeal Corin Nelson
446 SAN VICENTE BLVD., UNIT 304, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90402 446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105, Santa Monica, California 90402

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Distinguished Members of the City Council, My name is Audrey Lohara, and I am a sixth grade student at Carlthorp. I have been a Carlthorp student since 2015 and the school has been integral to my growth and development scholastically, socially, and as a person. I have been so grateful for the opportunity to attend Carlthorp School and hope to share with you what I feel makes Carlthorp such a special place and what it has meant to me.

It has been a privilege to be a part of a warm and intimate school community that provides the best academics, the best teachers, and the best activities to create a well-rounded experience. I started Kindergarten as a shy and curious child and Carlthorp has helped me to find and use my voice confidently. Over the years, I have participated in student council, I was one of the leads in the school’s 'Alice in Wonderland' production, I have played on the girls' volleyball and basketball teams, I have been on the debate team and I am the editor in chief of the literary magazine. Thanks to Carlthorp, I have gained important skills in leadership, a strong work ethic, and responsibility that will help me for the rest of my life. Without a doubt, I can confidently say that Carlthorp has prepared me with the best foundation for future success.

I feel that the proposed enhancements to the campus would update and improve the school for years to come, especially a genuine multipurpose room and a brand new, expanded playing field. Having another multipurpose room at Carlthorp would allow the school to host more theatrical and musical performances and give more space to families and guests who could attend in comfort. Also, a multipurpose room would benefit student assemblies, gatherings, and other significant school capacities. Numerous other public and private schools in Santa Monica have multipurpose rooms or halls, so I think that Carlthorp should have one as well.

Another play space at Carlthorp would greatly help the students and school community. A bigger play space would assist students with pursuing their athletic interests and create plenty of room for multiple sports to be played at once. I know from individual experience how challenging it is when students on the yard want to partake in various sports like volleyball, basketball, and football, yet there simply isn't enough room to accommodate everyone. A bigger playspace would permit all students to participate in their preferred game or movement. Having adequate outdoor space would also help to prevent mishaps and accidents with less crowding. The new play space would also encourage students to get more exercise, take needed breaks outside, and promote lifelong fitness.

As I am getting ready to graduate, I am thankful for all that Carlthorp has provided me - a strong educational foundation and some of my happiest elementary school memories. What I want most is to see the school’s continued success for future years. The proposed improvements to Carlthorp School will enhance a greater feeling of community spirit, provide a more secure climate for all, and permit students to pursue their interests and thrive.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Audrey Lohara
`
My name is Jason Lee. I am 10 years old and in fourth grade. I love Carlthorp School because of the teachers, classes, and fun time with my friends. My favorite subjects in school are math, reading, and current news

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente events. I also love playing sports for Carlthorp. I play football, basketball, and soccer.

The teachers at Carlthorp are so kind, encouraging, and helpful. They make it worthwhile to spend my time at Carlthorp. My current teachers are Mr. Burwick and Ms. Schwarts. They are both amazing teachers, and they help me so much.

Carlthorp is an amazing school. The school is special because of the Code of Conduct, which emphasizes kindness, good citizenship, and community service. Our students are growing to be the next leaders in the community.

Sadly, sometimes there are issues because of the limited amount of space we have in the campus. I love playing sports, but the playground that we can play in is sometimes too small for some of these games. I was playing four square the other day, and I bumped into my friend because there wasn’t enough space! It would be most helpful for you to allow us to improve our playground area.

Another reason why allowing Carlthorp to improve their campus is because the multipurpose room is too small for the whole school. I know this because when I performed for the Talent Show in the MPR, the room was so crowded that I couldn't see my parents cheering me on. They were actually in the outside hallway. I got really nervous and didn’t want to perform. My little sister is in the talent show this year. I hope there is enough room for my parents to see her act.

It would also be so helpful if our lunch area was covered so that we could use it even if the weather is not great. Right now, we are eating lunch in the parking lot. Carlthorp has done a good job of trying to make it a good space, but it’s still a parking lot.

Compared to other similar schools, our campus is dramatically smaller. It would be very helpful to the students of Carlthorp for you to let us improve our campus so we can make better use of the space that we have. The impact to the students, larger community, and the future would be huge. So please, please, let us improve our campus to benefit the students and the community!
Sincerely,
Jason Lee

9.A.u
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Comments Post February 2022 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) “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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 6.A
05/10/22
Item 6.A
05/10/22

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 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

9.A.v
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comments (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL

LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"

LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"
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
3 A300-B/C 3
A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE :
4/20/2022 2:21:47 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A120-B

BASEMENT PLAN -
PARCEL

COVERAGESUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
* BASEMENT AREAS DO NOT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION. COLORED

AREAS ARE COUNTED ON GROUND
FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE.

SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

THIS AREA COUNTS TOWARDS FIRST

FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 936 SF
TOTAL NEW GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF

EXISTING GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE:

PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY:

GROUND FLOOR:

EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE:

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

NEW GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE:

TOTAL GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(EXISTING + NEW)
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
AREA UNDER PLAY COURT = 1,138 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF

TOTAL ALLOWABLE (BY CODE)
GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE:
20,863.13 SF
(45% OF PARCEL AREA)

TOTAL PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR

PARCEL COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED
ON MINOR MODIFICATION INCREASE:
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
5/9/22 12:49:19 PM
As indicated CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A121-B

GROUND FLOOR

PLAN - PARCEL

COVERAGE

05.09.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
UP
DN
DNDN
UP

NEW ENCLOSURE

OF EXISTING

LUNCH SEATING
AND/OR

ADDITIONAL

OFFICE SPACE

OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM

BELOW GRADE

HANDICAPPED PARKING HANDICAPPED PARKING

BIKE RACK
HEDGE

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CL OF ALLEY
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C

EXISTING

PARKING CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

READING
P.E. OFFICE

FACILITIES
OFFICE
ELEV

ROOM SERVER
ROOM

RESTROOMS

FACULTY
LOUNGE

EXISTING
MULTIPURPOSE
ROOM
11' - 3 1/2" 10' - 0"
24' - 0 1/2"
50' - 4"
15' - 6 1/2"
2' - 7 1/2" 5' - 4"
2' - 11"
2' - 2 1/2"
1' - 5 1/2"
2' - 2 1/2"
9' - 5 1/2"
11' - 10"
11' - 8 1/2" 0' - 8 1/2"
13' - 9 1/2"
0' - 9 1/2"
46' - 10 1/2"
45' - 2"
6' - 1"
4' - 7"
148' - 8 1/2" 24' - 6" 4' - 6" 0' - 6"
1' - 11"16' - 7 1/2" 43' - 7 1/2"
5' - 11"
3' - 0"
1' - 3"

SAME SAME SAME
NEW
TOTA

EXISTING GRO

PARCEL COVE
PARC

TOTAL P
GROU
EXIST

TOTAL G

NEW GROUND

PARCEL COVE

TOTAL GROUN

PARCEL COVE
(EXISTING + NE
FOR PU

TOTAL ALLOW

GROUND FLOO

TOTAL PROPO

PARCEL COVE

ON MINOR MO
NOTE REGARDING DIMESIONS FOR NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

DUE TO DIMENSIONAL ROUNDING, THE LEVEL OF ACCURACY ACHIEVED BY THE

SOFTWARE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL AREA EXCEEDS THE LEVEL OF ACCURACY

THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY COMPUTING EACH SECTION AND ADDING THE SECTIONS TOGETHER. THEREFORE, THE TWO WILL NEVER COMPLETELY MATCH

9.A.w
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))

FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE

PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,260 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 250 SF
SECOND FLOOR:

NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 17,631 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING = 17,631 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) = 18,891 SF
NEW = 1,260 SF
AREA UNDER PLAY COURT = 720 SF

TOTAL ALLOWABLE (BY CODE)
GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE:
20,863.13 SF
(45% OF PARCEL AREA)
18,898 SF
(90% OF GROUND

FLOOR PARCEL AREA)

TOTAL PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR

PARCEL COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED
ON MINOR MODIFICATION INCREASE:
20,998 SF

TOTAL PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PARCEL

COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED ON
MINOR MODIFICATION INCREASE:
18,895 SF
( < 90% OF GROUND

FLOOR PARCEL AREA)
TOTAL 2ND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE
(EXISTING + NEW):

THIS AREA COUNTS TOWARDS FIRST

FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
5/9/22 12:46:53 PM
As indicated CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A122-B

SECOND FLOOR

PLAN - PARCEL

COVERAGE

05.09.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN

OFFICES
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
PL

LIBRARY

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

NEW STAIR
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C

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

SEE FIRST FLOOR /

MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B

THIS PORTION OF STAIR

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
LUNCH AREA PORCH TRELLIS EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (E)

THIS PORTION OF

CORRIDOR WALL IS OPEN

CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
(LOWERED

FLOOR IN

THIS AREA)
UP DN

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

RECEPTION/

FRONT OFFICE

BOARDROOM

KITCHEN
21' - 8"
10' - 0"
2' - 4 1/2"
15' - 0" 51' - 9 1/2"
11' - 10"
4' - 7"
6' - 1"
45' - 2"
46' - 10 1/2"
173' - 2 1/2"
149' - 0 1/2"
1' - 3" 2' - 9 1/2"
21' - 5 1/2"
48' - 6 1/2" 2' - 7 1/2"
1' - 11"
FOR P
PAR
T
SEC
NEW
EXIS

TOTAL UPPER

TOTAL ALLOW

GROUND FLO

TOTAL PROP

PARCEL COV

ON MINOR MO

TOTAL PROP

COVERAGE A

MINOR MODIF
TOTAL 2ND F
(EXISTING + N

THIS AREA

FLOOR PAR
NOTE REGARDING DIMESIONS FOR NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

DUE TO DIMENSIONAL ROUNDING, THE LEVEL OF ACCURACY ACHIEVED BY THE

SOFTWARE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL AREA EXCEEDS THE LEVEL OF ACCURACY

THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY COMPUTING EACH SECTION AND ADDING THE SECTIONS TOGETHER. THEREFORE, THE TWO WILL NEVER COMPLETELY MATCH (45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)

9.A.w
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : 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
3 A300-B/C 3
A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

NEW STAIR
BELOW

LUNCH AREA
PORCH

TRELLIS
BELOW

THIS AREA IS

EXISTING NON-

CONFORMING

THIRD FLOOR
PARCEL

COVERAGE
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE :
4/20/2022 2:21:54 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A123-B
3RD FLOOR/ROOF

PLAN - PARCEL

COVERAGESUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : 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) 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"
Top of Court
+126' - 6"

PROPOSED ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAY COURT

EXISTING PARKING

EXISTING

CLASSROOMS
8' - 0"
30' - 0"
3 A300-B/C

STORAGE

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE

CLASSROOM

GROUND FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

BASEMENT
2 A300-B/C
1' - 2"

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND BUILDING

ENVELOPE
7' - 6" 7' - 0" 9' - 6" 5' - 6"
3' - 0"
5' - 3" .
101.32'
103.72''
A122
1 A122
1 A121
1 A121
1 A120
1 A120
1 A123
1 A123
1 7' - 8"

FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED
NEW FLOOR AT +105' - 8"
1' - 11"

NEW STAIR EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
(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"
1 A300-B/C

PROPOSED ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT

EXISTING

CLASSROOM

EXISTING PARKING

EXISTING

MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM

LUNCH AREA PORCH

TRELLIS
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
BEYOND

NEW ENCLOSURE OF

EXISTING LUNCH SEATING

AND/OR ADDITIONAL OFFICE
SPACE
3' - 9" 3' - 10" 7' - 0" 9' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0"

EXISTING STRUCTURE

TO BE REMOVED
30' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

LIBRARY

SECOND FLOOR

CLASSROOM

GROUND FLOOR

BASEMENT

CLASSROOM
PORCH

CLASSROOM
PORCH

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND

BUILDING ENVELOPE

EXISTING PORTION OF CLASSROOM

PORCH EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

NEW PORTION OF CLASSROOM PORCH

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
PER SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
8' - 0"

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE
5' - 3"

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE
107.81'
101.74'
A123
1 A123
1 A122
1 A122
1 A121
1 A121
1 A120
1 A120
1 (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"
(E) Roof
+130' - 3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' - 6"
1 A300-B/C

PROPOSED ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE
109.11'
102.67'

EXISTING

CLASSROOM

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

GROUND FLOOR

BASEMENT
30' - 0"

EXISTING

CLASSROOMS

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

BASEMENT

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

FACULTY LOUNGE

EXISTING STRUCTURE

TO BE REMOVED

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND

BUILDING ENVELOPE
8' - 0" 5' - 3"
A123
1 A123
1 A122
1 A122
1 A121
1 A121
1 A120
1 A120
1 FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED
NEW FLOOR AT +105' - 8"
7' - 8"
1' - 8"
1' - 2"
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:56 PM
1/8" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A300-B/C

SECTION

DIAGRAMSSUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &

ELEVATED COURT DIAGRAM
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.
1/8" = 1'-0"
3 N/S SECTION THROUGH STORAGE AND FACULTY

LOUNGE DIAGRAM

DIAGONAL HATCH

INDICATES AREA

EXCLUDED FROM

PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : 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"

NEW STAIR AND

PARTITION

CORRIDOR
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS

BASEMENT
(+97' - 3")
0' - 0"
-7' - 7"
-5' - 7"
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C 3
A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"

GROUND FLOOR
(+97' - 3")

BASEMENT
(+97' - 3")

BASEMENT
(+97' - 3")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+101' - 6")
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE :
4/20/2022 2:21:48 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A120-C

BASEMENT

DIAGRAMSUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) UP
DNDN
DN
UP

NEW ENCLOSURE

OF EXISTING

LUNCH SEATING
(NOTE THERE IS

NO FLOOR BELOW

THIS AREA)

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
3 A300-B/C 3
A300-B/C

GROUND FLOOR
(+107' - 6")
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C

CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

CLASSROOM PORCH

SECOND FLOOR
(+108' - 9")

GROUND FLOOR
(+108' - 9")

GROUND FLOOR
(+107' - 6")

SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE

GROUND FLOOR
(+107' - 6")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+97' - 3")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+101' - 6")

STORAGE
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE :
4/20/2022 2:21:51 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A121-C

FIRST FLOOR

DIAGRAMSUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES AREA

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) +119'-6"
LUNCH
AREA
PORCH

TRELLIS
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

SECOND FLOOR
(+119' - 6")
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C 3
A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

THIRD FLOOR
(+119' - 6")
NEW
ADMIN

OFFICES

SECOND FLOOR
(+119' - 6")

SECOND FLOOR
(+110 - 0)
SECOND
FLOOR
(+107' - 6")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+105' - 8")
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE :
4/20/2022 2:21:53 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A122-C

SECOND FLOOR

DIAGRAMSUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES AREA

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.

GROUND FLOOR (+107' - 6") CLASSROOM PORCH

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
3 A300-B/C 3
A300-B/C

EXISTING ROOF

NEW STAIR
BELOW
PL

ROOFTOP PLAY COURT

NOT A FLOOR
126' - 6"
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
LUNCH
AREA
PORCH

TRELLIS
BELOW
SHEET
NUMBER:

SHEET
TITLE:

DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE :
4/20/2022 2:21:55 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A123-C

ROOF PLAN

DIAGRAMSUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS

DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES AREA

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.

05.09.22 9.A.w
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for 8.23.22 hearing (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Veneklasen Associates
Consultants in Acoustics | Noise | Vibration | AV | IT
1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel: 310.450.1733 • fax: 310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com May 27, 2020

KFA, LLP
3573 Hayden Avenue
Century City, California 90232
Attention: Wade Killefer
Subject: Carlthorp Support Space Improvements
Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
Dear Wade:

Veneklasen Associates (Veneklasen) has completed a noise impact assessment of the Support Space Improvements proposed for Carlthorp School located in Santa Monica, California. The purpose of this evaluation was to model potential noise impacts on adjacent residential uses as a result of activity that will occur on the proposed rooftop playground and determine if modifications are needed to reduce noise levels to City Municipal Code Noise Limits. This report sets forth the results of our findings.

History and Project Manager
Founded in 1947, Veneklasen Associates is one of the largest acoustical consulting firms in the United States. Our services encompass architectural acoustics, audio-visual (AV), information technology (IT), environmental noise and vibration mitigation. As a sole source for building sound quality and data management, our technical and professional standards have been developed through the design of literally thousands of buildings worldwide:
• Civic & Government Agencies • Hotels, Resorts & Casinos • Courthouses & Public Safety • Studios & Entertainment Facilities • Education - College & University + K-12 • Condominiums & Apartments • Commercial Buildings & Corporate Interiors • Concert Halls & Performing Arts Complexes • Transportation, including Airports & Rail • Medical Centers & Hospitals • Museums & Cultural Centers • Places of Worship
Our staff is carefully balanced, consisting of professionals with degrees in acoustics, physics, engineering, and architecture. With approximately 60 employees we are large enough to have a wealth of expertise to be shared, and small enough to ensure that each project is directed by a principal or senior associate. We are unique in that we own and maintain a comprehensive complement of scientific measurement and analysis tools including sound level meters, noise monitors, logging devices, field computers, vibration measurement equipment and data analytic software.

Finally, Veneklasen Associates is a State of California (DGS) Certified Small Business and a qualified SBE within GSA guidelines.

John LoVerde is known throughout the country for his work as an acoustical consultant as well as his leadership in testing, research, and reporting methodology, particularly in the fields of building and environmental acoustics. John has lent his expertise to the design of educational buildings, multifamily residential developments, performance venues, hotels and resorts, office campuses and hospitals. He has served as Project Manager for many notable projects and is often called upon to provide expert testimony. On average, John manages the design and construction of approximately 200 projects per year.

After obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (1989), John went on to earn a Master’s Degree in Acoustics from the University of California, Los Angeles. At UCLA he worked on the link between acoustical energy and listener reaction to sound within auditoria. Since his consultant career began at Veneklasen Associates in 1989, John has published over 100 technical papers. He teaches and lectures internationally, presenting at the last fourteen meetings of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA). In November

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp Veneklasen Associates KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise; VA Project No.3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 2 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
2009 he was appointed to ASA’s Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, and in 2013 John was further recognized in the field as a full Member of the ASA. In June of 2018, John became a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America with citing the following: “For contribution to quantification and understanding of building response to sound and impact.”

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to assess the potential acoustical impact of the support space changes proposed to the Carlthorp campus, a private non-profit K-6 school that has been operating in this multifamily neighborhood since 1941. Veneklasen’s scope of work included (A) measuring the exterior noise levels currently occurring at the site, (B) calculating future conditions assuming the proposed outdoor improvements and (C) developing method(s), if any, required to reduce the future exterior sound levels to comport with the applicable Municipal Code requirements for residential districts of the City of Santa Monica.

The Support Space Improvements proposed for Carlthorp campus include the following: relocating the playset and court areas of the current outdoor playground to a new roof above classrooms at the rear of the property, expanding the ground level Playturf area, enclosing the plastic blue-tented unenclosed lunch area (while constructing new administrative offices above), and expanding the subterranean multi-purpose room under a portion of the Playturf along San Vicente Boulevard. Of these, the play court area on the roof has the potential to disturb adjacent residential neighbors due to noise from outdoor exercises, school events and playtime by the supervised elementary students (Grades K-6) who will be using it from 8 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday.

Figure 1: Campus Views Current (left) and Future (right) The school campus is surrounded by residential buildings to the east (3-story condominium), west (2-story apartment building), and south (single family homes along the north side of Georgina Avenue across the 20’- wide alley (Georgina Place) behind the school). The city considers residential uses as noise sensitive receptors. The campus fronts on the 130’ wide San Vicente Boulevard and center median to the north.

2.0 NOISE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.12.060 states that the allowable noise level in Noise Zone I is 60 dBA for a 15-minute period during the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM Monday through Friday, unless the ambient noise conditions are higher. There is a 5-dBA penalty for noises consisting of speech or music, which would apply here to the elementary play court. For a maximum event, or instantaneous noise, the noise limit increases by 20 dBA above the specified threshold.

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp Veneklasen Associates KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 3 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
Therefore, the noise limit for playground noise impacting residential neighbors is 55 dBA for continuous noise and 75 dBA for instantaneous sounds. For this playground, the sound generated is expected to be a combination of verbal communication and balls bouncing off of surfaces. The school also has an outdoor speaker system. Two speakers face one another in the school’s interior courtyard; those speakers are used for a brief morning greeting from the school administrator on school days before classes begin. The remainder of the exterior speakers will be used only in the event of emergencies and are not relevant to this study.

3.0 ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS
Veneklasen measured existing outdoor playground conditions, the ambient conditions, and the PA system.

On November 6, 2019, Veneklasen measured existing playground conditions at the outdoor play areas for a continuous period of 40 minutes, which included lunch hour with outdoor playtime, encompassing two playgroups, 5th and 3rd grades followed by 6th and 4th grades. The continuous 15-minutes average for the entire playground was 76 dBA, with loudest events of 90-94 dBA measured directly with no barriers or other attenuation measures.

The noise level on the turf playfield is lower due to the open environment, foliage, and soft artificial turf groundcover, on average 72 dBA and 86-90 dBA events. Any acoustical difference in the surface, between a prior natural grass field and the current artificial turf would be negligible and generally not acoustically detectable. A minimum detectable change for exterior noise is 3 dBA and the difference between these two surfaces would be less than 3 dBA.

On November 1, 2019, Veneklasen measured the ambient conditions in the alley behind the school, which represents the closest property lines to the roof-playground area, was 44 dBA for a 15-minute period during lunchtime. Traffic noise in the alley/Georgina Place is limited, as it only serves parking spaces on the backside of the school and single and multi-family residential buildings. Since the ambient sound measured is currently below the exterior noise level allowed for residential districts of 60 dBA; the reduced 55 dBA threshold for school-related activities remains the criteria per the City Municipal Code.

On May 4, 2020, Veneklasen measured the PA system on the grounds of the school, using a news podcast broadcast over the system. The current system consists of three sets of two small wall-mounted loudspeakers. One set faces west over the current playground and is rarely used (Existing Field Zone), one set is on either side of the current lunch area and will be removed with the enclosure of the lunchroom (Existing Tables Zone), and the third set is on either side of the current basketball court (Existing Court Zone); the latter two are used for morning announcements only, with all in attendance on the court. Figure 2 displays these sound zones. Each set can be activated independently. All three were active during testing.

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp Veneklasen Associates KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 4 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
Figure 2: Sound Zones
The Tables and Court Zones ranged from 50 – 70 dBA on the court during the podcast, depending on the newscaster inflections and distance from the loudspeaker; the levels were communicated to be at a typical volume. The average noise level was 60 dBA and the loudest events were 72 dBA measured directly with no barriers or other attenuation measures.

At the time of the morning announcements, the students are not at play, so the sound level is not elevated above 55 dBA and 75 dBA, which is within the limits of the Municipal Code.

Figure 3: Rooftop Playground Speakers

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp Veneklasen Associates KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 5 of 7
www.veneklasen.com

4.0 ENCLOSURE AND SURFACE ANALYSIS
Upper Area
The proposed rooftop play court area will have a continuous 8 foot high perimeter enclosure for safety.

When a plexiglass panel is modeled, not an open fence, it will act as a barrier for noise in addition to its safety function. Based on computer modelling, this barrier, combined with distance from the play court to the nearest residential uses, will provide suitable noise reduction to the nearby receivers including noise from the surface. Our analysis indicates absorptive panels are not required to ensure that the noise limits established by the Municipal Code for residential zones are not exceeded.

Our quantitative analysis is depicted below in Figure 4 along with the proposed plexiglass detail show in Figure 5. Sound level prediction detail is presented in Table 1: calibrated for distance from noise source and difference in elevation. Elevations match the elevations on the drawings provided by KFA Architects as closely as possible.

Figure 4: Analysis Process
Receiver 3 (condo
3 rd floor) @ 133 ft
elevation, distance
from source 45 ft
Source Area @ 126 ft elevation
Receiver 2
(apartment 2nd
floor) @ 123 ft
elevation, distance
from source 30 ft
Receiver 1 (standing person) @ 106 ft
elevation, distance from source 40 ft
Barrier around Play Court
Source Area @ 103 ft elevation
Receiver 4
(apartment 2nd
floor) @ 123 ft
elevation, distance
from source 20 ft

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp Veneklasen Associates KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 6 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
Figure 5: Proposed Plexiglass Detail
Table 1: Upper Enclosure Analysis (Typical Activity)
Receiver Barrier Height/Elevation Calculated Level,
dBA
Code Limit,
dBA Compliance?
1 8 ft / 132 ft
34 avg / 51 max
55 avg / 75 max
Yes / Yes
2 40 avg / 57 max Yes / Yes
3 44 avg / 61 max Yes / Yes
With the barrier as shown and including 2 layers of plexiglass, all calculated average and maximum noise levels from activities on the proposed rooftop play court would be well within the noise limits of the Municipal Code under typical activity.

Field Area
For the field, the surrounding conditions remain. In 2000, the surface of the playfield was changed from natural grass to artificial turf, which does not produce a calculable noise effect at the property line.

Therefore, the field conditions did not alter the noise at the property line. The calculation to the property line is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Field Analysis
Receiver Calculated Level,
dBA
Code Limit,
dBA Compliance?
4 (typical activity) 54 avg / 71 max 55 avg / 75 max Yes / Yes

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp Veneklasen Associates KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 7 of 7
www.veneklasen.com

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis, a minimum solid parapet barrier as shown in Figure 4 of 8 feet around the perimeter of the rooftop play court area is recommended; Veneklasen understands that such a parapet wall is currently planned. The parapet wall can be any solid material 2 pounds per square foot (such as stucco or wood). The proposed detail shown in Figure 5 for intermittent transparency is acoustically acceptable as long as there are 2 layers of plexiglass installed; any openings for water drainage are recommended to flow interior to the campus. The plexiglass panel will be approved in the submittal process.

Based on our analysis, absorptive panels such as https://kineticsnoise.com/knp/perforated-metal-panels.html could be incorporated into the design of the play court walls, but are not required to remain below the noise limits established by the Municipal Code for residential districts such as this location.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Veneklasen analyzed the potential noise impact of the proposed play areas on adjacent sensitive receptors.

Analysis included noise from children’s activity and use of loudspeaker (PA) system. The Santa Monica Noise Ordinance was used to assess impact and calculate compliance. Veneklasen measured the existing ambient noise level, the sound level with the presence of children playing outdoors during typical recess and PA system use. This recess activity and PA system use constitutes comparable conditions to the proposed play areas, except that the rooftop location is elevated which establishes greater distance from most of the sensitive receptors. This collected data was then used to construct a computer model assessing the noise level of the proposed play areas at the sensitive receptors on the east, west and south. The field areas comply with the Code requirements, while the rooftop play court should be compliant if surrounded with the 8 foot high barrier of intermittent transparent plexiglass panel having two layers with detailing shown in Figure 5.

Based on study, with such a perimeter wall, the noise levels predicted for the rooftop play court area will not exceed the noise limits of Santa Monica Noise Ordinance at all sensitive receptor residential locations. In Veneklasen’s professional opinion the incorporation of a described barrier that is 8 feet tall will ensure full compliance with the residential limits imposed by the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance.

Please feel free to contact us with any follow up questions or comments.

Respectfully submitted,
John LoVerde, FASA
Principal

9.A.x
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Paula Kayton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 8:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 9A Carlthorp Appeal August 23, 2022 Meeting

EXTERNAL
Please uphold the appeal opposing the Carlthorp expansion plans.

Please consider the quality of life of residents who live near the school. In addition to the noise that will be generated by having the rooftop area available to students and all the extra traffic especially when school begins and ends with cars lining up all along San Vicente, 4th Street and Georgina, there is a current lack of parking for the staff.

Please do not let Carlthorp expand.

Paula Kayton
722 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Darlene Lancer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 12:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Carlthorp School permits and appeals

EXTERNAL
R2 is supposed to be low-density residential. Currently, the school severely limits parking on San Vicente Bl. for homeowners and their guests. Spaces are used or restricted for the school. Also, traffic is jammed when school is dismissed. There is substantial noise from the playground that is disruptive to neighbors, such as myself. The changes requested may increase traffic and the need for additional parking if more offices are added or the parking lot is used for non-parking purposes. Finally, adding another playground will substantially add to the noise already emanating from the school. The sound coming from the roof will travel further than sound on the grassy playground. Please vote no to changes requested by Carl Thorpe applicant.

If they want to expand their school or increase the noise and traffic, they should move the school to outside a residential area. This is not a public school, but a profitable business. Tuition is $35,650 per student, almost 1.5 Million per each class. Children attend from all over L.A., not just from Santa Monica. There is no countervailing benefit to Santa Monica residents to have the school where it is.

Darlene Lancaer
Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Joan Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 3:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Joan Bennett
Subject: Carlthorp Appeal 8.23.22, Council agenda item 9A

EXTERNAL
I am a resident on 450 San Vicente Blvd. and want tp firmly express my opposition to the expansion at Carlthorpe School.

The parking issues are horrid today so adding more events and need for parking with no real plan is not acceptable. School expanded in 1996 and have not followed the rules agreed to in the CUP and now want to build playground / basketball court on rooftop to second floor which will cause residences to suffer while a commercial enterprise continues to interrupt the peace and quiet we all deserve in our neighborhood.

I urge the council to vote NO and require the school to follow the 1996 CUP of which they are in breach of in many areas.

Joan Bennett
Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Douglas Brian Martin <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Please do the right thing and UPHOLD the appeal OPPOSING the Carlthorp Expansion Plan.

Douglas Brian Martin
437 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Travis Bible <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Carlthorp Appeal, agenda item 9A

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I live in a building near by the Carlthrop school and I just wanted to express my support of the appeal for Carlthrop to not be allowed to go forward with their expansion. The school should have to follow the rules it originally agreed to regarding parking.  For what it's worth, no resident I've talked to in the area is in favor of this expansion.

Thanks for your consideration.
‐‐
Travis Bible
Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 4:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 8/23/22 ITEM 9-A CARLTHORP APPEAL/FROM KIT DREYFUSS

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Councilmembers:

I have had lifelong living and working associations with both public and private schools, as well as private camps. All of them deal with neighbors, amicable relationships with whom are essential for mutual well‐being. As Robert Frost wrote. "Good fences make good neighbors," meaning that clear boundaries between properties help preserve amicable relationships between the owners thereof, and a well‐functioning community.

A business located in a residential neighborhood has the advantage of a beneficent environment, but also the responsibility not to intrude on the beneficent environment (including noise level) of its adjacent property owners.

In my experience, a responsible school owner provides adequate space for structures, playgrounds, and parking facilities for its students, staff members, and visitors. If the school plans to increase its student/staff count, it must also increase the space required.

Income in/expenditure out: that's business. If the school's existing property cannot be expanded to accommodate these obligations, the school needs to move to a more spacious location. Sufficient time to plan and execute such a move is required for a successful transition to a larger facility. Until that groundwork has been laid, increasing the size of a school's student body and commensurate staff in an inflexible environment must wait.

Sincerely,
Kit Dreyfuss
NOMA Resident
Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 2:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan
Cc: Phil Brock; David Martin; [email protected]; Zina Josephs; [email protected]; Tricia Crane
Subject: Subject: Item 9A Carlthorp CUP Appeal

EXTERNAL
To help pr
privacy, M
prevented
download
from the In
Re: Item 9a , August 23, 2022 City Council Agenda. Carlthorp CUP Appeal.

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
From: North of Montana Neighborhood Association Board (NOMA) Date: August 20, 2022
You have before you an Appeal from the Planning Commission’s grant of a Conditional Use Permit to greatly expand the Carlthorp School on its current property on San Vicente surrounded by a large number of multi‐unit residences Because it is the midst of a residential neighborhood, Carlthorp has a higher and special obligation not to impose noise and parking burdens. For the reasons stated in this comment letter the NOMA Board urges granting the appeal.

We begin by discussing that Carlthorp must first cure its existing violations of its current permit before the Council can grant a new permit. We then review specific areas where the proposed new permit fails to adequately address parking and noise problems and we suggest specific mitigations that you should require as Conditions.

I. Carlthorp Must First Cure it’s Violations of its 1995 CUP as to Parking and                   Noise Before A New CUP Can be Granted
As the approximately 100 comments from neighbors indicates, Carlthorp is already a significant burden on the neighborhood in terms of noise and parking. Residents have written to you about the appreciable noise emanating from Carlthorp and staff parking on San Vicente, 4th Street and even Georgina, contrary to assurances provided in obtaining the 1995 permit and key findings based on these assurances made in the CUP.

As NOMA member Diana Gordon pointed out in her letter to you which we incorporate here, the 1995 CUP (the current Permit) Finding #7 states clearly: “All parking is provided on site.” Also, its Variance Finding #2 states: “The granting of such variance shall not be detrimental…in that the project includes tandem parking spaces to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” These Findings were based on assurances from Carlthorp that following the expansion, it would employ a staff of 32 with tandem parking space for 32 cars on‐site. These assurances have turned out to be wildly off. In fact, Carlthorp has 80 staff, not 32 and those without on‐site spaces  park on the Item 9.A
08/23/22
7 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 surrounding streets to the detriment of neighbors. Unfortunately, Carlthorp has done nothing meaningful to mitigate this and come into compliance despite numerous complaints from neighbors.

Because Carlthorp is in violation of its current 1995 CUP in terms of noise and parking, the new CUP it is requesting cannot be granted under:
==1995 Condition #25: Carlthorp’s operation must be operated “at all times” not detrimental to surrounding residents in terms of noise and parking; and ==1995 Validity of Permit Condition #31: if Carlthorp violates any condition it must be “fully remedied” before any further permit may be granted.”
The current proposed expansion will only exacerbate these daily burdens on neighbors. Carlthorp must, as required by its existing permit, to first cure its existing violations before the Council can consider a new permit.

II. Any New CUP Must Contain Additional Conditions on Noise and Parking NOMA asks that if the Council allows a new CUP—after Carlthorp cures its existing violations—the following conditions be added. These would help mitigate the new problems emanating from its expansion and make Carlthorp a better neighbor.

1. The new rooftop playing field must be noise neutral. There have been complaints from neighbors about noise from the existing field. It is important that the new rooftop field not become a noise detriment also. Two suggestions to include in Conditions:
==The proposed Condition #11 calls for only 1 acoustical analysis shortly after it is in use Instead, this should be yearly in real use situations as they may change. At the same time, there should be yearly acoustical analysis of the existing playground. These should be provided to the City and made public.== ==The number of students who can use the field at any one time should be specifically limited and not left open ended. The acoustical report is silent on this and this is a big hole in Condition #11.==

2. There are only 32 parking spots for staff, yet the number of staff at the school is greater than 80. The staff hunt for parking in the neighborhood takes limited spaces away from residents (many older) and workers and guests. This results in residents having to park blocks away from their homes. The school has claimed that parking issues are due to general congestion in the city. However, when the school is not in session this isn’t so and a number of neighbors have written about seeing staff park in neighborhood. A suggestion to include in Conditions:
==Carlthorp should lease or buy an off‐site parking location (or part of one) for staff in excess of 32 to use. They should then be shuttled to the school. This is a solution used by a number of businesses.==

3. The proposed Condition for Special Event Parking, Pick‐Up and Drop‐Off is totally inadequate and would create serious noise and congestion problems. The proposed CUP envisions 3 different categories of Special Events:

A) Events with under 50 outside adult attendees, not including staff or employees.

Proposed NO limits to these events in terms of number of events or parking mitigations.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
8 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 5 B) Events with over 50 outside adult attendees, Carlthorp can hold up to 18 a year, with 6 at night (but more can be requested.) Again, NO provision made for parking. This can include 200 outside adult attendees in any number of cars under 150.

C) Events “expected to draw more than 150 vehicles”, a vague plan for Valet parking is put forth. These would be huge events in a residential neighborhood with maybe 300‐400 outside guests. The noise and parking backup would be mammoth and disruptive.

Just think about how this would work. 300‐400 people arriving close to one another. 150+ cars backing up for valet. 300‐400 people waiting for each of their cars. Where would valet park these cars.

NOMA suggests for Conditions:
==For all Special Events, outside attendees must park at an off‐site, out of neighborhood location and be shuttled to and from the event.==
==Any event expected to draw more than 75 vehicles or 150 attendees be limited to 2 events per school year.==
NOMA urges the Council to enforce the Conditions of the existing Permit and require Carlthorp to first cure its on‐going violations. Once that is done, we urge you to help mitigate the ill effects on the Historic San Vicente District of this major expansion as conditions for any approval of a new permit. smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 9.A
08/23/22
9 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 6:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
8‐20—2022
Dear City Council Members,
Ref.: Carlthorp Appeal
Why would the City Council allow this massive project when they violated their parking structure agreement and converted the parking structure into a social gathering place without a permit? They continually have social events that overwhelms parking in the area. The current project labels an underground classroom not a classroom to avoid additional parking requirements. Can you trust Carlthorp School? Adding 15,000 sq ft. is hardly ‘Minor’ not to mention they have 80 employees and 32 parking spaces. How many added employees will they have after this project is completed and where will they park?
This project will limit alley access, create untold noise, dust, congestion and add to the parking shortage. Not to mention the flat tires from driving in the alley (nails, etc.) that I experienced with the school’s last project.

Enough is enough, do not allow this project it is unfair and very detrimental to residents.

Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
502 San Vicente Blvd., Unit203
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
10 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: JULIUS POTOCZKI <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 2:32 AM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Anita Tipirneni; Olena Sholomytska
Subject: Calthorp Appeal, 8.23.22 Agenda Item 9A
Attachments: CarlthorpappealCC8.23.22.docx

EXTERNAL
The board of 450 San Vicente HOA, on behalf of its residents, opposes granting any additional permit to Carlthorp at this time for the reasons given by Diana Gordon in the attached letter.

Thank you
Item 9.A
08/23/22
11 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: JULIUS POTOCZKI <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 2:49 AM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Calthorp Appeal, 8.23.22 Agenda Item 9A
Attachments: CarlthorpappealCC8.23.22.docx

EXTERNAL
I’m a resident and owner at 450 San Vicente #304 and I have lived here for 16 years.

I fully support the appeal to deny Carlthorp another permit to expand until it fixes its staff parking in the neighborhood by doing what other commercial businesses do ‐ procure off ‐site parking and shuttle service for its burgeoning staff and visitors so they don’t park in residential neighborhoods to the detriment of the residents who live there.

This has gone on long enough, we suffer parking noise and lack of parking for our visitors.

I’m attaching a detailed letter from my neighbor Diana Gordon that details everything you need to know that supports the appeal
Thank you,
Julius Potoczki
Item 9.A
08/23/22
12 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Douglas Brian Martin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 3:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal A
Attachments: CARLTHORP SCHOOL FORMS PDF FOLDER 2.zip

EXTERNAL
I live at 437 San Vicente Blvd ‐ directly across from the Carlthorp School.  On days school is in session the streets are clogged with cars dropping student off in the morning, picking student up afternoons, and parking for staff and family of students use up available street parking.  The entire block of Georgina between 7th and 4th, the entire block of 4th between Georgina and San Vicente, and San Vicente between 4th Street and 438 San Vicente ‐ Carlthorp School ‐ are gridlocked. EVERY SCHOOL DAY. Idling cars polluting the air, traffic at a standstill, residents unable to pull away from street parking, all due to Carlthorp School.

The noise from playgrounds while school is in session makes telephone conversation INSIDE MY APARTMENT very difficult. Now the school wants to increase playground area and elevate a playground with 8’ high walls ‐ with basketball backboards over 13’ tall ‐ and expects us to believe that sound will not travel from 13’ over an 8’ wall. This is nonsense.

Residents in close proximity to Carlthorp School signed petitions requesting that Carlthorp School revise its plans to be a better neighbor and more closely follow rules and regulations everyone else must. These petitions have been made available to Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the City Council.  Signatures on these petitions represent hundreds of resident of Santa Monica.  So far, The City has chosen to IGNORE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE by ignoring these signatures. This is wrong.

I am not anti‐school, Carlthorp School has provided a service to many wealthy families for education of their children.

The noise of the existing playground, while a minor nuisance, is to be expected from children playing. The plan to more than double the size of the playground area will certainly increase noise level ‐ that is common mathematics. The school claims against science there will be no increase in noise while in the same breath claim they are going to soundproof the windows in the school. It makes no sense. Why would the school soundproof windows if there were to be no increase in noise? It’s like three card monty ‐ a rip off benefitting the school at the detriment of the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CAN IDENTIFY THE FLAWED LOGIC AND LAUGHABLE PREMISE the school is putting forth. Yet the City has so far agreed with this nonsense. This blind agreement of the City of Santa Monica to school schemes over the preservation of what is left of peace and quiet in the neighborhood must stop.

The City of Santa Monica must represent the people of Santa Monica over the greed of a private for profit entity already given variances that have not been adhered to.

Nobody is above or beyond the law, Carlthorp School has been able to do so continually in Santa Monica. This must stop.

Please find transmitted once again, images of signatures with addresses by citizens in close proximity to Carlthorp School who are affected by practices of Carlthorp School acting beyond the law. Also please find attached diagram of proposed elevated playground and displaying nonsense argument from school that 8’ wall will block sound from 13’ basketball backboard.  Please note Carlthorp School has included plans for basketball courts in all renderings submitted to City EXCEPT for elevations that would demonstrate flawed argument by Carlthorp School.

There are so many signatures this message will be sent in two parts ‐ A and B Item 9.A
08/23/22
13 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Thank you
Douglas Brian Martin
437 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
14 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

Summary: On the record before you, Carlthorp has failed to manage its off-site employee parking in a residential neighborhood when school is in session so that street parking is reasonably available to the surrounding residents who need it. It has only 32 permitted parking spaces on-site for its 80 current employees, the majority of whom park on nearby streets, negatively impacting the surrounding community.

This employee neighborhood street parking is in violation of findings that were made as to parking that form the basis of its existing CUP and a specific CUP condition in the 1996 Statement of Official Action (STOA). Affected residents unable to find parking near their homes seeking relief have been rebuffed by the school and ignored by the City. This 1996 STOA violation must be remedied before the Council can consider any additional permit to expand school operations. (STOA, Validity of Permit, #31).

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby underutilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.
• Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.
• The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.
• Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

Given all this, the Council cannot make the critical finding to support the permit – that the expansion would be consistent with the General Plan, and compatible, not detrimental, to the neighborhood.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
15 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

Before any permit can be granted, additional reasonable, enforceable restrictions as to off-site employee parking, noise, and special events need to be imposed or there will be ongoing complaints following this expansion when additional neighborhood detriment occurs (discussed below).

A. Carlthorp is in ongoing violation of the 1995 CUP findings and conditions as to employee parking being on-site
A central finding supporting the 1995 CUP to allow the school to expand in a residential neighborhood was that 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet its postexpansion needs and relieve employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The key representations Carlthorp made as to employee parking that caused the CUP to be granted are:
1) with 32 employees, 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet the school’s needs;
2) the surrounding neighbors and streets would not be burdened by the expansion because employee parking would be on-site; and 3) as a result, the expansion would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and fit in harmoniously with the neighborhood.

The staff report supported the expansion claiming it would benefit and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because on-street parking would no longer be a problem:
“On-site parking is being provided, albeit in a tandem fashion, which will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by removing parking that currently occurs onstreet in the vicinity of the school and shifting it into the off-street spaces.” (6/12/96 staff report, pp-6-7)
These representations and assurances became findings upon which the CUP permit was granted:

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
16 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) “The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”
Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 bi-weekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

B. The current staff report is wrong when it states at page 12 that Carlthorp has complied with all conditions of its CUP.

The report fails to address any of the CUP or Variance findings mentioned above relating to parking restrictions or the related, relevant Condition that establishes that Carlthorp is non-compliant and cannot apply for another CUP until it resolves its employee off-site parking.

Conditions of approval are the guts of enforcing the CUP permit. Conditions are mandatory so that the activity – here the expansion: 1) “would not be detrimental to the public interest, … convenience, or general welfare….” and 2) would “minimize the affect [sic] of the use on adjacent neighbors.” (CUP Finding #10).

Carlthorp is in breach of Miscellaneous Condition #25 which specifically states that it shall not operate its business in a way that is detrimental to surrounding residents as to parking and noise.
“The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.” (emphasis added)
Carlthorp currently has 250% more employees: 80 employees, not 32. The existing staff levels and their parking needs do not bear any relation to those upon which the CUP was granted. This results in its operation being conducted in a manner detrimental to surrounding neighbors as to parking. It also violates the assurances given, rendering the findings hollow.

Specifically, this 250% growth and its operation in general causes its staff and others related to the school to park in the neighborhood—making street parking increasingly scarce —to the detriment of its resident neighbors in violation of Condition #25.

Carlthorp is well aware of its violation and its ongoing negative impact on its neighbors.

The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby Item 9.A
08/23/22
17 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

Because Carlthorp is in material breach of this Condition and the assurances it gave in obtaining its CUP expansion permit, it cannot obtain a new permit without first curing its existing breach. See 1996 STOA, “Validity of Permit,” Condition #31 which specifically contains this mandate:
“In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” (emphasis added)
On this basis alone the Council must deny the school a new permit at this time.

Condition #25 also applies to noise. Many nearby residents have written about excessive playground noise emanating from Carlthorp, interfering with residents’ daily activities and peaceful enjoyment of their residences.

II. The school’s business is no longer consistent with the General Plan because its current operation, including number of employees, is not “compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.”
This appeal triggers de novo review, which means that the Council must review the existing CUP not only for compliance, but also must review the current school operation as to whether the key neighborhood compatibility requirements under our General Plan are currently being met.

Moreover, because this is a CUP, the General Plan requires an “additional level of review and a higher threshold of approval” to ensure that a commercial use in a residential neighborhood is compatible with it and with the goals and intents of the General Plan.” (Staff Report, p10).

So even if limiting employee parking on-site hadn’t been in the CUP and Variance findings and conditions, which it was, Council needs to look to the General Plan neighborhood parking policies and goals, not referred to in the staff report, to determine whether the school is currently operating in such a way that is incompatible with the General Plan.

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential Item 9.A
08/23/22
18 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.”
The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

The city regularly requires businesses operating in commercial districts to provide suitable leasing or other arrangements for employee parking so nearby residential neighborhoods aren’t adversely impacted. Carlthorp employees who can’t park on-site could be shuttled to work from a nearby commercial parking venue. This suggestion, made to Carlthorp by its impacted neighbors has been ignored.

Here, Carlthorp has a higher duty which the city should enforce because it is operating a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yet it has not taken reasonable steps to procure off-site parking for its employees, or otherwise discourage or prevent the wide-scale off-site employee parking caused by its 1996 expansion.

Until it does, its current operation is incompatible both with its surrounding neighborhood and with the General Plan so no additional CUP is warranted or should be granted until the incompatibility is redressed.

B. The record before the Planning Commission is replete with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from the school operation
Over 250 pages of comments were received by the Planning Commission in 2020 – the vast majority from residents who opposed giving any further permit for Carlthorp to expand and/or wanted it to be compelled to rein in the street parking and noise first.

The comments were from property owners adjacent to the school and across San Vicente in multi-family residential units at 415, 423, 425, 427, 430, 435, 437, 441, 445, 447, 449, 450, and 451 and 3 owners of residences south of the school on Georgina.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:
“As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
19 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) “As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.” This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

C. Carlthorp’s proposed TDM Plan (if its CUP is approved on appeal) is aspirational and does nothing to solve the street parking burden or discourage employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed, generic TDM plan as part of the record before the Council is aspirational:
it has no teeth, no enforcement, or penalties to discourage its employees from parking in the neighborhood. It doesn’t set any cap on the number of employees who could park off-site or offer any off-site parking solution for its employees or visitors outside of this alreadt dense residential area.

The plan does not specify how many employees or part-time staff, parents, visitors, or guests the school operation currently serves. It is not tied to the number of the school’s existing employees who park off-site, its ongoing violation, or acknowledge the neighborhood detriment. It doesn’t offer anything concrete in the way of curing its excessive street parking.

It does not contain firm solutions routinely carried out by businesses that lack sufficient parking who can’t park in residential neighborhoods, such as leasing off-site, underutilized parking facilities with shuttle transportation to and from the school.

Even this non-solution TDM Plan is predicated on Council granting its CUP. Otherwise, the school has no plans to rein in the excess off-site parking until it is compelled to do so.

Carlthorp has turned a blind eye to the neighborhood problems caused by its operation since its 1996 expansion. The Council must require the school to adopt a reasonable parking plan with enforcement rights that redress the burden to the neighborhood at this point or otherwise greater violations causing neighborhood frustration and ongoing complaints lie ahead.

D. The staff report is not correct that “no new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal” (p.9).

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known Item 9.A
08/23/22
20 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

Second, 2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for Council to grasp the magnitude of new parking impacts that would occur.

Carlthorp proposes to hold up to 18 “Special School Events” on campus every academic year for more than 50 adult attendees, not including any school employees or staff. Moreover, 6 of these events can be held as evening events without Planning Director approval but more can be requested. There is no limit on events with less than 50 outside attendees.

As to the more than 50 attendees, no arrangement for parking is provided for them. So, it highly probable that Carlthorp parking will occur on all surrounding streets beyond those streets being used now.

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event.

There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

Third, the Valet parking proposal is unreasonable on its face. Valet parking is only required for “Special School Events “expected to draw more than 150 vehicles” with a yet undefined vehicle staging plan to “utilize one side of the street” along with on-site parking. (2020 Planning Commission STOA, Conditions 4-6, emphasis added).

Anywhere near 150 vehicles arriving at or near the same time would create a huge vehicle back-up all along San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street, and other nearby residential streets. Any event involving that many vehicles would create severe back-up and wait times for valet drop-off and pick-up would be long, creating blockages and related noise.

To avoid the wait, attendees would likely hunt for parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

These proposals are unworkable for this, or any residential Santa Monica neighborhood, and they should not be allowed.

Realistically, these “Special School Events” would need to involve more staff or outside hires to facilitate them, potentially utilizing additional neighborhood parking. It’s also unclear what street area Carlthorp is proposing for around the school to be utilized as part of the valet parking plan.

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much greater Item 9.A
08/23/22
21 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

It is very important that Council modify the 2020 STOA and impose specific, additional conditions and restrictions to avoid serious, ongoing neighborhood problems resulting in code enforcement complaints as to these “Special School Events,” including related noise issues that haven’t been addressed. Imagine the noise, for example, from people waiting for 150 cars to arrive from the valet stand following the event, or 100 people leaving an event at once to go to their cars in the neighborhood. These obvious issues are pertinent to having the city impose reasonable, enforceable special event planning conditions, not addressed in the 2020 STOA Condition #4.

Thank you for your time and consideration of all these issues that are relevant and impactful for the nearby residents in their daily lives and the surrounding neighborhood.

I also urge you to look at the many thoughtful comments from neighbors and NOMA about the excessive parking and noise resulting from the school’s past expansion.

August 18, 2022
Diana Gordon, nearby resident on San Vicente Boulevard
Item 9.A
08/23/22
22 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))

(310) 451-3669
August 19, 2022

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Elementary School Campus Facility Improvements
Owner/Applicant: Carlthorp School (our client)
Approved Applications: CUP 19ENT-0250 & Minor Mod. 20ENT-0066 Address: 424-438 San Vicente Boulevard
Appeal No. 20ENT-0275
Appellant: Steven Salsberg
Agenda Item: 9A
Our File No. 22270.003
Dear Councilmembers:

After multiple delays, the appeal that was filed on November 18, 2020--yes, that is the correct date--by neighbor Steven Salsberg objecting to the Planning Commission approvals for campus improvements to the longstanding existing elementary school (Carlthorp) is scheduled for hearing on Tuesday.

This letter is submitted on behalf of Carlthorp School. We recommend that you follow the Staff Recommendation and deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission approval and the associated 81 conditions of approval.

As a reminder of our defense of the Planning Commission’s decision, enclosed is my letter that I had submitted when this appeal hearing was scheduled for February 22.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
Enclosure
cc: David White (w/ encl.)
David Martin (w/ encl.)
Jing Yeo (w/ encl.)
Stephanie Reich (w/ encl.)
Regina Szilak (w/ encl.)
Douglas Sloan (w/ encl.)
Heidi von Tongeln (w/ encl.)
Ken Parr (w/ encl.)
Tarrah Beebe (w/ encl.)
[email protected]
Item 9.A
08/23/22
23 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 



)HEUXDU\

9,$(0$,/
6DQWD0RQLFD&LW\&RXQFLO
0DLQ6WUHHW5RRP

6DQWD0RQLFD&DOLIRUQLD

5H
 (OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO&DPSXV)DFLOLW\,PSURYHPHQWV
  2ZQHU$SSOLFDQW
&DUOWKRUS6FKRRO
RXUFOLHQW

  $SSURYHG$SSOLFDWLRQV
&83
(17 0LQRU0RG(17
  $GGUHVV
6DQ9LFHQWH%RXOHYDUG
  $SSHDO1R(17
  $SSHOODQW
6WHYHQ6DOVEHUJ
 2XU)LOH1R
'HDU&RXQFLOPHPEHUV

7KLVOHWWHULVVXEPLWWHGRQEHKDOIRI&DUOWKRUS6FKRRODQRQSURILWFKDULWDEOH HGXFDWLRQDORUJDQL]DWLRQ
,DPZULWLQJLQVXSSRUWRIWKH6WDIIUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWKDWWKH&LW\&RXQFLOGHQ\ $SSHDO(17DQGDGRSWWKH6WDWHPHQWRI2IILFLDO$FWLRQ ZLWKDOORILWV
FRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDO

&DUOWKRUSLVDORQJWLPH.HOHPHQWDU\VFKRROLQ6DQWD0RQLFD2Q1RYHPEHU WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQRQDQGYRWHVDSSURYHGD0LQRU0RGLILFDWLRQ

IRUPLQLVFXOHDGGHGSDUFHOFRYHUDJH
DQG&83$PHQGPHQWWRDXWKRUL]HFHUWDLQ
FDPSXVIDFLOLW\LPSURYHPHQWVRQWKHH[LVWLQJVFKRROFDPSXV7KHDSSURYDODOORZV 
x LQQRYDWLYHH[SDQVLRQRIVWXGHQWRXWGRRUSOD\DUHDZLWKRXWH[SDQGLQJWKHODQG DUHD
E\DGGLQJDURRIGHFNDWWKHUHDUDORQJWKHDOOH\

x HQFORVLQJDQRXWGRRUOXQFKDUHD
ZKLFKZLOOUHGXFHOXQFKWLPHQRLVH

x HVWDEOLVKPHQWRIDVXEWHUUDQHDQPXOWLSXUSRVHURRPLQWKHEDVHPHQW

XQGHUJURXQGDFRXVWLFVZLOODYRLGDQ\QRLVHLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRG VSHFLILFDOO\
NXWFKHU#KONNODZFRP
$JHQGD,WHP$
Now Appearing As
Agenda Item 9-A
Item 9.A
08/23/22
24 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022