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 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.
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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:
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
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 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” 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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//
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
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.
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.
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
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
+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
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
(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. +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
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
+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
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
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.