City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 9.A
1 of 20
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0275 and approve Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 for a 7,280 square foot expansion to the Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29% increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage, based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this report.
2. Adopt the CEQA Findings in this Staff Report under “Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.”
Summary
Carlthorp Elementary School (“Carlthorp”) operates a 280-student K-6 school at 438 San Vicente Boulevard. On November 4, 2020, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 (amending Conditional Use Permit 95-012) to allow a 7,280 square foot expansion to the school and new rooftop playcourt and a 0.29% increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage for the school.
On November 18, 2020, the appellant, Steven Salsberg, filed a timely appeal (20ENT0275) of the Planning Commission’s approvals. The appeal statement raises concerns regarding (1) incorrect plan exhibits, (2) violations of CUP 95-012, the Conditional Use Permit issued to Carlthorp in 1995 that currently governs use of the property, (3) compliance of the proposed project with the Zoning Ordinance, (4) concerns over use of 2 of 20
the proposed multipurpose room and whether it qualifies as a classroom requiring additional parking, (5) procedural flaws, (6) noise impacts, (7) privacy impacts, and (8) concerns about lack of access to information.
On February 21, 2022, Frank P. Angel of Angel Law submitted a letter to the City Council on behalf of the Appellant and “all similarly situated residents of Santa Monica and all Santa Monica citizens interested in or benefitting from City Council compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act requesting that the public hearing for Appeal 20ENT-0275, originally scheduled for February 22, 2022, be taken off calendar and re-noticed. On February 22, 2022, for agenda management purposes, the City Council voted 7-0 to continue the appeal hearing to March 15, 2022. On March 15, 2022, the City Council voted 7-0 to continue the appeal hearing to April 12, 2022. The Appellant requested this item be continued beyond April 12, 2022, and it was rescheduled for May 10, 2022.
At the May 10, 2022 Council meeting only four Councilmembers were in attendance.
Per Council Rule 3, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only four Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as five Councilmembers are participating.
The appellant requested a continuance, and the item was rescheduled to August 23, 2022.
The letter from Angel Law also asserted two separate violations of California law to support the request that the appeal hearing be continued:
• Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”) – improper notice of the appeal hearing • California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) - Inappropriate use of CEQA Exemptions
The Appeal section of this staff report responds to the additional claims raised in Mr.
Angel’s letter and concludes that no violation of the Brown Act or CEQA has occurred.
However, some inadvertent typographical errors relating to the CEQA exemption were 3 of 20
discovered in the original staff report and, therefore, an updated Draft STOA with CEQA exemption determination has been prepared (Attachment B).
Subsequent to the Council’s vote on March 15, 2022 to continue the appeal hearing, the appellant submitted concerns regarding the proposed project’s compliance with zoning standards. Specifically, the appellant asserted that two portions of the existing building do not meet the definition of a basement, based on the current Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the applicant submitted revised plans on March 31, 2022 that reduced upper level parcel coverage to be within maximum parcel coverage limits. Subsequently, the appellant asserted that parcel coverage was shown incorrectly on the plans. On April 26, 2022, the applicant submitted further revised plans that updated parcel coverage calculations on the ground floor and upper levels and also clarified parcel coverage and floor area on the plans through color coding and labelling. However, the main components of the project and the applicant’s minor modification request did not change.
Approval of the CUP and Minor Modification would afford Carlthorp School the ability to add square footage below grade, at-grade and at the second-floor levels and as conditioned, the request is comparable to the adjacent residential uses within the area and will maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the appeal as it relates to Carlthorp’s requests, and has determined that the required findings set forth in SMMC Section 9.41.060 and 9.43.090 can be made in the affirmative to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification, respectively, as detailed in the draft Statement of Official Action (Attachment B).
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.37.130 relating to appeals, Council’s review of the Conditional Use and Minor Modification approval is de novo. Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar actions that were in the purview of the Planning Commission. 4 of 20
Background
Carlthorp School was established in 1939 and has been in operation at its present location since 1941. The school is a private kindergarten thru 6th grade elementary school. Subsequent to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the school expanded in lot size and building floor area after acquiring and demolishing an adjacent, vacant 17-unit apartment building that was “red-tagged” or deemed structurally unsound. On June 12, 1996 the Planning Commission approved the following entitlements:
• Development Review Permit 95-003;
• Conditional Use Permit 95-012;
• Variance 95-022;
• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations
The subject property is located in the Low Density Multi-family Residential (R2) Zone District on a rectangular parcel of 46,362 SF, situated on the south side of San Vicente Boulevard between 4th and 7th Streets. The parcel is surrounded by multi-family properties to the east (22-unit condominium) and west (24-unit apartment) and two single-family dwellings located across from Georgina Place Alley to the south. The school acquired and expanded onto an adjacent property in 1996 and as such the school parcel is larger than any other parcel on this block. 5 of 20
Figure 1: Site Map
Table 1: Existing Conditions
Zoning District Low Density Multifamily Residential (R2) Land Use Element
Designation
Low Density Housing
Parcel Area (SF)/Dimensions 46,362 SF / slightly irregular lot approximately 217.6’ W x 213.09’ D
Existing On-Site
Improvements
Private elementary school, outdoor play yard, surface
and covered parking.
Rent Control Status N/A – School
Adjacent Zoning Districts &
Land Uses
North: R2 – Multi Unit Dwelling
East: R2 – Multi Unit Dwelling
South: R1- Single Unit Dwelling
West: R2 – Multi Unit Dwelling
Historic Resources Inventory
Subject property is listed as a non-contributing building within the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment
Historic District
Project Description
Carlthorp School proposes a new 7,280 square-foot (SF) school addition comprised of:
• a 4,793 SF basement multi-purpose room + associated corridors, 6 of 20
• 938 SF lunch seating area,
• 250 SF of administrative offices;
• A 9,142 square-foot rooftop playcourt is also proposed (and while not defined as floor area, is included under the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit as a change in the use of a school building).
If approved, the proposed project would result in a two-story school classroom building comprised of a 20,998 main level, an 18,516 SF second story, and a 16,303 SF basement area.
Figure 2: Carlthorp School front elevation
Landmark Commission Concept Review: San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District
Carlthorp School is within the designated San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District, which was designated by the City Council on January 12, 2016. The Historic District was adopted based on its association with multi-family development patterns and the distinctive concentration of courtyard apartments with L-, O-, I-, C-, or U-shaped plans that partially or fully surround a landscaped courtyard. 7 of 20
Figure 3 San Vincente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District Boundaries The District’s period of significance is from 1937-1956, and contributors to the District are courtyard apartments with architectural styles typically associated with the period of significance. The subject parcel on which Carlthorp is located is one of thirteen noncontributing structures out of the 40 structures within the District. The Carlthorp School is a non-contributing structure and parcel as the school was constructed outside the period of significance and is not a courtyard apartment.
Although not a contributing structure, the Landmarks Commission reviews and issues Certificates of Appropriateness for alterations to both contributing and non-contributing structures in the District, including Carlthorp. As a result, the project had a preliminary review by the Landmarks Commission on October 14, 2019. The Landmarks Commission was generally supportive of the project, noting that the addition would not be visible from the street.
The Landmarks Commission will conduct its formal review of a Certificate of Appropriateness application including compatibility with the overall District character should the Council deny the appeal and approve the proposed project. 8 of 20
Planning Commission Action
On November 4, 2020, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066, with a 6-1 and 7-0 vote, respectively, to allow the proposed expansion of the existing school. The Planning Commission’s approval authorized:
• An amendment to Conditional Use Permit 95-012 to allow the 7,280 sf expansion of a private school and addition of a new playcourt for the school within the R2 zoning district; and
• Minor Modification to increase parcel coverage by 0.29% from the maximum allowable 45% to 45.29%
The Commission received public testimony in support of and opposition to the project.
Supporters spoke of the importance of the school and need for expansion, whereas public testimony that was in opposition to the project cited traffic related impacts, size, scale and location of the project and overall compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
The project was originally scheduled to be heard at the May 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, but was continued to allow Code Enforcement to investigate a complaint alleging that the school was operating in violation of their existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-012). The complaint included concerns regarding excessive light, noise, vehicle queueing, parking, and landscaping. The Code Enforcement Division reviewed the complaint letter and took no action. The school has been operating on and off-site during the pandemic. During the 2019-2020 school year, the school reduced the on-site population by half with upper grade students attending school at an off-site location, therefore in-person learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic was not consistent. City staff investigated all complaints as much as possible and moved the item forward for a Planning Commission public hearing on November 4, 2020.
The potential impacts proposed with the school’s expansion are distilled down to two issues: the noise generated by school children playing outside and the impact of 9 of 20
loading/unloading and parking on the surrounding neighborhood. No new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal. Condition #4 memorializes the school’s special events.
In approving the project, the Commission included conditions of approval that addressed the school’s operations, sports activities, and special events and concerns about impacts to circulation (loading/unloading/parking) and noise. There were also conditions regarding use of outdoor loudspeakers and lighting, which the school has begun to implement. The general consensus of the Commission was that with the school having been at the site since 1941 and an integral part of the neighborhood, every effort for dialogue should be made with opponents and proponents to address the on-going school operations. The specific conditions of 19ENT-0250 provide concrete direction and guidance to further that dialogue. These conditions include:
• Designating a school-appointed neighborhood liaison;
• Implementation of a parking, loading and operations plan (PLOP) to address the school’s vehicular circulation;
• Providing netting surrounding the upper-level play court; • Ensuring the multi-purpose room not be used as a classroom; • Shielding exterior lighting from neighbors;
• Including a landscaped screen (e.g. a landscaped fence) at stairwell along the west elevation;
• Providing a subsequent acoustical analysis to City staff once play court is operational;
• Including a valet plan utilizing one side of the street and existing on-site parking.
The Minor Modification was approved but not extensively debated by the Commission.
The existing main floor level is not at the same elevation across the entire level due to a grade change in the parcel from front to rear, and thus, the exhibits shown to the Planning Commission did not correctly identify each floor. Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action, the project plans were updated to demonstrate compliance with the Planning Commission’s actions and provide a clearer parcel coverage exhibit. The 10 of 20
plan exhibits have been updated to clarify lower, main, and upper floor levels and are compliant with the Planning Commission’s approval, as conditioned.
On November 18, 2020, the appellant, filed a timely appeal (20ENT-0275) of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification to allow the proposed Carlthorp school expansion.
Discussion
Purpose of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification According to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.08.020, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for a school use in a Residential Zone. CUP 95-012 was approved for the expansion of the school in 1996. A CUP is intended to provide a mechanism for approval or conditional approval of expansions in the use of land or buildings or changes in the character of use of land or buildings. These uses require an additional level of review and have a higher threshold of approval to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and compliance with the goals and intent of the General Plan. A CUP allows for mitigation of potential impacts of a proposed use by allowing the City to impose conditions of approval on the use (for example, to address design, siting, and operational impacts).
Pursuant to SMMC 9.40.050, in order to approve a CUP and Minor Modification, Council on appeal must make the following findings in an affirmative manner, as more fully set forth in Attachment B:
• The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan
• The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the land uses are to remain;
• The proposed use is compatible with the existing and permissible land uses within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation;
11 of 20
• The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
Minor modifications allow for minor adjustments to the dimensional requirements and design standards, including an increase in parcel coverage by up to 5%. The Minor Modification request to increase parcel coverage by 0.29% would normally be reviewed without a public hearing and issued by staff; however, pursuant to SMMC Section
9.37.170, if any application is filed concurrently with another application that would normally be reviewed by the Planning Commission, all related applications are reviewed by the Planning Commission. In this case, since the Planning Commission’s approval was appealed the Council shall review the Minor Modification and determine whether findings can be made in support of the request to allow a minor increase in parcel coverage for the project.
Appeal
On November 18, 2020, the appellant, filed an appeal (20ENT-0275) of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carlthorp school expansion. The appeal statement raises concerns regarding (1) incorrect plan exhibits, (2) violations of CUP 95-012, (3) noncompliance of the proposed project with the Zoning Ordinance, (4) concerns over use of the proposed multipurpose room and whether it qualifies as a classroom requiring additional parking requirements, (5) procedural flaws, (6) noise impacts, (7) privacy impacts, and (8) concerns about lack of access to information. After review of the appeal, staff determined that it is generally based on interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance that are inconsistent with how the Zoning Ordinance has been consistently applied, and procedural elements that are not germane to considering whether findings can be made to support the proposed project and do not warrant upholding the appeal.
This report has grouped the appeal complaints in these eight categories, and includes a chart noting each of the appellant’s objections; the source of the discussion i.e. from 12 of 20
Code, entitlements, or procedural guidelines; the appellant’s assertion; and staff response. A detailed item by item description is included as Attachment E.
Additional responses to the letter submitted by Frank P. Angel of Angel Law on behalf of the appellant asserting (9) violations of the Brown Act and (10) violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to the hearing that was scheduled for February 22, 2022 are also provided in this section.
1. Plan Exhibits Incorrectly Represent the Proposed Project The appeal asserts that the plan exhibits are incorrect in a number of ways:
interpretation of the definition of basement, number of stories, adjacency of different zone as it impacts setback and height requirements, and that plans do not comply with current parking regulations.
Staff has reviewed the plans and found them to be compliant with the Code. Further, staff has also reviewed each element of the appeal assertion and found that each assertion relies on an incorrect interpretation of the Code. The existing building floor levels are on multiple levels due to the property’s slope and construction occurring over time creating existing legal non-conforming conditions that are allowed by Code. Staff has found that the calculations of the basement, various levels, setbacks and parking requirements to be correct. Staff has reviewed the plans and found the interpretation of requirements correct and has also found the proposal to comply with Code.
2. Violations of CUP 95-012
The appeal asserts that the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-012), which currently governs the use of the property, has been violated and therefore no other entitlements or permits can be issued. Staff has reviewed all the conditions in CUP 95- 012 and found that the school has complied with all conditions with the exception of the condition to provide a clear view from the street and to change the surface of the play yard from grass to artificial turf as conditioned in the 1995 CUP. This application requests those conditions be modified to reflect the existing physical condition providing additional security and water cost savings for the school and its students. Staff 13 of 20
recommends approval of these revised conditions because they reflect the school’s current operations and do not raise or alter noise impacts. If Council does not approve the conditions as proposed, the applicant will be required to bring the property into compliance with CUP 95-012.
3. Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The appeal asserts numerous ways the project is not Code Compliant including the interpretation of basement, number of stories, floor area calculations, setback definitions, and parking requirements. Staff has thoroughly reviewed each assertion by the appellant on this subject and determined that the appeal statement does not correctly apply the Code. As a multi-level property, the floor area calculation is not straightforward. Staff has closely reviewed the sections and plans to carefully identify what areas of the project meet the Code definition of basement and are therefore not included in the floor area. The application’s drawings and parcel coverage calculations reflect a Code-compliant project subject to approval of the Modification request.
The appeal also asserts the setbacks should be calculated differently as the property adjoins an R1 zone. The property is separated from the R1 zone by an alley and therefore does not adjoin the R1 zone and the Code provisions referred to in the appeal do not apply.
Subsequent to the City Council voting on March 15, 2022 to continue the appeal hearing, the appellant submitted concerns regarding the proposed project’s compliance with zoning standards. Specifically, the appellant asserted that two portions of the existing school do not meet the definition of a basement, based on the current Zoning Ordinance. After review of the appellant’s assertions and new information regarding the location of certain levels of the existing building relative to finished grade provided by the applicant that was not previously included in the proposed plans, staff determined that the proposed plans exceeded maximum allowable upper level parcel coverage.
Staff notified the applicant of this code compliance issue; as a result, the applicant submitted revised plans on April 26, 2022 that reduced upper level parcel coverage to 14 of 20
be within maximum parcel coverage limits. The main components of the project and the applicant’s minor modification request did not change.
4. Required Parking
The appeal asserts that the proposed multi-purpose room should be considered an additional classroom and therefore requires Carlthorp to provide additional parking. The applicant has provided information representing that the use of the proposed multipurpose room will be an assembly/multi-purpose room that will be used by the school community but not as a classroom. A proposed condition of approval memorializes the restriction on the multi-purpose room being used as a classroom and thus, additional parking is not required.
5. Procedural Flaws
The appeal asserts that there have been flaws in processing the project. Specifically, the appeal asserts that staff has incorrectly accepted an amended application and not provided the appellant with requested documents. The land survey included in the original application contained an error. When this error was discovered, the application was modified to include a Minor Modification.
6. Noise Impacts
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, in-person school attendance had ceased during the time that the application was under consideration by the Planning Commission with no indication when in-person instruction would resume. Overall noise complaints are therefore difficult to verify. However, the school has previously paid for replacement of the windows in the building on the adjacent property as conditioned in CUP 95-012.
The school has also committed to a much more limited use of the public address system as part of the current application and has proposed to designate a neighborhood liaison to facilitate communication between the school and its neighbors, which are included in the draft conditions of approval for the project. An acoustical study has been prepared based on two site visits conducted pre-Covid 19 (prior to March of 2020), with an additional test completed May 2020. A condition of approval has been 15 of 20
proposed to review noise levels for compliance with the acoustical study once construction has completed and the approved uses are in active use.
7. Privacy Impacts
The appellant did not elaborate on the privacy impacts and stated an amended appeal statement would provide an explanation. As of the writing of this staff report, no additional information has been received.
8. Access to Information
The appeal cites lack of documents, zoning interpretations and access to public records as an obstacle to scheduling public hearings and amending the appeal. The appellant has requested a substantial amount of public records and staff time including:
➢ All related documents 1995 and 2019 CUP applications
➢ Three public records requests
➢ Multiple scheduled phone and virtual meetings
In response to these requests, staff created electronic records, requested all previous file records, granted access to view construction drawings for the prior entitlement and fulfilled the volume of public requests and requests for all staff emails relating to the project all during the period of the Covid-19 stay at home order. Additionally, staff digitized application material and Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Code Sections from 1995 and provided a xerox copy of paper records from 1995. These requests were made and completed when City Hall was not open to the public due to the COVID19 emergency. As such, documentation was provided consistent with updated COVID19 protocols. The appellant contends staff willfully withheld public documents. City staff have collectively spent many hours over the course of the past 19 months responding to records requests regarding the project, reviewing questions, and explaining various aspects of the Code to the appellant.
The two substantive obstacles that have thwarted a resolution of the entitlement request include setting and keeping scheduled hearing dates; fulfilling the voluminous requests for information, formal interpretations, assistance and examinations. 16 of 20
The applicant, the appellant, staff and members of the public have an expectation that the development application process will move forward with some level of certainty and fair adjudication of the request. City staff received the initial application in June of 2019.
The Planning Commission heard and approved the project on November 4, 2020, and the appeal was filed on November 18, 2020. The appeal to the City Council has been rescheduled multiple times; staff’s objective is to bring this item to the City Council for final resolution of the requested entitlement. Attachment D contains a project timeline.
9. Claim of Violation of the Brown Act
The letter claims that there was a violation of the Brown Act because the agenda description for this appeal did not specifically reference an action to be taken by the City Council under CEQA.
Staff has reviewed and determined that the agenda description for the February 22, 2022 public hearing did not need to include a separate reference to an action to be taken under CEQA because no separate action need be taken, and the agenda description was sufficient for purposes of the Brown Act. Based on evidence in the record, the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. As a matter of practice, and consistent with CEQA, the City Council does not take a separate action to make a determination that a project is exempt from CEQA. Because no separate action will be taken by the City Council, no exemption determination was listed separately on the Council’s agenda for this item.
Nonetheless, the City has had an opportunity to re-notice the hearing due to the continuances. And, as described in more detail below, because the appellant has challenged the City’s reliance on certain Categorical Exemptions under CEQA, staff recommends that the City Council make an affirmative determination that the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
17 of 20
10. Claim of CEQA Violation
The letter claims that staff’s recommended CEQA exemptions under Class 3 and Class 31 are “unsubstantiated and erroneous”. Staff has reviewed and determined that the exemptions are supported by substantial evidence in the record as set forth in the Draft Statement of Official Action (“STOA”).
The letter assumes that the City relies, in part, on CEQA’s “common sense” exemption, which is appropriately used when “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The letter claims that the City cannot rely on this exemption because it is contradicted by language in CUP Finding No. 7, which states that “any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project.”
The Appellant asserts that CUP Finding No. 7 is evidence that the City relied upon the “common sense” exemption. CUP Finding No. 7 states, “[b]ased on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental impacts or (emphasis added) any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation incorporated in the project.” Staff did not actually rely on the “common sense” exemption. Instead, staff determined that two categorical exemptions apply (Class 14 and Class 31). When a project is categorically exempt, CEQA does not require analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts. Under CEQA, categorically exempt projects have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, even if CUP Finding No. 7 was recited in the STOA, the portion that states “potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation incorporated in the project” is not applicable where, as here, the project is categorically exempt.
The letter claims that the Class 3 and Class 31 categorical exemptions are inappropriate for the proposed project. The Class 31 categorical exemption is cited 18 of 20
because the proposed project is located within the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District.
Staff discovered, however, that the reference to a Class 3 exemption in the Draft STOA was an inadvertent typographical error. The analysis is actually for a Class 14 categorical exemption and thus, a revised Draft STOA has been prepared in Attachment B correcting that typographical error. In addition, the analysis to support the Class 14 categorical statement in the “Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act” section of the staff report was also inadvertently omitted from CUP Finding No. 7 and thus, the revised Draft STOA also adds in the missing analysis that was already in that section of the staff report.
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15314 (Class 14) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This section exempts minor additions to existing schools where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms. The school’s existing size is 38,397. The proposed addition of 7,280 square feet, a 20.6% increase in size that is intended to accommodate existing student capacity. The school has 22 existing K-6 classrooms and the addition will not add any new classrooms.
Therefore, the addition, will not increase the number of classrooms or students and no further environmental analysis is required.
The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the proposed addition to a non-contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by Anne E. Grimmer, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District. The District is characterized by courtyard apartments oriented around landscaped spaces constructed during an architectural 19 of 20
period of significance dating from 1937-1956. The proposed project consists of a 4,793 sf subterranean multi-purpose room+ associated corridors and 938 sf lunch seating area and 250 sf of administrative offices within the interior courtyard of the existing building envelope that will not be visible from San Vicente Boulevard. Further, the proposed rooftop play area is on an existing building adjacent to the alley (approximately 170 feet from the North property line) and would be minimally visible from San Vicente Boulevard only due to required safety fencing. The proposed project does not change the existing front elevation or landscape features of the noncontributing school and therefore, would have no impact on the overall character or significance of the historic district. Further, the proposed addition requires review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the City’s Landmarks Commission to ensure the structure would not potentially impact the character-defining features of the District.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action.
Prepared By: Regina Szilak, Associate Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement
B. Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 8.23.22 C. PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) D. Carlthorp time line 8.23.22 pdf
E. City Council Public Hearing 8.23.22 Carlthorp
F. Table of Appeal Complaints
G. Project Plans 8-23-2022
20 of 20
H. Written Comments
I. ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 J. ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 K. Carlthorp School Play Court 5.10.22
L. Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22
M. 2022-02-21 Angel Law Comment Letter
N. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application
O. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2
P. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022
Q. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4
R. ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9- 2022
S. ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9- 2022
T. Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022
U. Comments Post February 2022
V. Written Comments
W. Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 for
8.23.22 hearing
X. Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020
Y. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 (Web Link) Z. Written Comment