Santa Monica City Council
August 23, 2022

1 Vernice Hankins
From: Paula Kayton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 8:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 9A Carlthorp Appeal August 23, 2022 Meeting

EXTERNAL
Please uphold the appeal opposing the Carlthorp expansion plans.

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

Please do not let Carlthorp expand.

Paula Kayton
722 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Darlene Lancer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 12:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Carlthorp School permits and appeals

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

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

Darlene Lancaer
Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Joan Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 3:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Joan Bennett
Subject: Carlthorp Appeal 8.23.22, Council agenda item 9A

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

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

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

Joan Bennett
Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Douglas Brian Martin <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

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

Douglas Brian Martin
437 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Travis Bible <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Carlthorp Appeal, agenda item 9A

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

Thanks for your consideration.
‐‐
Travis Bible
Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 4:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 8/23/22 ITEM 9-A CARLTHORP APPEAL/FROM KIT DREYFUSS

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Councilmembers:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Kit Dreyfuss
NOMA Resident
Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 2:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan
Cc: Phil Brock; David Martin; [email protected]; Zina Josephs; [email protected]; Tricia Crane
Subject: Subject: Item 9A Carlthorp CUP Appeal

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

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

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

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

As NOMA member Diana Gordon pointed out in her letter to you which we incorporate here, the 1995 CUP (the current Permit) Finding #7 states clearly: “All parking is provided on site.” Also, its Variance Finding #2 states: “The granting of such variance shall not be detrimental…in that the project includes tandem parking spaces to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” These Findings were based on assurances from Carlthorp that following the expansion, it would employ a staff of 32 with tandem parking space for 32 cars on‐site. These assurances have turned out to be wildly off. In fact, Carlthorp has 80 staff, not 32 and those without on‐site spaces  park on the Item 9.A
08/23/22
7 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 surrounding streets to the detriment of neighbors. Unfortunately, Carlthorp has done nothing meaningful to mitigate this and come into compliance despite numerous complaints from neighbors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
8 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 B) Events with over 50 outside adult attendees, Carlthorp can hold up to 18 a year, with 6 at night (but more can be requested.) Again, NO provision made for parking. This can include 200 outside adult attendees in any number of cars under 150.

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

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

NOMA suggests for Conditions:
==For all Special Events, outside attendees must park at an off‐site, out of neighborhood location and be shuttled to and from the event.==
==Any event expected to draw more than 75 vehicles or 150 attendees be limited to 2 events per school year.==
NOMA urges the Council to enforce the Conditions of the existing Permit and require Carlthorp to first cure its on‐going violations. Once that is done, we urge you to help mitigate the ill effects on the Historic San Vicente District of this major expansion as conditions for any approval of a new permit. smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 9.A
08/23/22
9 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 6:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

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

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

Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
502 San Vicente Blvd., Unit203
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
10 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: JULIUS POTOCZKI <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 2:32 AM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Anita Tipirneni; Olena Sholomytska
Subject: Calthorp Appeal, 8.23.22 Agenda Item 9A
Attachments: CarlthorpappealCC8.23.22.docx

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

Thank you
Item 9.A
08/23/22
11 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: JULIUS POTOCZKI <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 2:49 AM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Calthorp Appeal, 8.23.22 Agenda Item 9A
Attachments: CarlthorpappealCC8.23.22.docx

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

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

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

I’m attaching a detailed letter from my neighbor Diana Gordon that details everything you need to know that supports the appeal
Thank you,
Julius Potoczki
Item 9.A
08/23/22
12 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Douglas Brian Martin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 3:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal A
Attachments: CARLTHORP SCHOOL FORMS PDF FOLDER 2.zip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are so many signatures this message will be sent in two parts ‐ A and B Item 9.A
08/23/22
13 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Thank you
Douglas Brian Martin
437 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
14 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

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

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
15 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

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

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

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
16 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”
Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 bi-weekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby Item 9.A
08/23/22
17 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

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

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

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

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

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

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential Item 9.A
08/23/22
18 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.”
The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:
“As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
19 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
“As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.” This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known Item 9.A
08/23/22
20 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much greater Item 9.A
08/23/22
21 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

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

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

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

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

(310) 451-3669
August 19, 2022

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

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

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

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

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




)HEUXDU\

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

6DQWD0RQLFD&DOLIRUQLD

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

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

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

&DUOWKRUSLVDORQJWLPH.HOHPHQWDU\VFKRROLQ6DQWD0RQLFD2Q1RYHPEHU WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQRQDQGYRWHVDSSURYHGD0LQRU0RGLILFDWLRQ

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

x HQFORVLQJDQRXWGRRUOXQFKDUHD
ZKLFKZLOOUHGXFHOXQFKWLPHQRLVH

x HVWDEOLVKPHQWRIDVXEWHUUDQHDQPXOWLSXUSRVHURRPLQWKHEDVHPHQW

XQGHUJURXQGDFRXVWLFVZLOODYRLGDQ\QRLVHLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRG VSHFLILFDOO\
NXWFKHU#KONNODZFRP
$JHQGD,WHP$
Now Appearing As
Agenda Item 9-A
Item 9.A
08/23/22
24 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

designed for school performances/presentations (not for classroom instruction1), and
 needed school administration offices to be built above the newly enclosed lunchroom.

One of the adjacent neighbors filed this appeal. The appeal hearing is a quasijudicial proceeding governed by Zoning Ordinance Chapters 9.41 and 9.43, as well as Zoning Ordinance Section 9.37.130. Carlthorp is entitled to a fair hearing and a decision based on the evidentiary record.

In voting to approve these applications, Commissioner Fonda-Bonardi thoughtfully explained:

One of the reasons I'm approving this . . . is that this is an attempt to do more with less. The fact that they're building stuff underground is very expensive. The fact that they're putting stuff up in the air; they're using a roof in a very active way. That's part of our general ecological approach to things, trying to do more with less. Otherwise, we need to spread out more and more and more and more. We're beyond that
point. So, this is kind of trying to fit in as tight as we can and mitigate the impacts. That's what this is about. Do more with less, but mitigate the effects on everybody around it.

The approved permits will not expand student enrollment, will not add any new classrooms, will not increase school functions, and will not increase the size of the faculty. None of the existing buildings is being demolished--the subterranean performance room will be excavated beneath the outdoor playfield. A minor modification is needed for merely 135 sf of extra lot coverage in the R2 zone (i.e., 45.29% as compared with 45%). (SMMC § 9.43.020(B)(3).)
The existing parking, classrooms, student enrollment, playfield, and building design were approved in 1996 (DRP 95-003; CUP 95-012; Variance 95-022) when the size of the campus was expanded onto the adjoining lot (after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake resulted in the demolition of an apartment building that was red-tagged).

As an outgrowth of that expansion, Carlthorp School funded the installation of doublepaned windows in the Coral Gables apartment building next to the School’s new 1 There will remain an existing multi-purpose room used for classroom instruction purposes.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
25 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

playfield. Those apartments continue to be protected by double-paned windows. The appellant resides in one of those apartments.

New Roof Deck Play Court. We all are keenly aware of the benefits of outdoor play space at schools for our youth. To help minimize sounds of school children playing on the new roof deck, the deck will be encircled with an 8’ tall parapet wall for the neighbors. The height of the parapet wall does not exceed the 30’ height limit for the R2 zoning district. And consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, there will be netting installed above the parapet wall to catch stray balls.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the parapet wall’s sound attenuation, an extremely well-qualified acoustics engineering firm (http://www.veneklasen.com/) 2 has
calculated the potential acoustical impact of the outdoor roof deck to ensure that the school use will not exceed the Noise Ordinance sound limits for residential zones. (SMMC § 4.12.060.) A copy of Veneklasen’s acoustical report is attached to the Staff Report.

There is no acoustic study that contradicts or challenges Veneklasen’s professional report.

New Underground Multi-Purpose Room. Carlthorp School’s new Multipurpose Room, as the name implies, is a room to be used for various functions that will benefit students, faculty/staff, and parents. From September through June (the academic school year), it will serve the following non-classroom purposes:
 Musicals
 Student art exhibits
 Indoor play area on rainy days
 Indoor climbing wall for PE
 Student dismissal staging area on “rainy days”
 Faculty and staff meetings
 Kindergarten graduation
2 Founded in 1947, Veneklasen Associates is one of the largest acoustical consulting firms in the United States. Their technical expertise has been developed through the design of thousands of buildings worldwide, including for civic and governmental agencies, courthouses and public safety, education (K-12, colleges and universities), transportation (including airports and rail), museums and cultural centers, hotels/resorts, studios and entertainment, residential, medical/hospitals, places of worship, etc. They are imminently qualified in this field of expertise.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
26 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

 Talent show
 Special guest speakers for school-wide assemblies
 Parent meetings
 CPR training for employees
 Professional development for faculty
 Meeting space for small groups
 After-school clubs
 Assembling area for community service events
 Orchestra practices
 Theatrical practice and performances
The availability of school auditorium/presentation space in this new subterranean room has become increasingly important to Carlthorp as the School’s enhanced extracurricular programs and educational presentations continue to evolve. Currently, Carlthorp’s smaller existing MPR only accommodates a limited number of students at any one time and therefore functions more like a classroom and counts as a classroom for purposes of parking calculations. With the new Multipurpose Room, Carlthorp will continue to host the same school performances and activities on its campus, but in quarters better suited for such presentations. The new Multipurpose Room will not have any impact on the quantity of either the students or faculty attending school, while accomplishing much needed flexibility for extra-curricular scheduling across all gradelevels.

The new Multipurpose Room will realize a more functional presentation layout, and will not resemble a classroom. The existing multipurpose classroom used for such presentations is not configured for viewing school plays, theatrical performances and other similar presentations. With children as young as six years old performing in the existing room, it is difficult for parents in the back of the room to see all of the children.

When the new Multipurpose Room is built, the school will finally have a proper setting for conducting school performances, assemblies and multi-grade level activities.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID ITS JOB WELL

AND PROTECTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Commissioner Paster correctly explained that approving the Carlthorp applications allows the City to impose more protections for the surrounding residential neighborhood around this elementary school that has remained in this location for 80 years:

I hope that the neighbors appreciate that what Ken [Kutcher] said was right, which is that you are better off having these Item 9.A
08/23/22
27 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

conditions documented in this CUP. That makes them more enforceable and holds them more accountable. And I hope [everyone] appreciate[s] that.

Indeed, to protect the neighborhood, the Planning Commission imposed 81 conditions of approval, including:

The School’s maximum student enrollment is capped at 280 children (i.e., generally 40 students per grade). (Condition 4)
32 bicycle parking spaces must be provided on campus. (Condition 7) Non-school activities are prohibited on the campus. (Condition 4) The new underground multipurpose room is to be used as a performance space and may not be used as simply another classroom. (Condition 17) The 8’ tall parapet wall around the roof deck must be solid/ nontransparent on the west and east ends to protect the privacy of the residential neighbors. (Condition 18)
Decorative murals, artwork or architectural details should be explored with the ARB for the parapet wall enclosing the playcourt, especially on the south facing wall. (Condition 18)
Any lighting installed for the rooftop playcourt must be shielded so as not to produce spillover onto adjacent properties, and such rooftop lighting must be turned off when the play court is not in use. (Condition 18) The School is limited to no more than 18 Special School Events, and no more than 6 Special School Events can occur after school hours without the Planning Director’s approval. (Condition 4)
All invitations for Special School Events at the School must encourage walking, biking, ridesharing and use of public transportation. (Condition 6) Valet parking (for cars and bicycles) must be provided for any Special School Event expected to draw more than 150 vehicles (probably once or twice a year: Grandparents Day and possibly graduation). Valet parking must only use one side of the street. (Condition 6)
Item 9.A
08/23/22
28 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

A Parking and Loading Operations Plan (“PLOP”) for the School must be submitted to the City Mobility Division for review and approval. (Condition 5)
The School’s outdoor speakers are to be used primarily for emergency purposes, as well as the daily morning assembly. (Condition 9) The outdoor speakers facing the Goral Gable apartment building will be removed as a result of enclosing the lunch area. (Condition 8) The outdoor speakers will no longer be used for afternoon student pickup; instead, walkie talkies will be used to coordinate student departures. (Condition 10)
Another sound study will be done as soon as the new rooftop play court is constructed and in use. If the new sound measurements are greater than expected, additional sound protection measures will be implemented. (Condition 11)
The School will be required to abide by a Transportation Demand Management Plan approved by the City. (Condition 16)
A Construction Management Plan that includes outreach to area residents and commuters must be reviewed and approved by the City. (Condition 14)
Without violating fire and building codes, the exterior stairwell along the west elevation would be best if it can be screened with a green wall/landscaping. (Condition 19)
A neighborhood liaison will be designated to address any neighborhood concerns related to the school. The liaison’s contact information will be distributed to residents within a 300’ radius as soon as the rooftop play court is finished and annually thereafter. (Condition 12) Commissioner Paster also pointed out the benefits to everyone of Condition 12 in particular:

And I do really want to encourage that the person who is the [School’s] new community liaison rep, that the neighbors reach out to that person, that they express their concerns Item 9.A
08/23/22
29 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

and open the lines of communication and really try to get the things fixed that you have [any future] problems with.

Without the project approvals, these neighborhood protections will not be in place for this existing school. We urge the City Council to affirm the Planning Commission approval and deny the lone appeal.

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES OF CARLTHORP SCHOOL
Carlthorp School is a longstanding educational institution in this community.

Carlthorp School is invested in instilling lifelong core values in its students. Carlthorp School’s approach to student education is imbedded in its mission statement:

Mission Statement
Carlthorp School 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 our students to achieve their highest potential in education and life. https://www.carlthorp.org/about-us/about-carlthorp
Carlthorp is also fully committed to the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion rests in every aspect of our community and institution and is the perfect space for our students to learn how to navigate the world beyond Carlthorp. No matter who you are, it doesn’t happen without each member of our community. We actively seek opportunities for our community to join us in openly sharing their authentic self and the experiences they bring that will continue to make our school a beautiful and diverse place where everyone belongs.
https://www.carlthorp.org/school-life/diversity-equity-and-inclusion

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS HAVE BEEN

THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED
The Planning Commission did its best to address concerns and objections raised by public comments. Concerns that have been expressed are almost exclusively related to noise, parking, traffic, and special events. Those concerns will be addressed by the following:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
30 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

A. Noise.

Concerns were raised regarding anticipated sound of students using the outdoor play space on the rooftop along the rear alley. Carlthorp and its architect and acoustics consultant has taken special care to minimize the sound that would otherwise travel to the neighboring properties. The primary protection will be encircling the rooftop play court on all four sides by a solid, noise-blocking parapet wall of at least 8 feet in height.

This solid perimeter wall is akin to the concrete block wall along the west side of the School’s outdoor playfield.

Additionally, the surface of the play court on the roof will be composed of noiseattenuating material (such as a durable rubber surface), and padding will be installed underneath the play court surface to further absorb noise and vibration. This absorption surface is akin to the School’s artificial turf ground level playfield. These physical attributes are being implemented to address concerns related to noise.

Also, the roof deck has been located at the rear of the property along the alley.

And given that the size of the student body will not be increasing, the addition of this outdoor space will disperse the students across more outdoor space, thereby reducing the concentration of their sounds of play and outdoor communication. This will be of overall benefit to the residential neighbors, consistent with the dictates of the Planning Commission’s 1995 conditions of approval #57:

57. The project applicant shall disperse play groups as much as possible to disperse noise sources.

With these measures, a professional noise impact assessment conducted by the acoustical consulting firm Veneklasen Associates concluded that:

Based on study, with such a perimeter wall, the noise levels predicted for the rooftop play court area will not exceed the noise limits of Santa Monica Noise Ordinance at all sensitive receptor residential locations. In Veneklasen’s professional opinion the incorporation of a barrier that is 8 feet tall will ensure full compliance with the residential limits imposed by the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance. (Veneklasen Report,
p. 7.)
Furthermore, in approving the outdoor roof deck play court, the Planning Commission imposed Condition 11 requiring the School to obtain a second acoustical study once the play court is completed and in use to confirm the conclusions of the original study and provide additional noise mitigation if the conclusions turn out to be Item 9.A
08/23/22
31 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

inaccurate. The additional mitigation would need to be proposed within 60 days and implemented within 120 days of the follow-up study.

Additionally, in relation to the 1998 expansion of the School campus, Carlthorp has already paid for the installation of noise-blocking dual pane windows at the Coral Gables apartment building immediately to the west of the School Campus. These windows will further help prevent student activity from the play court from disturbing tenants of the building closest to the roof deck.

Carlthorp and the professional acoustical engineers are confident that the perimeter parapet wall and absorbent flooring on the School’s roof deck will ensure that student activity on the rear roof deck does not disrupt the surrounding neighborhood, but in the event that noise issues do unexpectedly arise, Carlthorp has made a binding commitment to promptly and thoroughly address them in compliance with Condition 11.

B. Parking.

Other concerns have focused on street parking in the area immediately surrounding the School. It is important to keep in mind that the School is not demolishing any of its existing buildings. Instead, it is excavating for a basement beneath part of its outdoor playfield, it is enclosing its lunchroom and needed adding administrative office above the enclosed lunchroom, and it is adding an outdoor deck above its rear bank of classrooms. There is no opportunity to add more onsite parking.

As Commissioner Fonda-Bonardi noted, the school is doing its best to make productive and efficient use of all of its campus.

One of the reasons I'm approving this . . . is that this is an attempt to do more with less . . . That's what this is about.

Do more with less, but mitigate the effects on everybody around it.

The School has been in this location since 1942. The Planning Commission granted the School a parking variance in 1996. Those facts are not changing. Without rebuilding its entire campus, the School has no ability to add additional onsite parking.

Instead, despite not being compelled to do so by the Municipal Code’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for developers, the School has worked with the City’s Mobility Division to come up with an enhanced Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM”) to reduce its car trips as much as possible.

The School’s new TDM plan includes numerous measures intended to reduce the number of employees who travel to campus by car. These measures include incentive programs that will be implemented at considerable expense to the School. The Item 9.A
08/23/22
32 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

TDM plan will reduce employee car travel by requiring the school to provide the following:
 Free transit passes for School employees
 A local hiring program
 A parking cash-out payment for School employees who do not drive cars  A 2.0 average vehicle ridership (AVR) target for school employees (instead of the current 1.6)
 Transportation information and orientations for new employees  32 bicycle parking spaces
 Lockers/shower for school employees
 Emergency rides home for employees who bike to work in the event of inclement weather
 Bike repair kits
 Partnership with Santa Monica SPOKE to provide an annual bike education day for employees and students
The School’s commitment to abide by the TDM plan was formalized by Special Condition #16 of the Planning Commission’s approval.

C. Afternoon Dismissal.

Traffic congestion during the School’s afternoon pickup has also been raised as something that needs improvement. Although the campus improvements have nothing to do with afternoon dismissal, the approval of the improvements provided the Planning Commission with an opportunity to request further improvement to the afternoon pick up procedures, and Carlthorp has agreed to do so. Most significantly, Carlthorp has agreed to incentivize carpooling and thereby reduce the number of vehicles picking students up at the School campus. By far the best way to incentivize carpooling is to allow parents with carpools to be the first to pick up their students, so that is what the School will do.

Specifically, per the new TDM Plan:

To incentivize families to combine rides and trips, the School has agreed to prioritize cars picking up multiple students riders to appeal to the convenience and savings of time for those who do so. This carpool priority will help reduce the number of cars lining up for pickup and further minimize neighborhood impacts. Nothing will motivate a parent like saving them time. So, when School dismissal begins at 3:00 p.m., high-occupancy vehicles will be allowed first in line to pick up their students. Those will be cars that are picking up at least 3 students. All other vehicles will need to wait.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
33 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

The TDM plan also includes carefully considered procedures for afternoon pickup intended to reduce wait times and ensure that driveways and alleys are not blocked by queued vehicles. School faculty and staff will manage the staging and flow of parent vehicles in the neighborhood by positioning themselves at strategic locations and serving as traffic flow monitors during daily pickup times. The monitors will be responsible for ensuring that no one’s driveway is blocked during the pickup queuing.

And instead of using the School’s loudspeaker system to announce the names of students whose rides are waiting, Staff will coordinate pickups using walkie talkies with earpieces to reduce noise impacts.

Finally, all dismissal procedures and expectations will be clearly communicated to parents. Parents who violate procedures will be disciplined.

D. Special Events.

Like any school, Carlthorp holds various special events for students and parents.

These events provide opportunities for learning, sharing cultural experiences, family bonding, student presentations and talents, updates on curriculum, and celebration of accomplishments and the joys of education. These include the School’s Halloween Parade, African American History Celebration, Lunar New Yar Celebration, La Fiesta Latina, International Day, ArtSmart Day, S.T.E.M. Day, Grandparents Day, Kindergarten Graduation, 6th Grade Graduation, and All-School Talent Show.

The Planning Commission imposed Special Condition #4 to address these concerns, limiting the School to a maximum of 18 special events per year with no more than 6 of these events being held after school hours. Project Specific Condition #4 also requires the school to provide notice of special events to its immediate neighbors.

Additionally, Project Specific Condition #6 addresses parking and traffic issues related to special events by requiring:
 Automobile valet for larger special events
 The use of the School’s parking lot for special event parking  All valet parking to be restricted to one side of the street  Advance notification to attendees regarding limited parking availability to encourage carpooling, etc.

These limitations and requirements will ensure that the School is able to hold a reasonable number of special events, which are crucial components of student development and school life, without undue disruption to the surrounding community.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
34 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Also, the new Multipurpose Room will allow more of these activities to occur indoors.

To further and more generally address all neighborhood concerns, the Planning Commission also imposed Project Specific Condition #12, which requires the School to appoint an on-site contact person who will serve as a neighborhood liaison to address any concerns that arise in the community. Immediate neighbors of the School will provide annual written notification of the liaison’s contact information.

APPELLANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
The Appellant alleges a litany of zoning code violations and other offenses by the Applicant. The Appellant’s allegations are too numerous, and in many cases too spurious to address one-by-one. As confirmed by both City Staff and the Planning Commission, the School and its proposed improvement project will be in compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the pertinent requirements of the prior 1996 STOA, and all other applicable regulations.

Carlthorp’s original Planning Commission hearing date was delayed for months so that City Staff could look into the litany of zoning code violations alleged by the appellant. As explained in the Staff Report, his allegations were referred to City’s Code Enforcement Division, which declined to open an investigation.

The Appellant’s remaining objections were communicated to and, where warranted, addressed by City Staff, by the Planning Commission and by Carlthorp in good faith. As explained point by point in Staff Report Attachment E, none of the appellant’s remaining allegations has any merit. This elementary school has been a fixture in this neighborhood for eighty years.

CONCLUSION
Carlthorp School has been located at its current location for almost 80 years.

During this time, the School has enjoyed warm and positive relations with many of its neighbors, and the School continues to have a strong and respectful relationship within the community.

It has been 25 years since the School last updated its campus. The School campus requires upgrades to enable Carlthorp to continue providing a high quality, modern educational program to its K-6 students. These upgrades will not increase student enrollment.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
35 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

The School has engaged in productive community outreach and worked diligently to craft a project that is responsive to all legitimate concerns. Except for the minor modification to parcel coverage, the project is fully compliant with all applicable code requirements. Carlthorp’s planned improvements will provide: (i) enhancements that benefit the education of its elementary students (with no increase in enrollment), and (ii) community benefits that will mitigate neighborhood disruption and address the concerns raised by neighbors. The appellant’s views of the School and its plans are skewed and do not generally represent the views of much of the surrounding community.

The City Council should deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission’s near-unanimous approval of the project. We would like to acknowledge City Staff’s substantial work and thorough analysis of the issues on appeal.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
cc: David White
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Stephanie Reich
Regina Szilak
Joe Lawrence
Heidi von Tongeln
Ken Parr
Tarrah Beebe

F:\WPDATA\22270\Cor\CC 2022.02.19.docx
Item 9.A
08/23/22
36 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
37 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
38 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
39 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
40 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
41 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
42 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
43 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
44 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
45 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
46 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
47 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
48 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
49 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
50 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
51 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
52 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
53 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
54 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
55 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
56 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
57 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
58 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
59 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
60 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
61 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
62 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
63 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
64 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
65 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
66 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
67 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
68 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
69 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
70 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
71 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
72 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
73 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
74 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
75 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
76 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
77 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
78 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
79 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
80 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
81 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
82 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
83 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
84 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
85 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
86 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
87 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
88 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
89 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
90 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
91 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
92 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
93 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
94 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
95 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
96 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
97 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
98 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
99 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
100 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
Item 9.A
08/23/22
101 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: diana gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David Martin; Douglas Sloan; David White Subject: Diana Gordon letter supporting 8.23.22 Carlthorp appeal (Council Agenda #9A)

EXTERNAL
I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

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

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

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under-utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.
 Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
102 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2  The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.  Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

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

A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

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

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

The key representations Carlthorp made as to employee parking that caused the CUP to be granted are:
1) with 32 employees, 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet the school’s needs; 2) the surrounding neighbors and streets would not be burdened by the expansion because employee parking would be on-site; and
Item 9.A
08/23/22
103 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 3) as a result, the expansion would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and fit in harmoniously with the neighborhood.

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

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 bi-weekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
104 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 The report fails to address any of the CUP or Variance findings mentioned above relating to parking restrictions or the related, relevant Condition that establishes that Carlthorp is non-compliant and cannot apply for another CUP until it resolves its employee off-site parking.

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

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

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

Carlthorp is well aware of its violation and its ongoing negative impact on its neighbors. The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

Because Carlthorp is in material breach of this Condition and the assurances it gave in obtaining its CUP expansion permit, it cannot obtain a new permit without first curing its existing breach. See 1996 STOA, “Validity of Permit,” Condition #31 which specifically contains this mandate:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
105 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 “In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” (emphasis added) On this basis alone the Council must deny the school a new permit at this time.

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

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

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

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

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion
Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.” Item 9.A
08/23/22
106 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

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

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

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

B. The record before the Planning Commission is replete with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from the school operation Over 250 pages of comments were received by the Planning Commission in 2020 – the vast majority from residents who opposed giving any further permit for Carlthorp to expand and/or wanted it to be compelled to rein in the street parking and noise first. The comments were from property owners adjacent to the school and across San Vicente in multi-family residential units at 415, 423, 425, 427, 430, 435, 437, 441, 445, 447, 449, 450, and 451 and 3 owners of residences south of the school on Georgina.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
107 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
7 “As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.”
“As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.”
This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

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

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

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
108 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
8 Carlthorp has turned a blind eye to the neighborhood problems caused by its operation since its 1996 expansion. The Council must require the school to adopt a reasonable parking plan with enforcement rights that redress the burden to the neighborhood at this point or otherwise greater violations causing neighborhood frustration and ongoing complaints lie ahead.

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

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

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

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

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

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
109 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
9 Anywhere near 150 vehicles arriving at or near the same time would create a huge vehicle back-up all along San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street, and other nearby residential streets. Any event involving that many vehicles would create severe back-up and wait times for valet drop-off and pick-up would be long, creating blockages and related noise. To avoid the wait, attendees would likely hunt for parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

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

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

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much greater than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

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

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

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

August 18, 2022
Item 9.A
08/23/22
110 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
10 Diana Gordon, nearby resident on San Vicente Boulevard Item 9.A
08/23/22
111 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 9A Carlthorp CUP Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
For many reasons and particularly for the reasons outlined in Steven Salsberg's appeal and in the separate letters sent to you by Diana Gordon and NOMA, uphold this appeal and deny the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for the expansion of Carlthorp School.

Please uphold this appeal and require that Carlthorp School come into compliance with the previously agreed upon Conditional Use Permit.

Any further development of this property parcel by this scofflaw property owner should require explicit conditions that are strictly enforced. At this point, simply to remain in operation, the school should be required to comply with previous agreed to conditions.

As development accelerates in Santa Monica, will city officials protect residents from the intensification of activity in residential areas?
Will you disregard residents or honor and strengthen standards that protect our community from overreaching businesses?
Please protect our neighbors.

Please uphold this appeal.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident on San Vicente Boulevard
Item 9.A
08/23/22
112 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Item 9.A
08/23/22
113 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Anne OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I have been a Santa Monica resident for over 17 years and have been living on the 400 block of San Vicente Blvd., across the street from the Carlthorp School, for nearly 5 years. I am writing to urge you to grant the Appeal to the Carlthorp School Conditional Use Permit (CUP). I have read the appeal submitted by Steven Salsberg, I am in full agreement with all points made and am appalled this permit was ever granted.

The most notable issues are the excessive noise level, the inaccurate and misleading methods used to calculate the Parcel Coverage, the zoning violations and the gross lack of adequate staff parking. After researching this issue it is clear the Planning Commission never should have granted this CUP. Quite honestly, the approval should be regarded as an embarrassment to the Planning Commission and puts the integrity of the entire department into question.

Furthermore, I am in agreement with the points made by fellow resident, Diana Gordon, in her letter transcribed below:
"I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

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

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

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under- utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.

Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
114 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

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

A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

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

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

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

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

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 bi-weekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
115 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

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

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

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

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

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

Carlthorp is well aware of its violation and its ongoing negative impact on its neighbors. The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

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

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

II. The school’s business is no longer consistent with the General Plan because its current operation, including number of employees, is not “compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
116 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 This appeal triggers de novo review, which means that the Council must review the existing CUP not only for compliance, but also must review the current school operation as to whether the key neighborhood compatibility requirements under our General Plan are currently being met.

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

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

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion
Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.” The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

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

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

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

B. The record before the Planning Commission is replete with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from the school operation Over 250 pages of comments were received by the Planning Commission in 2020 – the vast majority from residents who opposed giving any further permit for Carlthorp to expand and/or wanted it to be compelled to rein in the street parking and noise first. The comments were from property owners adjacent to the school and across San Vicente in multi-family residential units at 415, 423, 425, 427, 430, 435, 437, 441, 445, 447, 449, 450, and 451 and 3 owners of residences south of the school on Georgina.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:
“As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, Item 9.A
08/23/22
117 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.”
“As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.”
This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

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

The proposed, generic TDM plan as part of the record before the Council is aspirational: it has no teeth, no enforcement, or penalties to discourage its employees from parking in the neighborhood.

It doesn’t set any cap on the number of employees who could park off-site or offer any off-site parking solution for its employees or visitors outside of this already dense residential area.

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

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

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

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

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

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
118 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 As to the more than 50 attendees, no arrangement for parking is provided for them. So, it highly probable that Carlthorp parking will occur on all surrounding streets beyond those streets being used now.

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

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

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

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

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

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much greater than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

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

Best Regards,
Anne O'Connell
415 San Vicente Blvd. Apt 8
Santa Monica, CA 90402
(310) 663-9885
Item 9.A
08/23/22
119 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; David Martin
Subject: City Cnl. Mtg. - 8/23/22 - Item 9A - Accept appeal and deny CUP/Minor Modification for Carlthorp expansion

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Residents have come to understand that many things CAN BE WRITTEN into the ZONING CODE but this does not mean they CAN BE IMPLEMENTED OR ENFORCED.  We ask the council to reject zoning code that can neither be implemented or enforced to mitigate Carlthrop’s impact on the neighborhood and to act to require Carlthorp to comply with its 1995 CUP and STOA.

Current parking and noise is in violation of Carlthorp’s 1995 CUP While Carlthorp School has received substantial feedback from the neighborhood regarding local parking and noise burden, which at 80 employees not 32 as documented in the 1995 CUP as well as receiving substantial noise complaints, the school has done nothing to address the specified issues.  They could have utilized nearby underutilized parking facilities or identified other strategies.  This is a commercial business in a residential neighborhood.  As well, the staff report does not address the detrimental off‐site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.

Action Required:  Carlthorp must first cure its violations of the 1995 CUP as to parking and noise before a new CUP can be granted. Why?
 1995 Miscellaneous Condition #25 specifically contains this mandate – “The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
120 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2  1996 STOA, “Validity of Permit,” Condition #31 specifically contains this mandate ‐ “In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until violation has been fully remedied.” The school’s business is no longer consistent with the General Plan because its current operations, including number of employees, is not “compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.” This appeal triggers de novo review, which means that the Council must review the existing CUP not only for compliance, but also must review the current school operations as to whether the key neighborhood compatibility requirements under our General Plan are currently being met.  This is a CUP; the General Plan requires an “additional level of review and a higher threshold of approval” to ensure that a commercial use in a residential neighborhood is compatible with it and with the goals and intents of the General Plan (Staff Report, p10.) Action Required:  City must investigate that the current operations as well as the CUP request is compatible OR incompatible with the General Plan.  Why?
 The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion i.e., Circulation Goal T22 and T22.1 and Circulation 40‐70, 5th bullet point  The information provided to the Planning Commission is filled with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from school operations  TDM Plan (if the CUP is approved on appeal) is aspirational and does nothing to solve the street parking burden or discourage employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood  The staff report does not address the ongoing parking impacts of the employees and only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood  2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for city council to understand the magnitude of the new parking impacts that would occur o Carlthorp proposes to hold up to 18 “Special School Events” on campus every academic year for more than 50 adult attendees, not including any school employees or staff.  No arrangement for parking is provided for these types of events so it is assumed that Carlthorp parking will occur on surrounding neighborhood streets.  If 120 attendees with 60 – 80 cars attended an event there is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.
 Six of these events can be held as evening events without Planning Director approval but more can be requested
 The valet parking proposal is not reasonable based on the trigger of 150 vehicles (who determines that, who enforces it).  Valet parking is only required for “Special School Events” expected to draw more than 150 vehicles with a yet undefined vehicle staging plan to “utilize one side of the street” along with on‐site parking (2020 Planning Commission STOA, Conditions 4‐6).  This proposal is not workable and should not be allowed.  As well, how do you decide that valet parking should be used for an unknown number of vehicles?  This option will not be implemented and neighborhood parking will be the default.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
121 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3  There is no limit on events with less than 50 outside attendees Thank‐you for your consideration of these residential issues and concerns.

Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Board of Directors
Item 9.A
08/23/22
122 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 8/23/22 item 9-A -- Carlthorp CUP Appeal -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
August 22,2022

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 8/23/22 agenda item 9-A: Carlthorp CUP Appeal

The Friends of Sunset Park Board joins NOMA (please see the NOMA Board letter below) in supporting the appeal of the Carlthorp CUP.

**************************************************************************

Re: Item 9-A , August 23, 2022 City Council Agenda. -- Carlthorp CUP Appeal.

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
From: North of Montana Neighborhood Association Board (NOMA) Date: August 20, 2022

You have before you an Appeal from the Planning Commission’s grant of a Conditional Use Permit to greatly expand the Carlthorp School on its current property on San Vicente Blvd. surrounded by a large number of multi-unit residences. Because it is the midst of a residential neighborhood, Carlthorp has a higher and special obligation not to impose noise and parking burdens. For the reasons stated in this comment letter, the NOMA Board urges granting the appeal.

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

I. Carlthorp Must First Cure it’s Violations of its 1995 CUP as to Parking and Noise Before A New CUP Can be Granted

As the approximately 100 comments from neighbors indicates, Carlthorp is already a significant burden on the neighborhood in terms of noise and parking. Residents have written to you about the appreciable noise emanating from Carlthorp and staff parking on San Vicente, 4th Street, and even Item 9.A
08/23/22
123 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 Georgina, contrary to assurances provided in obtaining the 1995 permit and key findings based on these assurances made in the CUP.

As NOMA member Diana Gordon pointed out in her letter to you, which we incorporate here, the 1995 CUP (the current Permit) Finding #7 states clearly: “All parking is provided on site.” Also, its Variance Finding #2 states: “The granting of such variance shall not be detrimental…in that the project includes tandem parking spaces to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”

These Findings were based on assurances from Carlthorp that following the expansion, it would employ a staff of 32 with tandem parking space for 32 cars on-site. These assurances have turned out to be wildly off.

In fact, Carlthorp has 80 staff, not 32, and those without on-site spaces park on the surrounding streets to the detriment of neighbors. Unfortunately, Carlthorp has done nothing meaningful to mitigate this and come into compliance, despite numerous complaints from neighbors.

Because Carlthorp is in violation of its current 1995 CUP, in terms of noise and parking, the new CUP it is requesting cannot be granted under:

==1995 Condition #25: Carlthorp’s operation must be operated “at all times” not detrimental to surrounding residents in terms of noise and parking; and

==1995 Validity of Permit Condition #31: if Carlthorp violates any condition it must be “fully remedied” before any further permit may be granted.”

The current proposed expansion will only exacerbate these daily burdens on neighbors. Carlthorp must, as required by its existing permit, to first cure its existing violations before the Council can consider a new permit.

II. Any New CUP Must Contain Additional Conditions on Noise and Parking

NOMA asks that if the Council allows a new CUP—after Carlthorp cures its existing violations— the following conditions be added. These would help mitigate the new problems emanating from its expansion and make Carlthorp a better neighbor.

1. The new rooftop playing field must be noise neutral. There have been complaints from neighbors about noise from the existing field. It is important that the new rooftop field not become a noise detriment also. Two suggestions to include in Conditions:

==The proposed Condition #11 calls for only 1 acoustical analysis shortly after it is in use Instead, this should be yearly in real use situations as they may change. At the same time, there should be yearly acoustical analysis of the existing playground. These should be provided to the City and made public.==

Item 9.A
08/23/22
124 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 ==The number of students who can use the field at any one time should be specifically limited and not left open ended. The acoustical report is silent on this, and this is a big hole in Condition #11.==

2. There are only 32 parking spots for staff, yet the number of staff at the school is greater than

80. The staff hunt for parking in the neighborhood takes limited spaces away from residents (many older) and workers and guests. This results in residents having to park blocks away from their homes. The school has claimed that parking issues are due to general congestion in the city.

However, when the school is not in session, this isn’t so and a number of neighbors have written about seeing staff park in the neighborhood. A suggestion to include in Conditions:

==Carlthorp should lease or buy an off-site parking location (or part of one) for staff in excess of 32 to use. They should then be shuttled to the school. This is a solution used by a number of businesses.==

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

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

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

B) Events with over 50 outside adult attendees, Carlthorp can hold up to 18 a year, with 6 at night (but more can be requested.) Again, NO provision made for parking. This can include 200 outside adult attendees in any number of cars under 150.

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

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

NOMA suggests for Conditions:

==For all Special Events, outside attendees must park at an off-site, out-of-neighborhood location and be shuttled to and from the event.==

==Any event expected to draw more than 75 vehicles or 150 attendees be limited to 2 events per school year.==

NOMA urges the Council to enforce the Conditions of the existing Permit and require Carlthorp to first cure its on-going violations. Once that is done, we urge you to help mitigate the ill effects on Item 9.A
08/23/22
125 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
7 the Historic San Vicente District of this major expansion as conditions for any approval of a new permit.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
126 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Eloise Geller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Cc: David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject: Support for Carlthorp School
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, My name is Eloise Geller, and I am a rising 5th grader at Carlthorp School. I am writing in support of the proposed campus changes at Carlthorp School, which I believe will be great improvements for the teachers and students at Carlthorp.

First, a little about me! I live in Pacific Palisades with my family, which includes my two younger sisters, Margot, a rising 2nd grader at Carlthorp and Bea, who is in preschool. Since these changes to the campus wouldn’t happen until after I graduate, I am writing this email for my siblings and all other future Carlthorp students.

There is a lot I love about Carlthorp; my teachers, the friends I’ve made, our science lab full of little critters, and all of the amazing learning experiences that I’ve had so far. From the beginning, even as a little kindergartner, Carlthorp has felt like a very warm and safe place, especially when meeting new friends and learning new things. The small campus makes everything feel less overwhelming. I am so glad that these proposed changes will make the school an even better place to learn, without having to change the footprint.

Additionally, while I love all the traditional subjects we are taught at Carlthorp, one thing I am very passionate about is musical theater. I think the creation of a new multipurpose room is really important for those students who love the arts. It would be great to have a new space on campus that is indoors and can host all types of special events. I would love to be able to come back and visit to watch theater performances, music recitals and other special events in this new room!
Carlthorp has a history of teaching its students to be kind and respectful to our neighbors, and valued members of our community. These values, which are part of our Code of Conduct, guide us in making decisions. I know that these improvements will only make the school better, and I know our school leaders will always be mindful of our neighbors and community while working on these renovations.

Thank you for your time and consideration!
Sincerely,
Eloise Geller
Item 9.A
08/23/22
127 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Item 9.A
08/23/22
128 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: IRISHTRNDO <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I am a Santa Monica resident and currently live on the 400 block of San Vicente Blvd., across the street from the Carlthorp School. I am writing to urge you to grant the Appeal to the Carlthorp School Conditional Use Permit (CUP). I have read the appeal submitted by Steven Salsberg, I am in full agreement with all points made and am appalled this permit was ever granted.

The most notable issues are the excessive noise level, the inaccurate and misleading methods used to calculate the Parcel Coverage, the zoning violations and the gross lack of adequate staff parking. The staff are continuing to take up most of the parking on San Vicente Blvd during the school week/year. This leaves little to no parking available to the residents that actually live here. I can’t even imagine what it will be like when our neighborhood will not only have to absorb the staff parking on our streets but also the influx of construction workers and possibly heavy equipment during any construction. Also, the traffic back up at drop off and pick up is horrendous. It often blocks the normal flow of traffic on San Vicente Blvd during these times. Drop off and pick up should be coordinated in the alley behind the school. Not only to improve the flow of traffic but for the safety concerns of the children getting in and out of cars on an often very busy San Vicente Blvd. After researching this issue it is clear the Planning Commission never should have granted this CUP. Quite honestly, the approval should be regarded as an embarrassment to the Planning Commission and puts the integrity of the entire department into question.

Furthermore, I am in agreement with the points made by fellow resident, Diana Gordon, in her letter transcribed below:
"I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

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

This employee neighborhood street parking is in violation of findings that were made as to parking that form the basis of its existing CUP and a specific CUP condition in the 1996 Statement of Official Action (STOA).

Affected residents unable to find parking near their homes seeking relief have been rebuffed by the school and ignored by the City. This 1996 STOA violation must be remedied before the Council can consider any additional permit to expand school operations. (STOA, Validity of Permit, #31).

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under- utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
129 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.

Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

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

A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

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

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

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

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

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
130 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”
Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 biweekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

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

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

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

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

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

Carlthorp is well aware of its violation and its ongoing negative impact on its neighbors. The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

Because Carlthorp is in material breach of this Condition and the assurances it gave in obtaining its CUP expansion permit, it cannot obtain a new permit without first curing its existing breach. See 1996 STOA, “Validity of Permit,” Condition #31 which specifically contains this mandate:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
131 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 “In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” (emphasis added)
On this basis alone the Council must deny the school a new permit at this time.

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

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

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

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

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion
Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.” The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

The city regularly requires businesses operating in commercial districts to provide suitable leasing or other arrangements for employee parking so nearby residential neighborhoods aren’t adversely impacted.

Carlthorp employees who can’t park on-site could be shuttled to work from a nearby commercial parking venue. This suggestion, made to Carlthorp by its impacted neighbors has been ignored.

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
132 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 Until it does, its current operation is incompatible both with its surrounding neighborhood and with the General Plan so no additional CUP is warranted or should be granted until the incompatibility is redressed.

B. The record before the Planning Commission is replete with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from the school operation Over 250 pages of comments were received by the Planning Commission in 2020 – the vast majority from residents who opposed giving any further permit for Carlthorp to expand and/or wanted it to be compelled to rein in the street parking and noise first. The comments were from property owners adjacent to the school and across San Vicente in multi-family residential units at 415, 423, 425, 427, 430, 435, 437, 441, 445, 447, 449, 450, and 451 and 3 owners of residences south of the school on Georgina.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:
“As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.” “As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.” This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

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

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

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
133 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
6 Carlthorp has turned a blind eye to the neighborhood problems caused by its operation since its 1996 expansion. The Council must require the school to adopt a reasonable parking plan with enforcement rights that redress the burden to the neighborhood at this point or otherwise greater violations causing neighborhood frustration and ongoing complaints lie ahead.

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

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

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

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

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

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

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

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

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

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

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much Item 9.A
08/23/22
134 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
7 greater than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

It is very important that Council modify the 2020 STOA and impose specific, additional conditions and restrictions to avoid serious, ongoing neighborhood problems resulting in code enforcement complaints as to these “Special School Events,” including related noise issues that haven’t been addressed. Imagine the noise, for example, from people waiting for 150 cars to arrive from the valet stand following the event, or 100 people leaving an event at once to go to their cars in the neighborhood. These obvious issues are pertinent to having the city impose reasonable, enforceable special event planning conditions, not addressed in the 2020 STOA Condition #4."
Show Quoted Content
"I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

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

This employee neighborhood street parking is in violation of findings that were made as to parking that form the basis of its existing CUP and a specific CUP condition in the 1996 Statement of Official Action (STOA).

Affected residents unable to find parking near their homes seeking relief have been rebuffed by the school and ignored by the City. This 1996 STOA violation must be remedied before the Council can consider any additional permit to expand school operations. (STOA, Validity of Permit, #31).

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under- utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.

Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.

Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

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

A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
135 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
8 Before any permit can be granted, additional reasonable, enforceable restrictions as to off-site employee parking, noise, and special events need to be imposed or there will be ongoing complaints following this expansion when additional neighborhood detriment occurs (discussed below).

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

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

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

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”
Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 biweekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
136 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
9 Conditions of approval are the guts of enforcing the CUP permit. Conditions are mandatory so that the activity – here the expansion: 1) “would not be detrimental to the public interest, ... convenience, or general welfare....” and 2) would “minimize the affect [sic] of the use on adjacent neighbors.” (CUP Finding #10).

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

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

Carlthorp is well aware of its violation and its ongoing negative impact on its neighbors. The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
137 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
10 Moreover, because this is a CUP, the General Plan requires an “additional level of review and a higher threshold of approval” to ensure that a commercial use in a residential neighborhood is compatible with it and with the goals and intents of the General Plan.” (Staff Report, p10).

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

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion
Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.” The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

The city regularly requires businesses operating in commercial districts to provide suitable leasing or other arrangements for employee parking so nearby residential neighborhoods aren’t adversely impacted.

Carlthorp employees who can’t park on-site could be shuttled to work from a nearby commercial parking venue. This suggestion, made to Carlthorp by its impacted neighbors has been ignored.

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

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

B. The record before the Planning Commission is replete with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from the school operation Over 250 pages of comments were received by the Planning Commission in 2020 – the vast majority from residents who opposed giving any further permit for Carlthorp to expand and/or wanted it to be compelled to rein in the street parking and noise first. The comments were from property owners adjacent to the school and across San Vicente in multi-family residential units at 415, 423, 425, 427, 430, 435, 437, 441, 445, 447, 449, 450, and 451 and 3 owners of residences south of the school on Georgina.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:
“As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Item 9.A
08/23/22
138 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
11 Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.” “As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.” This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

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

Carlthorp proposes to hold up to 18 “Special School Events” on campus every academic year for more than 50 adult attendees, not including any school employees or staff. Moreover, 6 of these events can be held as Item 9.A
08/23/22
139 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
12 evening events without Planning Director approval but more can be requested. There is no limit on events with less than 50 outside attendees.

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

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

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

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

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

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

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much greater than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

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

Best Regards,
Kristin Phasavath
415 San Vicente Blvd
Item 9.A
08/23/22
140 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
13 Vernice Hankins
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #9A. - Carl Thorp Appeal

EXTERNAL

UPHOLD THE APPEAL
Mayor and Council Members - I urge you to uphold the appeal to oppose the Carl Thorp school expansion plan. The school has proved itself an unreliable neighbor, not abiding by its previous plans to provide adequate parking for its staff, and disrupting the neighborhood with long lines of idling cars at pickup and dropoff times.

It is clear that the school has outgrown its residential site. If their needs require additional buildings, larger faculty, and increased parking, their current location is no longer viable.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Bruce Leddy
NOMA Executive Board
Item 9.A
08/23/22
141 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 9-A CARLTHORP SCHOOOL APPEAL AUGUST 23

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Sue Himmelrich and City Councilmembers:

As one who has resided on San Vicente Boulevard for many years and member of the Historic San Vicente Coalition Steering Committee, I fully support this appeal.

While understanding the school's desire to expand, it is extremely important to consider the "impact" of such an expansion upon residents who make their homes on the San Vicente Boulevard corridor between Ocean Avenue and 7th and on neighboring streets.

This is by no means a "minor expansion" for hundreds and hundreds of residents living in nearly 50 multi‐unit buildings comprising the Historic San Vicente Courtyard District, nor for homeowners on adjacent streets.

In fact, many of us believe Carlthorp School has more than reached its maximum capacity for growth on a one‐acre parcel in this residential neighborhood and should be encouraged to develop a permanent off‐site campus to house an expansion.

Regardless of statements to the contrary, how can we not imagine an increased noise factor (to an already burdensome situation for neighbors) by the addition of an open rooftop sports field to an already existing outdoor play area.

The projected underground community room will serve as a "space for special events", no longer necessitating holding large events off grounds. Of course, these activities will bring numerous and more cars to the area, where resident  parking is already a major issue. The notion of "valet parking" on neighboring streets is both unrealistic and naive, understanding the circumstances on the ground.

A five‐to‐seven year summer construction project will additionally impact peace and tranquility of neighbors in their homes and hardly seems reasonable to ask residents to endure.

Residents matter! Please uphold the appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 9.A
08/23/22
142 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gary Hudson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Strongly against the contruction plans of Carlthorp school

EXTERNAL
Morning,
I live across the street from the Carlthorp school at 427 San Vicente. I have had many talks with the principals there for the past 25 yrs. The current principal is never accommodating and is a bit arrogant to be honest, about the noise starting at around 7:00‐ 7:30 am as the kids arrive waking up their neighbors. Nothing ever changes. The kids and Teachers controlling the arrival are incredibly loud. Every morning. How hard is it to have a quiet policy, to respect their neighbors, for the kids and their parents in the early morning? Now they want to start a massive expansion. I work from home taping my auditions and laying down my Voiceovers. This construction would be a nightmare for the neighborhood and for myself and my work.

I went to a neighborhood elementary school in Newport new Va. for 7 yrs. Hilton School. We had a strict policy from 1‐7 grades to speak quietly( if at all)as we arrived in the morning for school to respect the neighbors. As we all walked to school. If we didn't, and there were complaints by the neighbors there were consequences. Recess restrictions..etc. So we were quiet in the morning and our parents made sure we were also. Starting at 6 yrs old
These kids are out of control in the morning and the teachers are sometimes out with a bull horn. The kids are screaming out of control. I like kids, and outside of the early mornings, the school is fine. I toss their soccer balls back that come over the fence into the road during their recess quite often.

But starting this construction, which I'm sure will start at 7 am and go on all day will not be pleasant.

I hope this permit will be denied and that the city would speak with the school about the noise that already exists every morning with the student's arrival. No need to set an alarm as the kids and teachers wake me up every morning.

Now they want to add a major construction plan. I hope that's not the case and this permit is denied.

Thanks,
Gary Hudson
427 San Vicente
Item 9.A
08/23/22
143 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal
From: Mary Jimenez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
I’m a resident and owner at 450 San Vicente. #304.

I support the appeal to deny Calthorp another permit to expand .

Carlthorp needs to be a better neighbor as parking becomes ever scarcer for residents and our visitors.

Carlthorp need to fix their staff parking in the neighborhood by doing what other commercial businesses do ‐ procure off ‐site parking and shuttle service for its burgeoning staff and visitors so they don’t park in residential neighborhoods to the detriment of the residents who live there.

This has gone on long enough. I have lived her for 16 years and it keeps getting worse.

Thank you
Mary Jiménez
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 9.A
08/23/22
144 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gary Hudson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Strongly against the contruction plans of Carlthorp school

EXTERNAL
Wanted to add the parking situation. It's very difficult for people who live here to find parking if you don't have a garage. I understand the school already exceeds the parking allowed by the city for faculty. This expansion would only add greatly to the parking problems that exist in the neighborhood.

Thank you,
Gary Hudson
427 San Vicente
From: councilmtgitems <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Gary Hudson <[email protected]>
Subject: Automatic reply: Strongly against the contruction plans of Carlthorp school

Thank you for your email.  Please be advised that this email will: 1) become part of the public record, 2) be filed with the City’s official records, and 3) be posted online at smgov.net/council/agendas.   Comments will not be redacted and appear online as they are submitted.

If you plan to speak at the meeting and have an electronic presentation to show, please submit it to [email protected] no later than 12 PM on the day of the meeting.

Thank you,
The City Clerk’s Office
Item 9.A
08/23/22
145 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: City Council 8/23/22 Item 9A -- Calthorp CUP Appeal -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
August 23,2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association RE: 8/23/22 Agenda Item 9-A: Carlthorp CUP Appeal
The Board of the Pico Neighborhood Association joins NOMA (please see the NOMA Board letter below) in supporting the appeal of the Carlthorp CUP.

************************************************************************** Re: Item 9-A , August 23, 2022 City Council Agenda. -- Carlthorp CUP Appeal.

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
146 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
3 We begin by discussing that Carlthorp must first cure its existing violations of its current permit before the Council can grant a new permit. We then review specific areas where the proposed new permit fails to adequately address parking and noise problems and we suggest specific mitigations that you should require as Conditions.

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

As NOMA member Diana Gordon pointed out in her letter to you, which we incorporate here, the 1995 CUP (the current Permit) Finding #7 states clearly: “All parking is provided on site.” Also, its Variance Finding #2 states: “The granting of such variance shall not be detrimental…in that the project includes tandem parking spaces to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” These Findings were based on assurances from Carlthorp that following the expansion, it would employ a staff of 32 with tandem parking space for 32 cars on-site. These assurances have turned out to be wildly off.

In fact, Carlthorp has 80 staff, not 32, and those without on-site spaces park on the surrounding streets to the detriment of neighbors. Unfortunately, Carlthorp has done nothing meaningful to mitigate this and come into compliance, despite numerous complaints from neighbors.

Because Carlthorp is in violation of its current 1995 CUP, in terms of noise and parking, the new CUP it is requesting cannot be granted under:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
147 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
4 ==1995 Condition #25: Carlthorp’s operation must be operated “at all times” not detrimental to surrounding residents in terms of noise and parking; and ==1995 Validity of Permit Condition #31: if Carlthorp violates any condition it must be “fully remedied” before any further permit may be granted.” The current proposed expansion will only exacerbate these daily burdens on neighbors. Carlthorp must, as required by its existing permit, to first cure its existing violations before the Council can consider a new permit.

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

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

2. There are only 32 parking spots for staff, yet the number of staff at the school is greater than

80. The staff hunt for parking in the neighborhood takes limited spaces away from residents (many Item 9.A
08/23/22
148 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
5 older) and workers and guests. This results in residents having to park blocks away from their homes. The school has claimed that parking issues are due to general congestion in the city.

However, when the school is not in session, this isn’t so and a number of neighbors have written about seeing staff park in the neighborhood. A suggestion to include in Conditions:
==Carlthorp should lease or buy an off-site parking location (or part of one) for staff in excess of 32 to use. They should then be shuttled to the school. This is a solution used by a number of businesses.==

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

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

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

B) Events with over 50 outside adult attendees, Carlthorp can hold up to 18 a year, with 6 at night (but more can be requested.) Again, NO provision made for parking. This can include 200 outside adult attendees in any number of cars under 150.

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

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

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

Item 9.A
08/23/22
150 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kevin Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 10:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to oppose the Carlthorp School expansion plan. As a direct neighbor to the school, my concern centers on the proposed rooftop playground. As it stands currently, Carlthorp students spend a significant amount of the school day in extremely loud play on their available playground (frankly, the school sometimes seems more daycare center than school, given the amount of time the kids are outside engaged in sports and games), and to add yet more play space -- doubling their opportunity to scream at us neighbors -- is unfair to those of us who work from home (many in the neighborhood, in today's work culture.)
While I understand it's a tall ask to expect children not to scream happily while running around their playgrounds, it is their recess teachers who are the real offenders, yelling louder still in seeming competition with the kids, to encourage more of their shouting in return, or simply in order to be heard above them. Either way, everyone at the school seems completely oblivious to their neighbors in surrounding buildings. If the Carlthorp administration gave any sense they cared about the noise their neighbors put up with, I might be inclined to meet them with more consideration myself, but when I can hear the constant shouting of the PE teachers clearly -- over and over, hour after hour -- it's obvious to me that no one at the school has ever said the words: "Be Considerate To Our Neighbors." Why expect consideration from us, when they show such a lack of courtesy themselves? Doubling the outdoor play space in which their students and teachers can scream unreservedly is too much to ask of a residential neighborhood, as it seems too difficult for them to imagine toning it down.

The general construction noise in the neighborhood will be bad enough, given the major work required to build a 5000 sq ft underground multipurpose room, but to leave us with an extra 9000 sq ft rooftop noise factory will be a permanent insult to the temporary construction injury. I oppose this expansion.

Kevin Kennedy
415 San Vicente Blvd #3
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
151 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Richard Michaelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

We live across the street from Calthorp and have written to you in regard to the Calthorp School expansion in the past.

Our position remains the same as we implore you to deny these expansion plans.

Increased noise, traffic, air pollution, and decreased quality of life will be the inevitable outcome of any such expansion.

Please help our city stay livable and do not bend to the power & will of the wealthy Elite who seem to be the only people this will benefit.

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