Santa Monica City Council
August 23, 2022

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT
The City of Santa Monica Has Denied Me a Fair Process and Has Denied Me My Due Process Rights
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has not conducted the appeal process in a fair manner. The City and its employees (“Staff”) have misled me and acted with bias. The City has unfairly favored the Carlthorp School (the “Applicant”) against my interests as the Appellant.

The City did not notify me until weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant that that date had been set and more than 10 days after I first began making inquiries that that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. For these reasons, additional reasons specified herein and expressed through emails and phone calls with the City, reasons expressed in my initial appeal statement, various actions and inactions taken by the City, and for reasons that might be buried in documents withheld by the City and yet undiscovered documents and events, I have been denied a fair process and my due process rights. And, I have not been treated fairly by the City, as compared to the Applicant in this matter.

I made clear to the City on several occasions over the past 13 months that I intended to submit a supplement to my appeal statement (my “Supplemental Statement”) and that I needed to be informed as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my Supplemental Statement. And, the City gave me every indication several times over at least the following eight months or more that it would inform me as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my Supplemental Statement. However, the City failed to provide me with any such deadline. The City improperly, therefore, published its Staff Report without my having submitted my Supplemental Statement. The process has not been fair.

The City stonewalled and sandbagged me throughout the process, usually refusing to even respond to my numerous phone messages and emails, all the while attempting to cram down a hearing date upon me without answering my questions regarding fundamental zoning code questions that I have a right to have answered. Even my attempts to reach out to the Planning Director, David Martin, did not elicit responses from Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, or from David Martin. The only way I was able to obtain responses from Jing since May 2021 (and later from David Martin) was for me to contact the City Manager, which I found necessary to do several times beginning in July 2021. Then when Jing did respond, she would not answer my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmation of things she had told me during our telephone conversations on 4/27/2021 and 10/19/2021. She did answer some of my questions but she refused to answer, clarify, and confirm the most important of my questions and issues that I addressed to her in my emails. Her “answers” were generally vague and opaque and also absolutely not on point. And, I told her that she was refusing to answer my Item 6.A
02/22/22
125 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

questions. Jing then insisted that she was not refusing to answer my questions. I responded that she absolutely was refusing to answer my questions. On 2/1/2022, I even simplified two or three crucial questions into yes or no questions with requests for explanations. Her response after nine months of repeatedly asking her these questions on 2/8/2022 was that my questions were not relevant and therefore she would not answer them – obviously admitting finally that she was and had been indeed refusing to answer my questions all along. However, such questions were relevant, which is proven by how she answered similar questions on the phone in April and October of 2021. (See below.) As I responded to her in my 2/1/2022 email, she did “not [answer my] questions and I [found] it to be outrageously disturbing that [she had] chosen to characterize [her] “answers” as having “thoroughly answered” my questions. Her statement was clearly disingenuous, as is the Staff Report’s Staff Response 8B, to “Questions not answered” (see below).

I told the City (Jing, Regina Szilak (“Gina”), David Martin, David White, and others) several times each in multiple emails over several months and on the phone that:

I still am waiting for answers and clarifications to crucial questions that are prerequisites to additional questions that build on such issues. It is completely unrealistic and certainly unreasonable to hold the hearing or even set a date until:

First I need answers and clarifications to my 7/26/2021 and 5/12/2021 emails; Second, I need to then formulate and ask the follow up questions that are now and have been pending; then Third, I’ll need Jing, the Zoning Administrator, to answer those additional follow up questions; then Fourth (assuming there would be no additional iterative rounds of questions), I would need time to prepare my supplement to my appeal; and then Fifth, Staff would need time to consider my supplement and then after that prepare the Staff Report, sufficiently in advance of the hearing.

I made it clear to Jing and Gina, more than a year ago and dozens of times since, that I needed my Supplemental Statement to be incorporated into the Staff Report and that I need to know what the deadline would be for submitting my Supplemental Statement.

Such deadline, of course, could not be determined until a hearing date would be set.

Eventually, after months of being stonewalled and sandbagged regarding getting my very relevant and crucial questions answered and having a hearing date crammed down without allowing me to get my questions answered – questions that I had been assured by David Martin that I have a right to have answered – I then emailed and left a voicemail for David White again on 2/2/2022. David White up until then had given me the clear impression that he would make sure that I would get my questions answered sufficiently in time for me to prepare my Supplemental Statement. (Every time after I emailed, or spoke with, David White Jing would shortly thereafter email me regarding my questions, although much of it was vague, opaque, and off point.) Included in my 2/2/2022 email to David White, I said:

Item 6.A
02/22/22
126 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

“Please intervene and require that the hearing date be postponed and please require that (1) the Zoning Administrator properly answer, confirm, and clarify my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications regarding the Zoning Code and the Applicant’s proposed project; and (2) require that the Planning Division not contemplate a hearing date until I have fully received the answers and clarifications that I have been requesting and expect to request.” David Martin called me that same day, February 2 – obviously in response to David White telling him to deal with me. I again told David Martin that I needed to get my questions answered before I could begin preparing my Supplemental Statement. David Martin again told me that he wanted to get my questions answered. When I hadn’t heard from Jing again, I emailed David White again on 2/6/2022 with similar requests as I had said in my 2/2/2022 email, and I left a voicemail for him on 2/7/2022. David White replied with an email on 2/8/2022, inviting me for a meeting with him and David Martin and to work with his assistant to schedule the hearing. David White’s assistant told me that the earliest a meeting could be scheduled was for 2/17/2022. Obviously, my purpose in accepting an invitation to such a meeting was to obtain a postponement and to set an agenda for getting my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations answered, for which I had been requesting for more than 13 months and for which I had been stonewalled for the past more than nine months.

I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming. David Martin had assured me on 10/5/2021 on the phone that I had a right to have my questions answered.

I had a legal opinion from an attorney who works in this area of the law and who has close ties with the City that I had a right to have my questions answered. All of my emails to Jing and to Gina at least since October had been copied to David White and to David Martin. Every time that I reached out to David White (and John Jalili before him) complaining that I wasn’t getting my questions answered, I would get a quick response from Jing, each time providing some response to my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications, but inadequate, vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point of my questions. I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming.

When David White on 2/8/2022 invited me to meet with him and David Martin, he led me to believe that he would postpone the hearing when we were to meet on 2/17/2022, but he ultimately refused. If he wasn’t going to postpone the hearing, he should have told me when he invited me to the meeting or at least in the ensuing nine days that he would not postpone the hearing. David White also sandbagged me.

No one ever gave me, as had been promised many months before, a deadline for me to submit my Supplemental Statement. The Staff Report was completed at most only a day or two after I met with David White and David Martin when I finally learned that the City was definitely intending to go forth with the hearing on 2/22/2022, many weeks after informing the Applicant that that date had been set for the hearing. I was thus also denied the ability to provide my Supplemental Statement to the City in time for Staff to incorporate my Supplemental Statement into the Staff Report.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
127 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

The City has not just incidentally provided an unfair process for me, but has orchestrated the process in an unfair manner. (See additional facts and discussion, below, relating to my responses to Attachment E, #8A – D.)
Due to the above very unfair circumstances, I have had to focus on this statement and organizing and submitting documents for the hearing at the last minute to protect the record and I have thus not had time to notify and remind most of my neighbors who would be interested in attending the hearing. Therefore, it is likely that the turn out in favor of this appeal and against the proposed project will be substantially diminished, as compared to if I had been treated fairly by the City. And, most or all of the Applicant’s supporters are either students (and parents of students) or employees or consultants who the Applicant has paid to attend the hearing and who do not even live in the neighborhood or in Santa Monica.

Some of the few neighbors who I did speak to in passing who live within the notice radius have told me that they did not receive any notice cards relating to this appeal.

Furthermore, this project impacts neighbors beyond the notice radius due to noise, traffic congestion, and particularly parking. The Applicant impacts on-street parking for a distance of multiple blocks because the Applicant has only approximately 34 parking spaces for a faculty of 80 and the parents of 280 children, many of whom park their cars to drop off and/or pick up their children, and for numerous events.

The Staff Report, the City Council STOA, and the City Council Report are all confusing because they make references to exhibits and other documents that are not posted with these reports and on the Agenda and which are not readily available on the Agenda page.

And, these reports make ambiguous references to different sets of exhibits using the same referenced name but are referring to different exhibits. As such, the item is defective and it is confusing. Staff also failed to post crucial pages of Plans that were sent to me but were not disclosed to the public at large.

Staff members violated the City’s ordinances and its policies and procedures, including violating the City of Santa Monica Code of Ethics.

I also submitted an objection to the public notice of this hearing because it didn’t specify that the City Council is ruling on CEQA exemptions. As such, the public will not have an opportunity to adequately question and challenge such exemptions or prepare for that.

For all of the above, and below, reasons the City should postpone the hearing and/or rule in favor of my appeal.

The Planning Commission Hearing Process
One other thing that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning Commission hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public presented and spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns and began Item 6.A
02/22/22
128 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

“solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly considering that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was preventing the Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in response to the Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been suggested to the in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such “solutions” would be introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed “solutions” some of which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for example, my discussion (below) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point, in the section named The City Council Report.) For one, I don’t think it was proper for the Planning Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to concerns in a manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was not permitted to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with expedience on issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa Monica residents.

The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests
Parcel Coverage Calculations
The Parcel Coverage Calculations, as performed on Plan pages A121-B and A122-B, as revised approximately in March 2021, are inaccurate and substantially understate the actual parcel coverage of the proposed project. Such calculations have several errors.

One such error is that it treats the “Main Level” as depicted on Plan page A121-C as the First Floor and the “Upper Level” as the Second Floor. (See Plan pgs. A121-B, and A122-B.) The “Lower Level,” as depicted in Plan page A120-C, is actually the First Floor – or First Story – and the “Main Level,” as also depicted in Plan page A121-C, is the Second Story. The “Upper Level,” as depicted in Plan page A122-C, is actually a non-conforming Third Story. The “Lower Level” does not meet the definition of a basement, as defined by the SMMC. (See SMMC 9.52.020.0230.) The First Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation is incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Storage room, as depicted on Plan page A120-B. The Second Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation is also incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Classroom in the southeast corner of the building and much of the blue-shaded area, as depicted on Plan page A121- B. (I could not find the Plan pages on the City’s Agenda page or in any documents listed and linked on that page that are referred to in this paragraph and in this section, below.

However, such Plan pages were produced by the Applicant in a 9-page pdf set and submitted to the City. These pages show and help show that the proposed project violates the Zoning Code. It is not clear why Staff failed to include such important pages with the Agenda. However, I am submitting these pages along with other materials.) Prohibited Third Story Addition
Item 6.A
02/22/22
129 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

Furthermore, the Applicant proposes adding to its nonconforming Third Story, which is strictly prohibited under the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code only permits two story structures in the Applicant’s zone. (See SMMC 9.08.030 (Development Standards) (limiting number of stories in the R2 District to 2 stories).) The Applicant’s Building’s Lower Level is Not a Basement, it is the First Story
In response to my questions, on 4/27/2021 and on 10/19/2021 on the phone, Jing, the Zoning Administrator, unequivocally told me that everything in dark green on Plan page A120-C is all on the same level for any and all purposes and applications and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. On those calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Blue and the Medium Blue areas on Plan page A121-C are all on one level for all purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. On those calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Pink area on Plan page A122-C is all on one level for all purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement.

As noted, above, the Applicant’s plans, calculations, and the proposal assumes that, what the Applicant refers to as the “Lower Level” as a “basement,” however, in fact the existing building does not have a “basement” as defined under the SMMC.

Basement, is defined by the SMMC as:

9.52.020.0230 Basement. The level(s) of a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.

Up to 4 wall surfaces of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade may be exposed above Finished Grade, so long as this exposure does not exceed 40% of each of these wall surface areas. Each wall surface area is calculated by multiplying the height by the length of the wall. In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the Building Code. A basement shall not be considered a story.
(SMMC 9.52.020.0230.)
Analyzing the First Criterion in the Definition of a Basement First, I’ll analyze the first sentence of Section 9.52.020.0230, which says: “The level(s) of a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Item 6.A
02/22/22
130 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.” The Applicant utilizes Average Natural Grade (“ANG”) in all of its plans and in its proposal. According to the City’s Zoning Administrator and the plain text of the ordinance, if any portion of the Lower Level projects more than 3 feet above ANG, then the entire Lower Level is not a basement, and would therefore be the First Story.

As can be seen on Plan page A300-B/C, ANG is at 104 and ½ feet (104’-6”), and 3 feet above ANG is at 107 and ½ feet (107’-6”) (104.5’ + 3’ = 107.5’). ANG on Plan page A300B/C is also depicted as a horizontal broken red line. As can be seen on Plan page A300B/C, the Lower Level projects above ANG. Plan page A120-C shows the floor of the Lower Level at 97 and ¼ feet (97’3”), which is 7 feet below ANG. The Lower Level projects all the way to the surface of the floor above it. (SMMC 9.52.020.2320 defines Story as: “That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above. . . .”) Looking at Plan pages A120-C and A121-C, it is clearly evident that the Lower Level projects 4 and ¼ feet (or 4’ 3”) above ANG. (See the Dark Blue portion of the Main Level on Plan page A121-C, which displays the floor of the Main Level and upper range of the Lower Level as being 1 and ¼ feet (1’ – 3”) above the Light Blue portion of the Main Level, which has a floor level of 107 and ½ feet (107’ – 6”), which is already 3 feet above ANG (107.5’ + 1.25’ = 108.75’; also, 108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). Thus, the Kitchen, the Board Room, the Reception Front Office, both of Classroom – 1st Grade and a lot of other space on the Main Level, have their floor at more than 3 feet above ANG and thus, the Lower Level space below it all projects 4 and ¼ feet above ANG, which is more than 3 feet above ANG. Because the Zoning Code’s definition of a basement says that “no portion of the level directly below” ANG may project “more than 3 feet above” ANG, the entire Lower Level is not a basement and is thus the First Story. Jing confirmed this to me on the phone in April 2021.

The Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion approximately 25 years ago also display the same result. Those plans, Plan page A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts large portions of the Applicant’s Lower Level as projecting all the way to 108.75’ (108 and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (See also Plan page A-6.2 (dated May 02, 1997.)
Analyzing the Fourth Criterion in the Definition of a Basement The Lower Level, which the Applicant claims is a basement rather than the First Story, is not a basement also because walls of the Lower Level have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The fourth sentence of SMMC Section

9.52.020.0230, defining “Basement,” says:
“In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the Building Code.”
Item 6.A
02/22/22
131 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

This means that if even one visible wall surface height of a level exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade, then the entire level is not a basement. Several of the Applicant’s Lower Level walls have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan page A120-C, depicts the Lower Level. Three of the walls of the Storage room in the southeast corner of the building all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) The westerly, southerly, and easterly walls of the Storage room all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) The wall containing the entrance to the Lower Level, which abuts the Break Out Room and the hallway adjacent to the Break Out Room on the Lower Level also have a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) Even without the photos, it is obvious that the Storage room in the southeast corner of the building has a visible wall surface that exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan page A300-B/C, on the top portion of the page, “E/W Section Through Elevated Court Level Diagram shows 3 feet of the Storage room on the Lower Level above the broken red line – the line that delineates where ANG is – and additional wall surface below ANG down to the surface of the parking lot. That wall of the Storage room that abuts the Existing Parking, as depicted on Plan page A300-B/C, both the 3-foot portion of the wall above ANG and the portion below ANG that is above the surface of the Existing Parking is a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The wall of the Storage room, referred to here, is on the western side of the Storage room, even though it is depicted on the right side of the Storage room. That is because the diagram at the top of Plan page A300-B/C is viewed from the North.) What Plan page A300-B/C doesn’t show is that the walls of the Storage room on the South and on the East of the room also have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. This diagram doesn’t show that the Finished Grade on the South side of the building where the Storage room is located is almost exactly the same as the Finished Grade where the surface of the Existing Parking lot abuts the Storage room. (See photos.) While it is more difficult to see and access, much or all of the walls on the east side of the building have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.) The eastern side of the Storage room, as displayed on Plan page A120-C, which depicts the Lower Level, has already been shown, above, to have a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The Faculty Lounge on the northeast corner of the Lower Level, as displayed on Plan page A120-C, has its entire eastern wall from approximately the floor to the ceiling (approximately 8 feet) with a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The photos of the eastern wall of the Faculty Lounge on the Lower Level, accompanying this Supplement, were taken with bushes and a chain linked fence between the camera and the eastern wall and the surface of the abutting Finished Grade, making it somewhat difficult to see; but, if one looks carefully, it is obvious that the visible wall surface on the eastern wall of the Faculty Lounge has several feet, more than six feet of visible wall surface, above Finished Grade.) The Lower Level is clearly not a basement. A similar perspective can also be seen in the Carlthorp School Plans from approximately 25 years ago, page P-3, dated October 22, 1997, and approved under a previous zoning code, 11/12/1997.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
132 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

The Lower Level also violates other aspects of the definition of a basement. (SMMC

9.52.020.0230.)
No Basement, Three Stories, Incorrect Parcel Coverage Calculations, Minor Modification Application is Insufficient to Build Proposed Project, and Prohibited Third Story Additions
Therefore, the Lower Level is not a basement as the Applicant asserts. (Perhaps the City’s Planning Department failed to actually inspect the property and instead relied only on the plans in determining that the Applicant’s proposed project satisfied the zoning code.) Instead, the Lower Level is the First Story, the Main Level is the Second Story, and the Upper Level is the Third Story. All parcel coverage calculations are based on the wrong information and are incorrect and thus the public disclosures are all incorrect and the public has not been adequately notified and the City has not adequately reviewed the project. The actual parcel coverage exceeds the amounts being asked for in the Applicant’s application. Additions to the Third Story are being proposed, which are strictly prohibited by the Zoning Code. Staff should not have recommended that the proposed project be approved and the City Council should confirm my appeal and deny the Applicant from being granted approval.

The Proposed Multipurpose Room is a Classroom
The Zoning Code requires additional parking to be added if the proposed project adds even a single classroom. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).

The proposed multipurpose room, in Planning Commission Hearing (11/4/2020) Attachment J, says that it will be used for "Orchestra practices" and "Theatrical practice" and an "Indoor climbing wall for PE" and "CPR training for employees" and "Professional development for faculty." These are all instructional activities involving instructors and students. (Regarding training for employees and professional development for faculty, such activity does involve instructing students, except that in such activity, the employees and faculty members are the "students.") As such, by definition, when any of these activities are taking place, the multipurpose room would be serving as a classroom. The Applicant has repeatedly said, dating back to its initial application in 2019, that it would be conducting such instructional classroom activities in the proposed multipurpose room. All three of those applications, clearly state that the Applicant intends to use the Multi-purpose room for teaching classes.

The Applicant admitted that its proposed “subterranean multi-purpose room” would be used for teaching classes and as classroom space when it said that the proposed expansion would be used for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which Item 6.A
02/22/22
133 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

include music and performing arts classes.” (See City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd, for a Minor Modification (not dated or signed), attached sheets Project Description (“Minor Mod Project Description”), at 2.) It made such admission three times in three separate applications over the period of almost a year, relating to this proposed project. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).

The Planning Department added Condition 17 to prevent the multipurpose room from being used as a classroom. However, Condition 17 is unenforceable. The proposed Multi-purpose room is subterranean and any teaching activity would be undetectable and the City continues to refuse to enforce ongoing violations of existing CUP Conditions and SMMC violations at the school. All the more so, the City would not likely enforce Condition 17, which is not visible to the naked eye. Also, Condition 17 is selfcontradictory because it says that the “multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner described in Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom.” Attachment J contains multiple uses that are clearly classroom activities, and thus Condition 17 is self-contradictory, and it is unenforceable even if the City’s enforcement agencies had the will to enforce it.

Because the Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, Additional Parking Spaces Are Required
Because the multipurpose room is a classroom, the Applicant must add parking spaces.

Because the proposed project does not call for adding parking spaces, the proposed project does not satisfy the Zoning Code and the Appeal must be accepted and the proposed project must be denied by the City Council.

Parking Issues
From the STOA Conditions that was passed by the Planning Commission in 11/4/2020:

Condition # 6 calls for special planning only for events that are expected to exceed 150 vehicles. That is an absurdly high number for this neighborhood. The School only has approximately 34 parking spaces for its 80 employees. The Condition is all but impossible to enforce.

First, the Condition doesn’t clarify if the expected number of vehicles includes employee vehicles or only additional vehicles. Second, the school can always say that it “expected” fewer vehicles. There is no advance mechanism to assure the neighborhood that reasonable precautions will be made and followed.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
134 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

When the Applicant expanded 25 years ago, it obtained its variance on parking, based on statements and information provided to the City, including that it intended to expand its total faculty from 22 people (15 full time and 7 part time) to 32 people (15 full time and 7 part time), which was a comparable percentage increase to their planned enrollment expansion of slightly less than 50% at that time. (See Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995, at 1.) The Applicant in 1996 received a variance to allow for their parking configuration, which would have been sufficient to support their “planned” staff of 32 people. However, the Applicant’s staff swelled to 80 people after receiving their CUP and variance in 1996. When the Applicant received its variance and its CUP in 1996, it deceived the Planning Commission and the City. When the parking analysis was conducted, the City relied on the Applicant telling the City that it was only expanding to 32 people (including part time employees), rather than expanding the staff to 80 people.

By no means does the Applicant have sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate its needs, and thus heavily burdens its neighbors, in the surrounding blocks and further.

The Applicant violated its commitments to the City regarding faculty size and should not be permitted to expand further. In fact, the Applicant should be required to reduce its faculty to the level that it committed to the City and its neighbors 25 years ago at approximately 32 people. The granting of any expansion should require such a condition.

The Applicant now says, again, that it won't increase its faculty size. Nonsense.

Empirically, the Applicant has demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word then; it should not be trusted to keep its word now.

The school’s deficient parking causes faculty and visitors to the school to park in the surrounding neighborhood, taking away space from local residents.

The Applicant has argued in the past, as it did to the Planning Commission, that it somewhat mitigates these parking concerns because it is friendly with a neighboring landlord who leases residents to some of its faculty. Such argument should be completely disregarded because the Applicant does not have an entitlement to use such parking spaces and it is completely possible that in the future, no such relationship will exist.

Noise Concerns
I cannot overstate how much of a burden that the noise that the Applicant generates is upon its neighbors. The noise study that the Applicant presented is misleading. The noise pollution that the Applicant generates disrupts the peace and quiet in the neighborhood in a major way.

Some of the noise concerns are: Children screaming, whistles, P.A. systems and loud speakers, loud noises from vehicles and people congregating in the large open parking lot off the alley (Georgina Place), organized cheering and screaming, outdoor amplified music and rallies. The school also uses “Walkie-Talkies” and whistles, which are particularly grating upon the nerves. Sometimes the Applicant invites musical and other Item 6.A
02/22/22
135 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

groups that bring in their own amplification system. The Applicant should be prohibited from doing any of these.

The Applicant should also be prohibited from bringing in temporary speakers and amplification, such as for an event. The Condition 9 language should be modified to include prohibition of speakers anytime, not to exceed 3 minutes during morning assembly and not at any other time, except for emergencies. Even use of amplified speakers during morning assembly is unnecessary and invasive to the community and should be prohibited.

The noise study that the Applicant submitted cited incorrect decibel limits from the SMMC that were higher than the code actually indicates. The noise study and its analysis and conclusions is flawed and should therefore be disregarded. (See also, discussion relating to Attachment E, #6A – D.) Traffic
Traffic caused from employees and also parents dropping off and picking up children is excessive. Twice a day a line of cars circle the block, double-parked and blocking traffic, creating excessive traffic for vehicles and substantial hazard for vehicles, pedestrians, and animals.

Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from school.

Sunshine, Sunlight, and Heat
Building the rooftop play court would block sunlight and direct sun from my windows, and reduce sunlight that enters my home. The rooftop play court should not be allowed.

I rely on the sun entering my windows facing the Applicant to grow, ripen, and mature most of the food that I eat. I have a right to that sunshine and sunlight and I need it for my food. The sun in the morning helps to jumpstart the warming of my home, particularly in the late winter, springtime, and the early fall. The sun in the morning also helps to jumpstart me, to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder, from which I struggle with. The Applicant should not be permitted to build the rooftop play court, or at least not within approximately 40 feet of the western side of the existing building.

Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement”
Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement” (“Attachment E”), is littered with misleading statements and ignores the actual facts and the law.

Topic 1A) Upper level exceeds parcel coverage: Staff has ignored the fact that the parcel coverage calculations were conducted incorrectly. (See, above, The Applicant’s and Item 6.A
02/22/22
136 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.)
Topic 2A) Operating detrimental to surrounding properties: Obviously Code Compliance or anyone else failed to inspect or visit the Applicant’s site at night where it would have seen powerful flood lights that shine into neighbor’s windows all night long. I’ve complained to Code Enforcement and to the police numerous times regarding various violations but they never do anything. (See photo.)
Topic 2B) No further permits should be allowed to be issued due to CUP violations: The 95CUP-012, Condition #31 says that if the Applicant “fails to comply with any conditions of the [1996 STOA], no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” Staff admits that there are at least two ongoing violations of conditions of the Applicant’s existing CUP (95-CUP-012). These violations (and others) have existed since prior to this century, without any mitigation. Staff is acting irresponsibly by recommending that the Santa Monica City Council ignore the fact that the Applicant is a serial violator of its CUP conditions. Condition #31 is a standard condition in virtually all of the CUPs that the City grants, and I think is a requirement under the SMMC. The Santa Monica City Council should abide by the City’s own policy of requiring compliance before granting any additional entitlements to the Applicant. If Staff were truly objective – as it should be but for which it is obviously not – Staff would not be recommending that the Santa Monica City Council deny my appeal. (See 2E and 2F, below.) Topic 2C) Existing Landscaping exceeds height limits: The trees on the westerly border of the Applicant’s property are planted excessively close together and, thus, are a de facto hedge and/or wall, and exceed height limits.

Topic 2D) Existing plan for pick-up/drop-off does not work: The neighbors should have been directly solicited regarding this issue, before any additional entitlements are granted.

The chain of vehicles that line up around San Vicente Blvd, onto 4th Street, and onto and way up Georgina Avenue for pick-up and drop-off creates a serious safety hazard for the community and causes serious traffic interference for the neighborhood. Drivers of these vehicles commonly violate the Motor Vehicle Code and block intersections to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This issue is a very serious matter due to the dangerous and hazardous conditions imposed by the Applicant and because life is so precious. This neighborhood is a very quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood – except for the Carlthorp School.

Topic 2E) Grass surface replaced without approval: In Attachment G (to the 11/4/2020 Planning Commission hearing), the Annotated 1996 STOA, the Applicant admitted that it defied Condition #59 of its existing CUP, essentially disrespecting the City and its neighbors by unilaterally tearing out its grass – that it is required to have and maintain – and replacing it with artificial turf that, instead of emitting fresh oxygen as grass does, emits harmful noxious fumes that adversely affect the health of its neighbors and caused Item 6.A
02/22/22
137 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

my dear sweet mother to suffer and contributed to her demise. The Applicant apparently misled the Planning Commission and the public again, here, by rationalizing and not disclosing the real reason the Applicant replaced the required grass with artificial turf: so that the Applicant could produce noisy outdoor activity all day long instead of only on a limited basis. The Applicant has admitted that it is – and has been for many years – in violation of this condition of the 1996 STOA; Condition #31 prohibits the Applicant from receiving any additional entitlements “until such violation has been fully remedied,” which it has not (with respect to this Condition #59 and other Conditions); and therefore, the Planning Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s proposals. Artificial turf also prevents rainwater from seeping into the soil and down into the water table. (See 2B, above.)
Topic 2F) Obstructed clear view through front fence:

The Applicant is, and has obviously been openly defying its CUP for a number of years on a continuing basis, not in compliance with this Condition. This Condition requires that the front yard fence and landscaping shall be “installed and maintained so as not to obstruct a clear view through the fence.” It is plainly obvious to anyone passing by the Applicant’s parcel in the front on San Vicente Boulevard that the view through the fence is completely obstructed. Photos taken 21 months ago depict that obstructed view. (Please see photos attached to my 5/20/2020 comment letter that were taken on 5/19/2020.) The view today is still obstructed. I have photos taken on the day of the November 4, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, and on 2/20/2022, which prove that the view is completely obstructed. The Applicant is also in open defiance of SMMC Section 9.08.030.F.4., which requires that Applicant’s courtyard “shall be visible and accessible from the sidewalk.” Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Santa Monica City Council should not approve the Applicant’s application because the Applicant was not in compliance with its existing CUP. (See 2B, above.) 2H) Inconsistency of prior assertions by applicant regarding student enrollment and number of staff: Staff misunderstands my assertions. I am saying that the Applicant made representations to the City and to the public that it would only increase its employee staff from 22 full and part time employees to 34 full and part time employees and that the City and the public relied on such representations when the process occurred in granting the Applicant its current CUP. The City should require that the Applicant reduce its staff level to approximately the level that it represented to the City and to the public when it was granted its current CUP. If any entitlements are granted to the Applicant, such entitlements should be conditioned upon limiting Applicant’s staff to approximately 34 people. And, certainly any language in any conditions should not prevent the public from asserting these issues in the future. In other words, any entitlements and conditions should not say or imply that the Applicant may have a staff level as high as any specified number above approximately 34 people. 3A) Number of stories: Staff overlooks the fact that the Lower Level of the building does not meet the code requirements to be a basement and is therefore a three-story building. (See section, above, named The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of Item 6.A
02/22/22
138 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.) 3E) Offices within apartment: This conversion occurred for several years earlier this century and through much of the last decade. (I did not say that the conversion was still ongoing. They closed those offices probably in preparation for their current application.) I referred to that conversion to illustrate that the Applicant has disrespected and flouted the Planning Commission and the laws of the City and to suggest that the Applicant is cavalier regarding respecting City ordinances, its CUP conditions, and its neighbors. 3F) School did not engage in neighborhood outreach: There was a public meeting, which I went to, but the meeting was very brief, substantially shorter than had been announced.

I had various questions that I raised after the meeting but still within the scheduled time.

Before I had an opportunity to ask all of my questions, several other members from the public that had remained and I were all asked to leave. I, not the Applicant, reached out by calling Tim Kusserow a few months later to discuss the project, but that was like speaking with a block wall. A few neighbors and I later arranged a conference call with Mr. Kusserow (or possibly someone else at the school), but that experience was also fruitless. Mr. Kusserow left the call after a short while and I was not permitted to even speak during the call. I later reached out to the Applicant’s law firm, who responded by having Melissa Sweeney contact me. But she had no authority to consider actual public concerns. She told me that she would get back to me but she didn’t, even after I subsequently tried to reach her. I am not aware of any other so-called outreach. The only public outreach was a perfunctory effort to present minimal information to the public. It was not true public outreach because there was zero receptivity by the Applicant regarding any and all public input. The Applicant was completely dismissive of any public input. It is disingenuous to describe the Applicant’s contact with the public as actual “outreach.”
4A) Parking requirement for classroom vs multipurpose room: The Staff here has it backwards. The Applicant has provided a description of the multipurpose room, which clearly states that it WILL be used as a classroom. (See section named The Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, above; and see, Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom). ) And, Condition #17, which purportedly is intended to deal with this issue is self-contradictory and unenforceable. (See id.)
6A) Noise and privacy: The mitigation measures that are proposed are inadequate and in some respects aggravate the problem. (See above, Noise Concerns.) 6B) Noise is excessive when windows are open: This is an example how Staff is only concerned with whether the Applicant is in compliance with the “letter” of the existing CUP and its conditions, as opposed to the spirit of not imposing upon its neighbors and Item 6.A
02/22/22
139 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

the community; or if it can artificially justify the bending or actual breaching of the existing CUP and its conditions. Here, double-paned windows were proposed, when the existing CUP was created, for some of the Applicant’s neighbors, to mitigate the outrageous noise created by the Applicant. However, such measure is completely ineffective during warm and hot days when it is necessary for such neighbors to open windows for air circulation. That amounts to more than half of the school year (plus summer school). I’ve been raising this issue throughout the process these past two years, but the Applicant, Staff, and the Planning Commission have ignored this issue. The City Council should not grant any additional entitlements until the Applicant and Staff actually and sincerely reach out to its neighbors and solve this issue. For more than 20 years this has been a major problem. I have complained numerous times to the Applicant and to law enforcement and nothing has ever been done to mitigate this extremely imposing problem. Children at random suddenly scream with high-pitched voices as loud as they can. Adults suddenly blow whistles, lead organized and synchronized cheering, and use walkie-talkies that grate the ears and nerves. The P.A. system suddenly is utilized. Without advance notice, suddenly an event occurs with amplified music, singing, talking, yelling and cheering. All of them randomly and suddenly yell at the top of their lungs. All of this causes enormous stress on the nerves, prevents concentration, and prevents speaking on the phone. And, for the size of the space and the proximity to its neighbors in this otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood, the Applicant very unreasonably imposes itself upon its neighbors and the Planning Department and the City has made unfair rationalizations on behalf of the Applicant. 6C) Excessive noise: This is another example how the existing CUP conditions were not well planned. The existing Condition #56, which requires staggering of playtime, is part of the problem. It would be better to have all playtime occur all at once and get it over with, rather than have it be loud throughout almost the entire day, as is the case now.

That way, on warm and hot days, windows could at least be open part of the day, rather than forcing neighbors to swelter and suffocate the entire day. And, this could occur on a set schedule so that neighbors could have control over their day, rather than the school controlling the neighbors’ days. The City should reverse this condition to require the Applicant to have all playtime coordinated during shorter portions of the day on a set schedule.
6D) Excessive noise: The existing Condition #57 requires playgroups to be dispersed.

However, the opposite is occurring during loud organized cheering. Also, I don’t see how the noise could be much worse so probably the Applicant is not adhering to this condition in other ways.
7A) Privacy impacts: See my fourth bullet point under The City Council Report, relating to page 8 of that report. Also, as I’ve said before in another earlier submission: Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from school.
8A) Documents withheld: I still have not received all of the documents that I have requested from the City pertaining to this appeal
Item 6.A
02/22/22
140 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

8B) Questions not answered:

Staff asserts in its Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members.” Such statement is grossly misleading. Since I filed the appeal, there were three – and not more than three – phone calls since I filed the appeal when I presented substantive questions.

The first phone call was on 4/14/2021 with Jing Yeo. Most of that call dealt with my asking a threshold question that had to be asked before I could move to the actual questions that I needed to ask. However, Jing was stuck on giving me an answer that defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics. (She was stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in such structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated another way, in zero dimensional space.) We ran out of time for that call so I asked her to think about it and we’d pick that up on the next call, which we planned for 4/27/2021.

Almost as soon as we began speaking on 4/27/2021, Jing had already come around to my way of thinking.

There was some important progress that I made in asking my questions during those two calls in April and one important question (or group of very similar questions) that was answered on 10/19/2021, which covered only about five minutes of that call in October. (Some of the detail of those answers has been explained above.) But almost everything else about the call on 10/19/2021 was a waste of time, whereby Jing outright refused to answer my questions. There was a trail of thought that I was taking Jing down using diagrams from the Plan pages, in which I was leading her to questions that I was trying to ask and she was finally being receptive. However, David Martin had set that call up with him, Stephanie Reich, and Gina also on the call. I need and needed specific questions answered regarding the zoning code and Jing is the Zoning Administrator, who has the responsibility to explain and clarify the zoning code. My questions were directed at Jing and not Stephanie. However, as I explained to David Martin in my email of 10/29/2021:
“However, my questions are of the nature, which are for the Zoning Administrator, particularly because some of my questions are complicated, and about complicated issues and definitions.… Jing is the Zoning Administrator – not Stephanie. . . . [I]t is her responsibility to make these determinations, and yours I guess as the Director. Multiple times Stephanie disrupted the flow of my questions and descriptions, interrupting because she had difficulty following along, as she indicated. [And, e]ach time Stephanie interrupted, it was just as I was about to get [to where I needed Jing to go in her mind and with the diagrams for me to ask my questions].”
Thus almost all of the 10/29/2021 conference call was a waste of time and I still hadn’t gotten to ask my questions.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
141 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

Staff’s Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members” is grossly misleading.

Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly FALSE. Staff has stonewalled me and refused to answer my questions, while simultaneously attempting to cram down a hearing down upon me. I began requesting that the Zoning Administrator, Jing Yeo, answer my questions more than 13 months ago in early January 2020. She was very busy for a couple of months and then I had an injury that delayed a couple weeks. In April 2021, Jing and I got off to a good start in phone calls on 4/14/2021 and 4/27/2021, whereby we resolved to continue the process by email.

On 5/12/2021, I sent her an email with various questions and requests for confirmations of what she had told me during April on the phone. She told me that I would receive answers within or shortly after a couple weeks. I followed up with approximately a dozen emails and phone calls when she was not forthcoming. Jing went completely dark on me, failing to respond in any way whatsoever. After that, the only times Jing contacted me was by email and then only after I would explain the circumstances to the City Manager (first John Jalili and then David White) and that I wasn’t getting my questions answered. My first contact with the City Manager, John Jalili, was in early July 2021, and Jing followed up with an email addressing some of my questions. But her answers were vague and opaque and mostly not on point and incomplete. For more than the following seven months, I would promptly reply to her emails regarding my questions, asking her to actually answer my questions. But she would not respond to my email replies, unless and until I contacted the City Manager again, and then and only then would she reply to my emails. I also attempted to reach out to David Martin, the Director of the Planning Department, with numerous emails and phone calls, attempting to get him to motivate Jing to properly answer my emails. The only times David Martin got back to me was shortly after I contacted the City Manager. Additional detail is explained, above, in the section discussing the unfair process. (The email strings with Jing Yeo and David Martin, since 5/12/2021, are being included along with this Supplement.) Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly FALSE.
8C) Premature Planning Commission hearing: “Multiple hearing delays were granted” implies that such delays were granted due to my causing that to be necessary. All delays relating to the Planning Commission hearing were due to the City choosing on its own to delay the hearing date or because the City had failed to follow through on commitments to provide me with information, answers to questions, and documents. Almost all of the delay occurred due to the City’s own choosing for its own reasons. The two delays relating to the City not following through on commitments to me was only one week in May 2020 and approximately two weeks in October 2020, and I still had not received all of the documents that I had asked for when the hearing was held on 11/4/2020.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
142 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8D in Attachment E, “Multiple hearing delays have been granted” is very misleading. Any and all delays in bringing this matter before the City Council is due to delays caused by the City, except for an approximately two week delay that I needed due to an injury that I suffered in late March 2021. All other delays in this process were due to Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, being too busy to answer my Zoning Code questions during the winter of 2021, and then since 5/12/2021, her refusing to respond to me and her answering my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations of oral statements in a vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point manner and also her refusing to answer my questions. (See detailed discussion in response to 8B and in discussions above relating to the unfairness of the process and attached email strings with Jing Yeo, David Martin, Regina Szilak, and David White.) 8D) Requested appellant to confirm February 22, 2022 appeal hearing date on November 29, 2021: The City here makes a false and misleading statement. The City notified me weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant that the hearing date had been set for that date. The City’s email on 11/29/2021 did not ask me to confirm the 2/22/2022 date for the hearing; it only mentioned 2/22/2022 as a potential hearing date. I responded on 12/8/2021, rejecting such date by indicating that setting a hearing date at that time was “premature and grossly unfair until I have had the opportunity to have my questions and requests for clarifications properly addressed and fully vetted.” I was not notified that the City wanted to proceed with 2/22/2022 until 2/1/2022, which was weeks after the City had notified the Applicant that that was a set date and more than 10 days after I first started requesting that the City confirm or deny whether that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. (See submitted email strings with Regina Szilak, Jing Yeo, David Martin, and David White.) And, I didn’t really know that 2/22/2022 would be the hearing date until 2/17/2022. (See email strings with David White, and particularly my email to David White, dated 2/18/2022.) The City deceived me and misled me and failed to properly notify me as to the hearing date and gave substantial deference to the Applicant against my interests as the Appellant, and the City has done that throughout this process.

The City Council Report
The City Council Report states in the context of “the impact of loading/unloading and parking on the surrounding neighborhood[, that] [n]o new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal.” (City Council Report, at 7.) That is an absurd finding. The Applicant has said that it intends to hold music and dance performances in the proposed multipurpose room. The multipurpose room will at times serve as an auditorium/theater with a substantial capacity. And the addition of the proposed multipurpose room and the proposed rooftop play court will add substantial space for events that are more intense than are currently held. The Applicant will be able to host larger crowds of visitors, which would require larger numbers of staff to monitor the events. At large events, the Applicant might choose to even hire temporary workers for the event, particularly if valet parking is permitted, which is a very bad idea. The school already commonly hires (or invites) musical bands and other performing arts, and various other services when it Item 6.A
02/22/22
143 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

conducts events. The school will likely hire catering services. All those people have to park somewhere if they drive there. All of these people will impact parking needs that will impact the community and the surrounding neighborhood. There are many other examples that would impact the neighborhood.

The City Council Report describes conditions to “provide concrete direction and guidance to further … dialogue” with the neighborhood. (City Council Report, at 8.) Those conditions are joke:
 A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and with numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses.

I’ve complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing ever gets solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and have no authority that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests.  Netting surrounding the upper-level play court would be ugly, as would the 30+ high wall surrounding the play court, and it would exceed the height limit in the zoning code.
 As discussed, above, the Conditions (Condition 17) is self-contradictory and unenforceable and would not ensure that the multipurpose room would not be used as a classroom.
 The landscape screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy concerns. That “solution” is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent residential building across from that area of the school and would fail to protect the privacy of such residents. It would only serve to protect the privacy of the school but would do the opposite for those residents. Landscape screens are opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is up close. Such screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major) that are completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or anywhere close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on the east side of the adjacent residential building. And, people inside those residences would not even be able to detect that someone is peeping into their windows, thus creating the constant concern and anxiety that someone (or even a hidden camera) could be watching at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive disruption to the privacy of the people in the adjacent building. The solution is very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be built. Short of that, don’t allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short of that, require the stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the outside side of the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.
 The Applicant should absolutely not be permitted to have valet service. It would create enormous stress on the neighborhood and only compound the parking and traffic impact on the neighborhood.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
144 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022

The City Council Report when in reviewing my Appeal Statement fails to consider issues brought forth here in this statement and additional issues that I still wish to formulate and present because:

The City refused to answer my zoning code questions after having committed to me that it would answer such questions sufficiently in time for me to provide additional follow up questions that build on such zoning code questions, and sufficiently in advance of scheduling a hearing date. (See above.)
The City also failed to fulfill my information requests, and in a timely manner.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
145 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
146 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22

 













!
"#
$%%& 
%'
$
#()
* 
()
$+$

 
+% $+
,
#
# -.

%' /
)
)
%01 &#+## -
%%
0 &

% 
$  0+% *

$0 - ),.+$+*

$.-
 %
, 
)()-+ % /
')
'
%$2.% *&
#)
' %
- )()-+
,$)%%' &
'()
 .

'
%+%)

'
%
')$ 3%  %

#


'
%$

'
*,#$

+$4+
516
$ 7 

 '! 8#%-%*,$ 
)+
)%+

0%&- 

) %
4


- 

) %
#
+ %
&#+#.
$
#%-%
+
%'0%&- 

) %
4


- 

) %
 #
+ %
.9+


# 6$
0-- 

) %
 4


- 

) %
#
+ %
:
;<=$ '.
$
#%-%$

 
#8&-%: 
#


/4#
>.9+


# 6$
? '
)
-  +#? 0-- 

) %
&)%

#
%-%
#
0 0 

@
3%  &
#()

#8:8
:*
/)
#
') &

0))+

#

#& '.

'()
+)%
0+$)0+ )

%

)0%
-,

#.% A.% ') 
*,#$)
#
+*
#.)%



+,$4+
516 '! 8



#-0%& %%)$ +##
$
#& %%# %%
A+
6$
0-B#

A+.
$ 
+
   &#+#
)
0



#

)
$ 0%&

# 

A+

#
A
)
C()


$
## .
5D$ '%#
&%%
+' ()
0'
# 7)%

:
;<=$ '& %%
 %
#.&#
#
#A
0)%
 

#..
.9+
#  8-0%& %%)$ +##
;
#
=A+
;=6$
0-
B#

:&)%
)+#& %% 

#. + 

#%-%
#
)+#& %%.
 %%' +%
0 0 

.
$ 0 

@
3%  &
#()

#8:8
:*
/)
#
') &

0))+

#

#& '.

'()
+)%
0+$)0+ )

%

)0%
-,

#.% A.% ') 
Item 6.A
02/22/22
147 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22









 







 



   













!"

#




  
#








$
  
#


#


  

 


 
#


$



"%

&'('))')
) $


##

 

$




#







$
 # 
$
 '


$
*+(+)
, 






-$
$.
*)
/




$
  



0
))1+2


3  

0*)-20**-2
0*-2
 


#




'



$

$.
( )
$
 



 



 

 
'!

*+(+)
$


456$/






0*)-20**-2
0*-2

 


 
3 
#

$

#

$
"



 
 



3 




$3















748
#



$
'9
3 


 





0*)-20**-2
0*-2#


$

#

$

 $

#

$



/ (+*+)*
 
 
3 



 


 
##

#:
 ';


#



$
3 
#
 


 






0*)-20**-2
0*-2'<












3 
"

 
3 
 #

 

$




$
$
 
*+*)+)'

$#

$
*+*)+)
$
 
3


$$=+>+)*
$






 3


$$(+*+)*
$
"

,
?



2 #@##

#:
 
#
#






 
$




 


/




A

$0*)-2 


/


$

$



A

$0**-2



/ #
/

A

$0*-2#


$
  

#




 
$


#




#
#

 ##



#

 
B

2

'C


3 


 

 
#





D+=+)*'<


$ 

$
'E
$


 


$



  


#



3  
$

D+=+)*#
 
#

#




#

 '!
%


 %

%


Item 6.A
02/22/22
148 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Savis Zarrabian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Regina Szilak; Phil Brock
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 (Permit 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066) - 438 San Vicente Blvd.

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Clerk and the Santa Monica City Council Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are 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.

Throughout the greater Los Angeles and Santa Monica area, street parking is restricted by permit near schools. One need not look further than the streets adjacent to Santa Monica High School, Santa Monica College and countless other area schools. However, the streets near and around Carlthorp are open to the public, rendering them available for Carlthorp’s business use. This is highly inappropriate as it is.

Simply said, the streets are already congested and now overcrowded due to Carlthorp’s expansion over the last few years. Carlthorp staff, parents and visitors have had a substantively adverse impact on the quality of life for area residents, who, like us, continually weigh their options when considering a short trip out of fear that there will be no parking available upon their return.

Any further expansion of Carlthorp will only compound this existing problem. Therefore, we strongly oppose the current Conditional Use Permit until the school can provide its own private parking for staff, visitors and parents as needed without over burdening the limited street parking that is available to the area residents.

Thank you.

Ebby & Savis Bakhtiar
Item 6.A
02/22/22
149 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
150 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
151 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
152 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
153 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
154 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
155 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
156 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
157 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
158 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
159 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
160 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
161 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
162 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
163 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
164 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
165 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
166 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
167 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
168 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
169 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
170 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
171 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
172 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
173 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
174 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
175 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
176 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
177 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
178 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
179 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL

LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"

LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"4' - 0"
3' - 8"

BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"

NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW

ELEVATOR

TIERED SEATING

STORAGE

CLASSROOM -

BREAK OUT ROOM

CLASSROOM -

SPANISH

EXISTING CLASSROOM/

MULTI-PURPOSE RM

CLASSROOM -
MATH

READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL

STORAGE

FACILITIES
OFFICE

MAIN POWER

SHUT OFF
ELEV

ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR

RESTROOMS

FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
5' - 0"
HVO

EXISTING READING ROOM

TO BE CONVERTED TO

RESTROOMS

NEW STAIR AND

PARTITION

CORRIDOR
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-B
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A120-B

BASEMENT FLOOR

PLAN - PARCEL

COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
* BASEMENT AREAS SHOWN DO NOT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION.

FLOORING ABOVE THESE BASEMENT
AREAS ARE ALL 3 FEET OR LESS
ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE.

SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
180 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22

UP UPDN
DNDN
UP

NEW ENCLOSURE

OF EXISTING

LUNCH SEATING

OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM

BELOW GRADE

HANDICAPPED PARKING HANDICAPPED PARKING PLANTER

BIKE RACK
HEDGE

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

RECEPTION/

FRONT OFFICE

BOARDROOM

KITCHEN

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CL OF ALLEY

NEW BIKE RACKS
10' - 0"
139' - 11" 35' - 11"
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C

EXISTING

PARKING CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM PORCH

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

EXISTING OPENING AT

END OF UNENCLOSED

CORRIDOR TO REMAIN

OPENING IN NEW

WALL AT END OF

EXISTING

UNENCLOSED

CORRIDOR

OPEN/UNENCLOSED
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 843 SF
TOTAL NEW MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF

EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:

PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY):

FIRST FLOOR (MAIN LEVEL):

EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:

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

NEW MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:

TOTAL MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)

FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
NOTE: THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY ARE

TREATED AS THE UPPER LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS

CALCULATION OF PARCEL COVERAGE PER THE
DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SEE FLOOR LEVEL DIAGRAMS FOR MORE INFO.

AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 1,231 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:02 PM
As indicated CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A121-B

FIRST (MAIN)

FLOOR PLAN -

PARCEL COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
181 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN

OFFICES
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
PL

LIBRARY

CLASSROOM -

COMPUTER LAB

OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE

CLASSROOOM -

ART ROOM

CLASSROOM -

READING
ROOM

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

NEW STAIR
1 A300-B/C
1 SEE FIRST FLOOR/
A300-B/C

MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-B

SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE

OVERHANG OF ROOFTOP

PLAY COURT ABOVE
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C

CLASSROOM
PORCH

CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED

FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (G)

SEE FIRST FLOOR /

MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B

THIS PORTION OF STAIR

EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)

OPENING AT END

OF EXISTING

UNENCLOSED

CORRIDOR, SEE

FIRST FLOOR/MAIN

LEVEL PLAN

FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE

PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,531 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 840 SF
SECOND FLOOR (UPPER LEVEL):

NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 16,985 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:

EXISTING = 16,985 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) = 18,516 SF
NEW = 1,531 SF
90% OF MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE

ALLOWED BASED ON MINOR
MODIFICATION INCREASE TO 45.29% OF
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:

TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,516 SF
( < 90 % OF MAIN LEVEL

PARCEL COVERAGE)
20,863.13 SF
x .45
MAIN LEVEL PARCEL 46,362.50 SF

COVERAGE
ALLOWED BY CODE:
18,898.2 SF
x .90
20,998 SF
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 401 SF

MAIN LEVEL PARCEL

COVERAGE ALLOWED BY
MINOR MODIFICATION (45.29%)
20,998 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:40:02 PM
As indicated CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A122-B

SECOND (UPPER)

FLOOR PLAN -

PARCEL COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
182 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22

NEW ROOFTOP

CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"

EXISTING ROOF
PL
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW

OFFICES
BELOW
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:06 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A123-B

ROOF PLAN -

PARCEL COVERAGE

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE
TO THE LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION.

SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
183 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' - 6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' - 0"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' - 6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' - 6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' - 0"
Top of Court
+126' - 6"

NEW ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAY COURT

EXISTING PARKING

EXISTING

CLASSROOMS
8' - 0"
30' - 0"

PLAY COURT

STORAGE

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE

CLASSROOM

MAIN LEVEL

UPPER LEVEL

MAIN LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL
3' - 0"

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND BUILDING

ENVELOPE
7' - 6" 7' - 0" 9' - 6" 5' - 6"3' - 0"
5' - 3"
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' - 6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' - 0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' - 6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' - 3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' - 6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' - 6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' - 0"
Basement Floor Lower
+89' - 8"
(E) Roof
+130' - 3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' - 6"

NEW ELEVATED

OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT

EXISTING

CLASSROOM

EXISTING

PARKING

EXISTING

MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
NEW

ADMINISTRATIVE

ADDITION
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
BEYOND

NEW ENCLOSURE OF

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

EXISTING STRUCTURE

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING BUILDING
30' - 0"

UPPER LEVEL

MAIN LEVEL

LIBRARY

UPPER LEVEL

CLASSROOM

MAIN LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL

CLASSROOM
PORCH

CLASSROOM
PORCH

NEW CLASSROOM

CEILING AND

BUILDING ENVELOPE
(THIS PORTION OF

CLASSROOM PORCH

IS ON MAIN/FIRST
LEVEL)
(THIS PORTION

OF CLASSROOM

PORCH IS ON

UPPER/SECOND
LEVEL)

CLASSROOM PORCH

EXCLUDED FROM

PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)

CLASSROOM PORCH

EXCLUDED FROM

PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)&(G) OPEN
8' - 0"

INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -

NOT OCCUPIABLE
5' - 3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:39:07 PM
1/8" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A300-B/C

SECTION DIAGRAMS

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT LEVEL

DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &

ELEVATED COURT - LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
SMMC 9.52.020.0180 Attic. The area less than 7 feet in height, located above the ceiling of the top story and below the roof that is not usable as habitable or commercial space and is not accessible via a permanent access structure. An attic shall not be considered a story.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
184 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
+97'-3"
PL
+89'-8"
+89'-8"

LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"

NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW

ELEVATOR

TIERED SEATING

STORAGE

BREAK OUT
ROOM

SPANISH

EXISTING

MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH

READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL

STORAGE

FACILITIES
OFFICE

MAIN POWER

SHUT OFF
ELEV

ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR

FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"

EXISTING READING ROOM

TO BE CONVERTED TO

RESTROOMS & SHOWERS

NEW STAIR AND

PARTITION

CORRIDOR
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
LOWER LEVEL (+97' - 3")
+0' - 0"
-7' - 7"
-5' - 7"
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-C
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C

BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A120-C

BASEMENT FLOOR

LEVEL DIAGRAM
(LOWER LEVEL)

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
185 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
UP UP
DNDN
DN
UP

NEW ENCLOSURE

OF EXISTING

LUNCH SEATING

OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM

BELOW GRADE

HANDICAPPED PARKING HANDICAPPED PARKING PLANTER

BIKE RACK
HEDGE

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE

RECEPTION/

FRONT OFFICE

BOARDROOM

KITCHEN

CLASSROOM -

KINDERGARTEN

CL OF ALLEY

PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C

MAIN LEVEL
+0' - 0"
MAIN LEVEL (+107' - 6")
+0' - 0"
+1' - 3"
-6' - 0"

CLASSROOM
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C

EXISTING PARKING

CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR

CLASSROOM PORCH
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:38:02 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A121-C

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL

DIAGRAM (MAIN
LEVEL)

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
186 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN

OFFICES
PL

LIBRARY

CLASSROOM -

COMPUTER LAB

OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE

CLASSROOOM -

ART ROOM

CLASSROOM -

READING
ROOM

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE

NEW STAIR
UPPER LEVEL (+119' - 6")
+0' - 0"
1 A300-B/C
1 SEE FIRST FLOOR / A300-B/C

MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-C
-9' - 6"

SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE

CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
2 A300-B/C
2 A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

SEE FIRST FLOOR / ELEVATOR

MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-C
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:05 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A122-C

SECOND FLOOR

LEVEL DIAGRAM
(UPPER LEVEL)

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
187 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
1 A300-B/C
1 A300-B/C

EXISTING ROOF

NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW

OFFICES
BELOW
PL

ROOFTOP PLAY COURT
126' - 6"
2 A300-B/C 2
A300-B/C
NEW

ELEVATOR
NEW

ELEVATOR
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:08 PM
3/32" = 1'-0" CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402
A123-C

ROOF PLAN LEVEL

DIAGRAM

11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR

AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A
02/22/22
188 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22




  


 

!
"#$%&' ($"#$%&'$)*$!+,-*. /&0 1234534241 6789 :; <-7 =" 0> ;"& 0! (=" 0>+;"&
0!)$"!
"*-!0,"+'- . ?,7 @-A!+@"#0#0)$"!
"*-!0,"+'- (@-A!+@"#0#0)$"!
"*-!0,"+'- .B >" 0>+CA0
)$"!
"*-!0,"+'- (>" 0>+CA0
)$"!
"*-!0,"+'- . DE FGHEIJ KLGMN OPQ RPS OPQS TEUV GMI GWWEWTGMXV GMI EM GSSGMYEMY TLV XPMRVSVMXV XGZZ TLGT [V LGI PM \]^\_^`]`\a GMI RPS OPQS XPUUETUVMT TP UGNV WQSV TLGT b YVT GZZ PR UO cQVWTEPMW GMW[VSVId ePMVTLVZVWWa b GU HVSO IEWGffPEMTVI [ETL LP[ TLGT XPMRVSVMXV XGZZ [VMTd gPWT PR GZZa b GU IEWGffPEMTVI TLGT OPQ ZVRT UV [ETL IPQhT GW TP [LVTLVS TLV iETO [PQZI LPMPS TLV SVcQVWT TLGT b LGHV SVfVGTVIZO UGIV PHVS UPSV TLGM TLV fGWT WEj UPMTLW k GMI [LEXL OPQ TPZI UV [GW HVSO SVGWPMGhZV [LVM [V WfPNV PM lXTPhVS m k TLGT b WLPQZI LGHV GT ZVGWT G RQZZ UPMTL nGMI UPSV ER b MVVI ETo TP fSVfGSV UO WQffZVUVMTGZ WTGTVUVMT RPS UO GffVGZa GRTVS YVTTEMY UO cQVWTEPMW GMW[VSVI GMI XZGSEREVI SVYGSIEMY TLV pPMEMY XPIV GMI TLGT b [PQZI LGHV qEMGrW GMI sTVfLGMEVrW RQSTLVS fSPUfT XPPfVSGTEPM [LEZV brU fSVfGSEMY TLV WQffZVUVMT TP UO GffVGZa WP TLGT b XPQZI WQhUET UO WQffZVUVMTGZ WTGTVUVMT EM GIHGMXV PR sTGRR hVYEMMEMY TP fSVfGSV ETW sTGRR tVfPSTd gO SVcQVWT EW fGSTEXQZGSZO SVGWPMGhZV hVXGQWV b LGHV hVVM GTTVUfTEMY TP PhTGEM GMW[VSW TP MQUVSPQW pPMEMY cQVWTEPMW WEMXV ZGWT uGMQGSOa [ETL PMZO EMTVSUETTVMT GMI ZEUETVI XPPfVSGTEPM RSPU sTGRRa [LEZV b LGHV [GWTVI WQhWTGMTEGZ TEUVa VMVSYO GMI RPXQW XPSSVWfPMIEMY [ETL MQUVSPQW VUGEZW GMI HPEXVUGEZW SVcQVWTEMY SVWfPMWVW GMI XPPfVSGTEPM TLGT LGHV YPMV QMGMW[VSVI RPS UQZTEfZV UPMTLW GT G TEUVd sTGRR EYMPSEMY UO MQUVSPQW fZVGWa RPS XPPfVSGTEPM GMI TP PhTGEM GMW[VSW TP UO cQVWTEPMWa LGW QMRGESZO XGQWVI UV TP WQRRVS TLSPQYL UQXL GMjEVTO GMI [GWTV G ZPT PR UO TEUVd b GU GZWP fGSTEXQZGSZO IEWGffPEMTVI hVXGQWV TLV lXTPhVS \_ XPMRVSVMXV XGZZ IVUPMWTSGTVI G RQSTLVS XPUfVZZEMY VjGUfZV GW TP LP[ TLV GffVGZ fSPXVWW LGW hVVM QMRGES GMI GW TP sTGRRvW PhHEPQW GMI XZVGS hEGW EM RGHPS PR TLV wffZEXGMT GMI ETW fSPfPWGZ GMI GYGEMWT UO EMTVSVWTW GMI UO GffVGZa GW b GZWP TPZI OPQ [LVM [V WfPNV PM lXTPhVS md FQSEMY TLV lXTPhVS \_ XPMRVSVMXV XGZZa uEMY WGEI TLGT WLV LGW TPZI UV WVHVSGZ TEUVW TLGT TLVOvHV SVHEV[VI TLV fZGMW GMI TLGT TLV fZGMW XPUfZO [ETL TLV XPIVd xf QMTEZ OPQ EMTVSHVMVI nTLGMN OPQo GRTVS [V WfPNV PM lXTPhVS ma WP TLGT b XGM LPfVRQZZO MP[ YVT UO cQVWTEPMW GMW[VSVIa TLGT LGW hVVM sTGRRvW fPWETEPM [LVM TLVO UPSV TLGM PMXV GTTVUfTVI TP XSGU IP[M G LVGSEMY IGTV [ETLPQT GRRPSIEMY UV XZVGSa SPhQWTa GMI fSPfVS GMW[VSW TP UO cQVWTEPMWd KLQWa sTGRR fSVyQIYVI UO fPWETEPM [ETLPQT fVSUETTEMY UV TLV PffPSTQMETO k [ETL fSPfVS QMIVSWTGMIEMY PR TLV XPIV GMI LP[ ET WLPQZI hV GffZEVI k TP WLP[ TLVU LP[ TLV fZGMW UEYLT hV HEPZGTEMY TLV XPIVd wMIa TLVO IP MPT MVXVWWGSEZO WVV [LGT b WVV EM TLV fZGMWa EM TLV XPIV [ETL SVWfVXT TP TLV fZGMWa PS SVYGSIEMY TLV fZGMW GMI TLV XPIV [ETL SVWfVXT TP TLV fSPfVSTO GMI TLV WTSQXTQSV GW ET GXTQGZZO fLOWEXGZZO EWd wW WQXLa uEMYvW fPWETEPM LGW hVVMa GMI EWa GMI GW WLV GZWP VjfSVWWVI IQSEMY TLV lXTPhVS \_ XPMRVSVMXV XGZZa TLGT b GU RSVV TP GSYQV TP TLV iETO iPQMXEZ gVUhVSW nEM [SETEMY GMI^PS PSGZZOo TLGT sTGRRvW IVTVSUEMGTEPM TLGT TLV fZGMW XPUfZO [ETL TLV XPIV EW EMXPSSVXTd KLGT EW GM GhWQSIa QMRGESa GMI hEGWVI fPWETEPM RPS sTGRR TP TGNVd iETO iPQMXEZ gVUhVSW VMTSQWT GMI SVZO QfPM sTGRR TP hV VjfVSTW EM SVHEV[EMY fSPyVXT fZGMW GMI GffZOEMY TLV XPIV GMI TLV iPQMXEZ gVUhVSW IP MPT YVMVSGZZO LGHV TLV TEUVa TLV RPXQWa PS TLV VjfVSTEWV TP GXXVfT UO [PSI PM TVXLMEXGZ EWWQVW PHVS sTGRRvWd uEMYvW hEGWVI GffSPGXL GMI fPWETEPM SVMIVSW UV IVRVGTVI hVRPSV b hVYEMa SVYGSIZVWW GW TP [LVTLVS [ETL IEZEYVMT VRRPST b UEYLT EIVMTERO WPUVTLEMY TLGT sTGRR UEYLT LGHV UEWWVI TLGT [PQZI GMI WLPQZI XLGMYV TLV SVWQZTd wMIa TLV RGXT TLGT WPUV PR TLVWV EWWQVW UEYLT GZZP[ sTGRR TP LGHV VZVUVMTW PR IEWXSVTEPMa UO XPMXVSMW TLGT bvHV hVVM TSVGTVI QMRGESZO GMI TLGT sTGRR EW hEGWVI EM RGHPS PR TLV wffZEXGMT GMI GYGEMWT UO EMTVSVWT GSV Item 6.A 02/22/22
189 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22





















!




"

!#

$



# 






%%
&

!



!






%$
%





%


"
'%
%
$
%










%

%$
%





%


"
%


%





%




"




"


"

!%

%



%




%%
%

%


"





%


%%


"

%
!

%
"


!
%





%%
"

%
!







 





"


&






%






%




!
%$
%





%


"
'%
%

()
%


%
&*
%



%

%





%



"



%

$
&

*

 


"

+
$




"












%$

"
'%
%


 $








$





$







%$
%


"
'%
%
 %













%

%$
%


"
%


%




%
!
,
-
%







$






!"

$







 



"

'%%


%$
%

% 

"


%





"




%%

(&

%








%





 



%






&
.



%



%
#%








!
,

&


%

%

$

$









$
!
%








$


&

 



!
%


&

%


"
*






%
"




+
$


"
'%
%







$








/


%








"
!
%
%





"
'%
%







!





%%%


%

0
%


/


%


1 
 


0
%
!



%

!









%
%%%


%



%
%!
"


 
%



%

"

%
&
%%
%


2





-



%


%





$


"
'%
%

%


%



!
%
%





"


$


 
%
%



)

%









"
$%
!
%
&
$%





0 


%



%

$%




3 4 (%






",


&






%



&








'%
(%,


&


%

5









$%
#%
%
&
$%
!










.



%

 





%


$%







(


*%,







"
'%
%






"







!%%











"
.%

&
$







"

$




%



&





"
'%
%




"

%

"
 

%



&*


%









"
%




"



&
$



%



 

"

$






$

$









%%












$"








%%


%

!
%
"


"





%%

6 
% 

%!
789:7;<:=8>?

Item 6.A
02/22/22
190 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22




  


 

!
"#$%&' ($"#$%&'$)*$!+,-*. /0 123432521 6789 :; <-7 =" >0 ;"& >! (=" >0+;"&
>!)$"!
"*-!>,"+'- . ?@ ABC@DE F BG HI@JJ CKLM NLOHILBIKD DOK IP Q@RSTH LKNOHBJ IP BRHUKL GM VOKHI@PRH BRD IP NOJN@JJ GM LKVOKHIH NPL WJBL@N@WBI@PRHX YZ@JK Q@RS D@D LK[JM IP GM \]^_`^_]_\ KGB@Ja HZK PRJM [BLI@BJJM BRHUKLKD PRJM PRK PN GM VOKHI@PRHa UZ@WZ D@D RPI BDD BRMIZ@RS IP UZBI F BJLKBDM bRKU PL WJBL@NM UZBI F BHbKD ZKL IP WJBL@NMX cNIKL BR KRPLGPOH BGPORI PN I@GK UBHIKD H@RWK IZK G@DDJK PN dBMa KGB@J@RS Q@RS BRD JKBC@RS ZKL CP@WKGB@JHa F BG HI@JJ UB@I@RS IP LKWK@CK BRHUKLH IP GM VOKHI@PRH BRD LKVOKHIH NPL WJBL@N@WBI@PRH IZBI F KGB@JKD IP ZKL PR e^\_^_]_\a f^_g^_]_\a \]^_`^_]_\a BRD RPU BSB@R IPDBMX F BJHP ZBCK BDD@I@PRBJ WLOW@BJ VOKHI@PRH IZBI F Kh[KWI IP [PHK IZBI U@JJ iO@JD PR IZK BRHUKLH IZBI FTCK iKKR HKKb@RS H@RWK GM e^\_^_]_\ BRD f^_g^_]_\ KGB@JHX dKBRUZ@JKa IZK jJBRR@RS A@C@H@PR @H HI@JJ ILM@RS IP WLBG DPUR B ZKBL@RS DBIK UZ@JK WPRI@RO@RS IP RPI BRHUKL GM VOKHI@PRHX kZK [LPWKHH @H [BIKRIJM ORNB@LX cRDa lm nopqra Q@RS @H HI@JJ LKNOH@RS IP BRHUKL GM VOKHI@PRH BRD IP NOJN@JJ GM WJBL@N@WBI@PR LKVOKHIHX sPO IPJD GK IZBI F ZBCK B L@SZI IP ZBCK GM VOKHI@PRH BRHUKLKDX YZKR WBR F BWIOBJJM Kh[KWI IZBI IP ZB[[KRt F UPOJD B[[LKW@BIK @I @N MPO UPOJD LKVO@LK IZBI u\v IZK wPR@RS cDG@R@HILBIPL NOJJM BRD LPiOHIJM BRHUKL GM VOKHI@PRH BRD [LPC@DK GM LKVOKHIKD WJBL@N@WBI@PRH LKSBLD@RS IZK wPR@RS xPDK BRD IZK c[[J@WBRITH [LP[PHKD [LPyKWIz BRD u_v IZK jJBRR@RS A@C@H@PR RPI WPRIKG[JBIK B ZKBL@RS DBIK ORI@J F ZBCK NOJJM LKWK@CKD IZK BRHUKLH BRD WJBL@N@WBI@PRH IZBI F ZBCK iKKR LKVOKHI@RS BRD Kh[KWI IP LKVOKHIX sPO BJHP IPJD GK IZBI GM ZBC@RS B GPRIZ IP [LK[BLK GM B[[KBJ HO[[JKGKRI BNIKL FTCK ZBD GM VOKHI@PRH BRHUKLKD @H B LKBHPRBiJK LKVOKHIX Y@JJ MPO [JKBHK [LKCKRI IZK jJBRR@RS A@C@H@PR NLPG HKII@RS B ZKBL@RS DBIK UZ@JK BJJPU@RS Q@RS IP NL@IIKL BUBM IZK WBJKRDBL iM DKJBM@RS NOJN@JJGKRI PN GM VOKHI@PRH BRD WJBL@N@WBI@PR LKVOKHIHt {KSBLDHa |IKCKR |BJHiKLS }\]~}`e~f\g Item 6.A
02/22/22
191 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22












!"!#$%&'!()*&$%&'!()&+,&#-./,0 1/#23422453522565781 9/6:$";<1$( ;#*:$";<-1$( ;#+&$# $,/#;.$-)/"0 =>?@A>BC DE@FGHIJK LMNANFL@OPQNRS TUVWX?@A>BY@RZF[?@A>BKY@RZF\P@FM@]IF>^@KSIA_ `abcXDEJRPB@HCd^MIQNReCfgfhijkklY mVXLMNANFL@OPQNRS[P@OPQNRSP\]PFK^I]_ noXpIEFp@O>O>[pIEFKp@O>O>\P@FM@]IF>^@KSIA_qr@R]NFsJZNRRNt[r@R]NFKsJZNRRNt\P@FM@]IF>^@KSIA_ `uvwaocXxyjfgyzD{gfei@FBh|yzD{gfig@FBfgyzD{gg}}~kL@F€>^NFMNOABK  =>LMNANF ‚ƒANM@OGNBMIp>FS@QIJMHIJR„JNPZIFP@FB
NME>FGMENQNPM
@HMI@BBRNPPHIJR^IF^NRFP>P†IRJPMIE@AN@ ]NNZFS >MEHIJCp>FSCLMN‡E@F>NCs>F@@FB]NPIME@M
N^@F@OOEN@RHIJR„JNPZIFPC]@GNPJRN
NJFBNRPM@FB @FB@RN@QONMI‡RIA>BNHIJ
>ME^ON@R@FP
NRPKˆN
>OOQN>FMIJ^E
>MEHIJN@ROHFN‰M
NNGMIP^ENBJONMEN ]NNZFSK 
?@A>B TUVWXLMNANFL@OPQNRS[P@OPQNRSP\]PFK^I]_ `abcXˆNBFNPB@HCd^MIQNR}Cfgfh}jg|lY mVX?@A>BY@RZF[?@A>BKY@RZF\P@FM@]IF>^@KSIA_ noXpIEFp@O>O>[pIEFKp@O>O>\P@FM@]IF>^@KSIA_qr@R]NFsJZNRRNt[r@R]NFKsJZNRRNt\P@FM@]IF>^@KSIA_ `uvwaocXxNjfgyzD{gfei@FBh|yzD{gfig@FBfgyzD{gg}}~kL@F€>^NFMNOABK  
=NOOIYRKY@RZFj 
DE@FGHIJANRH]J^E†IRP‡N@G>FS
>ME]NIFMEN‡EIFNHNPMNRB@H@FB†IRHIJR@PP>PM@F^N>FME>P ]@ŠNRK  ?JR>FSMEN^@OOC‚N‰‡O@>FNBMIHIJME@M‚E@ANQNNF@ŠN]‡ZFSMIIQM@>F^O@R>‹^@ZIF@FB@FP NRPMI]H „JNPZIFPRNS@RB>FSMENtIF>FS^IBNP>F^Np@FJ@RH@FBME@M]HN]@>OP@FB‡EIFN^@OOPRNS@RB>FSPJ^E RN„JNPMP†IR@FP NRP@FB^O@R>‹^@ZIFPE@ANQNNF‡R>]@R>OH>SFIRNBIANRMEN‡@PM‹AN]IFMEPC@OOMEN E>ONxNS>F@Lt>O@GŒs>F@C
>MEp>FSŽPPJ‡‡IRMCE@PMR>NBMI^R@]BI
FJ‡IF]N@EN@R>FSB@MN
E>ON ON@A>FS]NO@RSNOH>FMENB@RG@PMI]HtIF>FS^IBN„JNPZIFPK‚E@ANMEJPJF†@>ROHPJNRNBMERIJSE ]J^E@F‰>NMH@FB @PMNB@OIMI†Z]NK‚N‰‡O@>FNBMIHIJME@MŒh‚E@B]@BNPI]N‡RISRNPPBJR>FSM I PN‡@R@MN‡EIFN^@OOP>F‡R>O
>MEp>FSqŒfQJMC
ENF‚†IOOI
NBJ‡
>ME@FN]@>OIFi‘hf‘fgfhC@PG>FS @BB>ZIF@O„JNPZIFP@FB†IRPI]N^O@R>‹^@ZIFCPEN†@>ONBMI†IOOI MERIJSE@’NRPENP@>BME@MPEN
IJOB Item 6.A
02/22/22
192 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
 



 


 

 



  






 

 







! "

 




 !
#



 !
 $%&' 
(!



"

 



#






$%'


)


*
+  !!

 
(!







!!



,



!!





-



"

 

#.




 !
  

  






,

. 

/!


*

 


!01

!!
  2
#34

3
! 4
!


5

6
2

+

!!





"

 
"

 

5

6
 
 

 
#

 

+ 

( !!



.%*
7
+ 



$




!

/
"




!! .' /! 






/! 




!
  








!!





+
. 
!!







8



#


"

 


 8



 











-. 
!!

















8


  "

 !

 
#

 

"
 

-



 






 

 !!


!!.9 

 



!
!

 


!




+


*

:
,+ 





:
,

!


.;
 

 








 

 "

 

"

 


#

  < 



 

  !

!











. 

!!






"

 
%

+!





=
>






!

/

 '


0

 


 

%



'

!! !!




 !!?"

 

#

-






 )
+ :
!
+  
!
!


!



+!!

 !!


 !!



 


 !!





:
,




!!

:
,@!

. 
9 






8



 !




!


 
+



8

 



 
 "-

 

0. 
7 "



(




!
!




"

  !


#


"
.7

 
!




(




 !
!



#

"

 
 
  



 "

 

 ?


















+

!! !!

:
,








 

:
,



 !!

:
,@!

.7




+ !


*





#













A %




'! 



# 



. 
9












(


.

@  :
:
 &0&BC0DE Item 6.A
02/22/22
193 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22








  




!"#$%$&$
'(")()*+,'-.
/#$ $#0&$
0&$
 12330
0 330
0 
 45
$6 $

$75
$6 $

$7
  89:2
;$,)(<=
>()?-
*@<=
>()-(
)(<=
>((AAB'+#C
$$D0

E
F$G

!$
0"GH I$J$I
$$KI$L
!& GL
00F5
$$
0$00I
$
0! $KL$$F 

6$M 0FI
M# #$ $#0&$
0&$
 




!"#$%$&$
'(")()*B,-?,-'.
/







  12330
0 330
0 
 45
$6 $

$75
$6 $

$7
  89:2
;$,)(<=
>()?-
*@<=
>()-(
)(<=
>((AAB'+#C
$$D0


N


,

F! I
$O&F$5 0
L$%$F

!& *('(
**P
Q
M
"
I! R
$00 
0&0$
$J$
!"G 0
%$FL
!$

#$ $#0&$
 '*(>'@->?*+A








  




!"#$%$&$
'(")()*A,'A.
/#$ $#0&$
0&$
 12330
0 330
0 
 45
$6 $

$75
$6 $

$7
  89:2
;$,)(<=
>()?-
*@<=
>()-(
)(<=
>((AAB'+#C
$$D0

N$00

#0&$
" GH%%!%$F! 

 !
$
GH I$J$I
$$KI$L
!%0$$0$$ FLL$! H
$I
$$I
00$
0!$KL$$FGH0F
I
L

%$F
L
! 
%$I 00! 

$
!
$



6$M 0FI
M# #$ $#0&$
0&$
 




!"#$%$&$
'(")()*),)@,B-.

Item 6.A
02/22/22
194 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
 


 




 









!"#$%&'($#)*
+,%&'($#*$
#$%&'($$--./01
23
34
  

5




6 
7
389:3
;
33
3:

9

 
4
<3
=3
1>
?
3@
37@:AA
33
9AA3
31
B9B:


73C33

9

3
33


:
D

B 3:3@
E
AA
F3
9

3 
G
3


33D

H 


G

3

:D

B 3:3 A
3 3I:39C3
C
3A
A3

9
3J3

9A
3A
39:AA
33
 
7

3 9:C3:3GE
AA
F3
9F
G73
:3
:
3?3 

K
 3 
7L

3A
3
3M@7L33
3 C3
3E:


NA
3A
39 :AA
33
9AA3
83
7L3
3
3 9>

 3I:3


:3@
G 
:
7L


333A
A
3A
3
A3


E
K

13A
3 =3
3

 


I:3


:3@:

?3
9
37A
3A
39
:AA
33
 
5@33
G9
3I:33C33

9

3 

3@
3K
G@
L:AA
G
3 
 @
:A
33

 3@
3
3
3

3
9
3 
?9>

 3I:3

7 3::

E

9:O3
3 
::
F39
@3 
E
3

;
33A
A
93(
C
:3
E
3(7L

3:A
3
3
A3



A
3A

3:AA
33
9AA3
G73
3 C3 
=3
G 133
1
C3
 /+$(/,*()+0- 
Item 6.A
02/22/22
195 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22




  


 

!
"#$%&' ($"#$%&'$)*$!+,-*. /-! 0121321310 4567 8/ 9-5 :" ;:+<=; )$"!
"*-!;,"+'- (:" ;:+<=;
)$"!
"*-!;,"+'- . >? @AB CD?EFG HDIJK LMN OFAL PNQD RMA LMNA SDMJF QITT MJ UUVUWVXWXU IJY RMA ZDIE [ I\\NPF ZI\ LMNA RMTTMZ?J] NS IJY I\K?J] ^?J] _FM IJYVMA `IO?Y @IAE?J EM IJ\ZFA PL aNF\E?MJ\ IJY SAMSFATL AF\SMJY EM PL AFaNF\E\ RMA QTIA?R?QIE?MJ\B CD?TF ^?J] Y?Y AFSTL EM PL UWVXbVXWXU FPI?Tc \DF MJTL SIAE?ITTL IJY MSIaNFTL IJ\ZFAFY MJTL MJF MR PL aNF\E?MJ\c ZD?QD [ QANQ?ITTL JFFY IJ\ZFAFY dFRMAF [ QIJ PMOF RMAZIAY Z?ED PL IYY?E?MJIT aNF\E?MJ\ IJY ZD?QD Y?Y JME IYY IJLED?J] EM ZDIE [ ITAFIYL KJFZ MA QTIA?RL ZDIE [ I\KFY DFA EM QTIA?RLB `F\S?EF `IO?Y @IAE?J DIO?J] QMPP?EEFY EM PF EDIE EDF e?EL ZMNTY IJ\ZFA ITT MR PL aNF\E?MJ\c ^?J] \?PSTL AFRN\F\ EM IJ\ZFA PL aNF\E?MJ\ f FOFJ aNF\E?MJ\ EDIE PFFE EDF NJAFI\MJIdTL JIAAMZ SAMR?TF MR ELSF\ MR aNF\E?MJ\ EDIE \DF \IL\ \DFg\ Z?TT?J] EM IJ\ZFAB hJ ?E\ MZJc [ ZMNTY JME P?JY ^?J] YFTIL?J] IJ\ZFA?J] PL aNF\E?MJ\ i?R \DF ZMNTY IE TFI\E ISSA?\F PF EDIE \DF ?\ YFTILFYjB >MZFOFAc EDF kTIJJ?J] `?O?\?MJ \?PNTEIJFMN\TL DI\ dFFJ IEEFPSE?J] EM QAIP YMZJ I DFIA?J] YIEFc ZD?QD QMPd?JFY Z?ED ^?J]g\ AFRN\IT EM IJ\ZFA PL aNF\E?MJ\c \Nd\EIJE?ITTL SAFOFJE\ PF RAMP SNEE?J] RMAZIAY PL ISSFITB lREFA IJ FJMAPMN\ IPMNJE MR E?PF ZI\EFY \?JQF EDF P?YYTF MR @ILc FPI?T?J] ^?J] IJY TFIO?J] DFA OM?QFPI?T\c [ IP \E?TT ZI?E?J] EM AFQF?OF IJ\ZFA\ EM PL aNF\E?MJ\ IJY AFaNF\E\ RMA QTIA?R?QIE?MJ\ EDIE [ FPI?TFY EM DFA MJ mVUXVXWXUc nVXoVXWXUc UWVXbVXWXUc IJY JMZ I]I?J MJ UXVpVXWXUc IJY [ IT\M AFIQDFY MNE EM `IO?Y @IAE?J MJ `FQFPdFA p IJY b dL FPI?T IJY SDMJF EM JM IOI?TB [ IT\M DIOF IYY?E?MJIT QANQ?IT aNF\E?MJ\ EDIE [ FqSFQE EM SM\F EDIE Z?TT dN?TY MJ EDF IJ\ZFA\ EDIE [rOF dFFJ \FFK?J] RMA \FOFAIT PMJED\B @FIJZD?TFc EDF kTIJJ?J] `?O?\?MJ ?\ \E?TT EAL?J] EM QAIP YMZJ I DFIA?J] YIEF ZD?TF QMJE?JN?J] EM JME IJ\ZFA PL aNF\E?MJ\B [rOF AFIQDFY MNE EM ^?J] IJY MEDFA\ Z?ED \FOFAIT YMsFJ FPI?T\ IJY SDMJF QITT\ ITPM\E ITZIL\ Z?EDMNE AFQF?O?J] I AF\SMJ\Fc IEEFPSE?J] EM ]FE PL aNF\E?MJ\ IJ\ZFAFYc IJY EDN\ NJAFI\MJIdTL QM\E?J] PF FJMAPMN\ IPMNJE\ MR E?PFB tMA ITT MR EDF\F AFI\MJ\ IJY PNQD PMAFc EDF SAMQF\\ ?\ SIEFJETL NJRI?AB [ ZMNTY ISSAFQ?IEF ?E ?R LMN ZMNTY AFaN?AF EDIE iUj EDF uMJ?J] lYP?J?\EAIEMA RNTTL IJY AMdN\ETL IJ\ZFA PL aNF\E?MJ\ IJY SAMO?YF PL AFaNF\EFY QTIA?R?QIE?MJ\ AF]IAY?J] EDF uMJ?J] eMYF IJY EDF lSST?QIJEr\ SAMSM\FY SAMvFQEw IJY iXj EDF kTIJJ?J] `?O?\?MJ JME QMJEFPSTIEF I DFIA?J] YIEF NJE?T [ DIOF RNTTL AFQF?OFY EDF IJ\ZFA\ IJY QTIA?R?QIE?MJ\ EDIE [ DIOF dFFJ AFaNF\E?J] IJY FqSFQE EM AFaNF\EB [ Z?TT RMTTMZ NS ED?\ FPI?T Z?ED I QITT EM LMNB xF]IAY\c yEFOFJ yIT\dFA] zUW{zbm{nUpo Item 6.A
02/22/22
196 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
 

 





 

! "#$% &'()(*&+,-.(/01-+,-.(/0-23-*45637 86*9:;:9<99=9>=9?8 @6>A+)BCDEB'(1C+)BC4FEB'(2-+*'+36*B5+406)7 GHIJKLMHNOP QRISRTUVQGSSTTSWXSY QMZ[\]^_`OJ]a_bMc^J]^_JZddHdNZ[bOZ[eZNNO[NH^[N^NMHdaZNNOJK fZ`HeIZJNH[b^[NZbNOeaO^[LOe[OdeZ]gZdNhOO\iM^_JdZcNOJRgZdNb^[NZbNOe]^_ij_Nd^cZJ[^NMH[k MZdbMZ[kOeZ[eRMOZJeNMZNfZ`HeIZJNH[O`O[Z[[^_[bOeZkZH[ZcNOJMOZ[eRdl^\OgZdNLOe[OdeZ] NMZNNMO]hOJOk^H[kZMOZehHNMNMOMOZJH[k^[mnmmnmommKRN^geMHaNMZNRdNHggMZ`O[^NJObOH`Oe Z[dhOJdN^NMOp_OdNH^[dNMZNRq`OjOO[dOO\H[kZ[dhOJdN^c^JNMOlZdNOHkMNa^[NMdZ[eNMZNHNHd[^NcZHJ ^JJOZgHdNHbrO`O[hOJORN^MZ`OJObOH`Oed_bMZ[dhOJdgZdNhOO\rc^JNMOsgZ[[H[kfOlZJNaO[NN^ lJ^bOOehHNMNMOZllOZgMOZJH[k^[mnmmnmommKQMOsgZ[[H[kfOlZJNaO[NbgOZJg]dZ[ejZkkOeaOKQMZNHd ^_NJZkO^_dZ[ebgOZJg]Z[_[cZHJlJ^bOddK t[eRdNHggMZ`Oc^gg^h_lp_OdNH^[dRqgg[OOeN^Zd\Kt[eNMO[ZcNOJJObOH`H[kZ[dhOJdN^NMOc^gg^h_l p_OdNH^[diRqgg[OOeN^eJZcNa]d_llgOaO[NN^a]ZllOZgd_ccHbHO[Ng]H[Ze`Z[bOc^JTNZccN^H[bg_eOa] d_llgOaO[NH[NMOHJTNZccuOl^JNK QMOsgZ[[H[kfOlZJNaO[NZgd^cZHgOeN^[^NHc]aOH[ZNHaOg]aZ[[OJNMZNd_bMMOZJH[keZNOMZejOO[dONK G^hO`OJiHNHdO`HeO[NNMZNNMOsgZ[[H[kfOlZJNaO[N[^NHcHOeNMOtllgHbZ[NhOO\djOc^JONMOXHN]N^geaO NMZNd_bMeZNOMZejOO[dONiZ[eRhZd^[g][^NHcHOeH[JOdl^[dON^a]JOZbMH[k^_NN^]^_KQMOJOZJO dOJH^_dcZHJ[OddZ[ee_OlJ^bOddb^[bOJ[dMOJOK sgOZdOH[NOJ`O[OKt[eilgOZdONOggaON^hMZNOvNO[NRbZ[JOg]^[]^_JH[NOJ`O[NH^[KRNHdZjd^g_NOg][^N JOZgHdNHbc^JNMOMOZJH[kN^NZ\OlgZbO^[mnmmnmommZ[eRdNHggMZ`O[^NJObOH`OeNMOZ[dhOJdN^a] p_OdNH^[dK RZaZgd^[^hdOJH^_dg]b^[dHeOJH[kc^JaZgg]cHgH[kZb^algZH[NZkZH[dNwH[kxO^Z[eZgd^fZ`HeIZJNH[ hHNMNMOXHN]qdG_aZ[uOd^_JbOdeOlZJNaO[NKRZa[^hH[b^[NZbNhHNMy^JHzO[NgOdK sgOZdOMOglaOK QRISRTUVQGSSTTSWXSY QMZ[\]^_c^J]^_JZNNO[NH^[N^NMHdaZNNOJKRhHggc^gg^h_lNMHdOaZHghHNMZbZggN^]^_K uOkZJedi TNO`O[TZgdjOJk {|o}{~}€|‚ Item 6.A
02/22/22
197 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22




 

 






! "
# #$##%&$'() *

+
,-+ 



+



+
,-+ 



+

 ./01
!,&23)435!264447849&#$472:$#;%

<'472:$#%$

#$472:$$==>?@

A+
 B

 
CDEFGHIDJKL MNEONPQRMCOOPPOSTOU MIVWXYZ[\KFY][^I_ZFYZ[FV``D`JVW^KVWaVJJKWJDZWJZJID`]VJJKFG bDWcdKZ^ZWJDW[K`JZFK_[`KJZVW`eKF]Yf[K`JDZW`GPIKK]VDgKa]KZWM[K`aVYhijihkhhGCZeK\KFl IKFmVW`eKF`lneID^I`IKZWgYoVFJDVggYoFZ\DaKaJZV^Z[ogKZ_]Yf[K`JDZW`leKFK\Vc[KlZoVf[Kl DW^Z]ogKJKlVWaVg`ZVp`Zg[JKgYWZJZWoZDWJGqVFJD^[gVFgYZ[JFVcKZ[`D`JIK_V^JJIVJ`IK^IVFV^JKFDrKaIKF \Vc[KVWaDWVooZ`DJKFK`oZW`K`JZVgD]DJKaoZFJDZWZ_]Yf[K`JDZW`V`IV\DWcmJIZFZ[cIgYVW`eKFKan]Y f[K`JDZW`G sWal`IK[`Ka`[^IWZW`KW`D^Vg^IVFV^JKFDrVJDZWV`t[`JD_D^VJDZW_ZFm]Z\uDWcv_ZFeVFaeDJIVTDJY TZ[W^DgIKVFDWcZWRKpF[VFYhhlhkhhGnwWgK``VWa[WJDg]Yf[K`JDZW`uVWaJIK_ZggZe[of[K`JDZW`JIVJ NeDggWKKaJZV`XvIV\KpKKW_[ggYl^gKVFgYl`oK^D_D^VggYlVWa[WKf[D\Z^VggYVW`eKFKaV`NIV\KpKKW FKoKVJKagYV`XDWc_ZF`DW^K]ZFKJIVW`DxVWaKDcIJ]ZWJI`VcZyDJeZ[gapK[W_VDFJZK\KW`^IKa[gKV IKVFDWcGsWalNzgg`JDggWKKaVaaDJDZWVgJD]KV_JKF]Yf[K`JDZW`IV\KpKKWFK`Zg\KaJZoFKoVFK]Y `[oogK]KWJJZ]YVooKVglpV`KaZWJIKVW`eKF`JIVJNcKJG Q\KFJIKoV`JKDcIJ]ZWJI`lJIKqgVWWDWc{KoVFJ]KWJIV`Z[JFVcKZ[`gYVWa[W_VDFgYVJJK]oJKaJZ^FV] aZeWVIKVFDWcaVJKeIDgK`D][gJVWKZ[`gYbDWcIV`pKKWV\ZDaDWcVW`eKFDWc]Yf[K`JDZW`GqVFJD^[gVFgY Z[JFVcKZ[`gY[W_VDFlWZeJIVJJIKqgVWWDWc{KoVFJ]KWJV^J[VggYaDa^FV]aZeWVIKVFDWcaVJK[oZW]K eDJIZ[J]Yf[K`JDZW`IV\DWcpKKWVW`eKFKalJIKY_VDgKaJZJKgg]KJIVJVIKVFDWcaVJKIVapKKW`KJ[WJDg KgK\KWaVY`V_JKFNpKcVW]VXDWcDWf[DFDK`pK^V[`KNIVaIKVFaF[]ZF`VpZ[JVaVJKIV\DWcpKKW`KJG sWaloFZpVpgYJIKYIVa`KJ`[^IaVJKVWaWZJD_DKaJIKsoogD^VWJK\KWpK_ZFKN]VaK]YDWf[DFDK`G qgKV`KDWJKF\KWKVWaFKf[DFKJIVJJIKIKVFDWcaVJKpKoZ`JoZWKaVWaogKV`KFKf[DFKJIVJujvJIK|ZWDWc sa]DWD`JFVJZFoFZoKFgYVW`eKFl^ZW_DF]lVWa^gVFD_Y]Yf[K`JDZW`VWaFKf[K`J`_ZF^ZW_DF]VJDZW`VWa ^gVFD_D^VJDZW`FKcVFaDWcJIK|ZWDWcTZaKVWaJIKsoogD^VWJz`oFZoZ`KaoFZtK^J}VWauhvFKf[DFKJIVJJIK qgVWWDWc{D\D`DZWWZJ^ZWJK]ogVJKVIKVFDWcaVJK[WJDgNIV\K_[ggYFK^KD\KaJIKVW`eKF`VWa ^gVFD_D^VJDZW`JIVJNIV\KpKKWFKf[K`JDWcVWaKxoK^JJZFKf[K`JG MNEONPQRMCOOPPOSTOU MIVWXYZ[_ZFYZ[FVJJKWJDZWJZJID`]VJJKFGNeDgg_ZggZe[oJID`K]VDgeDJIV^VggJZYZ[G ~KcVFa`l PJK\KWPVg`pKFc jk€‚€ƒj„ 




  
)

†

"
?< #$##<$&><() *

+
,-+ 



+



+
,-+ 



+

 ./01
23)435!264447849&#$472:$#;%

<'472:$#%$

#$472:$$==>?@

A+
 B

Item 6.A
02/22/22
198 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22



 






 

 





 
 !
"
#
 

"
 

!

$ %!
  &!'


 
  
( )
#
 !*
!
* 
! 
 !
+
*!  
!

 !
 *


! 

!  


   
 & 

  



 "
 

!

* 
 
# 


"
 

!&!
#
)!  
!

 , *
 
!  

"
 

!!!
#

 
! 

#

"
"
  - .
& 
$ %!
  &


*
 /0
'0'1'
&!!
#

*  
 

  
!&! 
 
- !
  
*#
&! # )! (




!
#

"
 

! +

 


#

!*


 - !)! ! 
 
( )  
"
 
#

"
!! "
  


! - ! 
!
  
*
  
##

 
##
%!&




*


#

!
 

#
#
*

 
*


! *
 ##

 
##
& !
#
!
 # 

"
 *
 

! %!&

*


 


#
#




#  
 !
!*
  
"
 
*



!&! 


#  "
  
 

! & 

2#
 *!# 

 

   
- 


2!
 
   

&


!
  
 !
*


!
!

+
* )
#

 

! )! 
 
! - !#
 3 
& *



1! & * 
! 


 !
&
  
 *


!


 !
*



#
*

 
  

#
 
 & 
( )
#
  *

  
!
 !
#
  

"
  4& 




! +
*
 !
 *


& 

!*
!
* 
 !!
 

"
 & 



 
!
 
 !
! *


3#
!
#

 !#** 
5 


 
 
! 
%## !

 !


 !
*


&!#




 !


!6
!!   

##
#
 


!*


2#

 & !*
#  
7  


 !
  

 !#




 


$ %!
  ##

&
&!
"
 !
"
 
 ! 
! 
$ 7!
! 
%## ##
!#8
 9!'



 
( ) 

#

 !
 




! 

!  

*


"
  !
2#
  
"
 6 Item 6.A
02/22/22
199 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22






 

 
 


  




  !"#$"% &'
Item 6.A
02/22/22
200 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
 


 





 
!"#$% &'()(*&+,-.(/01-+,-.(/0-23-*45637 89(:;<;:=::>?=@AB 86?C+)DEFGD'(1C+)DE4FGD'(2-+*'+36*D5+406)7 HIJKHJLMNO PQJRSTUVLIKTWVXQYZ[\\KIJXQUV]]U^_Y`JR]MJaUY bIaJKN_c `]ILIR`J\_dIKa efgheijhkflm nopqrstuvwxyvz{|stuvw}xyvz{~t€zt‚€vƒt}„‚u
 †‡ˆ‰rŠ‹{wtŒŽ{‹tŒ‘’“’’”•–—˜™ šprt›{„~€}ƒ‚|t›{„~€}ƒ‚ 
œrstuvw™tž€|stuvw}™tž€~t€zt‚€vƒt}„‚u
Ÿ t€wt t€žt„‚| t€wt} t€žt„‚~t€zt‚€vƒt}„‚u
 †¡¢£‡‰rŠ¤™¥¤ ¦ŽŠ§¥¥  ¥¨©¥ª•’“¥¨Š«“’¬–t€w­—¥¨Š«“’–“t€w’“¥¨Š«““®®¯”‘ t€°vƒ{€z{±›uw}  s{t z{u{€¤ytu{{ƒ{vu{wŒ‚‹u‚vƒ{tv›t€wŒ‚‹{tv›}±Œ{€wv€„zyv{tv›¤tt²v€„ t€wt t€žt„‚ ³‚zy{©vzŒ™t€t„{´¦µƒ{z‚ƒy{w‹›{t”“v€‹z{{{ž€„¶vzyŒ‚‹{t€wstuvw™tž€}¤t··{ƒvtz{Œ‚‹ ¶‚²v€„¶vzy t€wt}Šyt€²Œ‚‹}  
¸¹º»¼½¾»¿À ÁM]T^JRJaIK _JR]JWURMXJYaUL ÂJXIdUUSÃPÄM]]IKÃZR_]JaKJW ÅÆÇÈÉÊ»ÇÀ¿ËÌ»¿ÍËÎŹϿ¹ÐËϻɹÑÒ¹»ÓÔÕ¼¹¿ÀÈ  Item 6.A
02/22/22
201 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
 

 





 

! "#$% &'()(*&+,-.(/01-+,-.(/0-23-*45637 8/9:;<=;:>::<<?@<AB C6?D+)9EFG9'(1E+)9E4HG9'(2-+*'+36*95+406)7 IJKLMN OJPKQRSMLTJUUVLWXQMLWSVYJWMPSQZUQRLQW[Q\LX]SVY^O_QQ``LaQO\JTMQ[QLKQMXVPSMQXRLPQWX JWMX]JXPSXLPQ\JT\JTXQM^bKQRX]QUJTX_Q\PVWX]TcO[VWXJ[XQMSVYXVJTaSVYXVLWXQRKQWQJWM [VPUQ`X]Qd`JWWLWeIQUJRXPQWXJWMLXTfVWLWegMPLWLTXRJXVRXV_LWJ``SJWT\QRPShVWLWe[VMQ iYQTXLVWTcJWMXVWVX[RJPMV\WJ]QJRLWeMJXQYUVWPQYWXL`PSiYQTXLVWT]JMjQQWJWT\QRQM^kJ[] XLPQlLWemQVRQTUVWMQM\LX]TVPQTYjTXJW[QTVPQV_X]QXLPQcjYX[VWXLWYQMXVMJW[QJRVYWMPS iYQTXLVWTc\]L`QX]QnLXS[VWXLWYQMXVJXXQPUXXV[RJPMV\WJ]QJRLWeMJXQ\LX]VYXJWT\QRLWePS iYQTXLVWT^ o`XLPJXQ`ScSVYjQ[JPQJUJRXV_PSJ[XYJ``SjQLWePLT`QM^o`XLPJXQ`ScX]QnLXSMLM[RJPMV\WJ]QJRLWe MJXQYUVWPQc\LX]SVYRLPURLPJXYR^gWMSVY[VWXRLjYXQMXVX]QnLXS[VPU`QXQ`STJWMjJeeLWePQ^ bWpQjRYJRSqJWMrcORQJ[]QMVYXXVSVYJeJLWJ_XQRO_LWJ``S`QJRWQM_RVPX]QnLXSX]JXX]Qqsqqsqtqq MJXQ]JMjQQWTQXcJTaLWeSVYXV uvUw`QJTQLWXQRKQWQJWMRQiYLRQX]JXX]Q]QJRLWeMJXQjQUVTXUVWQMJWMU`QJTQRQiYLRQX]JXxyzX]Q fVWLWegMPLWLTXRJXVRURVUQR`SJWT\QRc[VW_LRPcJWM[`JRL_SPSiYQTXLVWTJWMRQiYQTXT_VR [VW_LRPJXLVWTJWM[`JRL_L[JXLVWTRQeJRMLWeX]QfVWLWenVMQJWMX]QgUU`L[JWX{TURVUVTQMURV|Q[X} JWMxqzRQiYLRQX]JXX]Qd`JWWLWeILKLTLVWWVX[VWXQPU`JXQJ]QJRLWeMJXQYWXL`O]JKQ_Y``S RQ[QLKQMX]QJWT\QRTJWM[`JRL_L[JXLVWTX]JXO]JKQjQQWRQiYQTXLWeJWMQZUQ[XXVRQiYQTX^~ mVYRQTUVWMQMVWpQjRYJRScLWKLXLWePQXVJPQQXLWe\LX]SVYJWMIJKLM€JRXLW^o`XLPJXQ`ScLWTXQJM V_UVTXUVWLWeX]Q]QJRLWec\]L[]JjTV`YXQ`SSVY\VY`M]JKQMVWQL_SVY\QRQXRQJXLWePQ\LX]_JLRWQTTc SVYRQUQJXQMX]Qd`JWWLWeIQUJRXPQWX{TTUQ[LVYTJReYPQWXX]JXX]QnLXSPYTXeV_VRX]\LX]X]Q]QJRLWe jQ[JYTQTVPY[]XLPQ]JMeVWQjSTLW[QO]JM_L`QMPSJUUQJ`^Y[]JReYPQWXLTTUQ[LVYTjQ[JYTQO ]JKQjQQWML`LeQWX`SJXXQPUXLWeXVVjXJLWJWT\QRTXVPSiYQTXLVWT_VRPVRQX]JWX]QUJTXy‚PVWX]T^ƒ]Q nLXS[JYTQMX]QMQ`JS„WVXPQ„SQXOJPjQLWeMLTJMKJWXJeQMJWMXRQJXQMYW_JLR`S^ OXJUUQJRTX]JXSVYJ`TVMQ[QLKQMPQJWMTJWMjJeeQMPQ^g``J`VWeOX]VYe]XSVY]JMjQQW]Q`ULWePQ jSSVYRRQJ[]LWeVYXXVX]Qd`JWWLWeIQUJRXPQWX^OX]VYe]XX]JXSQTXQRMJS{TPQQXLWe\JTXV_LWJ``S RQTV`KQX]Q_J[XX]JXX]QS\QRQWVXRQJ``SjQLWeURVUQR`SRQTUVWTLKQXVSVYRQ__VRXTXVeQXX]QPXVJWT\QR PSiYQTXLVWT^OWTXQJMcX]QTQUJTX_Q\PVWX]TJWMSQTXQRMJS{TPQQXLWeTQRKQMXVTQXPQYUXVjQ [VPU`QXQ`STJWMjJeeQMjSX]QURV[QTT„[RJPPLWeMV\WJ]QJRLWeMJXQ„JWMOTXL``MVWVX]JKQPS iYQTXLVWTJWT\QRQM^ mVYT[]QMY`QMX]QPQQXLWe_VRSQTXQRMJScVW`SX\VjYTLWQTTMJSTjQ_VRQX]Q]QJRLWeMJXQc`QJKLWePQ J`PVTXWVXLPQXVQKQWURVKLMQ[VPPQWXTLWJMKJW[QV_X]QXJ__ QUVRXcJWMURQUJRQLWVX]QR\JST_VR X]Q]QJRLWe^OX]JMXVjQVjKLVYTX]JXPSUYRUVTQLWXJaLWeX]QPQQXLWe\JT_VRX]QnLXSXVUVTXUVWQX]Q ]QJRLWeJWM_VRPQXVeQXPSiYQTXLVWTJWT\QRQM^OWTXQJMcSVYYTQMX]QPQQXLWeXVJTaPQJjVYXX]Q URVUVTQMURV|Q[X^OeJKQSVYJWMIJKLM€JRXLWJ[VPUQ``LWe`QeJ`RQJTVW\]SX]QXJ__ QUVRXT]VY`M RQ[VPPQWMJeJLWTXX]QURVUVTQMURV|Q[X„X]JXX]QPY`XL†UYRUVTQRVVP\L``jQYTQM_VR[`JTTRVVP J[XLKLXLQTc\]QRQjSJMMLXLVWJ`UJRaLWeLTRQiYLRQMYWMQRX]QfVWLWenVMQ^ O_X]Qd`JWWLWeIQUJRXPQWX\QRQXVJ[XLWJ_JLRcVj|Q[XLKQcJWM]VWQTXPJWWQRcLX\VY`MRQ[VPPQWM JeJLWTXX]QURV|Q[X_VRX]JXJWMVX]QRRQJTVWT^‡YXLWTXQJMcOTYTUQ[XX]JXX]JXPQQXLWe\JTYTQMXVQZU`VRQ Item 6.A 02/22/22
202 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22













 



 











 





















 
!











!




 

 




 

 







 

 

!






 

"

 #



 $






 


 %&'(%)*(+&,-
./012345657389:;5<=>:89:;5<=:?@:7ABC@D
EFGH2IJ5:K8LMN5;<J8<LOMPQPPRSQTUV W02X86YKZ[Y45>X86YKAZ[Y45?:8748@C7YB8A=C6D E\]^F_H2`5SIaVba3cNIdbb33befbgSPQbeIhQPTi87KjkbeIhQPiQ87KPQbeIhQQllRmO387nYB5745o96KA  pp
q r
 


st


u




 


 %&'(%)*(+&,-
./012X86YKZ[Y45>X86YKAZ[Y45?:8748@C7YB8A=C6D EFGH2IJ5:K8LMN5;<J8<LOMPQPPmSikUV W02:89:;5<=:?@:7ABC@>:89:;5<=:?@:7ABC@D v_2X86YKV8<w7>X86YKAV8<w7?:8748@C7YB8A=C6Dx387K<8387w8=C>387K<8A387w8=C?:8748@C7YB8A=C6D E\]^F_H2IaVba3cNIdbb33befbgSPQbeIhQPTi87KjkbeIhQPiQ87KPQbeIhQQllRmO387nYB5745o96KA  X58<345657Ma[865<5B5Y65KLCJ<6CYB5@8Y9:87KLCJ<5@8Y9:AoL:57KY7=4[Y:5@8Y9Ma8@8:yY7=387K<8387w8=C z<C@4[5fY4LV878=5<{:c|B54C:B[5KJ958mQ@Y7J45@55w7=}Y4[LCJM@5M87KX86YKV8<w7Aa8~~<5BY845LCJ }C<yY7=}Y4[387K<8AI[87yLCJA  
Item 6.A
02/22/22
203 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22


 

 





!
 "#$%&'$
 () *(+", -(,&./012
% 
Item 6.A
02/22/22
204 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
205 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
206 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
207 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
208 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
209 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
210 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
211 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
212 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
213 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
214 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
215 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
216 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
217 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
218 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
219 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
220 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
221 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
222 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
223 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
224 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
225 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
226 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
227 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
228 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
229 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
230 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
231 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
232 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
233 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
234 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
235 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
236 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
237 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
238 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
239 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
240 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
241 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
242 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
243 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
244 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
245 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
246 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
247 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
248 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
249 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
250 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
251 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
252 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
253 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
254 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
255 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
256 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
257 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
258 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
259 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
260 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
261 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
262 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
263 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
264 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
265 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
266 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
267 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
268 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22
Item 6.A
02/22/22
269 of 269 Item 6.A
02/22/22