SR 01-23-2018 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 23, 2018
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 38
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional
Use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0147, and Fence/Wall Modification
17ENT-0148 permitting the establishment of a Child Care and Early
Education Facility for up to 20 children at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s approval by taking the following actions:
1. Approve Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075
2. Approve Variance 17ENT-0147
3. Approve Fence Modification 17ENT-0148
4. Adopt the Statement of Official Action, pursuant to the draft findings and conditions.
Executive Summary
On May 18, 2017, the applicant, Laila Taslimi, filed a Conditional Use Permit (17ENT-
0075), Variance (17ENT-0147), and Fence Modification (17ENT-0148) for a change of
use of a 1,478 square-foot, single-unit dwelling located at 2953 Delaware Avenue (R1
Single-Unit Residential zoning district) to a Child Care and Early Education Facility. On
September 6, 2017, the Planning Commission approved these applications. There
would be no additional floor area. The facility would serve up to 20 children with four
classrooms and outdoor play areas in the front yard (765 square feet) and the rear yard
(1,833 square feet, including decks). The CUP allows year-round operation with a
regular program between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., with possible early drop -
off from 7:30 a.m. and late pick-up by 6:00 p.m. In addition to the Director, the applicant
anticipates employing up to five staff. The project includes three on-site parking spaces,
a loading space, an on-street short-term parking space and two short-term bike parking
spaces. The approval included three variances to allow:
1) Parking that is not located in a garage as required by SMMC Section 9.28.070.A.1.a.
2 of 38
2) Parking in the front yard setback as prohibited by SMMC Section 9.28.070.A.1.
3) One on-site passenger loading space instead of the two passenger loading spaces
as required by SMMC Section 9.28.080.E.4.
In addition, the Planning Commission approved a Fence Modification to allow a front
yard fence of more than four feet in height. The Planning Commission approved the
fence to a maximum of five feet with specific design requirements for transparency and
landscaping, subject to staff approval prior to building permit issuance. The fence runs
along the front yard property line for 29 feet, after which it turns in 18 feet and continues
behind the proposed car and bike parking spaces.
Appeal
On September 20, 2017, Nada Shamonki filed an appeal (17ENT -0186) of the Planning
Commission’s decision to approve the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modification
applications. The appeal form states that Ms. Shamonki represents “Residents for the
Preservation of Gandara Park Neighborhood,” and requests that City Council overturn
the Planning Commission’s decision based upon the strong opposition by the entire
neighborhood; new traffic generated by the childcare facility; that the proposed childcare
facility violates the LUCE; that the area is already well-served by preschools; and that
the childcare facility does not meet mandatory CUP findings.
The appellant expressed objection to the manner of the hearing and strongly disagrees
with the Planning Commission’s exercise of its discretionary authority in the matter to
approve the application despite a large contingency of neighbors who testified or
submitted written testimony opposing it. The full appeal narrative is provided in
Attachment C.
A public hearing before the Council was scheduled to be held on December 5, 2017,
and noticing was provided as required by the Zoning Code. At the December 5, 2017
Council meeting, prior to opening the public hearing, the Council continued the item to
January 23, 2018. This is a de novo hearing and the Council may consider all aspects
of the application as well as matters raised in the appeal. This report includes project
3 of 38
description and analysis, the Planning Commission’s action, and the points of appeal
together with staff responses. This report concludes with a recommendation from staff
to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision on the CUP, Variance, and Fence
Modification, based upon the findings and subject to the c onditions in the Draft
Statement of Official Action provided in Attachment B.
Background
Existing Conditions and Setting
The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Additional
information regarding the project’s compliance with applicable municipal regulations and
the General Plan is available in Attachment A.
Site Location Map & Aerial View (park added, not to scale)
Zoning District: R1 (Single-Unit Residential)
Land Use Element Designation: Single Family Housing
Parcel Dimensions (Area): 50’ x 130’ (6,500 square feet)
Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built): Single-family home (1940)
Rent Control Status: N/A
Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: North: R2 (Multiple-Unit Dwelling)
East: R1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) South:
R1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) West: R1
(Single-Unit Dwelling)
Historic Resource Inventory Not listed on HRI.
Zoning Code SMMC 9.08.020: CUP required for a
4 of 38
Child Care and Early Education
Facility in the R1 zoning district.
The subject property, on the north side of Delaware Avenue between Dorchester
Avenue and Yorkshire Avenue, contains a 1,478 square foot home built in 1940, and
expanded with a 375 square foot rear addition in 1951. A 366 square foot, two -car
garage is accessed from the rear alley. All properties on this block of Delaware Avenue
are developed with single-family residential uses, most of which are one-story
structures. The adjacent block to the north, which is zoned R2 (Low-Density
Residential), contains two-story apartment buildings, and shares a rear alley with the
subject property. Ishihara Park on Exposition Boulevard is across the street from that
block.
Project Description
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the establishment of a
Child Care and Early Education Facility for up to 20 children, ages 4-6. The facility’s
regular program hours are proposed to be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Mondays
through Fridays. The facility would have four classrooms and outdoor play space in the
front and back yards totaling 2,598 square feet, exceeding the State minimum standard
of 75 sq. ft. per child (1,500 sq. ft. total). The applicant plans to allow early drop-off from
7:30 a.m. for parents who need to maintain their work schedules, and those childre n
must remain indoors until 8:00 a.m. (see Condition #4). Late pick-up until 6:00 p.m. may
be offered. In addition to the Director (applicant), the facility would employ three or four
childcare staff initially, who would be scheduled to ensure that staff -child ratios comply
with or exceed State requirements. With full enrollment, an additional teacher is
anticipated, for a total of six staff including the applicant.
The existing garage would be demolished and replaced with two surface parking spaces
and one passenger loading space, including spaces that comply with ADA
requirements. In lieu of one of the two required loading spaces, the applicant requests
to use one on-street parking space in front of the property for short-term (15-minute)
parking during the facility’s operational hours. Mobility and Transportation Engineering
5 of 38
staff indicated that this on-street, short-term parking request is feasible, but they can
only consider a request if Council approves this application. Parking restrictions on the
street allow two-hour parking during the day except by permit. There are also street-
cleaning restrictions. Parking would be allowed in the same manner in this proposed
short-term space outside of the use’s authorized hours.
Requested Variances
Variances from three Code requirements are requested as part of this proposal. SMMC
9.28.070 requires that all parking in the R1 District must be located in an enclosed
garage, which is appropriate for single-unit dwellings but is not practical for the
functioning of a childcare use. SMMC 9.28.070 also precludes using the existing front
driveway for a required parking space, as this application proposes in order to provide
the three required parking spaces on-site. These requirements are the subjects of two
of the variances being requested.
The third requested variance addresses a technical conflict between the Zoning and
Building Codes. Although SMMC Section 9.31.120(D) anticipates allowing the Director
to approve a passenger loading space on the street in front of the property, the Building
Code would require extensive modifications to the sidewalk to provide full ramping for
ADA access for that loading space, which would necessitate the removal of a mature
street tree and impact the character of the street. To avoid this, in consultation with
Mobility staff, the applicant requests to provide a short-term parking space instead of
the on-street passenger loading space that the Director is allowed to approve, also on
the street in front of the property. In this way, the variance facilitates a way to meet the
intent of the requirement while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood.
In addition to City permits, childcare facilities are closely controlled by the California
State Department of Social Services, which imposes its own requirements and limits the
number of children based on spatial or other considerations. The project will be
required to meet all State licensing requirements.
6 of 38
Planning Commission Action
On September 6, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
application. Following staff’s presentation, the applicant provided testimony and 27
members of the public addressed the Commission, of which 21 were neighborhood
residents speaking in opposition. Project opponents cited:
Complaints about traffic, which has greatly increased over the last year since the
introduction of the Expo Line with at-grade crossing at Stewart Street. Many
expressed fear that additional trips generated by the use at morning and evening
peak hours would block the alley or increase the time it will take them to leave
the street in the mornings;
Objection to using a residential home for a non-residential business;
Concern that the applicant’s proposal to bring children to Ishihara Park would
displace residents’ access;
Concern that a front yard fence, requiring a modification, is incompatible with the
neighborhood character on a street that is largely without fences; and
Worry that the facility will lead to neighborhood deterioration and redu ced
property values.
Members of the public who supported the project cited:
The need for more accessible, high-quality preschool programs to serve families
in the Santa Monica community;
Support for the economic diversity aspect of the project;
Personal connection with and respect for the applicant’s character and vision;
and
Personal testimony that living near a school is typical for the city’s neighborhoods
and is not detrimental for neighbors (speaker living near elementary school).
The Planning Commission discussed the project’s merits, neighborhood concerns, draft
findings and conditions. By a vote of 6-1, the Commission approved the Conditional
Use Permit for the childcare facility use. Also by a vote of 6 -1, the Commission
approved a front-yard fence modification up to five feet (one foot less than requested),
7 of 38
with conditions requiring that the fence step back from the property edge and have
increased transparency and greenery. By unanimous vote, all three variances were
approved. The Commission revised the conditions of approval to direct the applicant to
explore the feasibility of revising the site plan to add another parking space at the rear,
to require encouragement and assistance to employees to bike to work, and to conduct
recruitment outreach to try to find qualified staff living locally within the City and
particularly in the 90404 zip code. The applicant has accepted the Commission’s
conditions of approval. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant
explored the feasibility of revising the site plan to add another parking space at the rear
but found that this option was not feasible.
Additionally, the applicant voluntarily agreed to offer tuition assistance to low and
moderate income families within the 90404 zip code to ensure that 1/3 of the children at
the facility live within a ¼-mile radius. The applicant also voluntarily agreed to consult
with Connections for Children and other members of the Early Childhood Wellbeing
program to serve children most in need of services.
Entitlement Summary
The following summarizes the purposes for the requested entitlements in this
application (statutory findings for all permits are included in Attachment B):
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Pursuant to the findings contained in SMMC Section
9.41.060, a CUP may be approved to allow a use that is generally consistent with the
purposes of the Zoning District where it is proposed but requires special consideration
to ensure that it can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will not
interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties
Variance: Pursuant to the findings contained in SMMC Section 9.42.040, variances
provide a mechanism for relief from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance where
the Ordinance would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by similar
properties because of the subject property’s unique and special conditions.
8 of 38
Fence Modification: Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.31.120.A, the Code allows childcare
facilities to have front yard fences up to four feet in height by right, in order to comply
with State regulations for enclosing play yards. Additional height requires a formal
modification request, pursuant to the findings contained in SMMC Section 9.43.080 .
The applicant requested up to a six-foot fence, designed with stepback and
landscaping. The Planning Commission approved a modification to allow a semi -
transparent front yard fence with a maximum height of five feet, stepping back from the
front retaining wall to provide sufficient greenery.
Site Plan with Landscaping
Discussion
The following analysis of the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan goals
and policies and compliance with the Zoning Code is followed by analysis of the appeal.
Childcare Uses: City Policies to Reflect a Priority Community Need
The City Council has acknowledged and addressed a community need to provide more
high quality childcare in Santa Monica through prioritizing supportive policies in the
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE, Goal CE9) and the Child Care
Master Plan. The goal reflects the community’s recognition that education begins prior
to kindergarten. In fact, one of Council’s five strategic goals adopted in August 2015,
9 of 38
Learn + Thrive, aligns with the decades of collaboration between the City, School
District, College, non-profits, and residents to foster a lifelong learning community that
thrives.
The Council has also established a Child Care & Early Education Task Force that meets
regularly to actively support quality programs and access for all economic groups.
Childcare is the first “step” in Santa Monica’s Cradle to Career initiative to support
healthy development and well-being for the City’s youngest residents. According to
Connections for Children (CFC), a regional childcare resource and referral agency that
receives funding through the City’s Human Services Grants Program to improve access
to quality early care, there are always low and moderate -income families seeking
subsidized childcare on their waitlist. Typically, about 60% of these families are in the
90404 area code. The number changes constantly, but at recent points in time, there
have been between 50 and 60 families with 80-100 children on the list. This data does
not include families seeking childcare that are able to pay full tuition. There are no
statistics on these families, which may be either residents or those who work in the City
and desire childcare near work. CCS staff reviewing the proposed project have also
noted that the applicant has outlined an operating plan that offers a full -day program,
acceptance of children in need of tuition assistance, and collaboration with Connections
for Children to accept families who qualify for childcare subsidies. In this way, the
proposed facility particularly caters to the strongest need in the childcare network for
high quality programs that accept subsidies and lower income children as participants.
Addressing Potential Use Conflicts through the CUP and Specific Use Standards
During the 2015 Zoning Ordinance revision, the Council implemented LUCE Goal CE9
and Policy CE9.1 to integrate childcare uses into the neighborhoods, by adopting
specific use standards for compatibility and fee incentives. The Council expanded the
potential locations for childcare facilities to all neighborhoods, including R1 Zoning
Districts, through the discretionary CUP process. Childcare facilities are among the very
few non-residential uses permitted in single-family zoning districts. The CUP
requirement and Specific Use Standards, outlined in SMMC Section 9.31.120, reflect
10 of 38
the expectation that there are potential conflicts to be addressed when allowing a
childcare use in a residential neighborhood. Potential issues include daily vehicle trips
and parking, noise, and the appearance and changed use of a residential home with a
non-residential use. The Planning Commission’s approval of the application included
conditions to address these issues, as discussed further below.
Compliance with Childcare and Early Education Facilities Specific Use Standards
The Zoning Ordinance Specific Use Standards were developed to address the particular
characteristics, needs and potential impacts of childcare uses in order to facilitate
development of high quality childcare while promoting compatibility with surrounding
uses. In residential zones, through the CUP process, additional conditions can be
included as appropriate to reflect the specific circumstances of the proposed facility in
proximity to residential uses. The CUP conditions should protect neighborhood
residents while ensuring that the facility is able to operate its educational and
developmental program to provide high quality childcare and early education that meet
the needs of working families.
The proposed project is required to be consistent with specific standards regulating
Childcare and Early Education Facilities (SMMC 9.31.120). These standards pertain
to: allowing a four-foot front yard fence, or higher with approval of a modification, to
enclose a play yard; providing a minimum amount of outdoor play area space in
compliance with State licensing requirements; limiting outdoor activity hours; allowing
the Director to approve one required passenger loading space on the street adjacent to
the facility; requiring compliance with State and other licensing requirements; and
designating a neighborhood liaison to address concerns during both construction and
operation of the facility. Draft conditions #2, #6, #9, #12 and #13 incorporate the Code’s
operational requirements.
The specific use standards that reflect the facility’s physical design include providing
sufficient indoor and outdoor space as required by State law, providing a passenger
loading plan, and allowing higher front yard fences than typically allowed in residential
11 of 38
zones to enclose a play yard. The proposal complies with the space requirements and
the Mobility Division has reviewed and determined that the parking and passenger
loading spaces shown on the site plan comply with the Co de’s dimension, access and
visibility requirements.
The Planning Commission approved a modification to allow the front yard fence up to
five feet in height in order to facilitate the need for the fence to be four feet in height
from the interior as required by State law due to the grade differential between the street
and the property. The fence would be offset by 18” from the existing two-foot retaining
wall at the property line, with landscaping required to soften the interface with the
sidewalk. The fence height would be considered to be five feet per SMMC 9.04.050.D
(Measuring Fence, Wall and Hedge Height), which states that the height of a fence
located within five feet of a public sidewalk is measured from the closest point on the
sidewalk. The fence would run for 29 feet along the front property line from the
southwest corner. It would then turn back for 18 feet and continue at the full five foot
height to the east property line. Fencing in the rear and side yards is permitted to be up
to eight feet.
State requirements for childcare facilities specify that a fence must be designed to “keep
children from leaving the outdoor activity area unnoticed but will not in and of itself
present a hazard.” Accordingly, a fence need not be solid, but must e nsure that
children are not able to climb over it (see Fence/Wall Modification, below). The
Planning Commission’s approval requires maximum transparency within these
guidelines.
Conditions for Special Events
Quality childcare programs promote strong communications with the children’s parents.
The applicant plans to hold regular Family Forums, which may be held during or outside
of operational hours. These meetings gather parents who are familiar with the site and
the rules for neighborhood consideration, but it is important for neighbors to receive
communications about them if they are planned outside of regular operational hours.
12 of 38
Condition #1 requires notice to properties within a 300 -foot radius of the property at
least one week in advance in such cases.
In addition, Condition #5 allows the PCD Director to approve up to two events annually
based on the same findings required for Temporary Event Permits for activities related
to the childcare but not specifically for the families, such as a fundraisin g event that is
typical for non-profits. Notification would be required to neighbors within a 300 -foot
radius of the property. A request to hold the event must be submitted at least 45 days
in advance. Although the applicant has stated that at this time, they do not anticipate
doing these types of events, this condition sets forth appropriate limits and conditions to
avoid disruption to the neighborhood should such an event be contemplated in the
future.
Transportation/Parking
As described above, the applicant is providing the number of automobile and short-term
bicycle parking spaces that the Code requires for this use. The Mobility Division has
reviewed the parking dimensions and access and the proposed bike racks, determining
that they are acceptable. Passenger loading is satisfied with one on-site space and a
request (by variance) to substitute an on-street short-term parking space for the second
loading space, which the Code allows the Director to approve on the street adjacent to
the property. The main reason for requesting this substitution is to avoid passenger
loading space standards that would negatively affect the neighborhood by changing the
sidewalk and requiring removal of the street tree in front of the house.
The childcare use would introduce new weekday traffic patterns on the street in that up
to 20 children would be dropped off in the mornings and picked up in the evenings
Mondays through Fridays. Although some may be siblings, and some may carpool,
walk or bicycle, it is inevitable that the childcare facility will result in additional trips to the
location.
The peak morning drop-off time for the childcare facility would take place between 7:45
and 8:30 a.m. Parents are required by law to bring their children into the facility and sign
13 of 38
them in, and to sign them out in the afternoon/evening when they pick them up.
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff heard from several neighbors who
expressed frustration about increased traffic on Delaware Avenue since the Exposition
Line became operational last year. Their input indicates that Delaware Avenue has
become a popular cut-through street during morning and evening peak hours when
traffic on Stewart Avenue tends to back up. Changes to traffic patterns that have
occurred since opening the Expo Line are unrelated to the current request, but are
considered as an existing condition in terms of analysis of this request.
Neighbors sharing the alley with the property expressed concern about having their
access blocked by parents’ cars in the mornings. A project condition (#10) requiring a
drop-off and pick-up plan was developed in order to help control the additional trips to
the street and alley to access the childcare facility and avoid inconvenience to the
neighboring residents at these times. The drop off and pick up plan, subject to the
Mobility Division’s approval prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance, requires specific
assignments to all parents to use either the street or the alley, with consideration to the
anticipated arrival time of each family, in order to distribute trips. Parents would need to
sign an agreement to drive and park in a manner that respects and avoids
inconvenience to the neighborhood. The condition also requires all parents to sign a
Drop-Off and Pick-Up Agreement, agreeing to abide by its terms.
The total number of 20 children is small enough that there is capacity between the rear
loading space, the front short-term space and other nearby street parking or on-site
parking spaces for parents to safely park and sign in their children. Parents do not
generally bring their children to daycare all at the same time, and bringing or retrieving a
child generally takes no more than 10 minutes, although it could be more if parents
need to speak with staff or settle in their children. At times that staff has visited the site
and observed use of street parking, it appears that the two -hour parking restriction
keeps employees of nearby businesses from parking on the street, leaving ample street
parking for the short-term needs of parents coming to the childcare. Based on the
above, staff concludes that the proposed plan for dropping off and picking up children
14 of 38
from the center is feasible and through its implementation, disruption to the
neighborhood can be substantially avoided.
The applicant has stated that she intends to encourage alternatives to driving to the site,
although the decisions that parents make are largely out of the applicant’s control. The
applicant can actively encourage employees to rideshare, which could make on-site
parking spaces available to meet other needs. Condition #15 requires rideshare
encouragement including transit passes and encouraging bike commuting. Condition
#17 also encourages the applicant to demonstrate that a good faith effort has been
made to recruit qualified staff that reside within the 90404 zip code.
Variance Analysis: Key Findings and Justification
Approval of the proposed Variances requires that the City Council make all nine of the
required Variance findings pursuant to SMMC Section 9.42.040. All findings have been
drafted to support the variances in Attachment B. Some findings of special note in
considering approval of this Variance include:
There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the
property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity.
Granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or
improvements in the general vicinity and District.
Strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or
economic hardships.
Strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unreasonable
deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property.
Special Circumstances or Exceptional Characteristics
Finding 9.42.040(A) states the following:
“There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the
15 of 38
property involved, including size, shape, topography, mature trees, location,
surroundings, identification as a Historic Resource, or to the intended use or
development of the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.”
This finding is supported because the proposed childcare is an exceptional use in the
R1 District so the “special circumstances” are due to the intended use of the property.
The R1 parking standards are oriented toward compatibility of single-unit uses, which is
the predominant use in the zoning district. While childcare facilities are conditionally
permitted, the standards do not really consider the very different functioning of parking
and loading for these uses as compared with single-unit homes. Enclosing the parking
in a garage is not practical for this use, and it would necessitate a very large structure in
order to meet ADA requirements, which are not applicable to single-unit homes. The
childcare use must accommodate three parking spaces as well as at least one loading
space on the property. Use of the front driveway in a similar manner to the previous
residential use, which had a driveway that could be used for additional parking, meets
the needs of the use. However, as a required space, it is not permitted, which is again a
special circumstance occasioned by the proposed use. The last variance, to reduce
one loading space and provide instead an on-street, short-term parking space, is also
justified by the special circumstance of the childcare use, which is the only s uch use in
the district that is allowed an on-street loading space. However, the Building Code
requirements for passenger loading, as opposed to short-term parking, create a special
circumstance because it would compel the applicant to modify the sidewalk and provide
ADA-compliant ramps that would be incompatible with the neighborhood’s character,
particularly because they would require removal of a mature street tree. Granting this
variance addresses the conflict caused by these requirements, given the s pecial
circumstances of the childcare use.
16 of 38
Not Detrimental nor Injurious to Surroundings
Finding 9.42.040(B) states the following:
The granting of such variance will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or
improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located.
The project provides all required parking, and one passenger loading space on -site.
The Director may approve a second passenger loading space for a childcare facility on
the adjacent street, but a short-term street parking space is requested in place of the
on-street loading space in order to avoid the need to make right -of-way modifications
that would be inconsistent with the character of the residential neighborhood street. In
making this finding, it should be considered that neighborhood residents typically park
their cars on front driveways, although driveways are not considered their required
parking. Designating the front driveway as one of the three required parking spaces for
the use supports the childcare’s activity while resulting in essentially the same use of
the driveway as it served for the previous use as a residence and does not substantially
alter the relationship of the property’s access to the street. Concerning the reduction of
one loading space, with substitution of a short-term parking space, the Code already
allows the Director to approve one on-street loading space in front of a childcare. The
short-term space would not be injurious to the surrounding improvements in the general
vicinity because it would function similarly and thus meet the intent of the Code
requirement, while avoiding the interruption of the consistent, residential streetscape
and street tree pattern. Furthermore, the space will be available for general use outside
of the facility’s operating hours. Thus, this finding can be made for all three of the
requested variances.
Practical Difficulties or Unnecessary Hardships
Finding 9.42.040(C) states the following:
“The strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
hardships.”
17 of 38
The strict application of the Code, requiring alley-accessed parking in a garage and
prohibiting parking in the front yard setback area, would result in hardship for the
childcare use, which is required to provide a total five parking and loading spaces rather
than the usual two spaces needed in this district. The requirement for parking in a
garage accessed from the alley, combined with ADA requirements that do not normally
apply to single-family homes, would result in the need to develop a large three-car
garage structure. Providing such a structure would then leave insufficient space along
the 50-foot property width to provide the required refuse, recovery and recycling storage
and an accessible passenger loading space. Additionally, the childcare facility might be
forced to reduce the amount of play area and possibly the number of children served in
order to meet all parking location and access requirements in the rear of the property in
an enclosed structure. Furthermore, the garage structure would increase lot coverage
and be less compatible with the surrounding properties. Concerning the reduction of
one loading space, with substitution of a short-term parking space, the Code’s
nomenclature that designates only a loading zone and not a short -term parking space
option, would result in practical difficulties due to Building Code requirements to modify
the sidewalk with ramps for ADA access that are not compatible with the single-unit
residential area and not required for short-term parking. However, the short-term
parking will provide equivalent service for the drop off and pick up of children at the
childcare facility. Therefore, this finding can be made for all three of the requested
variances.
Unreasonable Deprivation of the Use or Enjoyment of the Property
Finding 9.42.040(J) states the following:
“The strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unreasonable
deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property.”
The General Plan encourages childcare and the Zoning Code conditionally permits the
use in this single-family zoning district, but requires more parking than a residential use,
18 of 38
while still within an enclosed garage. These locational requirements reflect residential
needs and character, but on a typical lot such as the subject property, the requirements
taken together become unreasonable for the establishment of a childcare facility.
Requiring the applicant to construct a three-car garage in the rear of the property, as
well as providing an ADA-compliant loading space would preclude optimal siting to meet
the needs of the childcare, which deprives the applicant of the property’s use, including
a potential reduction in play area and enrollment. Furthermore, due to the need for one
space more than the typical single-family residential use in the R1 District, allowing the
additional space to be located on the existing front driveway is necessary to allow the
facility to serve 20 children, making it possible to develop a viable facility. In this way,
the variances in combination provide relief from the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance to avoid unreasonable deprivation of the property’s use for providing
childcare to the community, a use that is conditionally permitted in the R1 District.
Neighborhood Compatibility
In terms of form and physical appearance, the Code’s CUP findings require that a
childcare facility have a physical design that is compatible and relates harmoniously to
the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed facility will utilize a structure that has been part of this single-family
neighborhood for 67 years, making only minor changes to the exterior in orde r to
comply with building code exiting requirements. Demolishing the existing garage would
change the property’s appearance from the alley, but would have relatively little impact
on the neighborhood’s appearance since it is a secondary structure not visible from the
street, and surrounding properties have high rear walls. The applicant is developing a
landscaping plan that creates a garden setting, with emphasis on a natural appearance
in the front yard. This type of landscaping design is typical in front yards in single-family
neighborhoods throughout Santa Monica and compatible with this street.
Placement of the required third parking space, discussed above, on the driveway (by
variance) would be compatible with the pattern that exists on the street b ecause it
19 of 38
involves minor modification to the existing front driveway and follows the neighborhood
pattern. It is typical in this neighborhood to park cars on the front driveway.
The most atypical feature of the childcare facility in relation to the surrounding street is
the front yard fence, which State law requires in order for the area to be utilized for
outdoor play yard space. Due to the slope of the lot, the existing front yard is raised two
feet above the sidewalk level, and is held back by a retaining wall. The five-foot fence
that the Planning Commission approved by modification would require some excavation
of the front yard so that the interior of the fence would be no less than four feet to
comply with State law. The fence would run along 29 fee t of the property line and would
be set 18” back from the existing front retaining wall. The setback space would be used
to create a bench and landscaping that softens the effect that the fence will have on the
street, which otherwise is mostly free of fences. As designed and conditioned, the fence
maintains compatibility with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible while
meeting State requirements.
Landscape Architect’s rendering of proposed front fence and landscaping
The fence/wall modification findings, as summarized at the beginning of this report, are
made to assure that the increased height of the fence is compatible and necessary to
mitigate impacts from adjacent land uses, and that it will not be detrimental to the
property, neighboring properties and the overall integrity of the neighborhood. These
20 of 38
findings can be made because the Specific Standards for Childcare and Early
Education Facilities explicitly recognize the potential need for higher front yard fences to
enclose play yards that are required to meet State standards for these uses, which
justifies the need for the fence. The design as conditioned is sensitive to the
surroundings and therefore the fence would not be detrimental to the surrounding uses
and neighborhood.
Condition #9 would require the Director to review the materials and style of the fence
prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that it has the greatest possible
transparency. The condition also requires removal of the fence should a residential use
be reestablished in the future.
Noise
The proposed facility will provide full-time childcare (8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) for up to 20
children. Children dropped off earlier, between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., would be
required to remain indoors (Condition #4) as would those children still present after
sunset (Condition #6). Some children may stay for an extended day until 6:00 p.m.
Simultaneous activities would take place both indoors and outdoors, such that at any
given time, groups of children are distributed a round the center, utilizing the classrooms,
and play yards on both sides of the property. The application states that the planned
operations and itinerary would be such that it would be a highly unusual occurrence to
have all children outside at the same time.
SMMC 4.12.025 (Noise Ordinance) provides the following general regulation:
It shall be unlawful for any person to make, produce, maintain, cause or permit
to be made any noises or sounds in such manner so as to unreasonably
disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of persons of normal sensitivity within the
area of audibility or which are so harsh or prolonged or unnatural or unusual in
their use, time or place as to cause physical discomfort to any person of
normal sensitivity within the area of audibility.
21 of 38
The neighborhood is within Noise Zone 1, which restricts maximum daytime exterior
noise standards (SMMC 4.12.060) to exceeding 60 dBA for a 15-minute continuous
period and prohibits noises that exceed 65 dBA from continuing for more than 5
minutes. (For scale, 55 dBA measures a normal conversational level at close
proximity and 60 dBA compares to being in the same room with a television on.)
The sound of children playing in their yards is a typical occurrence in a residential
neighborhood, and the sound of children playing in a childcare setting is a similar type
of normal, usual noise. Although sounds of children playing at the childcare would be
more consistent during the daytime than at a typical single-family home, the premises
would be quiet at night and on the weekends. The noise potential from the normal
patterns of children’s play would not constitute the type of noise referred to above.
Nevertheless, the conditions of approval specify compliance with the Noise Ordinance,
and prohibit organized outdoor activities before 8:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. or after
sunset, whichever comes first, consistent with SMMC Section 9.31.120. Should noise
reach a level that disturbs nearby neighbors, the on-site contact person (Condition #13)
is required to be available to resolve conflicts during all hours of operation.
General Plan Consistency
LUCE goals and policy objectives seek to balance community priorities to achieve a
vision of a sustainable city that promotes health and well-being for residents and non-
residents who work, study or play in Santa Monica. In evaluating whether this project is
consistent with the General Plan, it is necessary to look at policies for residential
neighborhood preservation and for provision of an educational continuum that supports
a healthy community, as both are LUCE goals. The CUP findings for General Plan
consistency require considering how these goals, which address differing components
of creating strong communities, are achieved.
The subject property is located within the Single Family Residential land use
designation of the LUCE. LUCE Goal N1 aims to “protect, preserve and enhance the
22 of 38
residential neighborhoods.” This goal’s policies aim to respect and preserve existing
housing stock (N1.1), connect residents with local services within walking distance
(N1.2), create places that promote sociability and human interaction (N1.3), and other
policies to protect and adapt neighborhoods over time.
The LUCE emphasizes preservation of neighborhood character and scal e, promoting
the rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of existing structures and allowing only
new development that is of a scale and character consistent with the existing
neighborhood. The LUCE also strives to retain tree -lined streetscapes to conserve the
character of the City’s neighborhoods.
This application demonstrates sensitivity to its location in a R1 single -unit residential
zone through the preservation of the existing residential structure, design of the fence
with transparency, the proposed limitation on the number of children, the drop-off and
pick-up plan and the programming and design of indoor and outdoor play spaces for
small groups of children to distribute activity and reduce noise levels.
The LUCE description of Single-Family Residential Districts does not specify childcare
facilities as a typical use, as childcare centers were not previously allowed as a free -
standing use. However, Policy CE9.1 LUCE, page 3.5 -17) provided a policy foundation
for Council to evaluate whether to permit such uses in all City neighborhoods:
CE9.1: Support the development of high quality child care and early education
facilities and small and large family child care in homes to meet the needs of
those who work or live in Santa Monica. Maintain stream lined processing and
permit regulations, encourage harmonious integration with the neighborhood,
and fee reductions as incentives.
A finding of consistency with the General Plan is also supported by the project’s
consistency with LUCE and Child Care Master Plan goals to nurture the optimal growth,
development and education of children and to support families. The Master Plan states
that childcare and early education continue to be one of the most pressing concerns of
23 of 38
contemporary family life and acknowledges the importance of quality, affordable and
accessible child care and early education by committing to protect existing resources
and expand their supply. LUCE Goal CE9 strives to integrate the childcare and early
education needs of those who live or work in the community into the City’s land use
planning process. This goal is implemented through Policy CE9.1 (above). Providing a
safe place for children to spend their days learning and growing in a stimulating
environment during hours that support working parents, implements City policies that
aim to provide nurturing facilities for every baby born in Santa Monica “from cradle to
career.”
The Planning Commission approval, as conditioned, is consistent with the LUCE
objectives to encourage and prioritize childcare and to maintain the integrity of existing
single-unit residential neighborhoods.
Appeal Summary
On September 20, 2017, Nada Shamonki, a Delaware Street resident who testified at
the hearing and submitted written comments, filed an appeal of the Commission’s
decision. Ms. Shamonki’s appeal notes that she represents “Residents for the
Preservation of Gandara Park Neighborhood.” In an e-mail to staff, Ms. Shamonki
described this group as “formed by a group of neighbors in the Gandara Park
Neighborhood to inform and advocate for issues related to our neighborhood. We have
not filed any formal formation documents and have relied on neighbors signed up. We
currently have over 100 members that all live within our neighborhood. Members have
all signed on in support of our appeal.” In the following language from the appeal
statement (Attachment C), the appellant summarizes six primary reasons for requesting
that the Council overturn the Commission’s decision:
“1. Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood: The Proposed Preschool is opposed by
almost every neighbor in the surrounding neighborhood, including all immediate
neighbors. Gandara Park Neighborhood, although recently named, has a long
history with some residents, especially those of Japanese-American descent that
24 of 38
moved to the neighborhood, as it was one of the few places to allow Japanese -
Americans to buy homes following their internment during World War II. Many of
most impacted residents are Japanese-American internment camp survivors in their
80s and 90s.
2. New Traffic: Traffic and parking in Gandara Park Neighborhood have already
reached unmanageable levels, with local businesses using this stretch of Delaware
for parking for their employees and Waze designating our streets as cut -throughs to
avoid traffic on the 10 freeway, Olympic, Exposition and Centinela. Introducing at
least 50 new car trips during peak hours on our small residential street will push it
over the tipping point.
3. Violates the LUCE: The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it
eliminates existing housing stock and allows for the encroachment of commercial
uses into quiet residential neighborhoods.
4. Area is Already Over-Preschooled (sic): According to the 2014 RAND Study, Santa
Monica has a "surplus of preschool spaces for city residents." There are already 46
preschools within 2 miles of the Proposed Preschool, 20 preschools, and 15 existing
daycares located within a mile or less from the site. A new preschool in a residential
neighborhood that already has too many preschools does not make sense and is not
good City planning.
5. Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings: Before a CUP is granted, the SMMC
requires that nine mandatory findings MUST be met. These findings are not met,
including findings that it would not have an immediate adverse impact on the quality
of life of the neighborhood and the fact that the Applicant is asking for changes that
are inconsistent with the character of the existing neighborhood.”
The Appeal statement supports these points with further explanation in the 20 pages
that follow in the appeal statement. A sixth point introduced on page 8 states that:
25 of 38
“(C) The Planning Commission relied on inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims within
the Report and did not perform its duty to properly investigate valid legal
challenges and concerns raised by Gandara Park Neighborhood residents.”
(Note that (A) and (B) on Page 8 of the appeal statement further detail points #3 and #5
above). The appeal analysis below responds to these six points to address all topics
raised in the appeal narrative.
The Council’s hearing on the appeal is de novo, and as such, the Council may consider
all aspects of the proposed project in rendering its decision, including the points of
appeal, additional evidence presented by the applicant, appellant, staff and the public,
and the draft findings and conditions.
Appeal Analysis
The following states and responds to each of the six points summarized above.
#1: Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood:
The appellant states that she speaks for the entire neighborhood, which the appeal
refers to as the Gandara Park Neighborhood. She references a number of elderly
neighbors and states: “All of them strongly oppose the proposed preschool.” She also
references families in the neighborhood with small children that are opposed and states:
“All of us - regardless of race, ethnicity or socio-economic background - strongly oppose
the Proposed Preschool…”
Response: The public hearing process is structured to allow an applicant to p ropose an
allowed use on a property that requires a discretionary permit, subject to compliance
with specified Code standards and findings. As a conditionally permitted use, findings
for compatibility test whether the application meets the intent of the Code section that
allows its use, is consistent with the general plan, and is compatible with the
neighborhood. Decision-makers and the public receive all information in a transparent
manner. In this case, variances and a fence modification were also requested, requiring
26 of 38
consideration of additional findings. In addition to staff’s analysis, the hearing process
provides opportunities to consider all points brought up by the applicant and any
member of the public with an interest in the outcome of the decision. Often, there are
both opponents and supporters of a project, as there were in this case, and all are given
an opportunity to be heard, whether in writing prior to the hearing, in person at the
hearing, or both.
In this case, the appellant’s opposition to the proposal and the testimony of many in the
neighborhood objecting to the preschool were articulated both in writing and in person
at the hearing. The Planning Commission was aware of this opposition when it made its
decision. Weighing public testimony against other considerations of the project’s merits
and compliance with the Code and General Plan, as well as justification of the variances
and fence modification, the Commissioners used their discretion and voted to approve
the use.
As a de novo hearing, the Council, like the Planning Commission, will hear all input, and
will consider the statements of opposition together with the merits, findings and
recommended conditions for approval. The Council must weigh the considerations of
the application to provide a preschool on the applicant’s property against the appellant’s
evidence of strong neighborhood opposition to this new use. The Council is often
required to make difficult land use decisions and weighs all evidence before doing so.
In terms of legal responsibility, the appellant’s statement that all neighbors oppose the
application does not necessitate the reversal of the Planning Commission’s approval of
the project.
#2: New Traffic:
The appellant states: “Traffic and parking in Gandara Park Neighborhood have already
reached unmanageable levels, with local businesses using this stretch of Delaware for
parking for their employees and Waze designating our streets as cut-throughs to avoid
traffic on the 10 freeway, Olympic, Exposition and Centinela. Introducing at least 50 new
car trips during peak hours on our small residential street will push it over the tipping
point.”
27 of 38
Response: A discussion of existing and anticipated traffic issues brought up by the
appellants is provided below in response to #6. The 50 new car trips referenced is over
the full day, not during each peak period, as the proposed childcare facility is estimated
to introduce a maximum of 26 trips in the a.m. period and 26 in the p.m. period. These
trips would be staggered, with employees arriving at different times based on schedule
and children arriving in a controlled pattern based on assigned loading place and time.
Unfortunately, the City does not have recent data on this street to compare this number
to the current daily trip count.
Staff does not have any evidence to confirm the claim that Delaware Avenue is used for
parking by nearby businesses. However, the street does have preferential parking
restrictions, and is limited to two-hour parking during the day. Staff’s observations of the
street during the daytime have indicated a great deal of available street parking.
#3: Violates the LUCE:
The appellant states: “The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it
eliminates existing housing stock and allows for the encroachment of commercial uses
into quiet residential neighborhoods.”
Response: The proposed preschool will utilize the existing house and adapt the interior
for compliance with State requirements for early education facilities. As such, it does
not eliminate existing housing stock, although it does change the use. While a preschool
is a business, it is qualitatively different from typical commercial businesses. The
Zoning Code includes Child Care and Early Education Facilities within the “Public and
Semi-Public” use classification, implying that its character is similar to a public use, such
as a school. Preschools are conditionally permitted in the R1 zoning district while other
commercial uses are not permitted. As such, approval of a preschool is n ot a harbinger
of commercial encroachment. Furthermore, preschools have enrollment processes and
admit a specific group of children who come regularly to the location. The use does not
invite walk-in traffic or transient customers into the neighborhood.
28 of 38
LUCE policies for the Pico Neighborhood focus on neighborhood character through
maintenance of existing structures and adoption of development standards. (Policy
N11.5, p. 2.2-27). This is consistent with the citywide land use policy (LU1.4, p. 2.1-11)
of “Retention of Existing Structures” to conserve neighborhood character. The
proposed project maintains the existing structure, which is currently vacant and in need
of maintenance to become habitable again. By conserving the existing home, and using
it to provide a community service for the Pico Neighborhood, the proposed project is
consistent with the LUCE approach to neighborhood conservation. Support for the
finding of General Plan consistency for this project is also discussed earlier in this
report.
#4: Area is Already Over-Preschooled
The appeal cites a 2014 RAND Study that stated that Santa Monica has a surplus of
preschool spaces for City residents. “There are already 46 preschools within 2 miles of
the proposed preschool and 20 preschools and 15 existing daycares located within a
mile or less from the site. A new preschool in a residential neighborhood that already
has too many preschools does not make sense and is not good City planning” (p. 2).
Response: The RAND Study sought “to provide the City and SMMUSD with the data
and analysis required to deliver effective and sustainable early and school -age care
programs…” (Rand Report, page 3, included in Attachment C) The report was based
on 2011 data, and cited a population of approximately 3,600 children under the age of
five. The most current available data on the US Census site (www.census.gov/quickfacts
<http://www.census.gov/quickfacts>) for July 2016 estimates that this number has grown
somewhat since this time to 4.1% of the population of 92,478, or 3,800 children under
five years old.
In noting a “surplus of preschool places for city residents,” the RAND study did not infer
that there were too many preschools in Santa Monica, but rather that at that particular
point in time, the available preschool age childcare facilities met resident needs and still
29 of 38
had some room for nonresidents seeking childcare near their jobs in Santa Monica.
The context of the statement in the RAND study was to note that high quality childcare
is an important economic development tool in terms of attracting a skilled workforce.
The report also contrasted the availability of preschool places with the City’s lack of
toddler places for ages 0-2 and suggested ways to improve access and participation as
well as support development of high quality facilities.
The significance of the two-mile radius noted in the appeal statement is unclear, as that
distance encompasses most of Santa Monica and extends into the City of Los Angeles.
According to State Community Care Licensing database (as of 10/12/17), there are 54
preschool centers (ages 2-5), 12 infant/toddler centers (0-2 years), 19 large family day
care homes, and 11 small family day care homes in Santa Monica. Of the preschool
centers, 18 are located in 90404. The two closest centers to the proposed preschool
are located just south of the 10 Freeway on Virginia Avenue and Pico Boulevard.
It is generally difficult to provide accurate estimates for total childcare need as there is
no central mechanism that gathers this data for the entire community. Connections for
Children (CFC), a regional child care resource and referral agency that is funded
through the City’s Human Services Grants Program to improve access to quality early
care, keeps an eligibility waiting list of lower income families looking for subsidized
childcare. This list changes constantly, even daily, reflecting family circumstances for
parents and many other factors. Working families eligible for subsidy often have a hard
time locating providers that will accept this subsidy and offer full-time care. Of those
waiting to place children ages 0-5, generally about 60% reside in the 90404 zip code,
according to CFC. The City’s Human Services Division, which administers City
programs in support of childcare and staffs the Childcare Task Force agrees that there
is a clear need for more childcare centers, such as the proposed facility, that offer full-
time slots and accept subsidies.
Notwithstanding the above discussion of childcare supply and demand, establishing that
a childcare facility is “needed” in the City is not a criterion for its approval. While the
City adopts general plan goals and zoning regulations, individual property owners,
30 of 38
businesses and developers initiate projects and implement development on their
properties within the framework of the regulations. In doing so, applicants indicate their
assessment that there is demand for the service they propose to provide. The Zoning
Code may incorporate incentives for desired uses and it may pro hibit or limit less
desired uses. The zoning process assumes that the market will generally balance
supply and demand. If an application complies with Code requirements and the findings
can be made in a positive manner, the demand or need for the use is n ot a review
criterion unless the Code contains a quota for a particular use. There is no such
limitation on childcare facilities.
#5: Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings:
The appeal statement states that findings were not made to support the issuance of a
CUP, and in one place, on page 19, states that findings were not provided to support
the Variances. The appeal finds fault with the report, which focused on key variance
findings and summarized CUP findings and did not further elaborate on other requ ired
findings. The statement claims that the Commission “did not perform its duty to properly
investigate the valid ethical, moral and legal objections raised by Gandara Park
Neighborhood residents to the Preschool.”
Response: The staff report narrative summarized the approach to analyzing the request
in terms of the mandatory findings of fact and highlighted key issues for Commissioners
to consider, including neighborhood compatibility. The narrative discussed issues of
compatibility such as noise, trips and parking, the proposed fence, and site design
matters. The staff report also included attachments with more detailed information and
application materials, which are also considered an integral part of the staff report.
Attachment B to the staff report, the draft Statement of Official Action (referred to as the
STOA), contained language for making all findings for the CUP, variances, and
modification in a positive manner for the Commission’s consideration. By adopting
those findings with small adjustments that were read into the record, the Commission
performed its legal duty to make all findings required in the Zoning Code. The final
signed STOA, reflecting the decisions made on September 6, 2017, was approved at a
subsequent meeting on October 4, 2017 and accepted by the applicant (Attachment F).
31 of 38
The appeal statement does not specify which findings the appellant believes were not
made, but the narrative indicates particular disagreement with findings of neighborhood
compatibility (CUP finding #5 and Variance finding #5). The appellant indicates that a
childcare use located in one of the single-family homes on the street is fundamentally
incompatible with the residential uses that occupy all other properties. The appellant
states that “this tiny neighborhood cannot stand to lose its right to retain its strictly R1
zoning” (Appeal, p. 6), and that “the Proposed Preschool cannot be designed, located
and operated in a manner that will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the
surrounding properties as required by applicable law (p. 13). These statements, and
other statements opposing the project made during the Planning Commission review
process, appear to indicate the appellant’s contention that any childcare facility in one of
the homes on this street or within the neighborhood would be incompatible and would
impair the integrity and character of the district.
While the appellant asserts that a childcare facility is fundamentally incompatible in a R1
residential district, the Council has determined that childcare and early educational uses
can be compatible in a R1 District when it revised the Zoning Ordinance in 2015 to allow
the use through the CUP process, and established specific use standards. Once
established as a conditionally permitted land use, the finding is properly made by
examining the individual request and characteristics of the proposed site development
and operations to ensure that it meets the standards and intent of the Code. In this
particular case, the Planning Commission considered the proposed operation serving
20 children in the existing structure, with a drop-off/pick-up plan and restrictions on
hours and outdoor play in the early morning along with other specific conditions of
approval and found that, as conditioned, the proposed project meets all the findings of
compatibility for the CUP, variance and modification.
32 of 38
#6: The Planning Commission relied on inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims within
the Report and did not perform its duty to properly investigate valid l egal challenges and
concerns raised by Gandara Park Neighborhood residents.
The appellant claims that the report was deficient in the following way (p. 18 of appeal
statement):
The Report mischaracterizes the neighbors' knowledge of the Proposed
Preschool before the August 20 informational meeting hosted by the Applicant.
The Report also omits or minimizes the negative reactions of residents to the
Proposed Preschool.
o Response: The report provided information about neighborhood outreach
efforts that the applicant documented in the application and about the
neighborhood meeting at which staff was present.
In terms of notification of this request prior to the August 20th meeting,
staff can confirm that the application, submitted on May 18, 2017, includ ed
proof of the required site notice posted on the property, and staff received
some phone calls around the time that it was posted. The hearing date
was added on June 27, 2017. Although callers expressed concern and
had questions, and concerns expressed at the August 20th meeting were
noted in the staff report along with one letter of opposition that had been
received, the level of vocal neighborhood concern increased significantly
after the report was released and at the hearing. There was no intent to
mischaracterize opposition to the proposal.
The Report fails to provide any credible evidence for its purported justification for
the school.
o Response: Although the appellant clearly disagrees with the analysis in
the staff report, the report does cover all relevant topics associated with
analysis of potential impacts that may be attributable to the use. The
33 of 38
report and findings, taken together, provided sufficient justification to
support the Commission’s conclusion that the application may be
approved.
The Report makes conclusory statements minimizing the impact of the Proposed
Preschool on the traffic and safety of the neighborhood… Despite the obvious
disruption that this business will bring to the neighborhood, the Report casually
dismisses those disruptions and concludes - without any evidentiary support and
often by relying on the “evidence” provided by the Applicant - that the disruptions
will be minimal to neighborhood or solved by the “solutions” suggested in the
Report…
o Response: Staff analysis focused on this project’s potential trip generation
and its effects on the neighborhood and does not either minimize or inflate
the expected trips to the street from up to 20 children being dropped off
and picked up five days a week, and up to six staff arriving as scheduled.
The project provides the Code-required number of parking and loading (or
short-term) spaces, and the conditions of approval require transit
subsidies and encouragement of non-driving alternatives. Because the
use is not residential, childcare staff will not be eligible for permit parking
placards, so staff will not be able to use street parking for more than two
hours. Street parking by parents will be for short periods that will not
impact the parking supply for the neighborhood because in the mornings
the neighborhood residents will be parked first and in the evenings, if
loading spaces are taken, parents will use street parking for short stays
only. After 6:00pm and on weekends, there will be no change from the
present conditions on the street.
To address neighborhood concerns and distribute these trips, a drop -off
and pick-up plan is required as a condition of approval. With optimal
utilization of front and rear loading spaces, considering the facility’s
maximum enrollment of 20 children, adhering to this plan can ensure that
34 of 38
trips to the childcare avoid overwhelming the street and alley. Parents will
have specific assignments and will sign binding agreements as a condition
for sending the children to Untitled #1.
The Report completely ignores the already impacted condition of the
neighborhood … and (fails) to even mention the Traffic Plan implemented in the
past by the City to keep traffic out of our R1 neighborhood.
o Response: Staff analysis does not minimize or ignore resident concerns
regarding cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. The Traffic Engineering
Division has not yet studied these impacts and thus no data exists to
substantiate the claims of cars using the street in the mornings and
evenings that did not exist prior to the Expo Line.
The appeal cites large projects in the pipeline in the area north of
Exposition Boulevard (the Bergamot Area Plan area) as another
justification to deny the preschool and states that the approval did not
consider these projects. Staff disagrees that current traffic and anticipated
traffic that may be generated by new commercial projects north of this
neighborhood are factors for consideration in this application, which is a
small-scale reuse of an existing building that is categorically exempt from
CEQA and thus does not require a traffic study.
The City’s Traffic Engineering Division has confirmed that it does not have
a “Traffic Plan” for this neighborhood. Traffic-calming measures
referenced by the appellant were implemented as part of the 2004
Lantana Development Agreements, including bulb-outs and turning
restriction signs that were installed in 2008. However, the Expo Line
extension project did not introduce new traffic measures. At this time,
further study or development of a Traffic Plan in this neighborhood is not
in the division’s approved budget and work plan.
35 of 38
The Report concludes, without any evidentiary support, that the significant
increase in noise from this business will not impact the neighborhood. However,
a large percentage of the residents on Delaware are elderly retirees who will be
home during day when this business is operating. All our elders oppose the
Proposed Preschool. Our elders crave and cherish what calmness and tranquility
remains in our neighborhood after years of watching new developments spring
up around their home.
o Response: The appellant does not substantiate claims that elderly
residents will suffer from the sounds of children playing. The Commission
staff report did state that the sound of children playing is not incompatible
in a residential area, and staff reaffirms this analysis because residential
neighborhoods are places for children to live, gather and play. At the
Planning Commission hearing, there were seniors who voiced concern
about the potential noise from children’s play, and the approval is
conditioned to require compliance with the Noise Ordinance, and more
importantly, for the applicant to maintain a Good Neighbor policy with a
contact person to address any nuisance of which they are made aware.
Many of these same concerns were included in a 21 -page letter emailed on the evening
of September 5, 2017, to the Planning Commissioners and staff. Although the timing
precluded inclusion of the letter’s points in the Planning Commission staff report, which
had already been released, Commissioners received the information and thus were able
to review that information as part of their deliberations. If the Commissioners had
determined that the information presented in the letter warranted additional
investigation, the hearing could have been continued with direction to staff. The
Commission chose not to take up appellant’s suggestion to conduct further study and
declined to delay their action.
In conclusion, the Planning Commission and the public received full information about
the application, the Zoning Code and General Plan, the conditions proposed to ensure
compatibility between the use and surrounding neighborhood and the public hearing.
36 of 38
Neighborhood opposition and community support were expressed using the transparent
public hearing structure and a decision was made. The appellant, representing a large
group in the neighborhood, has expressed ongoing opposition to allowing this type of
use in an R1 neighborhood, and the above discussion has responded to the specific
points, concluding with staff’s recommendation to approve the application, upholding the
Commission’s decision.
Community Outreach and Comments
In the application materials, the applicant provided documentation of her
communications with neighbors about proposing a new childcare center prior to
purchasing the property and submitting the application (see Attachment D).
Soon after the site was posted for the Planning Commission hearing, staff received
three phone calls from neighbors expressing concerns that the proposed center would
lead to loss of residential stock in this relatively small neighborhood and increase car
trips on Delaware Avenue. These neighbors noted that since the establishment o f the
Expo Line and delays on Stewart Street when the gates close to allow trains to pass,
Delaware Avenue has experienced increased cut-through traffic at certain times of day.
Callers expressed concern that the facility would add trips to the street’s current traffic
flow at times that they stated are already becoming problematic.
On the afternoon of August 20, 2017, the applicant, Laila Taslimi, held a neighborhood
meeting at the subject site attended by 29 neighbors, as well as her design team and
the co-chair of the Childcare Task Force. City staff was also present and answered
technical questions about the application and hearing process. At the meeting, Ms.
Taslimi and her team provided details of the site, building and operational plans and
then opened the meeting to questions and comments. Ms. Taslimi explained her plan
to open the center as a registered non-profit organization next year with 12 children of
mixed economic backgrounds, expanding gradually to reach the maximum of 20
children.
Meeting participants, some of whom had previously spoken with staff as discussed
37 of 38
above, brought up several concerns about the proposed childcare facility. Some stated
that they oppose the use entirely and are concerned that it would set a precedent for the
replacement of single-family homes with business uses. They were concerned about
neighborhood traffic and additional use of the street in the mornings and evenings.
Some cited recent increasing crime, and stated that bringing the families of children
served by the use would introduce more people to become familiar with the
neighborhood, which may lead to more crime on their quiet street. Furthermore, they
expressed that they were not favorable toward the applicant’s plans to take small
groups of children to Ishihara Park, which they viewed as belonging to the nearby
residents. The applicant and others present noted that Ishihara Park is a public park
and not highly utilized on weekdays.
Other neighborhood participants at the meeting expressed support for having this
childcare in the neighborhood to meet the needs of working parents and create a sense
of community through the concept of a preschool based on economic integration and
pluralistic education.
To reduce the impact on morning and evening traffic volumes, the applicant suggested
at the meeting that it would be reasonable and feasible to assign parents to specific
drop-off/pick-up locations, balancing use of the front and back parking spaces. She
stated that employees would park in the three on -site spaces and that she planned to
provide transit passes to those who would commute by transit rather than drive.
Condition #10 includes distribution of child drop-off and pick-up, and Condition #15
requires the applicant to offer rideshare incentives to employees.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed change of use from a single-family home to a childcare facility is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA
Guideline Section 15303(a). This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of small
structures including single-family homes or to the conversion of existing small structures
from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the
38 of 38
structure.
The property is not listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
Alternative Actions
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may choose to grant the
appeal based on revised findings and deny the CUP (17ENT -0075), Variance (17ENT-
0147) and Fence Modification (17ENT-0148).
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Elizabeth Bar-El AICP, Senior Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Project Code Compliance
B. Draft Statement of Official Action
C. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action
D. Project Plans
E. Written Communications from 12/05/2017 Council Meeting
F. Written Comments from 12/05/2017 Council Meeting
G. Appeal Statement w-attachments
H. Noticing
I. Application Materials
J. Supplemental Report
K. Written Comments
L. Powerpoint Presentation
1
ATTACHMENT A
GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET
Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use
Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance (17ENT-0147), & Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148
Project Address:
2953 Delaware Avenue
Application Filing Date: May 18, 2017
Appeal Filing Date: September 20, 2017
General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
CATEGORY
LAND USE
ELEMENT
MUNICIPAL CODE
PROJECT
Permitted Use
Residential
Childcare & Early
Education Facility
Childcare Facility for 20
children
Dwelling Units
N/A N/A
Height of Building
--- 28 feet No height addition
Number of Stories
--- 2 stories One story; no additional
stories proposed
Height of Walls,
Fences
N/A
Front, childcare: 4’
maximum
Side/rear: 8’ maximum
Front: 6’ proposed; 5’
approved by Planning
Commission through
Modification.
Side/rear: 6’
Setbacks
Frontyard
Sideyard
Rear Yard
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30 feet
Side – 5 feet
25 feet
Existing building setbacks:
30’
4’ (E); 5’ (W)
49’ 3½“
Projections Into Yard
N/A None proposed
None proposed
Building Height
Projections
N/A None proposed
None proposed
Parcel Coverage
N/A
50% for one-story
structure not exceeding
18 ft. in height
23%
Parking Access
Alley access is
encouraged
Alley access is required
when alley exists, with
Required parking accessed
from alley and street (by
variance request)
2
when alley
exists.
exceptions per Sec.
9.28.120(B).
Parking location,
standards
N/A Enclosed structure;
restricted use of front yard
setback
Two rear spaces; one on
front driveway (by variance
request)
Parking Space Number
N/A 1/500sf 3 spaces provided
Compact Parking %
N/A
40% maximum permitted 1 of 3 (33.3%)
Passenger Loading N/A 2 spaces for childcare with
20 children
One on-site space
provided; request to
substitute an on-street
short-term parking space
for 2nd loading space (by
variance request)
Bicycle Parking
N/A
Long-term: Not required for
structure less than 2,500 sf
Short-term: 10% of LT; 2
minimum/project
2 short-term spaces
provided in front yard area.
Trash Area
N/A
7.5’ x 21’ Trash enclosure
with minimum 6’ solid wall
and 8’-wide opening; may
be modified by PW
Space for 2 4’x6’ trash bins
serviced in rear alley
Mechanical Equipment
Screening
N/A
Mechanical equipment
extending more than 12"
above roof parapet shall be
fully screened from a
horizontal plane.
None proposed
Location of Mechanical
Equipment
N/A
Not permitted on side of
building if adjacent to a
residential building on an
adjoining lot.
Equipment proposed on
west side of building; to be
reviewed in plan check to
ensure Code compliance.
Planting Areas
N/A
Maximum front setback
paving – 50%
Interior side – at least 50%
shall be planted
The site plan shows less
than 50% of front yard area
to be paved for driveways,
walkways.
Historic Resources
Inventory
N/A
Existing structure is more
than 40 years old and not
listed on the HRI or
designated LM. Garage is
less than 400 sf and
exempt from Landmarks
review of demolition.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 1 of 20
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: 17ENT-0186 (APPEAL)
LOCATION: 2953 Delaware Avenue
APPLICANT: Laila Taslimi, Untitled No. 1 School
PROPERTY OWNER: Untitled No. 1 School
CASE PLANNER: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 17ENT-0075,
17ENT-0147 and 17ENT-0148 to permit a change of use
from a single-family home to a childcare facility serving up
to 20 children of mixed income levels, with equal numbers
of lower, middle and upper income enrollment, with three
on-site parking spaces, one on-site passenger loading
space and an off-site short-term parking space.
As volunteered by the applicant, the applicant shall offer
tuition assistance for lower and moderate income families
to ensure that a minimum of 1/3 of the children at the
center shall be residents in the 90404 zip code, with
preference to children at qualifying income levels within a
¼ mile radius of the subject property. The applicant has
also agreed to consult with Connections for Children to
offer childcare for families on their waitlist(s) for the
children from the lower- and moderate-income families.
Variance from 9.28.120.B.3 to allow one front yard parking
space accessed from the street on a property where alley
access exists; variance from SMMC 9.28.080.E.4 to
provide only one passenger loading space mitigated by
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 2 of 20
providing one short-term parking space on the street.
Fence Modification per SMMC 9.31.120.A to allow a fence
in the front setback area greater than 48” in height.
CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
CEQA, pursuant to Class 15303 and Class 15301(l)(4)
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
January 23, 2018 Determination Date
Appeal granted based on the following findings.
Appeal Denied; Application approved based on the following
findings and subject to the conditions below.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTION January 23, 2018
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS
GRANTED:
January 22, 2020
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*:
6 months
* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City
Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
The City Council, having held a public hearing on January 23, 2018, hereby denies Appeal
17ENT-0861 and approves 17ENT-0075 (Conditional Use Permit); 17ENT-0147
(Variance) and 17ENT-0148 (Fence/Wall/Hedge Modification) to permit a childcare
facility at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any suc h
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject dis trict and
complies with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that childcare centers are a
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 3 of 20
conditionally permitted use in the R1 Zoning District. Through design and
conditions included herein, the project complies with the specific use standards for
childcare centers and with property development standards in the district, with the
exception of those requirements that have been modified by variance approval.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in that it addresses goals
related to encouraging childcare and serving residential neighborhoods with
services that are within walking distance. Goal CE9 of the LUCE strives to integrate
the childcare and early education needs of those who live or work in the community
into the City’s land use planning process. This goal is implemented through Policy
CE9.1, which seeks to support the development of high -quality Child Care and
Early Education Facilities to meet the needs of workers and residents of the City
by maintaining streamlined processing and permit regulations, encouraging
harmonious integration with the neighborhood, and providing fee reductions as
incentives. Furthermore, LUCE Goal N1 strives to “protect, preserve and enhance
the residential neighborhoods.” Under this goal are policies aimed at respecting
and preserving existing housing stock, creating places that promote sociability and
human interaction, protecting existing neighborhoods from encroachment and
impacts of nearby commercial activities, and policies intended to create complete
neighborhoods that meet residents’ needs within walking distance. The proposed
project integrates both of these LUCE goals by providing a service for children in
the community, including a potential pool of children living within walking distance.
The project preserves the original house and upgrades it to meet State
requirements. The project as conditioned is sensitive to its surroundings and
consistent with the LUCE goals by incorporating appropriate design and
operational conditions, including: the preservation of the existing home and design
of a fence with maximum transparency; a limit of 20 children maximum; pick-up
and drop-off management; limitation of outdoor activity hours; and the
programming and design of indoor and outdoor play spaces for small groups of
children to distribute activity and reduce noise levels. As such, the proposed use
bridges the intents of both Goal CE1 and Goal N1 and is consistent with the City’s
General Plan.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed,
in that it is served by all necessary public improvements and access to utilities.
The project involves the re-use of the existing single-family dwelling on the parcel
with only minor interior and exterior alterations proposed, and demolition of the
accessory garage structure to facilitate conversion to a Child Care and Early
Education Facility. The size and location of the existing structure and outdoor play
areas are sufficient to accommodate the proposed maximum student enrollment
of 20 children according to the requirements of the State of California’s Child Care
Licensing regulations.
4. The proposed childcare facility will be the only use remaining on the property and
thus the finding of compatibility with any land uses presently on the subject parcel
is not applicable.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 4 of 20
5. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the
District and the general area in which it is to be located, which may include but not
be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature
of the operation, in that the Zoning Code permits childcare facilities, moderated by
appropriate conditions, within the R1 Single-unit District as an educational and
social activity that supports residents, and the proposed project is conditioned to
ensure sensitivity to the surrounding single-unit residential uses. The facility will be
moderate in size, restricted to a maximum of 20 children, with regulated outdoor
activities to avoid unacceptable noise that may potentially pose a disturbance to
nearby residents. Parking as required by the Zoning Code is located on-site and
an additional short-term parking space will be provided (pending Transportation
Engineering approval) in front of the property. Furthermore, conditions require that
the applicant work with parents to direct them to utilize the alley and street-
accessed on-site parking and loading, which would distribute trips more evenly and
decrease peak hour trips on Delaware Avenue. Most trips to the site will take place
during one-hour periods in the mornings and evenings on weekdays. The facility
will not generate weekend, nighttime or early morning noise or traffic that would
impact the quality of life in the neighborhood. In the case that issues develop, the
applicant is required to maintain open communications to resolve issues through
an on-site liaison required herein. Based on the above design and conditions
required by this permit, the proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the neighborhood in which it is located.
6. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood in that the facility would
provide childcare in the existing one-story home that is an original structure in the
neighborhood. To comply with State regulations, the front ya rd must be enclosed
with a four-foot high fence. This fence will be set back from the property line
retaining wall by two feet, with the space created to be landscaped with seating to
interact in a more friendly manner with the sidewalk and streetscape. Since fencing
of this height is not otherwise found on this block, a condition herein requires the
fencing type to be as open as possible while complying with State requirements in
order to retain a harmonious character in relation to the surrounding neighb orhood.
7. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant
environmental impacts in that the project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Implementation
Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) and Section 15301(l)(4) (Existing Facilities, Demolition and removal of
individual small structures). The Project involves interior modifications to the
existing structure, removal of an accessory garage structure, and minor exterior
modifications to accommodate the proposed new use. Section 15303
categorically exempts projects that involve the conversion of existing small
structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the
exterior of the structure. Section 15301(l)(4) categorically exempts the demolition
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 5 of 20
of accessory structures, specifically including demolition of a garage structure. In
addition, none of the exceptions specified in Section 15300.2 of CEQA Guidelines
would apply that would preclude the use of this CEQA exemptions - The project
site is not located in a sensitive environment, the project would not
damage scenic resources, the project would not be located on a hazardous waste
site; and the project would not cause a change to a historical resource. Additional,
the project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances. The physical and operational characteristics of the proposed
childcare facility are typical and the facility is relatively small in comparison to
typical childcare and early education facilities in Santa Monica. The use is
anticipated to generate no more than 26 trips in the morning peak hour period and
the same in the evening peak hour (conservatively assuming every employee trip
and child drop-off/pick-up would be via single-occupancy automobile). A recent
traffic survey on this block of Delaware Avenue (regular weekday) counted a total
of 320 daily trips. Based on the City’s significance thresholds, a significant impact
occurs if a project would increase the daily trips on a residential street with fewer
than 1,250 trips by more than 25%. In this case, the projected 52 trips is less than
25% (or 80 daily trips), and therefore, the project would not result in significant
traffic impacts. As such, there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will
have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No
exceptions to the categorical exemption would occur per Sec tion 15300.2
(Exceptions) of the CEQA Guidelines.
8. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare in that the regular
and normal operations of childcare facilities do not negatively affect the
environment, health or safety of the community. The use will provide a valued
service that may be accessed by neighborhood residents, the broader residential
community, and parents in the City’s workforce. The proposed use introduces a
different type of activity into the R1 (Single Unit Residential) neighborhood, which
would not be detrimental to the public interest or general welfare because the
required site design and operational conditions control project features that could
otherwise be potentially detrimental, including hours of operation, number of
children, excessive noise and vehicle access. The facility would be allowed to
enroll a maximum of 20 children and would provide for the parking needs of its
employees and families by supplying the required parking on -site, as well as an
on-site loading space and a short-term parking space on the street in front of the
property (pending Transportation Engineering approval). A Drop Off/Pick Up Plan
would distribute the vehicle trips to the site so that the use would not be detrimental
to the public convenience. In this way, the project features and use would not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare .
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 6 of 20
property involved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or
to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification in that the
proposed childcare is an exceptional use in the R1 District so the “special
circumstances” are due to the intended use of the property. The R1 parking
standards are oriented toward compatibility of single-unit uses, which is the
predominant use in the zoning district. While childcare facilities are conditionally
permitted, the standards do not consider the very different functioning of parking
and loading for these uses as compared with single-unit homes. The childcare
use must accommodate three parking spaces as well as at least one loading space
on the property. Use of the front driveway in a similar manner to the previous
residential use of the driveway for additional vehicle parking would meet the need
for another parking space in a manner that least affects the property and the
neighborhood. However, the Code does not allow this space to be counted as a
required space. The second variance request, to reduce one loading space and
instead provide an on-street, short-term parking space, is also justified by the
special circumstances of the childcare use. Childcare facilities are the only such
use for which the Zoning Code explicitly allows an on-street loading space.
However, in this case, the Building Code would compel the applicant to undertake
extensive right-of-way improvements for the loading space that would be
incompatible with the neighborhood, including the removal of a mature street tree.
Granting this variance addresses the conflict caused by these requirements, while
the condition to request a short-term parking space in lieu of the loading space
mitigates the impact by providing a dedicated space adjacent to the property for
drop-off and pick-up.
2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property
or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located
in that the project provides all required parking, and one passenger loading space
on-site. Regarding the variance request to locate one required parking space in
the front yard, it is typical for neighborhood residents to park their cars on front
driveways, although driveways are not considered their required parking.
Designating the front driveway as one of the three required parking spaces for the
use supports the childcare while resulting in essentially the same use of the
driveway as it served for the previous use as a residence and does not
substantially alter the relationship of the property’s access to the street.
Concerning the reduction of one loading space, with substitution of a short -term
parking space, the Code already allows the Director to approve one on -street
loading space in front of a childcare. The short-term space would not be injurious
to the surrounding improvements in the general vicinty because it would function
similarly and thus meet the intent of the Code. Furthermore, the space will be
available for general use outside of the facility’s operating hours. Thus, this finding
can be made for both of the requested variances.
3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 7 of 20
economic hardships, in that it is not practical for this childcare facility to provide
four or five rear-accessed parking or loading spaces, along with the required RRR
collection area that must be accessed from the alley. Allowing one front yard
parking space where a current driveway exists relieves this hardship. Additionally,
utilizing the Code provision to provide an on-street loading space would normally
assist in addressing this hardship. However, the Code’s nomenclature that
designates only a loading zone and not a short-term parking space option, would
result in practical difficulties due to Building Code requirements for right -of-way
improvements that are not compatible with the single-unit residential area and not
required for short-term parking. The short-term parking proposed as a substitute
will provide equivalent service for the drop off and pick up of children at the
childcare facility. Therefore, this finding can be made for both of the requested
variances.
4. The granting of two variances will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives, and policies of
the General Plan. Specifically, LUCE Policy CE9.1 supports the d evelopment of
high-quality Child Care and Early Education Facilities to meet the needs of workers
and residents of the City. The Zoning Code supports this policy by providing
specific use standards aimed at removing obstacles to implementation of this
policy. Nevertheless, this childcare use, which is encouraged in the General Plan
and supported by the Zoning Ordinance, still necessitates a request for a variance
from SMMC 9.28.070 (Location of Parking), as the Specific Use Standards have
not addressed all conflicts with the R1 Standards, which reflect the primary single-
family use in the district that requires only two parking spaces. Furthermore, the
on-street loading space allowed by the Specific Use Standards is not acceptable
in this location due to Building Code standards that would result in incompatible
right-of-way development. The substitution of a short-term parking space provides
the same service for the childcare facility Therefore, the granting of these
variances would support, and not conflict with, the general purposes and intent of
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it
is to be located in that the variances from parking location standards and use of a
short-term parking space instead of a loading space will facilitate the best design
for providing parking and loading as required by Code. It is typical for
neighborhood residents to park their cars on front driveways, although driveways
are not considered their required parking. Designating the front driveway as one
of the three required parking spaces for the use supports the childcare while
resulting in essentially the same use of the driveway as it served for the previous
use as a residence. Thus it will not impair the integrity and character of the district.
In regard to the request to substitute a short-term parking space for a required
loading space, the neighborhood’s character will not be impaired because the
existing street tree will be maintained by granting this variance. Furthermore,
during non-operational hours, which includes evening, overnight and weekend
hours, the space would continue to follow the restrictions of the rest of the
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 8 of 20
neighborhood and remain for use of all visiting the street.
6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variances in that it is a
standard lot on which all of the childcare facility’s needs can otherwise be met with
the granting of these variances.
7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to public
health and safety in that the subject property is located within a developed
urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing infrastructu re, public
utilities and services. It is not anticipated that the granting of this variance will have
any effect on the service needs of the property and use.
8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject variance
proposal in that the proposed variances support provision of parking that is
accessed from an existing alley and street, with an existing front driveway.
9. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in
unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property in that the
General Plan encourages childcare and the Zoning Code conditionally permits the
use in this single-family zoning district, but requires more parking than a residential
use. The Code’s locational requirements reflect residential needs and character,
but on a typical lot such as the subject property, the requirements taken together
become unreasonable for the establishment of a childcare facility. Requiring the
applicant to provide all three parking spaces in the rear of the property, as well as
providing an ADA-compliant loading space and an area that meets Public Works
criteria for storage and collection of trash and recycling presents practical
difficulties that would deprive the applicant of the property’s use. Allowing the
additional parking space to be located on the existing front driveway is necessary
to allow the facility to serve 20 children, making it possible to develop a viable
childcare facility. In this way, the variances in combination provide relief from the
strict application of the Zoning Ordinance to avoid unreasonable deprivation of the
property’s use for providing childcare to the community.
FENCE/WALL HEDGE MODIFICATION FINDINGS
1. The subject fence, wall, or hedge will be compatible with other similar structures in
the neighborhood and is required to mitigate impacts from adjacent land uses, the
subject property’s proximity to public rights-of-way, or safety concerns in that the
proposed five foot-high wood fence is required to provide a four f oot height from
the interior to meet State regulations for protection of outdoor play areas in the
proposed childcare facility. The fence has been designed to step back 18” from
the sidewalk to create a landscaped bench that mitigates the overall appearan ce
of height. Furthermore, the fence is conditioned herein to include some openness
to reflect the open character of the surrounding neighborhood. Although other
properties on the street do not have similar fences, the Zoning Code conditionally
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 9 of 20
permits childcare facilities in the district and anticipates front yard fences of at least
four feet in height. The modification allowing one additional foot, as designed and
conditioned, is compatible.
2. The granting of such modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the property
or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located
in that the fence is required to provide a 5’ triangular area free of hazardous visual
obstructions adjacent to the driveway on the subject site and the adjacent driveway
to the west. The fence as designed and conditioned herein will not be detrimental
or injurious to other properties.
3. The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in
which the fence, wall, or hedge is located because it has been designed tin a
sensitive manner to present a friendly front to the sidewalk through the bench
element while meeting the State requirements to protect the childcare facility’s play
yard.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Project Specific Conditions
1. The approved use is for a childcare facility serving a maximum of 20 children, ages
4-6 present at the site at any given time. Only activities directly associated with
the childcare use shall be allowed at the site, which includes events such as open
houses and parent meetings to which parents of children associated with the use
are invited. Such meetings shall be held indoors only if they are outside of the
authorized hours. Residents within a 300-foot radius of the property shall be
notified at least one week prior to any activity planned to take place outside of the
facility’s regularly authorized hours. Notwithstanding, limited additional activities
may be held provided that a permit is obtained per #5, below.
2. The childcare facility shall be operated according to all applicable State and local
regulations.
3. Enrollment in the childcare facility shall be limited to children 6 years of age and
younger.
4. The use of the childcare facility shall be limited to Monday through Friday between
the hours of 7:30 am - 6:00 pm. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that
all activity between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. is restricted to the indoors areas with
no use of outdoor play yards permitted.
5. Other than activities described in #1, above, up to two special events per year may
be requested outside of the facility’s authorized hours upon written request to the
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 10 of 20
Director of Planning and Community Development. Written requests for special
events must be submitted a minimum of 45 days prior to the proposed event, and
such requests shall be reviewed in accordance with the required findings and
reasonable conditions in SMMC Sections 9.44.030 and 9.44.0 40. In addition, at
least one week prior to the event, the applicant shall provide public notice of the
event to all residents within a 300-foot radius of the property.
6. Organized outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
or sunset, whichever comes first, on weekdays
7. Any substantial change in the mode or character of the operation of the proposed
use shall require approval from the Planning Commission.
8. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner that is not detrimental to
surrounding properties or residents in terms of excessive and unreasonable noise
levels and illegal parking and/or loading by employees and visitors to the facility.
9. The front yard fencing may be a maximum height of five feet, provided that the
portion above the retaining wall is set back from the property line by a minimum of
18 inches. The fencing shall be designed with some transparency in order to
comply with State licensing requirements while maintaining the neighborhood’s
open character to the extent possible, with review and approva l by the Director
prior to issuance of Building Permits. Front yard fencing above the height generally
permitted in the R1 zone shall be removed should the childcare use be terminated
and a residential use reestablished.
10. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare a drop
off/pick up plan for the Mobility Division’s approval that includes assigning all
parents to use specific loading zones, both in the alley and on the street, in order
to distribute trips between the alley and Delaware Avenue and avoid causing back-
ups that would inconvenience neighbors. Assignments shall be made with
consideration to the regular schedules of each family. The applicant shall provide
a letter to parents at the beginning of each school year e xplaining this policy and
their assignment, emphasizing need to respect the neighborhood’s residential
character by driving courteously and parking legally. All parents shall be required
to sign a Drop Off and Pick Up Agreement that acknowledges their assignment
and assures compliance.
11. A total of three parking spaces, including one accessible space for persons with
disabilities, and one accessible loading space shall be provided on the subject
property to serve the approved use. A minimum of two bicycle racks, as shown on
the approved plans, shall be provided and maintained for the use. The applicant
shall explore the potential of providing an additional on -site parking space at the
rear of the property if it is feasible with respect to other site requirements.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 11 of 20
12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a request to the
City’s Transportation Engineer to permit a short-term parking space on the street
adjacent to the front of the subject property. The request will be to designate the
space for short-term parking of up to 15 minutes during weekdays between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
13. An on-site contact person shall be designated to serve as a neighborhood liaison
to address any neighborhood concerns related to the facilit y. Notification of the
staff liaison and applicable contact information, including telephone and email
address, shall be provided to all residents within a 300-foot radius of the subject
site prior to the commencement of the use on the site, and at least o nce per year
thereafter.
14. No signage is permitted at the facility, per SMMC 9.61.190.F.1.
15. The applicant shall encourage employees to commute through alternatives to
single-occupancy driving and shall provide employees with incentives to rideshare,
including, at a minimum, providing transit passes or other transit reimbursement to
employees in order to minimize trips and parking generated by the facility. The
applicant shall also encourage bike riding by assisting staff to find the best bike
routes to the subject property.
16. Should the property’s use be returned to residential use in the future, it shall be
required to comply with the Municipal Code’s parking requirements. Any on-street
short-term parking or loading signs that have been installed shall be re moved and
the curb shall be identified as a regular street parking space.
17. At such time that staff is being hired for the facility, the applicant shall provide City
Planning staff with evidence of good faith outreach to recruit qualified staff living
locally within the City and particularly in the 90404 zip code.
Administrative
18. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within
30 months from the permit’s effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance
of a building permit to commence construction.
19. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of
approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing
same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess
regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds
for potential permit revocation.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 12 of 20
20. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of
this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
Conformance with Approved Plans
21. This approval is for those plans dated November 22, 2017, a copy of which shall
be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall
be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of
approval.
22. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to
Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission or Director of Planning
& Community Development.
23. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the
building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable
provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances
and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit
issuance.
Fees
24. As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the project applicant
is hereby notified that the 90-day period has begun as of the date of the approval
of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as
a condition of approval of this development. The fees, dedications, reservations,
or other exactions are described in the approved plans, con ditions of approval,
and/or adopted city fee schedule.
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction,
work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's expense.
A determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the
significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if
any, to address such findings.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 13 of 20
Project Operations
26. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to
surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or
other actions.
27. The project shall at all times comply with the p rovisions of the Noise Ordinance
(SMMC Chapter 4.12).
Final Design
28. The design, landscaping, screening, parking, loading, and trash enclosures shall
be consistent with the plans approved herein.
29. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.26.040 (Landscaping
Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water -conserving
landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in
the Subchapter.
30. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in
accordance with SMMC Sections 9.21.100, 9.21.130 and 9.21.140. Refuse areas
shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. Any rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located
in such a way as to minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties.
Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least five feet from the edge of
the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be
located on the roof.
31. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side
yard setback areas.
32. The applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and
Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve
compliance with such requirements.
Construction Plan Requirements
33. During demolition, excavation, and construction, this project shall comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust and associated particulate emission,
including but not limited to the following:
All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least three times
daily with complete coverage, preferably at the start of the day, in the
late morning, and after work is done for the day.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 14 of 20
All grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during
periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph measured as
instantaneous wind gusts) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
All material transported on and off -site shall be securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Soils stockpiles shall be covered.
Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph.
Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit the
construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment
leaving the site each trip.
An appointed construction relations officer shall act as a community
liaison concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of
issues related to PM10 generation.
Streets shall be swept at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186
certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil is
carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers
with reclaimed water).
All active portions the construction site shall be sufficiently watered three
times a day to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
34. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the
plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may
be heard outdoors.
Demolition Requirements
35. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is
currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding
up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and
planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the proper ty to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material
remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs.
36. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building
Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and
construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project
neighborhood.
37. The proposed garage removal would demolish an accessory building that is more
than 40 years old. However, as the structure is less than 400 square feet and not
listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, it is exempt from the provisions
of Chapter 9.25 (Demolition and Relocation), including the requirement for a 75 -
day waiting period for Landmarks review following the filing of a demolition permit.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 15 of 20
Indemnity
38. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards,
commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, "City") from any
claims, actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as "Claim" and collectively
referenced as "Claims") against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
approval of 17ENT-0075, 17ENT-0147 and 17ENT-0148 or any Claims brought
against the City due to the acts or omissions in any way connected to the
Applicant's project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Claim and shall
cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this paragraph prohi bits the
City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following occur:
i. The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs.
ii. The City defends the action in good faith.
iii. Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement un less the
settlement is approved by the Applicant.
iv. In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul
all, or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is
commenced for any other reason against the City for the act or omissions
relating to the Applicant's project, within fourteen (14) days following notice
of such action from the City, the Applicant shall file with the City a
performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security
satisfactory to the City ("the Security") in a form satisfactory to the City, and
in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant's performance of its defense,
indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The Security amount shall
not limit the Applicant's obligations to the City hereunder. The failure of the
Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express
acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have the
authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the approvals
granted hereunder.
Construction Period
39. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height
of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash,
weeds, etc.
40. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open
load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor
shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks
leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.
41. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning
and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements,
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 16 of 20
permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well
as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed
construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within
a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of
construction.
42. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the p ublic
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of
the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours
of permissible construction work.
43. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Standard Conditions
44. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is
adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted
by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical
equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet enclosure.
45. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided
by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or
contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be
submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do
not exceed maximum allowable levels for the a pplicable noise zone.
46. Final parking lot, bicycle parking and loading layout and specifications shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Mobility Division.
47. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PW)
Drainage
48. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff
Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Public Works pursuant to
Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for
Architectural Review Board approval, the applicant shall contact Public Works to
determine applicable requirements, which include the following:
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 17 of 20
Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the
construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
Any sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the
same day they are tracked off-site;
Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered
and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or
adjoining properties;
Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a
construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site
shall be allowed to leave the site;
Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and
topography of the site; and
New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least
twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such
as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales,
berms, and the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas;
modification of grades; use of retention structures and other methods.
Hazardous Materials
49. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report
from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form
by the Public Works /Environmental Programs Division. The report shall consist
of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The
report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast
AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a state C ertified
Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall
be performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous
materials to be considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in
thermostats, switches, fluorescent light); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
(including light Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries.
Streets
50. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works, all sidewalks shall
be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the
project.
51. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal
as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Public Works shall
be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Approval
for this work shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of the building permits.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 18 of 20
52. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to the
project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the
Department of Public Works.
Off-site
53. All off-site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans
and specifications for off-site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil
engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
54. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off -site improvements required by the
City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the City
Attorney's office.
Environmental Mitigation
55. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Public Works for
its approval. The recycling plan shall include:
1) List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and
glass to be recycled;
2) Location of recycling bins;
3) Designated recycling coordinator;
4) Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service;
5) Pick-up schedule; and
6) Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service.
56. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon
urinals and low flow shower heads.
Construction Period Mitigation
57. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
approval by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit.
The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the
project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan
shall:
1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license
numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect;
2) Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 19 of 20
4) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed
to be used in conjunction with construction;
5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under
the property of other persons;
7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings;
8) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck
trips, hours of hauling and parking location;
9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally permit ted hours is
proposed;
11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including
measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks;
12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel;
13) Provide a drainage plan;
14) Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of
public streets for parking;
15) List a designated on-site construction manager;
16) Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize
the reuse/recycling of construction waste;
17) Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact
materials in building construction; and
18) Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT
58. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the
specifications of the Public Landscape Division of the Public Works Department
and the City’s Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed
without the approval of the Public Landscape Division.
COMPLIANCE
59. The applicant authorizes reasonable City inspection of the property to
ensure compliance with the conditions of approval imposed by the City
in approving this project and will bear the reasonable cost of these
inspections as established by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
2.72.010 and Resolution No. 9905 (CCS) or any successor legislation
thereto. These inspections shall be no more intrusive than necessary
to ensure compliance with conditions of approval.
17ENT-0075 STOA
Page 20 of 20
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,
which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section
1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
______________________________
Print Name and Title Date
______________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
UN
T
I
T
L
E
D
N
O
.
1
Untitled No.1 School
2953 Deleware Avenue, Santa Monica CA
Front Elevation
UN
T
I
T
L
E
D
N
O
.
1
Arroyo / Front Yard
UN
T
I
T
L
E
D
N
O
.
1
Backyard / Outdoor Play and Learning Area
GSPublisherVersion 158.16.16.100
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
sh
e
e
W
Sr
o
M
e
F
W
sW
D
P
S
Dr
F
h
i
W
e
F
W
Issue Date
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
Title Sheet
5
'
e
l
D
Z
D
r
e
$
Y
e
n
u
e
SD
n
W
D
0
o
n
i
F
D
&
$
0
0
A0.00
5 'elDZDre $Yenue SDnWD 0oniFD &$ 00
8nWiWleG 1o.1 SFhool
Change of Use
ZONING
APPLICABLE CODES
016 &DliIorniD %uilGinJ &oGe &%&
016 &DliIorniD (leFWriFDl &oGe &(&
016 &DliIorniD 0eFhDniFDl &oGe &0&
016 &DliIorniD PluPbinJ &oGe &P&
006 &DliIorniD (nerJ\ &oGe 7 SDrW 6
016 &Dl Green ZiWh /oFDl $PenGPenWs
01 /os $nJeles 0uniFiSDl &oGe
Project InformationVicinty Map
Building and Zoning Information
Parking Count
Drawing Index
Project Team
CLIENT
ARCHITECT
0DrFh SWuGio
008 /inFoln %lYG.
SDnWD 0oniFD &D 005
&onWDFW SuPPer VDuJhn
Phone 10 660651
(PDil SuPPer#PDrFhsWuGio.FoP
PROPERTY OWNER:Dll $ssePbl\
'eWDil &Dll 2uW
(leYDWion &Dll 2uW
SeFWion &Dll 2uW
&oluPn /ine
,nWerior (leYDWion &Dll 2uW
5ooP 1uPber
'oor 'esiJnDWion
:inGoZ 'esiJnDWion
([isWinJ 'oor 'esiJnDWion
([isWinJ :inGoZ 'esiJnDWion
Drawing Symbols
&eilinJ +eiJhW
.e\noWe
(leYDWion &onWrol
1
1
1
ROOM NAME
eleYDWion
GesFriSWion
1
'01
(01
:01
10
0
8nWiWleG 1o.1 SFhool
1805 &olorDGo $Ye.
SDnWD 0oniFD &$ 00
&onWDFW /DilD 7DsliPi
Phone 10 0111 5
(PDil untitledno.1school@gmail.com
5 //&
1805 &olorDGo $Ye.
SDnWD 0oniFD &$ 00
&onWDFW /DilD 7DsliPi
Phone 10 0111 5
(PDil untitledno.1school@gmail.com
(01
=one 51
$P1 680016
&urrenW 8se SinJle )DPil\ 5esiGenFe
ProSoseG 8se &hilG 'D\ &Dre &enWer
&onGiWionDl 8se PerPiW &Dse 1(17005
VDriDnFe &Dse 1(1701 Wo DlloZ
PDrNinJ WhDW is noW loFDWeG in D JDrDJe
2ne SDrNinJ sSDFe in Whe IronW seWbDFN
2nl\ one loDGinJ sSDFe
0oGiIiFDWion &Dse 1(17018 Wo DlloZ
$ IronW \DrG IenFe uS Wo 5
0 hiJh
'esFriSWion 7.,. DnG siWe ZorN in FonMunFWion ZiWh &hDnJe oI 8se.
SiWe ZorN Wo inFluGe neZ WZoIooW hiJh reWDininJ ZDll neZ onsiWe
SDrNinJ loDGinJ sSDFes enlDrJeG Furb FuW hDrGsFDSe DnG
lDnGsFDSe biF\Fle rDFN IenFes DnG JDWes. $'$ uSJrDGes inFluGe
neZ liIW DnG sWDirs resWrooP DlWerDWions DnG Goor PoGi¿FDWions.
%uilGinJ iPSroYePenWs Wo inFluGe neZ GeFNs DnG shDGe
sWruFWures DGMusW FeilinJ FonsWruFWion Wo be 1hour DW e[isWinJ 1+r
ZDll neZ ZinGoZs DnG Goors neZ insulDWion neZ Gr\ZDll neZ
+V$& liJhWinJ eleFWriFDl DnG SluPbinJ.
ProSoseG 2FFuSDnF\ GrouS (
&onsWruFWion 7\Se V%
SSrinNlers $uWoPDWiF 1)P$ 1 ¿re sSrinNler s\sWeP reTuireG Ser S0
0& 8..050 SSrinNlers Wo FoPSl\ ZiWh &%& FhDSWer &Dl Green
5.508.1.1 &hloroÀuoroFDrbons &)&s ,nsWDll +V$& reIriJerDWion
DnG ¿re suSSression eTuiSPenW WhDW Go noW FonWDin &)&s.
5.508.1. +Dlons ,nsWDll +V$& reIriJerDWion DnG ¿re suSSression
eTuiSPenW WhDW Go noW FonWDin +Dlons.
0DnuDl DnG DuWoPDWiF )ire DlDrP s\sWeP reTuireG Ser &%& 0..
([isWinJ %uilGinJ $reD
([isWinJ 5esiGenFe GrounG )loor 18 sT. IW.
0iniPuP 5eTuireG PDrNinJ Ser S00& .8.060
&hilG &Dre 1 Ser 500
1eW $reD 16 sT. IW.
16 sT. IW. 500 .
SSDFes reTuireG
SSDFes SroYiGeG
0iniPuP 5eTuireG /oDGinJ SSDFes Ser S00& .8.080
'D\ &Dre Ior 1 Wo 0 sWuGenWs sSDFes
SSDFes SroYiGeG 1 on siWe DnG 1 onsWreeW shorW WerP SDrNinJ
5eGuFWion DlloZeG Ser VDriDnFe 1(1701
/oW $reD 6500 sT. IW.
([isWinJ GDrDJe GrounG )loor 60 sT. IW.
Total Existing Area 1,838 sq. ft.
1uPber oI sWories 1
%uilGinJ +eiJhW 1
( PDrFel FoYerDJe 166500 .5
ProSoseG &hilG &Dre GrounG )loor 16 sT. IW.
Total Proposed Area 1,462 sq. ft.
([isWinJ 2FFuSDnF\ GrouS 5
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
MEP ENGINEER
$0P( (nJineerinJ
51 1. )Dir 2DNs $Ye. SuiWe 01
PDsDGenD &$ 110
&onWDFW %rDG SeYerson
Phone 66 1506
(PDil bseYerson1#eDrWhlinN.neW
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
&0 PeFN
5 S (l 0olino $Ye
PDsDGenD &$ 1101
&onWDFW &hris PeFN
Phone 66 68008
(PDil Fhris#FPSeFN.FoP
7errePoWWo
1 (Fho PDrN $Ye
/os $nJeles &$ 006
&onWDFW -enn\ -ones
Phone 510
(PDil -enn\#WerrePoWo.lD
ProSoseG %uilGinJ $reD
([isWinJ %uilGinJ $reD Wo be 'ePolisheG
([isWinJ 5esiGenFe 'ePo $reD 16 sT. IW.
([isWinJ GDrDJe 'ePo $reD 60 sT. IW.
SITE
Max. Number of Students per CUP = 20
1101&iW\ &ounFil SeW
$0.00 7iWle SheeW
1 oI 1 7oSoJrDShiF SurYe\
$1.11 SiWe PlDn
$.10 'ePoliWion )loor PlDn
$.11 )irsW )loor PlDn
$.1 5ooI PlDn
/DnGsFDSe PlDn
)enFe SWrDWeJ\
$.01 (leYDWions
$1.05 ([isWinJ %uilGinJ
$1.06 SurrounGinJ ProSerWies
GSPublisherVersion 125.19.19.100
GSPublisherVersion 163.16.16.100
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
s h e e t
p r o j e c t
s t a m p
a r c h i t e c t
Issue Date
U n t i t l e d N o .1 S c h o o l
J o b #1 7 0 5
Site Plan
2 9 5 3 D e l a w a r e A v e n u e
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 4
A 1.11
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
20'-0" Alley 18'-0"
5'-0 1/8"
clr.
18'-0"
50'-9"49'-0 1/4"30'-0" setback
5 '-0 "
s e t b a c k
5 '-0 "
s e t b a c k
5'-0 1/8"
25'-0" back up clr.18'-0"
1 0 '-0 "
5 '-0 "
6 '-0 "
14'-11 7/8"
25'-0" setback
8'-0 1/8"
8 '-9 5 /8 "
4 '-3 3 /4 "
3 6 '-1 0 5 /8 "5 0 '-0 "
130'-0"
1
A7
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10 14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
01
09
13
08
09
10
04
04
24
08
24
08
26
26
31
06
06
27
27
27
27
28
25
29
30
Parking 2
Compact
Parking 3
CL
ALLEY
D E L A W A R E
A V E N U E
A L L E Y
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y
L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
exit path of travel
e x i t p a t h o f t r a v e l
Adjacent
Single Family
Residence
Adjacent
Single Family
Residence
Adjacent
Garage
Adjacent
Accessory
Building
(e ) s i d e w a l k
(n) 5'-0" high
fence per landscape
drawings
(n) 8'-0" high
fence per landscape
drawings
(n) 5'-0" high
fence per landscape
drawings
(n) 8'-0" high
fence per landscape
drawings
HB
HB
HB
location per landscape
HB
1 '-5 3 /4 "
9 '-0 "
8 '-0 "
9 '-0 "
7 '-6 1 /8 "
1 '-6 "
1'-11 7/8"
Existing
Building
1,478 SF
13
12Parking 1
Van Accessible
Passenger
Loading Space
Entry
P R O P E R T Y
L I N E
11/22/2017 City Council Set
N
scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 Site Plan
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(e) 6'-0" High CMU wall
Space for (2) 4' x 6' trash bins
(n) 8'-0" High CMU and wood wall, per
landscape
HVO tr iangle to be kept clear of obstructions
over 24" pursuant to SMMC 9.04 .10.02.909
(e) Power pole
(n) Park ing
HVO tr iangle to be kept clean of obstr uctions
over 24" pursuant to SMMC 9.04 .10.02.909
(mitigate obstructions w/ mirrors)
L ine of (n) shade canopy above
(e) Fruit tree
(n) Wood steps - see details on A9.01
(n) Shade structure post, typ.
(n) Counter height cabinet, typ.
(n) Wood deck, see floor plan
(n) Parking for 2 bicycles (short term) 4' x 6'
(n) Curb cut
Short-term parking to be requested from the city
(e) 30" diameter street tree
Reconf igur e door, landing and steps
K eynotes Site Plan Notes
Mechanical equipment area
Reta ining wall per landscape
(n) Fence per landscape: 5'-0" max. high per
variance #17ENT -014 7
Proposed location of fire sprink ler double
detector valve (not in scope)
(n) ADA lift - Garaventa model #Genesis Opal
(n) Raised planter per landscape drawings
(n) 4'-0" exit and gate. Provide gate with panic
hardware per CBC 10 10 .1.10
Ground-lev el planter area per landscape
Hose bib
Parking space in front yard setback per variance
# 17 ENT -014 7
3'-0" sliding gate for trash removal
6" curb stop at trash collection area confirm
r equir ements with city of Santa Monica
(n) 4'-0" wide exit gate
- refer to Landscape Drawings for grading, fences,
site walls, hardscape, trees, and planting
Outdoor Play Area:
Front Yard: 765 SF
Back Yard: 1400 SF
Decks: 433 SF
TOTAL PLAY AREA: 2,598 SF / 75 sf per child = 34 children max
UN
T
I
T
L
E
D
N
O
.
1
LUNCH TABLES
SOLAR PANELS
FALLEN LOGS
- BACKBONE OF LOOSE PARTS PLAN
LAB DECK
- W/ SOLAR PANEL ROOF, PARTIALLY
OPEN SIDES
FOREST
- LOOSE PARTS, READING NOOKS
SEASONAL PLAY
ARROYO
- STONES , GRAVEL, WATER, MUD, TREES,
PLANTS, FOREST FLOOR
PUBLIC BENCH
DECK
CONCRETE WALK W/
PEBBLE MOSAICS
VEGETABLE BEDS WOOD FENCE
SHORT TERM
BIKE PARKING
PLAY HUT
LOOSE PARTS
COMPOST
UNTITLED / 11.21.17
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
15
1
14
9
15
0
15
0
14
9
14
9
PHASE:
JOB NUMBER:SCALE:
SHEET TITLE:
PROJECT:
DESIGNER:
SHEET NUMBER:
NOTES:
REV DATE ISSUE BY
TERREMOTO
2953 DELAWARE AVE
SANTA MONICA, VA 90404
JAJ
1. EXISTING WALLS
2. PROPOSED GARDEN WALLS, TO BE CMU BLOCK W/ SMOOTH PLASTER COATING. SEE L2.1 FOR ELEVATIONS.
3. SLOPED WALK (ALL BELOW 5% SLOPE)
4. BIKE RACKS, TO BE CUSTOM STEEL IN CONCRETE FOOTINGS.
5. PROPOSED 5' WOOD FENCE (MEASURED FROM SIDEWALK, 4' FROM TOP OF WALL), W/ 60% TRANSPARENCY. 6x6 TREATED PT POSTS IN CONCRETE FOOTINGS.
6. PROPOSED 8' WOOD FENCE, W/ NO TRANSPARENCY.
7. P.I.P CONCRETE, NO COLOR, TOP CAST FINISH, 18" SAW CUT CONTROL JOINTS.
8. NATURAL STEP STONES, TBD, W/ MULCH IN BETWEEN ,SET ON 2" BASE OF 34" GRAVEL.
9. BROWN PLAYGROUND AND PLANTING MULCH, 4" THICK PER PLAYGROUND STANDARDS.
10. DRY ARROYO / RAIN GARDEN: COMPOSED OF A GRADIENT OF LARGE BOULDERS (2'-4') TO GRAVEL (34"), TO BE LAID OUT IN THE FIELD BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. XX SQUARE
FEET, PONDING AREAS 4" IN DEPTH. TIE INTO ROOF DOWNSPOUT USING 4" SDR SCHEDULE 40 PVC.
11. WOOD SWING GATE TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCE. STEEL FRAME. GATE TO BE SELF-CLOSING AND TO HAVE KEYPAD LOCK AND LATCH OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.
12. WOOD SLIDING GATE TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCE.
13. NEW RAISED PLANTERS - TO BE 4x4 TIMBERS W/ OVERLAPPING BUTT JOINTS. PLANTED W/ EDIBLES.
14. PERGOLA PER ARCH.
15. DECKING PER ARCH.
16. WHEELCHAIR LIFT.
17. WATER FOUNTAIN, SEE ARCH + PLUMBING.
18. WOOD BENCH - TO BE MADE OF SAME MATERIAL AS DECKING.
19. TIMBER BEAMS - TO BE USED AS AN ARMATURE FOR LOOSE PARTS PLAY. 6x6 BEAMS.
20. OPEN STORAGE / PLAY AREA
21. ROPE NET SURROUNDING BASE OF EXISTING FIG TREE, TIED INTO DECK, FLUSH W/ DECK, FOR CHILDREN TO CLIMB AND LIE ON.
22. RAIN BARREL
23. COMPOST BIN
24. HOSE BIB
N
10/13/17 CITY SUBMISSION
0
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
4'8'
WOOLY POCKET WALL, PLANTED W/ SUCCULENTS.
MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION LEGEND
EXISTING TREE, TYP.
MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IMPERIAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS WITH FIELD CONDITIONS. REPORT ANY
DISCREPANCIES TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND RESPONSE
2. ALL UTILITIES TO BE STAKED OUT AND PROTECTED FOR DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (COORDINATE WITH ARCH, AS REQUIRED)
- ALL SUBSTITUTIONS OF SPECIFIED MATERIALS TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
- UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, PROVIDE A MINIMUM 2% SLOPE ON ALL HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPE AREAS TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE
AWAY FROM BUILDINGS OR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. MAX 3:1 SLOPE IN SOFT LANDSCAPE AREAS
- THE LAYOUT OF ALL HARDSCAPE ITEMS, SITE FURNITURE, BOULDERS, TRAIL, LIGHTING, PLANTING BEDS AND OTHER MATERIALS IS TO BE
STAKED OUT BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
- REFER TO CIVIL OF CURRENT GRADING PLAN AND ELEVATIONS. FINAL GRADING PLAN AND LAYOUT OF WALLS, STAIRS, AND RAMPS TBD.
- SITE CLEAN-UP SHALL TAKE PLACE ON A DAILY BASIS.
1
2
2
3, 7
4
5
5
6
6
7
3, 7
3, 7
11
12 6
6
6
11
9
9
99
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
10
13
13
13
15
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
9
9
23
PROPOSED TREE, TYP.
HOUSE
15
9 (PLANTING STRIP)
LIMIT OF WORK LINE
24
24
24
1
FENCE STRATEGY SWING GATE (to match adjacent fence)
SLIDING GATE (to match adjacent fence)
5’ WOOD FENCE W/ SOME TRANSPARENCY PER MODIFICATION
8’ WOOD FENCE
GSPublisherVersion 125.19.19.100
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
sh
e
e
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
st
a
m
p
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Issue Date
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
Demolition Floor
Plan
29
5
3
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
,
C
A
9
0
4
0
4
A2.10
2'-2 1/2"
4'
-
6
1
/
2
"
remove (e) steps &
landings
remove (e) electrical
panel
remove (e) water heater
remove (e) ÀUHSODFH
(e) under-ÁRoUYHQW
well
protect (e) doorbell and
mantle, remove (e)
phonebook holder
remove (e)
shelf and pole
demolish (e) conc. porch
remove (e) wood ledge
remove (e) conc. steps
and porch
(e) HVAC grille
to remain
remove (e) metal guard
rail and shade canopy
post
Kitchen
Bedroom #3
Bedroom #2 Bedroom #1
Living
Room
Dining
W/C
W/C
(e) ÀUHSODFHVXUrRXQG
to remain
remove (e) built-in
cabinets
remove (e) shelves
and pole
remove (e) mail slot
concrete
porch
Demolished wall, door,
window
Legend
Existing wall, door, window
to remain
Remove (e) drywall
ceiling, (e) ceiling joists
to remain
Remove (e) T-bar ceiling
10/20/2017 Plan Check
N
scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 Demolition Floor Plan
- remove (e) carpeting and sheet/tile ÁRoUÀQiVK H
wood ÁRoUWRUHPDLQ
- remove all existing light and plumbing À[WXUHV
and toilet accessories
- verify extent of demolition with architect and
owner in ÀHOGSULRUWRH[HFXWLRQ
- coordinate extent of demolition with proposed
ÁRoUSODQ
Demolition Notes
GSPublisherVersion 158.16.16.100
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
sh
e
e
t
Sr
o
M
e
c
t
st
a
m
S
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Issue Date
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
First Floor Plan
29
5
3
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
Y
e
n
u
e
Sa
n
t
a
0
o
n
i
c
a
C
A
9
0
4
0
4
A2.11
in¿ll at e ¿reSlace
16 sq ft
03
D06
5
A9.014
A9.01
A
2
1
5
4
B C D E F G
D05
5
A6.02
10'-0"
36
"
m
i
n
.
cl
r
.
eq.4'-0"eq.
3'-6"
3'
-
6
"
1-Hour rated wall -
see #/A9.01
5'
-
3
"
3'
-
5
1
/
2
"
7'
-
0
"
3'
-
3
1
/
2
"
15
'
-
8
1
/
2
"
1'-10"14'-9"8'-4 1/2"8'-3 1/2"
31'-5"
152.97
+152.97
+150.93
+152.97
+150.6
+152.97
150.97
1
A6 3
A7
4
A7
n wood steSs
n wood decN
line of roof aboYe t\S.
n Slanter Ser
landscaSe
n Slanter Ser
landscaSe
e Yent
n wood decN and steSs
e[tent of PV
Sanels aboYe
e[tent of PV Sanels
aboYe
34" hiJh
countertoS
P5 n hiJh-low drinNinJ
fountain
ADA lift see A1.11
clos.
UP
UP
UP
2VEN
EXIT Classroom
Library
Kitchen/
Classroom
WC
Classroom
Classroom
WC
Office
7
A9.01
1
A9.01
DW
:05
:04
:01
:02
:11 :09:10:13 :12
:14
D04
D03
:03
D01
:06
:07
:08:15
:17
:16
D02
new built-in
caseworN
5
A9.03
3
5
A6.01 5
A9.02
18
"
32
"
mi
n
cl
r
.36" min.
2
A6
n wood decN in¿ll e door
n countertoS and
cabinet
n wood steSs
e[tent of PV Sanels
aboYe
steel shade suSSort
see structural
steel shade suSSort
see structural
A4
A2
A3
P4
A1
P6
P8
P7
P2
P3
P1
P9
non absorbent interior Àoor
and wall ¿nishes shall be
used within at least two feet
around and SerSendicular to
new e[terior entries and/or
oSeninJs subMect to foot traf¿c
P13
P11
P12
P10
P14
A5
24" deeS shelf/worN
surface
A: 112 sq ft
A: 231 sq ft
A: 262 sq ft
A: 182 sq ft
A: 166 sq ft
A: 203 sq ft
Floor Plan Legend
E[istinJ Wall
New wall/door/window
,lluminated E[it SiJn
11/22/2017 Cit\ Council Set
Nscale: 3/16" = 1'-0"8 First Floor Plan
GSPublisherVersion 125.19.19.100
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
sh
e
e
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
st
a
m
p
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Issue Date
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
Roof Plan
29
5
3
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
,
C
A
9
0
4
0
4
A2.14
A
2
1
5
4
3
B C D E F G
1
A6 3
A7
4
A7
patch roof at (e) chimney
steel shade support, see
structural
2
A6
(e) class A asphalt shingle
roof, typ(e) roof
PV panels to provide 4'-0"
min deep protective
opening over exterior door
per CalGreen 5.407.2.2.1
PV panels to provide 4'-0"
min deep protective
opening over exterior door
per CalGreen 5.407.2.2.1
retractable fabric shade
welded wire mesh to
support vines
sl
o
p
e
sl
o
p
e
slope
slope
sl
o
p
e
A
2
1
5
4
3
B C D E
10/20/2017 Plan Check
N
scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 Roof Plan
GSPublisherVersion 158.16.16.100
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
sh
e
e
t
pr
o
M
e
c
t
st
a
m
p
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Issue Date
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
Elevations
29
5
3
'
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
$
v
e
n
u
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
C
$
9
0
4
0
4
A3.10
14'-3"
roof peak
n stucco
n 5'-0" max. fence
per landscapedrawings
e asphalt shingle roof
n 8'-0" high fenceper landscapedrawings
P/P/
$
/
/
E
<
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
Window2'-6" x 4'-6"Window2'-6" x 4'-6"
Wall Opening Area
Total Wall $rea = 138 sT.ft.
Total 2pening $rea = 22.5 sT.ft.
22.5 sT.ft. opening / 138 sT.ft. = 16.3 25
Max. allowance open area for wall at 5'-0" to 10'-0"from propert\ line unprotected sprinkled = 25
Per C%C table 705.8
-2'-5"
+ardiePanel boardand batten siding
t.o. fence 5'-0" max.
above sidewalkper SMMC 9.04.050 and variance
#17ENT-0147 n steps
n verticalwood siding
n retaining wall perlandscape drawings n steel mesh
n wood shelf
n $'$ lift -Garaventa Genesis2pal
1-+our rated
stucco wall
e crawl space vent t\p. V.,.).and provide 8.55 sf. min.ventilation area per C%C1203.4.1 Provide corrosionresistant covering with the lastdimension not greater than 1/8"
steel shade supportsee structural
PV panels
E1
E2
E3
n gutters t\p.
n downspout
n downspout
n planter per landscapedrawings
14'-4 3/4"t.o. ridge
t.o. fence
5'-0" max. above sidewalkper SMMC 9.04.050
and variance #17ENT-0147
5'-0"
4'
-
0
"
n 8'-0" max. highfence per landscapedrawings
n 5'-0" max.fence perlandscape
n stucco
e asphaltshingle roof
mechanical eTuipment
steel shade supportsee structural
PV panels
n downspout
E3 +ardiPanel boardand batten siding
location of ¿re riser
n gutters t\p.for roof
n downspout
n planter perlandscape drawings
5'-0" max. fenceendpoint
A
L
L
E
Y
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
P/P/
slope 1:12
e crawl space vent t\p. V.,.).and provide 8.55 sf. min.ventilation area per C%C1203.4.1 Provide corrosion
resistant covering with the lastdimension not greater than 1/8"
0'-0"finish floor
14'-4 3/4"roof peak
e block wall
e block wall
n wood fence perlandscape drawings8'-0" max. n wood fence8'-0" max.
e asphaltshingle roof
gutter
n stucco
n steel framesee structural
P/P/
slope 1:12slope 1:12
n planter perlandscapedrawings
steel shade support
see structural
PV panels
n verticalwood siding E2
n downspout
+ardiePanelboard and
batten siding
E3
0'-0"finish floor
14'-4 3/4"
roof peak
e asphalt shingle roof
outline of e street tree
P/P/
mirror
1
A .01 n 5'-0" max. fencewithin front \ardsetback perlandscape drawings
n 5'-0" max. fencewithin front \ardsetback perlandscape drawings n steps
n stucco
E6
n downspout
n 8'-0" max. fencebe\ond perlandscape drawings
Note: top of fence within front \ardsetback to be 5'-0" max. perSMMC 9.04.050 and variance#17ENT-0147
11/22/2017 Cit\ Council Set
scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"10 East Elevation
scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"11 West Elevation
scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"12 North Elevation
scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"6 South Elevation
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
issue date:
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
sh
e
e
t
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
Surrounding
3roSerties
29
5
3
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
,
C
A
9
0
4
0
4
A1.0
05/18/2017
cl
i
e
n
t
Applicant: Untitled
No. 1 School
t: (310) 701-1195
2953 Delaware Ave.297 Delaware Ave.
3ropert\ Northwest oI 2953 Delaware Ave.
2957 Delaware Ave.
3ropert\ Northeast oI 2953 Delaware Ave.
295 Delaware Ave.
3ropert\ opposite oI 2953 Delaware Ave.
29 Delaware Ave.
3ropert\ Southeast oI 2953 Delaware Ave.
295 Delaware Ave.
3ropert\ Southeast oI 2953 Delaware Ave.
BRANDED ARCHITECTURE
3008 LINCOLN BLVD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
T: 310.664.0651
MARCHSTUDIO.COM
issue date:
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
sh
e
e
t
Un
t
i
t
l
e
d
N
o
.
1
S
c
h
o
o
l
Jo
b
#
1
7
0
5
Existing
Building
29
5
3
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
,
C
A
9
0
4
0
4
A1.05
05/18/2017
cl
i
e
n
t
Applicant: Untitled
No. 1 School
t: (310) 701-1195
2953 Delaware Ave - South (Front) Elevation
2953 Delaware Ave - North Elevation
2953 Delaware Ave - East Elevation
2953 Delaware Ave - West Elevation
1
Esterlina Lugo
Subject:RE: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953
Delaware
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Louise Jaffe <louisecjaffe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953 Delaware
To: Ted Winterer <ted.winterer@smgov.net>
Hi Ted,
I'm writing to you as a private citizen/resident and strong believer in the importance of expanding access to
high quality early childhood education to reduce educational and economic equity gaps.
On Tuesday you will consider agenda item 6A, an appeal to oppose a new small early childhood education
center at 2953 Delaware Avenue that won approval from the Planning Commission. I hope that you will follow
staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval.
I also wanted to let you know that I know the applicant Laila Taslimi through her involvement with the
Childcare and Early Ed Task Force. Laila, a longtime resident and a former accomplished teacher at McKinley, is
an avid lifelong learner. She is deeply committed to equity and excellence and is thoughtful, hardworking, and
compassionate. I have no doubt that she will be tireless in ensuring that her center guides and supports young
children and their families through their critical early years. Her center will provide another much‐needed high
quality opportunity for the children of working parents, including those needing subsidies, to happily learn and
thrive. She will also be a respectful and responsive neighbor. The project plans attached to your agenda are
beautiful and reflect Laila's values, high standards, and vision for the learning environment she is committed
to provide. Please support Laila's application!
Thanks, Cheers, and Onward,
Louise
1
Esterlina Lugo
Subject:RE: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
From: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 10:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue
Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson‐Warren
Subject: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 ‐ Appeal from Gandara Park Neighborhood
Dear City Council:
The Board of Northeast Neighbors requests that City Council grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT‐0189)
submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence
Modifications approved by Planning Commission so that the residents may preserve peace in their
neighborhood (Agenda Item 6.A for the the City Council meeting of Dec. 5, 2017).
Residents of many neighborhoods have signed the petition supporting this Appeal because the application
that was approved by the Planning Commission clearly exceeds what the Zoning allows.
Northeast Neighbors fought very hard to stop City Council from approving commercial day care centers in
single family neighborhoods during the Zoning Ordinance Update. We lost that fight. Now we have the first
case of a home that has been purchased and plans presented that seek permission from the City to expand
even further the commercial child care center standards now permitted in the Zoning, an application to run a
commercial venture in a single family home.
The state of California has long permitted "family day care" in residential neighborhoods. Such daycare
programs are low key and low cost and allow residents who open them to run small scale programs that
generate needed income. The state sets a maximum of 14 children in such small businesses.
The new commercial level of child care center that our City Council approved for R1 is of a whole different
order. The one planned for the Gandara Park neighborhood is owned by a group called Delaware LLC, which
plans to hire up to five employees and to accept up to 20 children for a reported tuition of $1700 a month.
The owner will not live in the converted home. These factors describe a commercial enterprise that could
generate a gross income of $30,000 a month. A house the same size on the same block just rented for $5,000
a month.
Northeast Neighbors argued against expanding child care centers into R1 neighborhoods during the Zoning
Ordinance update. We pointed out that a better public policy approach would be to require on‐site child
care centers in development agreements and DR projects instead of the practice of collecting child care fees.
Awards have been won by forward‐thinking businesses like Patagonia for the on‐site child care center they
offer at their Ventura headquarters. Such facilities place children and parents close to each other and
2
encourage the use of transit, reducing car trips into and out of the neighborhoods of our already congested
city.
To allow this project to move forward with the requested expansions beyond what the Zoning allows is not
consistent with the stated aim of this Council to encourage housing production. With the new regulations
for second unit "granny flats," not only will the house be lost to the housing market, but there will
also be the loss of a potential affordable second unit.
While the need for affordable housing has been clearly measured, no data has been presented by the
applicant or City staff to show the need for a child care facility in this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign on the front lawn of this property describes it as "Untitled No. 1 School" suggests there
will be more such applications to convert more single homes into commercial day care centers that ask more
than the Code allows, removing more homes from the market and creating more conflicts between City Hall
and residents.
We ask City Council to grant the Appeal for these reasons and all of the reasons articulated by the residents
of the Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elana Clark-Faler <elana@recoveryhelpnow.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Cc:lorum@smmusd.org; dsinfield@smmusd.org; jfullwood@smmusd.org;
srichardson@smmusd.org; plytz@smmusd.org; pherkner@smmusd.org;
fculpepper@smmusd.org; mnye@smmusd.org; abenjamin@smmusd.org;
afuller@smmusd.org; mdemick@smmusd.org; lholeva@smmusd.org;
ashelton@smmusd.org; jrishe@smmusd.org; p.miller@smmusd.org;
ecochran@smmusd.org; bdrati@smmusd.org; smmctapresident@smmcta.com;
bransom@smmcta.com; grantaclark@gmail.com; nevvy2008@gmail.com; Claudia
Seizer; William Faler; Brian O'Neil; Nada Shamonki
Subject:Please don't vote to take away from Public Schools in SM
Dear Council Persons,
December 5th you plan to hear our plea to protect our Delaware community in the Pico Neighborhood from
commercial businesses. We are asking you to vote against a private Pre-K school (a commercial business) to
enter a residential R1 street. There are many reasons to vote against this business. Here are some:
-Lila is opening a Pre-K Learning Center School. A school….not an in-home daycare. As a result of opening a
Pre-K School she will directly compete with the City of Santa Monica Public School Pre-K programs located at
Grant, Will Rogers, Franklin and John Muir. These Pre-K programs are for 4 - 6 year olds. This means parents
in SM will not contribute or support to the public school system within SM if their children attend this school
for $2000 per month. Lila has indicated she is targeting 90404 residents to attend her school, because she sees a
need for us (that no one asked for). Funds will be taken away from our public school system, if the city votes
in-favor of this business. You will support Lila’s pocket book, not our city schools. Not only will you support
taking money away from our public school Pre-K program, you will set a precedent that a commercial business
can move into a residential home (R1 Communities), take money away from our public school system and take
inventory away from our housing supply. Remember, this isn’t a charter school. This isn’t her residence. This
is a business taking away from two very important systems (housing and public schools).
-The school is opening up in a 1400 sq ft space with 20 children and 4 teachers. The space is a residential home
steps away from neighbors on either side of the house. Lila will not live here. She will not be our
neighbor. She will come to her business and leave to her home north of Montana each day. We will be forced
to live by a business that will not be regulated for sound, parking, and etc. I hear my neighbor singing in his
shower from my window. I can’t imagine hearing 20 children. You must understand our houses are positioned
so close to each other. Most of the homes were originally 2B/2B homes. It will be impossible to escape from
the noise and the congestion of the drop-offs & pick-ups.
-The parking for her business will consist of one loading zone out front and a couple parking spots in the narrow
alley way. We all know a business of 20 children will take up so much space beyond one loading zone or a line
of cars dropping off in the ally.
Majority of our neighbors don’t want this business in our neighborhood. We have a strong petition against
it. Please visit: http://support.preservegandara.org/. We don’t need a private non-profit school. We have
perfectly good public schools where both of my children attended. I love the cities Pre-K programs and
Item 6-A
12/5/17
1 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
teachers. Let’s keep supporting them, versus taking away from them and taking away from our residential
supply to give to a wealthy woman who wishes to run a business. Remember, we have 45 daycares and
preschools within a 2 mile radius.
I will compromise my position and agree to an in-home daycare for babies if she and her husband will move
from their wonderful home north of Montana to enter our beautiful Pico neighborhood to have an in-home
daycare of 6- 8 children below the age of 4. We would love to have her as a resident business owner…living in
her home.
I beg you to support and preserve our public school teachers, our city schools, our R1 status and our homes.
Best,
Elana
--
Elana Clark-Faler, LCSW, CSAT-S, CST, CGP
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
elana@recoveryhelpnow.com
Recovery Help Now, Inc.
7421 Beverly Blvd. Suite #2
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p 888.851.2666 | f 323.951.1119
recoveryhelpnow.com
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow us on Twitter @recoveryhelpnow
Find us on Facebook facebook.com/recoveryhelpnow
—
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 &
164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and
then delete the email from your computer.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
2 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elana Clark-Faler <elana@recoveryhelpnow.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Please don't vote to take away from Public Schools in SM
Please read below. Thank you.
Elana
--
Elana Clark-Faler, LCSW, CSAT-S, CST, CGP
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
elana@recoveryhelpnow.com
Recovery Help Now, Inc.
7421 Beverly Blvd. Suite #2
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p 888.851.2666 | f 323.951.1119
recoveryhelpnow.com
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow us on Twitter @recoveryhelpnow
Find us on Facebook facebook.com/recoveryhelpnow
—
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 &
164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and
then delete the email from your computer.
Begin forwarded message:
Item 6-A
12/5/17
3 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
From: Elana Clark-Faler <elana@recoveryhelpnow.com>
Subject: Please don't vote to take away from Public Schools in SM
Date: November 29, 2017 at 10:57:03 PM PST
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net, ted.winterer@smgov.net, gleam.davis@smgov.net,
tony.vazquez@smgov.net, Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, pam.oconnor@smgov.net,
terry.oday@smgov.net
Cc: lorum@smmusd.org, dsinfield@smmusd.org, jfullwood@smmusd.org,
srichardson@smmusd.org, plytz@smmusd.org, pherkner@smmusd.org,
fculpepper@smmusd.org, mnye@smmusd.org, abenjamin@smmusd.org,
afuller@smmusd.org, mdemick@smmusd.org, lholeva@smmusd.org,
ashelton@smmusd.org, jrishe@smmusd.org, p.miller@smmusd.org,
ecochran@smmusd.org, bdrati@smmusd.org, smmctapresident@smmcta.com,
bransom@smmcta.com, grantaclark@gmail.com, nevvy2008@gmail.com, Claudia
Seizer <ilove4xys@gmail.com>, William Faler <wmfaler@gmail.com>, Brian O'Neil
<bpo42@yahoo.com>, Nada Shamonki <nshamonki@hotmail.com>
Dear Council Persons,
December 5th you plan to hear our plea to protect our Delaware community in the Pico
Neighborhood from commercial businesses. We are asking you to vote against a private Pre-K
school (a commercial business) to enter a residential R1 street. There are many reasons to vote
against this business. Here are some:
-Lila is opening a Pre-K Learning Center School. A school….not an in-home daycare. As a
result of opening a Pre-K School she will directly compete with the City of Santa Monica Public
School Pre-K programs located at Grant, Will Rogers, Franklin and John Muir. These Pre-K
programs are for 4 - 6 year olds. This means parents in SM will not contribute or support to the
public school system within SM if their children attend this school for $2000 per month. Lila
has indicated she is targeting 90404 residents to attend her school, because she sees a need for us
(that no one asked for). Funds will be taken away from our public school system, if the city
votes in-favor of this business. You will support Lila’s pocket book, not our city schools. Not
only will you support taking money away from our public school Pre-K program, you will set a
precedent that a commercial business can move into a residential home (R1 Communities), take
money away from our public school system and take inventory away from our housing
supply. Remember, this isn’t a charter school. This isn’t her residence. This is a business taking
away from two very important systems (housing and public schools).
-The school is opening up in a 1400 sq ft space with 20 children and 4 teachers. The space is a
residential home steps away from neighbors on either side of the house. Lila will not live
here. She will not be our neighbor. She will come to her business and leave to her home north
of Montana each day. We will be forced to live by a business that will not be regulated for
sound, parking, and etc. I hear my neighbor singing in his shower from my window. I can’t
imagine hearing 20 children. You must understand our houses are positioned so close to each
other. Most of the homes were originally 2B/2B homes. It will be impossible to escape from the
noise and the congestion of the drop-offs & pick-ups.
-The parking for her business will consist of one loading zone out front and a couple parking
spots in the narrow alley way. We all know a business of 20 children will take up so much space
beyond one loading zone or a line of cars dropping off in the ally.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
4 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
Majority of our neighbors don’t want this business in our neighborhood. We have a strong
petition against it. Please visit: http://support.preservegandara.org/. We don’t need a private
non-profit school. We have perfectly good public schools where both of my children attended. I
love the cities Pre-K programs and teachers. Let’s keep supporting them, versus taking away
from them and taking away from our residential supply to give to a wealthy woman who wishes
to run a business. Remember, we have 45 daycares and preschools within a 2 mile radius.
I will compromise my position and agree to an in-home daycare for babies if she and her
husband will move from their wonderful home north of Montana to enter our beautiful Pico
neighborhood to have an in-home daycare of 6- 8 children below the age of 4. We would love to
have her as a resident business owner…living in her home.
I beg you to support and preserve our public school teachers, our city schools, our R1 status and
our homes.
Best,
Elana
--
Elana Clark-Faler, LCSW, CSAT-S, CST, CGP
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
elana@recoveryhelpnow.com
Recovery Help Now, Inc.
7421 Beverly Blvd. Suite #2
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p 888.851.2666 | f 323.951.1119
recoveryhelpnow.com
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow us on Twitter @recoveryhelpnow
Find us on Facebook facebook.com/recoveryhelpnow
—
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by
HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and
then delete the email from your computer.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
5 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
Item 6-A
12/5/17
6 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elana Clark-Faler <elana@recoveryhelpnow.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:22 AM
To:Ted Winterer
Cc:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; lorum@smmusd.org; dsinfield@smmusd.org;
jfullwood@smmusd.org; srichardson@smmusd.org; plytz@smmusd.org;
pherkner@smmusd.org; fculpepper@smmusd.org; mnye@smmusd.org;
abenjamin@smmusd.org; afuller@smmusd.org; mdemick@smmusd.org;
lholeva@smmusd.org; ashelton@smmusd.org; jrishe@smmusd.org;
p.miller@smmusd.org; ecochran@smmusd.org; bdrati@smmusd.org;
smmctapresident@smmcta.com; bransom@smmcta.com; grantaclark@gmail.com;
nevvy2008@gmail.com; Claudia Seizer; William Faler; Brian O'Neil; Nada Shamonki;
Damon Ramos; Kevin Ponthier; Neely, Priska; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Please don't vote to take away from Public Schools in SM
Dear Mr. Mayor,
This is most unfortunate to hear that you will not be in town to vote on such a serious issue facing Santa
Monica. I hope you will reconsider, and make it a priority to support the teachers and home owners of Santa
Monica (Pico Community) by making your very important and crucial vote. We only have one representative
from the Pico Community on the Counsel. Please reconsider. Your city needs you. We need you.
Sincerely,
Elana
P.S. KPCC will be airing a segment of it’s show on this issue on Friday: Morning Edition broadcast,
approximately 5:45 and 7:45 or 6:45 and 8:45 am. It’ll also be online at KPCC.org.
Priska, please read below….
--
Elana Clark-Faler, LCSW, CSAT-S, CST, CGP
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
elana@recoveryhelpnow.com
Recovery Help Now, Inc.
7421 Beverly Blvd. Suite #2
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p 888.851.2666 | f 323.951.1119
recoveryhelpnow.com
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow us on Twitter @recoveryhelpnow
Find us on Facebook facebook.com/recoveryhelpnow
—
Item 6-A
12/5/17
7 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 &
164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and
then delete the email from your computer.
On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET> wrote:
Elana,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I will be out of town at a conference of mayors so I will not be voting on the
appeal.
Regards,
Ted
Ted Winterer
Mayor
Santa Monica City Council
From: Elana Clark‐Faler <elana@recoveryhelpnow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:57:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Cc: lorum@smmusd.org; dsinfield@smmusd.org; jfullwood@smmusd.org; srichardson@smmusd.org;
plytz@smmusd.org; pherkner@smmusd.org; fculpepper@smmusd.org; mnye@smmusd.org;
abenjamin@smmusd.org; afuller@smmusd.org; mdemick@smmusd.org; lholeva@smmusd.org;
ashelton@smmusd.org; jrishe@smmusd.org; p.miller@smmusd.org; ecochran@smmusd.org;
bdrati@smmusd.org; smmctapresident@smmcta.com; bransom@smmcta.com;
grantaclark@gmail.com; nevvy2008@gmail.com; Claudia Seizer; William Faler; Brian O'Neil; Nada
Item 6-A
12/5/17
8 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
Shamonki
Subject: Please don't vote to take away from Public Schools in SM
Dear Council Persons,
December 5th you plan to hear our plea to protect our Delaware community in the Pico Neighborhood from
commercial businesses. We are asking you to vote against a private Pre-K school (a commercial business) to enter
a residential R1 street. There are many reasons to vote against this business. Here are some:
-Lila is opening a Pre-K Learning Center School. A school….not an in-home daycare. As a result of opening a Pre-K
School she will directly compete with the City of Santa Monica Public School Pre-K programs located at Grant, Will
Rogers, Franklin and John Muir. These Pre-K programs are for 4 - 6 year olds. This means parents in SM will not
contribute or support to the public school system within SM if their children attend this school for $2000 per
month. Lila has indicated she is targeting 90404 residents to attend her school, because she sees a need for us (that
no one asked for). Funds will be taken away from our public school system, if the city votes in-favor of this
business. You will support Lila’s pocket book, not our city schools. Not only will you support taking money away from
our public school Pre-K program, you will set a precedent that a commercial business can move into a residential
home (R1 Communities), take money away from our public school system and take inventory away from our housing
supply. Remember, this isn’t a charter school. This isn’t her residence. This is a business taking away from two very
important systems (housing and public schools).
-The school is opening up in a 1400 sq ft space with 20 children and 4 teachers. The space is a residential home
steps away from neighbors on either side of the house. Lila will not live here. She will not be our neighbor. She will
come to her business and leave to her home north of Montana each day. We will be forced to live by a business that
will not be regulated for sound, parking, and etc. I hear my neighbor singing in his shower from my window. I can’t
imagine hearing 20 children. You must understand our houses are positioned so close to each other. Most of the
homes were originally 2B/2B homes. It will be impossible to escape from the noise and the congestion of the drop-
offs & pick-ups.
-The parking for her business will consist of one loading zone out front and a couple parking spots in the narrow alley
way. We all know a business of 20 children will take up so much space beyond one loading zone or a line of cars
dropping off in the ally.
Majority of our neighbors don’t want this business in our neighborhood. We have a strong petition against it. Please
visit: http://support.preservegandara.org/. We don’t need a private non-profit school. We have perfectly good public
schools where both of my children attended. I love the cities Pre-K programs and teachers. Let’s keep supporting
them, versus taking away from them and taking away from our residential supply to give to a wealthy woman who
wishes to run a business. Remember, we have 45 daycares and preschools within a 2 mile radius.
I will compromise my position and agree to an in-home daycare for babies if she and her husband will move from
their wonderful home north of Montana to enter our beautiful Pico neighborhood to have an in-home daycare of 6- 8
children below the age of 4. We would love to have her as a resident business owner…living in her home.
I beg you to support and preserve our public school teachers, our city schools, our R1 status and our homes.
Best,
Elana
--
Elana Clark-Faler, LCSW, CSAT-S, CST, CGP
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
elana@recoveryhelpnow.com
Recovery Help Now, Inc.
7421 Beverly Blvd. Suite #2
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p 888.851.2666 | f 323.951.1119
recoveryhelpnow.com
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow us on Twitter @recoveryhelpnow
Find us on Facebook facebook.com/recoveryhelpnow
—
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by
HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
Item 6-A
12/5/17
9 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and
then delete the email from your computer.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
10 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Christine Parra <rgenteen2@msn.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 2953 Delaware Ave.
Attachments:Stewart Traffic.jpg; Virginia Ave Traffic.JPG
Good Morning Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you for taking the time to read my email! I'm a second generation Santa Monica resident and public
servant.
As I am sure you are aware, on December 5th you will be hearing an appeal on the conditional use of 2953
Delaware Ave., a single family home, to an education center for 20 children. I don't want to be
another complaining resident, I just want to bring to your attention what it has been like living in our sweet
little neighborhood for the past 18 years.
18 years ago as newlyweds my husband, Jose, and I used every last penny we had saved in our retirement
accounts to put a down payment on the ugliest house we had ever seen (3027 Delaware), ha ha, but it was on
the sweetest, tree‐lined, quiet street. Over the years, and little by little, we have transformed our little house
into a home and have raised 3 beautiful boys there. Life on Delaware Avenue has been fantastic and full of
memories and wonderful stories from our many Japanese American families that still live in our neighborhood;
some for over 60 years.
However, during the past 5 years or so, the construction of the new expo line and maintenance yard that is
located directly behind our homes and with the influx of commercial development on Exposition, there has
been a lot of change to where we live. Change is inevitable, I know. Some are within our control and others
unfortunately are not. Unfortunately we have had to fight for our quiet and sweet neighborhood on all these
issues and now, feel like we must fight some more.
As a result of the Expo line, we now have to wait in line to get in and out of our neighborhood during peak
traffic hours and have to contend with the cars that are racing through our neighborhood to avoid the Expo
crossing at Stewart. I invite you to please visit our neighborhood in the mornings and evenings between 5:30
and 7:00pm to see firsthand. The streets most impacted are Virginia, Delaware and Exposition. (I've attached
some photos that illustrate our traffic problem.) This project would add an additional 26 more cars to our
neighborhood every morning and evening and, with the new projects set to go online next year (commercial
site at Stewart and Olympic and Stewart and Colorado) that have parking for 1000 cars, I'm concerned that it is
going to get even worse.
We saved our money to live in an R‐1, single family neighborhood because that is where we wanted to raise
our children. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think we would have to be concerned about a business
moving in next door. It saddens me to think that as a homeowner, we have no voice in protecting our dream
or that our right to "quiet enjoyment" may be jeopardized.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
11 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
I appeal to you with the utmost respect to please help us protect the integrity of our neighborhood, to please
help us minimize traffic, and to please help us protect single family housing. This home should go to a sweet
family who has dreamed of living in SM in a still affordable neighborhood not to a business (which will be
charging $1700 per month per child. Having 3 children, I would never have been able to afford this which
means, my neighbors will not be able to afford this so this school would not be for our neighborhood but
rather for people that come in to our city to work).
I would LOVE to speak to you further about this and/or have you meet all the wonderful people that live
here. Especially the sweet old ladies that will be most affected by this business as they live directly next door
and across the street from it. WE, Gandara Park, are especially fighting for them.
Thank you in advance for your time!
My best, Christine Parra
310‐678‐7442
This photo is of Stewart going north right before Exposition at 9:18am on November 3rd. The second photo is
of Virginia at Centinela going west on Virginia at approximately 5:30‐6:00pm on a week day. There are 10‐15
cars lined up.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
12 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
Item 6-A
12/5/17
13 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
Item 6-A
12/5/17
14 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
November 30, 2017
Dear Mayor Winterer, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, and Honorable City Councilmembers,
Community for Excellent Public Schools strongly supports the early childhood program being proposed
for 2953 Delaware Avenue in Santa Monica. When our zoning code was updated to allow child care and
early childhood education providers to be located in R-1 neighborhoods, it reflected our values of
making education a priority in our community. It also helps effectuate the growing body of research
that establishes the importance of attending quality pre-school in ensuring kindergarten readiness and
helping to eliminate the opportunity gap.
The former SMMUSD teacher who is striving to establish this early childhood care center has earnestly
followed the rules and guidelines of our City and State licensing. She has worked hard to reach out to
her neighbors. We believe that her approach to making quality childcare options available to a small
number of children from a range of income levels enhances the fabric of our community.
Santa Monica is a city leading the way on Wellbeing. Education is a key component of wellbeing, and
the first years of life are the most important time to ensure that families have access to quality care and
education. Research strongly supports the concept that the first five years of life are essential for brain
development. This proposed program is going to impact the lives of 20 children a year. It’s going to be
uniquely structured to provide socioeconomic diversity. It’s a wonderful opportunity to meet the needs
of families with young children and to meet the ideals of Santa Monica as a City of Wellbeing.
Please honor the goal you have set to “Learn and Thrive” by declining the appeal of the Conditional Use
Permit for Untitled School No. 1.
I thank you, on behalf of the unanimous CEPS Steering Committee, for the opportunity to express our
strong support for this project.
Yours for excellent education,
Shari Davis
Chair, Community for Excellent Public Schools
shariceps@aol.com
Item 6-A
12/5/17
15 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
November 30, 2017
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica, CA
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Sarah Devine -Ponthier. We own a home at 3003 Delaware Avenue and have lived in this
small neighborhood of SM since 2008. It has been brought to our attention that a house that was
recently purchased is requesting a CUP to provide a pre-school on our street, 3053 Delaware. It is about
5 houses down from where we live. The individual who is proposing this is a resident of the NOMA area
and purchased the house never intending to live in it but only use it for her business.
As we met them at a neighborhood forum, they shared their ideas of the preschool they are proposing.
A much needed necessity in SM from the evidence they are sharing but not conclusive. As I learned
from my children’ s own pre-school experience, I know the importance that part of their education
played in their live and fully support it. However, I don’t support placing it in my residential
neighborhood nestled among houses in a three street sub-division.
I am sure you are all aware of this lovely area as we fought hard and long to relocate the maintenance
yard away from our area. It ended up working out and we now have a lovely park that we all are able to
enjoy. Even as a user and backer of the train, it has brought additional crime into our neighborhood and
changed the overall fabric of our area. Also, the existing office buildings continue to bring traffic and
parking issues in our area on a daily basis as they use our streets to park as an alternative to the building
lots.
Bringing an additional 12-20 children with their parents to our streets twice a day will create traffic,
noise, and take away an additional home for a family to purchase. Besides, this neighborhood has really
had enough. It is time that this area should not absorb the brunt of Santa Monica and push things thru
to get what people with additional resources want while not considering our views.
We will be there on December 5th to voice our opinions and speak against this proposed project on our
street. We do hope that you will listen to us and keep our neighborhood residential. We love our
neighborhood and choice to live here for a reason and want to maintain it as it is.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Sarah Devine Ponthier
Devine_ponthiers@mac.com
310.601.0483
Item 6-A
12/5/17
16 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, December 1, 2017 10:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
Dear City Council:
The Board of Northeast Neighbors requests that City Council grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents of the
Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications approved by Planning Commission so that the residents
may preserve peace in their neighborhood (Agenda Item 6.A for the the City Council meeting of Dec. 5, 2017).
Residents of many neighborhoods have signed the petition supporting this Appeal because the application that was approved by the
Planning Commission clearly exceeds what the Zoning allows.
Northeast Neighbors fought very hard to stop City Council from approving commercial day care centers in single family neighborhoods
during the Zoning Ordinance Update. We lost that fight. Now we have the first case of a home that has been purchased and plans presented
that seek permission from the City to expand even further the commercial child care center standards now permitted in the Zoning, an
application to run a commercial venture in a single family home.
The state of California has long permitted "family day care" in residential neighborhoods. Such daycare programs are low key and low cost
and allow residents who open them to run small scale programs that generate needed income. The state sets a maximum of 14 children in
such small businesses.
The new commercial level of child care center that our City Council approved for R1 is of a whole different order. The one planned for the
Gandara Park neighborhood is owned by a group called Delaware LLC, which plans to hire up to five employees and to accept up to 20
children for a reported tuition of $1700 a month. The owner will not live in the converted home. These factors describe a commercial
enterprise that could generate a gross income of $30,000 a month. A house the same size on the same block just rented for $5,000 a month.
Northeast Neighbors argued against expanding child care centers into R1 neighborhoods during the Zoning Ordinance update. We pointed
out that a better public policy approach would be to require on-site child care centers in development agreements and DR projects instead of
the practice of collecting child care fees.
Awards have been won by forward-thinking businesses like Patagonia for the on-site child care center they offer at their Ventura
headquarters. Such facilities place children and parents close to each other and encourage the use of transit, reducing car trips into and out of
the neighborhoods of our already congested city.
To allow this project to move forward with the requested expansions beyond what the Zoning allows is not consistent with the stated aim of
this Council to encourage housing production. With the new regulations for second unit "granny flats," not only
will the house be lost to the housing market, but there will also be the loss of a potential affordable
second unit.
While the need for affordable housing has been clearly measured, no data has been presented by the applicant or City staff to show the need
for a child care facility in this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign on the front lawn of this property describes it as "Untitled No. 1 School" suggests there will be more such applications
to convert more single homes into commercial day care centers that ask more than the Code allows, removing more homes from the market
and creating more conflicts between City Hall and residents.
We ask City Council to grant the Appeal for these reasons and all of the reasons articulated by the residents of the Gandara Park
Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 6-A
12/5/17
17 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Item 6-A
12/5/17
18 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
1
2
/
5
/
1
7
1
9
o
f
2
2
3
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
1
2
/
5
/
1
7
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vernice Hankins
Sent:Friday, December 1, 2017 3:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953
Delaware
From: Denise Anderson‐Warren
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 3:55 PM
To: Esterlina Lugo <Esterlina.Lugo@SMGOV.NET>; Vernice Hankins <Vernice.Hankins@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: FW: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953 Delaware
Please process as an Add-to for 6.A.
Denise Anderson-Warren, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
From: Karen Ginsberg
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 3:54 PM
To: Stephanie Venegas <Stephanie.Venegas@SMGOV.NET>; Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐
Warren@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Liz Bar‐El <Liz.Bar‐El@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: FW: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953 Delaware
Not sure if you have a copy of the letter below, but it probably should be added to the packet.
From: Louise Jaffe [mailto:louisecjaffe@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 1:49 PM
To: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Karen Ginsberg <Karen.Ginsberg@SMGOV.NET>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@SMGOV.NET>; Natasha Guest
Kingscote <Natasha.Kingscote@SMGOV.NET>; Julie Rusk <Julie.Rusk@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Fwd: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953 Delaware
Hi Rick,
I just read the excellent staff report on item 6A and wanted to let you know that although I cannot attend
Tuesday night's meeting, I emailed each of the councilmembers the below personal letter.
Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving.
Onward,
Louise
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Louise Jaffe <louisecjaffe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:44 PM
Item 6-A
12/5/17
20 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Subject: Hi Ted, Please support staff recommendation 6A for early childhood center at 2953 Delaware
To: Ted Winterer <ted.winterer@smgov.net>
Hi Ted,
I'm writing to you as a private citizen/resident and strong believer in the importance of expanding access to
high quality early childhood education to reduce educational and economic equity gaps.
On Tuesday you will consider agenda item 6A, an appeal to oppose a new small early childhood education
center at 2953 Delaware Avenue that won approval from the Planning Commission. I hope that you will follow
staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval.
I also wanted to let you know that I know the applicant Laila Taslimi through her involvement with the
Childcare and Early Ed Task Force. Laila, a longtime resident and a former accomplished teacher at McKinley, is
an avid lifelong learner. She is deeply committed to equity and excellence and is thoughtful, hardworking, and
compassionate. I have no doubt that she will be tireless in ensuring that her center guides and supports young
children and their families through their critical early years. Her center will provide another much‐needed high
quality opportunity for the children of working parents, including those needing subsidies, to happily learn and
thrive. She will also be a respectful and responsive neighbor. The project plans attached to your agenda are
beautiful and reflect Laila's values, high standards, and vision for the learning environment she is committed
to provide. Please support Laila's application!
Thanks, Cheers, and Onward,
Louise
Item 6-A
12/5/17
21 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Geoff Kaman <geoffkaman@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, December 1, 2017 6:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Deleware Pre-school
Hello,
I am contacting you regarding the pre-school that is planned for Delaware Ave. in the Pico adjacent neighborhood. I live on Virginia Ave,
which is one street south of Delaware. I have to say that I am opposed to the school coming to our neighborhood for several reasons.
1. I don't think the neighborhood can support the traffic while being fair to the residents. With the bottleneck additions and the no left-turns
from exposition put in place by Lantana and the other studios and businesses on Olympic, as well as the Metro Maintenance Yard, it has
become quite a traffic nightmare. I live on the corner of Dorchester and Virginia and I have noticed that not only has the traffic increased
significantly (people cutting over from Stewart to Centinela), people rarely stop at the stop signs, most don't even slow down and it has
become quite dangerous crossing the street to get to the Dorchester Tunnel.
2. I am against a school/day care going in the neighborhood that is exclusively business and not a residence. We are one of the few
neighborhoods in Santa Monica that is somewhat affordable and allows for a new family starting out to find a home. Maybe the owner
should open a school in her own neighborhood instead congesting ours.
I have included links to maps of daycares and preschools in Santa Monica. There are an abundance in our area, while there are only 3 north
of Wilshire.
Daycare in Santa Monica link...
https://www.google.com/search?q=daycares+in+santa+monica
Preschools in Santa Monica
https://www.google.com/search?q=preschools+in+santa+monica
3. All of the people that I have talked to in my neighborhood are against it. Mostly because of the same reasons I have stated. It is quite
tricky to oppose something like this because it is a school going into a neighborhood. It is easy to paint the people opposed to this school as
"anti-education" or "Not in my back yard", but that is not the case. I am all for education and if our neighborhood could support the traffic or
there was an abundance of affordable housing, I would be all for it. Unfortunately that is not the case.
I hope that you take these reasons into consideration when voting for this school.
Thank you for your time.
Geoff Kaman
Item 6-A
12/5/17
22 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
December 1, 2017
City Council of Santa Monica
Via email (councilmtgitems@smgov.net)
Re: Meeting Agenda Item 6-A on December 5, 2017
Dear City Council Members,
This is a letter of support for Laila Taslimi’s preschool planned for 2953 Delaware Avenue. My
wife and I know Laila well and we planned to send our son to her new preschool. Unfortunately,
it took her longer than she’d thought to locate the house to convert, which meant we needed to
find another option. Laila recommended another Santa Monica preschool and we were fortunate
to get in. We are also fortunate to have grandparents living nearby so that when his preschool
closes in the afternoon he is able to be in their care till my wife and I finish our work day. I can
only imagine the predicament of parents who do not have that option, and in some cases they’d
have to choose between employment and preschool. Laila’s preschool serves all strata of
families, and that is rare. Finally, we love the homey environment and trees and nature on her
plans for the preschool. It looks like an ideal place!
I am aware the neighbors find the preschool a potential problem in their lives. I can only say that
if we lived near Laila’s preschool, it would solve the issue of commuting we have now –
planning for who drops off and picks up our son each day, when it could have been a simple
walk. At our current preschool, we know of at least 2 families who moved to the immediate area
only to be walking distance to our preschool, which is set in a church in a residential
neighborhood.
Please do support this preschool to come to be. It will be a wonderful preschool for all the lucky
families, and the happiness will emanate to the immediate neighbors who don’t have their own
children there too.
Sincerely,
Alex Ensafi
parent
Item 6-A
12/5/17
23 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Aiden hughes <nediajh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, December 2, 2017 1:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Dec. 5 City Council Agenda Item 6-A (preschool)
December 2nd, 2017
Aiden Hughes
2516 Arizona Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Re: Untitled No. 1 School
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Aiden Hughes. I am a ninth grader attending Santa Monica High School. I was born in Santa
Monica and have been living here for my entire life. I went to Mckinley Elementary school, then to Lincoln
Middle school. I have and continue to be an active member of our youth community. I have played AYSO
soccer for years, volunteered at the Main Library, perform as a flautist at senior homes as community service,
to name a few.
I am writing today to support Mrs. Taslimi’s preschool. Part of my appreciation for school and
community comes from my respect for my teachers at McKinley Elementary. One teacher I fondly remember
is Mrs. Taslimi who was my second grade teacher. As you may or may not know, the student body at
McKinley is very diverse. The McKinley community, much like the community where Mrs. Taslimi proposes to
build her non profit school, consists of hard working families who want the best education for their children
while contributing to the community.
Mrs. Taslimi was a wonderful and dedicated teacher. She differentiated learning and supported her diverse
classroom to meet all of her students’ different needs. She brought theater into her classroom which not only
made learning hands on and more interesting for us but also created a safe environment for us to be free to
express and make mistakes. Mrs. Taslimi knew what books every student was interested in. She could
communicate with the many different students in our classroom. She also held monthly Family Forums which
my mother would often attend. The families would gather and discuss their concerns and topics of interests to
support each other.
I strongly believe Mrs. Taslimi’s preschool will help the community. As we are told, education begins at an
early age and Mrs. Taslimi is an amazing educator that will help nourish young minds to their full potential so
they can become engaged lifelong learners. As her former student, I can say that I still carry on the values she
taught me in second grade.
Thank you for reading my letter and I hope you will consider supporting Mrs. Taslimi’s early education facility.
Sincerely,
Aiden Hughes
Item 6-A
12/5/17
24 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:art is the answer <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, December 2, 2017 8:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Rick Cole; Lane Dilg
Subject:Conditional use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0417, & Fence/Wall Modification
17ENT-0418 located at 2953 Delaware Ave., Santa Monica, CA 90404
Council Members, City Manager, and City Attorney,
I intensely oppose the DA agreement before you now for the proposed
pre-school. It is the wrong way to go for many reasons.
Adding additional traffic to a residential neighborhood is a huge mistake
as is adding commercial development - as well as a clear violation of
LUCE.
We have many open pre-school spots now and no urgent need for
another. This school will not serve the neighborhood at $2000 per month
per child. It will serve those from other neighborhoods who do not wish
their own backyards to be made into a noisy commercial zone and add
congestion and reduce safety to residents.
I ask you to stop flagrant violations of LUCE and disturbing of our
neighborhoods. Pre-schools are noisy. The Gandara Neighborhood is
already a cut through area and massive commercial buildings are being
built all around it. To plant something this invasive directly in the heart of
it is a mistake and walking all over the residents.
Thank you for your time,
Danielle Charney
Resident Since 1981
Item 6-A
12/5/17
25 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Matt Chapman <mattchapmanproductions@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 2:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Delaware Ave Preschool, Appeal 17ENT-0186
Please uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 to block the proposed pre-school on Delaware Avenue. As a Pico
Neightborhood resident and Santa Monica voter, I believe this would damage the neighborhood for 2 main
reasons:
- My family and I walk along Delaware regularly to visit friends and the local parks. I can assure you that this
street can not support the traffic increase that would be caused by pre-school staff and students traveling
through the neighborhood every day.
- There is already a shortage of affordable family housing through-out Santa Monica. My friends, former Santa
Monica residents Keith & Janet Sader and their two children were evicted without cause from their Delaware
Avenue this Fall so their landlord could repurpose the property, and they were forced to leave the city due to
unavailability of equivalently priced housing. Eliminating housing supply further by allowing business usage of
2953 Delaware is such an obviously bad idea, I can hardly believe anyone thought it worth considering. Santa
Monica has plenty of available commercial space already.
Please block this terrible idea, and instead invest your time in solving Santa Monica's affordable housing crisis.
Sincere Regards,
Matt Chapman & Family
3115 Urban Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 6-A
12/5/17
26 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:philip hendricks <hendricks_philip44@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 7:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:Preserve Gandara
Hello Council Members
Please help us preserve our rapidly diminishing communities. We have lost so much and gained so
little from it.
Thank you.
Phil Hendricks
Item 6-A
12/5/17
27 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carol Chan <carol.chao.chan@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 9:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Leiman Chan
Subject:Appeal 17ENT-0186
To the Santa Monica City Council:
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed establishment of a school at 2953 Delaware Ave. Our sense is
that most of our neighbors feel the same way that we do, as evidenced by our neighborhood petition against the school,
which has collected over 200 signatures. The residents of this neighborhood are deeply concerned by the adverse effects
that the establishment of a school in this residential neighborhood will have on our community.
This neighborhood is an R‐1 zoned neighborhood, which has been a very significant factor our family’s decision to settle
here. According to the Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.07.010.B, one purpose of such a zoning district is to “preserve
and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods and the quality of life of
City residents against potential deleterious impacts related to development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the
encroachment of commercial activities.” The proposed school will have a direct adverse impact on the quality of life of
the residents of this neighborhood—traffic, noise, and air quality will all be affected by the influx of non‐resident drivers
and families into the neighborhood. Not only will these effects be experienced during the normal operating hours of the
school, but they will also be felt by the community outside of normal operating hours during the school’s family events
(proposed to be held at least monthly) and other special events that might be held at the school, including fundraisers,
parties, and other special occasions.
Our neighborhood is currently surrounded on all sides by major high‐traffic streets (Olympic, Pico, Stewart, and
Centinela). Traffic on these streets is especially high during high‐traffic hours in the mornings and evenings, thanks to
the businesses on Exposition, Pico, and other surrounding streets, as well as commuters trying to access the 10 freeway
onramps directly outside of our neighborhood. To allow a school to open right in the middle of our neighborhood would
not only increase through‐traffic, but would also bring cars that are purposely coming into the neighborhood to access
the property in question. This increased traffic is a threat to our safety and to our quiet enjoyment of our homes.
Any increase in additional traffic in the neighborhood threatens the safety and well‐being of the children who live here,
including our own two young children. The neighborhood is currently home to many young children, toddlers, and
infants. Families with young children are constantly walking to nearby parks and stores, and foot traffic is especially high
in the early evening hours when parents arrive home.
The increased traffic brought into this neighborhood by the school would be highest during these early evening hours,
when the school’s students are being picked up. Similarly, in the morning hours, at the same time that parents would be
dropping students off at the proposed school, resident parents would be loading their own kids into their cars, which are
often parked on the street. The existence of the proposed school would pose a threat to the safety of the resident
children, as there will be many more cars in the area during the very hours that our children are most likely to be
outside, on the sidewalks, and on the streets.
Additionally, the back alley of the property, which the school proposes to use as a pick up and drop off location for half
of its students, is shared by residents of both Delaware and Exposition.
Currently, the alleyway can only comfortably accommodate one car driving through it at a time. If two cars are driving in
opposite directions toward each other in the alleyway, one car has to pull far to the side so that the other can pass. If
the school is allowed to add a pick up and drop off location in the back alley, the traffic in that area will be greatly
increased during already heavy‐traffic hours. Moreover, since there will only be one loading zone for the school in the
Item 6-A
12/5/17
28 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
back alley, it would not be uncommon for multiple parents to arrive in the back at the same time, forcing one or more
cars to sit waiting in the back alley for the loading spot to open up, or for cars to double park, thus blocking egress and
ingress into the alley for residents. These problems will be further exasperated on trash and recycle days when multiple
large vehicles utilize the alley throughout the morning. The negative impact of adding multiple parking spots and a
loading spot in the back alley will be felt by residents of both Exposition and Delaware, as the two streets share the back
alley.
Furthermore, availability of parking in the neighborhood would be severely and continuously impacted by the opening
of this school.
Street parking is very important to the residents of this neighborhood because many of the houses have insufficient
garage space to accommodate parking for families with multiple drivers. Also, most of the houses in the neighborhood
do not have front driveways allowing for parking on their own properties; instead, we rely on street parking to be readily
available in order to provide ease of access from our cars to our homes. However, the school would cause significant
parking disruptions to the community by requiring spaces for its students’ families as well as any staff that the school
chooses to hire. Currently, there are no other properties in the neighborhood that command a dedicated on‐street
parking space. All street parking is open for use by anyone in the community. The school has proposed that the city
reserve a parking space on the street adjacent to the school that will be used by the school for drop offs and pick ups.
The dedication of on‐street parking for use by a single property in the neighborhood is inconsistent with the intended
street parking conditions in a single unit residential district. In fact, the reservation of a public street parking space for
use by a single property is not even commonly seen in commercial zoning districts, and would be completely out of
character for this residential neighborhood.
The increased parking burden from this school will not just impact the neighborhood during school hours, but also on
weekends and at nights‐‐whenever the school has a family night, fundraiser, meeting, party, or other special event. Such
events will place a huge burden on the street parking in this community, as cars belonging to the school’s families and
staff will be parked on the street all at the same time. These events will not occur during school hours, but would occur
at times that residents are expected to be home and in need of street parking, including weeknights and weekends. The
community already experiences an increased burden on street parking for special events such as parties thrown by
residents, festivals at nearby parks, and open houses. Special events hosted by the school would only add to that
burden, and would cause street parking in the community to be regularly overcrowded even during non‐school hours.
Additionally, for many families in this community, the quiet neighborhood is an essential benefit of living here. During
daytime hours, this quiet is enjoyed by those of us who stay at home during the week, including retired individuals,
families with infants and toddlers, and those who work from home. At night and on weekends, the general atmosphere
of quiet allows the community members to get the rest they and their families need. If the school is allowed to open
right in the middle of our community, this sense of quiet will be lost, not only during school hours, but also after hours
when the school holds monthly meetings and other special events.
Finally, as the parents of preschool‐aged children, we are aware of the options for quality preschool education in the
city, and our impression is that there are a great number of preschools already existing within the area surrounding our
home. We have read the 2015 RAND Study commissioned by the city of Santa Monica, which states that the city has a
“surplus of preschool spaces for city residents.”
According to research done by those in are neighborhood, there are already 46 preschools within 2 miles of the
proposed preschool and 20 preschools and 15 existing daycares located within a mile or less from the site. Even if there
is indeed a need for more childcare in the city, there is no reason that it needs to be placed on this particular street in
this particular house, with so many other preschools and daycares nearby.
I was informed by Mayor Winterer that the appeal this Tuesday will involve the council acting in a quasi‐judicial manner,
and that the council will be ruling on the law and the law alone. The law in question here is whether or not the school
meets the findings for a Conditional Use Permit (SMMC 9.41.060), which is required for it to be allowed to operate.
However, when the law leaves room for the subjective judgment of the council ‐‐‐ as does SMMC 9.41.060(D), which
requires the council to judge whether or not "the proposed use is compatible with...the general area in which the
Item 6-A
12/5/17
29 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of
employees, or the nature of the operation" ‐‐‐ we only hope that the council will come with a clear and open mind and
listen to the concerns shared by the majority of residents in our neighborhood. Our belief is that this school will not be
compatible with the neighborhood for the foregoing reasons.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leiman and Carol Chan
Item 6-A
12/5/17
30 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Paul Sumi <paulsumi@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 9:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:Please deny conditional use permit for Project 17ENT-0075
My name is Paul Sumi, and I am writing on behalf of my mother, Rose Sumi. She lives at 3023 Delaware and has called
this her home for more than 62 years.
The Delaware homeowners strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny the Conditional Use Permit for Project
17ENT-0075 (2953 Delaware), and she supports these efforts.
To give some insight, I asked my mother why she and my father chose this neighborhood as a place to start and raise a
family. She also gave me some perspective on the neighborhood over the past 6 decades.
My parents are Nisei; 2nd generation Japanese-Americans, born in America to immigrant parents. After WWII, Dad went
to Cal on the GI Bill, and Mom got her teaching credential at L.A. State. They got married in 1954 and looked for places
near her parents' home in West L.A. to buy their own home.
They chose this neighborhood. Mom recalled that it was a "friendly, but quiet neighborhood," and that it was "relatively
affordable" for a young couple trying to start a family on a brand new, junior electrical engineer's salary.
Other young families felt the same way. My brother and I grew up in a multi-racial neighborhood with Asian-American,
Hispanic, Black and Caucasian families with kids our age.
Mom and this neighborhood have seen tremendous upheaval. In the early 60's, the Santa Monica Freeway sliced this
neighborhood in half, taking homes and nearby businesses, and burying a neighborhood park on Virginia. In the last 20
years, corporations like Verizon, IMAX, Lantana and Beachbody added to the impact. Most recently, the new Expo line
and Metrorail maintenance yard have added traffic pressure as well. And the new business construction on Stewart
above Olympic and Olympic at 26th will bring even more disruptions to the neighborhood.
Yet, in spite of all these changes, my mother still sees this neighborhood as friendly and safe, and a place for a family to
put down roots. The reason is because Delaware has maintained its integrity as a RESIDENTIAL street. Putting a
business, even a pre-school, on Delaware will shatter that integrity.
My mother does not think it is right for a house on Delaware to be used as a business, which will be empty at night, and
the place the current owner will never live in nor call "home.”
My mother wants other individuals, couples or families to have the same opportunity as she and my father did, to buy a
home to call their own, in a safe, friendly neighborhood. Granting this Conditional Use Permit will deny other people this
opportunity. We urge the Planning Commission to deny the CUP for Project 17ENT-0075.
Sincerely,
Rose Sumi and Paul Sumi
Item 6-A
12/5/17
31 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:j mah <jymah@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 10:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2953 DELAWARE
Please deny the appeal of 17ENT‐0861 of Conditional Use Permit 17ENT‐0075, Variance 17ENT‐0147 and
Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT‐0148 for the property at 2953 Delaware.
I have lived in this neighborhood as a child, and now as an adult caring for my elderly parents. They purchased
their home in the 1950’s . The neighborhood was disrupted when the 10 Freeway was built and the three
blocks (Virginia, Delaware and Exposition) were isolated from much of the traffic, noise and congestion. The
neighborhood is changing, young families with children are present, along with old‐timers like my parents and
others who choose to stay in their beloved homes. The Metro like runs behind us along Olympic, and there is
increase through‐fare traffic. The business park (Imax and the Lantana complex) along Exposition has
expanded, along with new businesses on Centinela, between Pico and Olympic.
If the plan is approved, there will be increased traffic through the neighborhood, disruptive noise due to the
type of establishment and a front yard fence that will change the dynamics of the neighborhood. The plan for
the variance request to allow parking spaces in the alley and in the front of the residence on Delaware Avenue
will cause congestion during the busiest times of the day (mornings and evenings). The front yard fence
modification will cause a visual change to the neighborhood, and will also encroach the two neighbors
adjacent to the house, blocking their views to the street. Establishing a Child Care and Early Education Center
is a good idea. There does not seem to be enough space for the request for 20 children and 5‐6 staff on the
current floorplan of a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house, even if the kitchen, living room and dining room/library are
counted as “classrooms”.
Please deny the appeal, for the sake of the GANDARA NEIGHBROHOOD.
Thank you,
Julie Mah for Tomoki and Margaret Oyanagi
2933 Delaware Avenue
Item 6-A
12/5/17
32 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Item 6-A
12/5/17
33 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sheri Linzell <swlinzell@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 10:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Cc:Aaron Swerdlow
Subject:Support for Appeal 17ENT-0186
Dear City Council Members,
My husband, Aaron Swerdlow, and I are homeowners on Delaware Avenue in the Gandara Park
neighborhood.
We are writing to support Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the CUP that was granted to permit a large
preschool to be established at 2953 Delaware Avenue in our R1 neighborhood.
Below are several of the reasons that we feel strongly that a preschool is not appropriate on our
street that is comprised of single family homes.
Congestion - Delaware Avenue is a narrow street that already regularly is clogged with parked
cars and cars cutting through the neighborhood to get to nearby businesses. We already have
to pull to the side of the street to let cars going the opposite direction through. It is hard to
imagine how pickups and dropoffs for 20 children even will be feasible on the street without
significantly affecting residents and traffic flow.
Area is Already Over-Preschooled: According to a 2015 RAND Study (which was
commissioned by the City), Santa Monica has a “surplus of preschool spaces for city
residents.” There already are 46 preschools within 2 miles of the proposed preschool and 20
preschools and 15 existing daycares located within a mile or less from the site. Additionally,
there are very few preschool-aged children who live in the neighborhood, so it likely would
serve children primarily from outside of the neighborhood.
Strong Opposition by Neighborhood - The residents of the neighborhood strongly oppose the
the preschool. Many of us chose to live on Delaware Avenue because it is a residential street,
and adding a business like a large preschool completely changes the character of the street.
We strongly urge you to support the Appeal 17ENT-0186. Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Sheri Linzell & Aaron Swerdlow
Item 6-A
12/5/17
34 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Aaron Swerdlow <aaron.swerdlow@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 11:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Save My Faith in Local Government - Delaware Avenue
I am a first-time homeowner and pay a great deal in local taxes. It is so easy to get discouraged and fearful of
the national political climate, but I hope that local politics can remain ethical.
The effort to put a daycare on my street is ridiculous. There is no need or demand for such services. I am old
that the wealthy have secured favor with local government and there is nothing a lowly taxpayer can do against
the wealthy, powerful influencers in government. This is not the America I was taught to love and respect.
Show that we can have a racist president and a corrupt Congress, but that local leaders can remain true to ideals
of democracy and one person, one vote. Don't help the wealthy win, again and again and again.
Make me proud. Be the shinning beacon on the hill.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
35 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, December 3, 2017 11:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: CIty Council 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A appeal -- SUPPORT
December 3, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed preschool with
extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
The FOSP Board requests that City Council grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents
of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications approved by
Planning Commission so that the residents may preserve peace in their neighborhood
Residents of many neighborhoods have signed the petition supporting this Appeal because the application that
was approved by the Planning Commission clearly exceeds what the Zoning allows.
Friends of Sunset Park and Northeast Neighbors fought very hard to stop City Council from allowing
commercial day care centers in single family (R1) neighborhoods during the Zoning Ordinance Update. We lost
that fight.
Now we have the first case of a home that has been purchased and plans presented that seek permission from
the City to expand even further the commercial child care center standards now permitted in the Zoning, an
application to run a commercial venture in a single family home.
The state of California has long permitted "family day care" in residential neighborhoods. Such daycare
programs are low key and low cost and allow residents who open them to run small scale programs that
generate needed income. The state sets a maximum of 8 children in "small family daycare" and a maximum of
14 children in "large family daycare."
The new commercial level of child care center that our City Council approved for R1 is of a whole different
order. The one planned for the Gandara Park neighborhood is owned by a group called Delaware LLC, which
plans to hire up to five employees and to accept up to 20 children for a reported tuition of $1,700 a month.
The owner will not live in the converted home. These factors describe a commercial enterprise that could
generate a gross income of $34,000 a month. In contrast, a house the same size on the same block just rented for
$5,000 a month.
While supporting early childhood education and family daycare, during the Zoning Ordinance update,
neighborhood organizations, including Friends of Sunset Park and Northeast Neighbors, argued against
allowing commercial child care centers in R1 neighborhoods
Item 6-A
12/5/17
36 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
NEN pointed out that a better public policy approach would be to require on-site child care centers in
development agreements and DR projects instead of the practice of collecting child care fees, saying that
awards have been won by forward-thinking businesses like Patagonia for the on-site child care center they offer
at their Ventura headquarters. Such facilities would place children and parents close to each other and
encourage the use of transit, reducing car trips in and out of neighborhoods in our already congested city.
To allow this project on Delaware Avenue to move forward with the requested expansions beyond what the
Zoning allows is not consistent with the stated aim of this Council to encourage housing production. With the
new regulations for second unit "granny flats," not only will the house be lost to the housing market, but there
will also be the loss of a potential affordable second unit.
While the need for affordable housing has been clearly measured, no data has been presented by the applicant or
City staff to show the need for a child care facility in this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign on the front lawn of this property describes it as "Untitled No. 1 School" suggests there
will be more such applications to convert more single homes into commercial day care centers that ask more
than the Code allows, removing more homes from the market, and creating more conflicts between City Hall
and residents.
We urge City Council to grant the Appeal for these reasons and all of the reasons articulated by the residents of
the Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
37 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Richard Orton <laxlon@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 1:39 AM
Subject:No commercial ventures in Gandara Neighborhood
Dear Council Members
I understand someone wants to put in a day care center for 20 children in the Gandara neighborhood.
However benign this sounds, it is a commercial venture and should not be allowed to intrude on this quiet oasis of a
neighborhood.
Years ago the council approved a commercial venture, The Pali House at Third and California, an otherwise residential
area. The problems stemming from that bad decision are well known and the city's track record for enforcing peace and
quiet at the Pali House is a total failure. Until you improve your enforcement of parking and noise trangressions at the Pali
House the city shouldn't even think of any commercial intrusion anywhere in town. Admit that you just arent good
enough at it to protect our neighborhoods so don't get started.
In addition, every election cycle, each and every one of you guys has told us that your goal above everything else was to
PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Here is a chance to put your money where your mouth is and do exacrtly that.
No Day Care Center in the Gandara Neighborhood.
Thank you and Happy Holidays to all of you,
Richard Orton
310 392 4082
Meanwhile if you aren't already getting my monthly FREE Santa Monica History Newsletter, and would like to, please let
me know. Here's page one of the November issue...
Item 6-A
12/5/17
38 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Item 6-A
12/5/17
39 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
Item 6-A
12/5/17
40 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:lily marquez <lilau55@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 6:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Untitled Number 1 School Delaware Santa Monica, CA
Hello Santa Monica Council,
My name is Lily Marquez. I have worked for the Santa Mónica-Malibu School District for twenty five years. It
was during those years when I had the pleasure to meet and work next to Mrs. Laila Taslimi.
I always admired her passion and dedication for the students and families. She provided various forums to
support the learning of her students and parents.
I am very excited to see what Mrs. Taslimi will bring to our Santa Mónica community. I am pretty sure students
and families will be well served because Mrs. Taslimi is a very caring, understanding, and well prepared for this
new challenge!
Sincerely,
Lily Marquez
Item 6-A
12/5/17
41 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Sturman <robert@robertsturmanstudio.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Regarding the proposed school on Delaware Avenue in Santa Monica
My name is Robert Sturman and I live next door to the proposed school on Delaware Avenue.
I am writing today to let you know that my entire neighborhood is against this project.
I will speak personally.
The city of Santa Monica is not looking out for us.
We allowed the maintenance yard and it has destroyed the quietness of this neighborhood.
For 24 hours a day, I hear an excruciating squeaking noise of trains moving. 24 hours a day! Toxic noise
pollution. I am not making this up. This is our new reality.
I am not sure how I am going to remain living here - I just do not know.
But what I do know, is that the city says they have nothing to do with it and NOTHING can be done.
Well, something can be done about bombarding us with something else.
And, I would appreciate my city understanding this delicate situation and having our back on something.
Please. NO MORE. Trains, train yards, factories, and on and on and on. Have a heart.
There are dozens of other neighborhoods that can absorb something else4 - that have not been abused like we
have been.
Thank you for your time.
Robert Sturman
2947 Delaware Ave.
Santa Monica, CAS. 90404
—————
—————
Website:
www.RobertSturmanStudio.com
Follow the work — Daily Inspiration:
www.facebook.com/Artist.Photografia
"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."
—Michelangelo
Item 6-A
12/5/17
42 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:carrie davies <carriedavies@me.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:12/5/17 item 6-A
I am writing to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment of a 20-student preschool at 2953
Delaware Avenue. Allowing such a commercial operation on a narrow residential street like Delaware Avenue will damage
the residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
While I do not live on Delaware, I think this commercial daycare would be unfair to my Gandara Park neighbors and also
sets a bad precedent. This is a business and should not be in an R1 neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Carrie Davies
2507 Pearl St.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
43 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danny Guggenheim <dbg20cu@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:12/5/17 item 6-A - no commercial daycare in neighborhoods
Hi,
I am writing to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment of a 20-student
preschool at 2953 Delaware Avenue. Allowing such a commercial operation on a narrow residential street like
Delaware Avenue will damage the residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under
siege from surrounding commercial and infrastructure development.
And this would establish a terrible precedent for our neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Danny Guggenheim
2614 31st Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 890-0346
Item 6-A
12/5/17
44 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cwalker <cwalker912@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Gandara Park Proposed Child Care in a residential neighborhood
City Council members,
I have been a Santa Monica resident for over twenty-five years. I vote every time there is an election & voted
for many of you, prior.
I have always loved being a resident until the last two years when I’ve had to deal with an explosion of building
& road closures, & TRAFFIC.
I can no longer even get out of my street at Exposition & Centinela with the non-stop stream of morning traffic,
even at 9:30 A.M.
When coming home trying to turn onto Centinela & Virginia it’s a fifty-fifty percent chance I will be able to
turn as there is often a car blocking the turn onto Virginia.
Now I find out there is going to be a possibility of childcare service in my residential neighborhood with a
maximum of twenty children. (Nothing against kids.)
I could see someone running a childcare out of their home with 5-7 kids to make a living but this is purely a
business in a residential neighborhood.
I lived next-door to a woman who legally had a childcare in Santa Monica for many years but had to stop due to
cancer. I can tell you I had to shut my front door/window many times due to crying children.
I once had a visiting relative and a friend from out-of-country & the first things they commented about was how
could I stand all the noise/crying, especially at 7:00 A.M when being dropped off.
I can also tell you I was blocked in my car port/alley numerous times as people found it okay to pull up in the
alley & block traffic.
I can’t imagine what my neighbors on Delaware will be going through with what was once a quaint little quiet
street or the effect on street cleaning day.
I will be affected if they pull up all day from the alley.
Although there are many things that make me love Santa Monica, lately the benefits are becoming less evident
mainly due to traffic & I have been considering a move.
If you don’t believe that our neighborhood is unhappy with this come take a drive and look at the signs that we
are displaying about our disapproval.
Allowing more traffic & noise in residential neighborhoods is unconscionable.
Christine Walker
2908 Exposition Blvd.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
45 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nathan Gary <nathang82@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 8:27 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:“Pre-School”
To whom it may concern,
I moved to a quiet, beautiful Santa Monica home over 7 years ago. Sinc then we’ve been there we’ve had two
children and my partner and I have started our adult life.
I write you to ask to reject the preschool that is currently being planned. I appreciate the want for more
schooling for pre k children but this isn’t the way to approach it. We should not be putting schools into places
that had never planned for them. Had I moved to a space with a 12+ child pre k school I’d be understanding- but
I didn’t. Please don’t force this on us. Please don’t placate to the “children”. As a parent of young children I’ll
gladly donate or agree to an increase of taxes to help all young ones have a better / best chance.
Let’s be honest. South of Montana has always been screwed. We sort of accept it now - it’s our burden. But
don’t let us get worked over again by a “I know better than the poors” person. If you do we will remember and
when the time comes the “poor” folks of Santa Monica will rise up. You will be tested.
I’ll run against you and win.
- Nathan
Item 6-A
12/5/17
46 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Loya <mloyadlt@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 8:50 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors write this letter to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-
0186 and prevent the encroachment of commercial development into residential neighborhood zones. Allowing such a
commercial operation (Untitled #1) on a narrow residential street like Delaware Ave. will not only be unsafe, it will continue
the pattern of ignoring Pico Neighborhood quality of life concerns. This unfortunate history of exclusionary policy making
has already placed environmentally harmful commercial and infrastructure development in our neighborhood, that no
other neighborhood in our City has to deal with.
We want to be very clear in our opposition to deceptive tactics that strive to sell our residents a non profit service that is in
reality a for profit venture. The City should reflect on the principles it followed to regulate AirBNB. In this proposed project
we are also putting much needed housing at risk as owners will have an incentive and a pathway to convert housing into
commercial pre schools, where profits are greater. And it is disingenuous for the developer to promote her project as a
“non profit” when only 1/3 of participants will be deemed “low income”. Moreover, there are no assurances of giving
preference for neighborhood children or local hire provisions. Our families deserve better.
In addition to the reasons stated above the PNA Board is submitting the following concerns that should be taken into
account as the Council decides on the appeal filed by residents that will be directly impacted by the development of the
Preschool:
1. Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood: The PNA will always give deference to the residents who will most
be directly impacted by a proposed project. Our PNA Exec Committee met with residents in the Gandara Park
Neighborhood and it was quite obvious that the proposed Untitled #1 Preschool is opposed by almost every neighbor in
the surrounding neighborhood, including all immediate neighbors.
2. Violates the LUCE: The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it eliminates existing housing stock and
allows for the encroachment of commercial uses into quiet residential neighborhoods. “They wouldn’t allow this to happen
North of Montana where the owner of the proposed pre school lives” is a common saying in our recent neighborhood
discussions on the topic. The City Council should reflect on the message we are sending by approving this very unpopular
project in our part of the City.
3. Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings: Before a CUP is granted, the SMMC[1] requires that nine mandatory
findings MUST be met. These findings are not met, including findings that it would not have an immediate adverse impact
on the quality of life of the neighborhood and the fact that the Applicant is asking for changes that are inconsistent with the
character of the existing neighborhood.
We sincerely hope that you listen to our residents whose lives, properties and quality of life will be directly impacted by
the commercial activity brought on by Untitled #1 pre school. We urge you to stand with Santa Monica residents, to
Item 6-A
12/5/17
47 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
preserve the scale and character of our neighborhood and protect housing and residential neighborhoods from
commercial encroachment. Treat our residents and the neighborhoods they live in with the same respect you give
residents who live in more affluent parts of our City.
Sincerely,
PNA Board of Directors
Item 6-A
12/5/17
48 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 8:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Please OPPOSE the 2953 Delaware Avenue - Child Care and Early Education Facility
Dear Council Members,
Please oppose the creation of a child care and early education facility at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
The neighbors are overwhelming against this facility and I support their efforts to stop the further destruction of the
quality of life in their community and the City Council should too.
Please stop favoring greedy development in Santa Monica and stop disregarding residents.
Signed a Santa Monica resident since 1982,
Elizabeth Lerer
618 San Vicente Boulevard
(310) 393‐8708
elerer@elizabethlerer.com
Item 6-A
12/5/17
49 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kaitlin Stewart <kaitlin.m.stewart@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 9:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Re: Appeal, 2953 Delaware Avenue
City Council Members,
Thank you for requesting public comment about Appeal of 2953 Delaware Ave (Appeal 17ENT-0861).
I wanted to write you as I'm against this project in its current state and I hope you'll vote in favor of the
appeal tomorrow (December 5).
I'm a first time home buyer with my husband and we were so excited to be able to purchase our home
in Gandara Park in December 2016. I'm concerned that the early childhood education facility at 2953
Delaware Ave could negatively impact the quiet neighborhood with increased noise, additional traffic,
decreased availability of limited parking, and a disruptive fence.
As someone worked for KinderCare, one of the largest provider of early childhood education with
1700 centers across the United States, I understand the positive benefits of early childhood education
centers can bring to neighborhoods. When opening new centers, I worked with local teams to be
transparent about our business (costs, hours, etc), collaborated with neighbors and city officials,
listened to local concerns, and helped resolve these issues before opening. The lack of collaboration
from Untitled No. 1 School to mitigate concerns from their neighbors and the extreme shortage of
public information on how Untitled No. 1 School could serve our community's children is
extremely frustrating for the neighborhood.
This early childhood center could be a key part of our tiny neighborhood and lack of solutions to
resolve the negative impact of Untitled No 1 School coming to Gandara Park is why I'm against the
current execution of this project. I hope you'll vote in favor of the appeal until these issues can be
resolved.
Thank you for your consideration and reading my concerns about the project.
Sincerely,
Kaitlin Stewart
Delaware Ave Resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
50 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 9:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
From: Maria Loya [mailto:mloyadlt@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 8:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown
Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Pam
OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<suehimmelrich@gmail.com>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>;
Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>; Amy Aukstikalnis <amyauk@gmail.com>; Ruthann Lehrer
<ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com>; Lewis Perkins <lewisperkins@comprehensivefinancial.net>; David Yuguchi
<yuguchiarc@roadrunner.com>; Danilo Bach <danilobach@aol.com>; Laurence Eubank <laurence.eubank@gmail.com>;
Andy Hoyer <abhoyer@yahoo.com>; Maria Loya <MLoyaDLT@gmail.com>; Zina Josephs <Zinajosephs@aol.com>;
Andrew Gledhill <andrew@agledhill.com>; Elizabeth Van Denburgh <evandenburgh@earthlink.net>; Alin Wall
<awall@rbz.com>; Mike Salazar <mikedsalazar@gmail.com>; Maryanne Solomon <maryanneso@mac.com>; Catherine
Eldridge <catherine@westsiderc.org>; Taffy Patton <taffypatton1@gmail.com>; Oscar de la Torre
<odelatorre16@yahoo.com>; Stacy Dalgleish <sdalgleish@mac.com>; John Cyrus Smith <johncysmith@gmail.com>;
Evelyn Lauchenauer <swissmissrealtor@gmail.com>; Lenore Morrell <lkmorrell@aol.com>; Carol Landsberg
<carolland88@aol.com>; Dolores Sloan <dsloannow@gmail.com>; Nick Boles <nickgboles@gmail.com>; Leigh Brumberg
<starbaby@earthlink.net>; Elaine Blaugrund <elaincarol@earthlink.net>; Nancy Coleman <n.coleman1@verizon.net>;
Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>; Mary Marlow <m.marlow@verizon.net>; Ivan Perkins
<ivanperkins@gmail.com>; Diane Krakower <dikrakower@yahoo.com>; Rosemary Sostarich <r.sostarich@gmail.com>;
marten Breuer <marten.c.breuer@gmail.com>; Caryn Marshall <caryn5051@gmail.com>; Catherine Huh
<huh.catherine@gmail.com>; jane wiedlea <jwjwiedlea@gmail.com>; Kate Bransfield <kate@santamonicalistings.com>;
Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>; Fukuro7 <reinhardka@aol.com>; William Hamilton
<williamlaw@verizon.net>; Diane Citron <d.m.citron@gmail.com>; CrisMac <crismac11111@gmail.com>;
wilmont@reinhardkargl.com; Clare Thomas <ClareThomasDO@aol.com>; de la Torre Oscar (odelatorre@picoyouth.org)
<odelatorre@picoyouth.org>; Betzi Richardson <betzir77@yahoo.com>
Subject: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 ‐ Appeal from Gandara Park Neighborhood
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors write this letter to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-
0186 and prevent the encroachment of commercial development into residential neighborhood zones. Allowing such a
commercial operation (Untitled #1) on a narrow residential street like Delaware Ave. will not only be unsafe, it will continue
the pattern of ignoring Pico Neighborhood quality of life concerns. This unfortunate history of exclusionary policy making
has already placed environmentally harmful commercial and infrastructure development in our neighborhood, that no
other neighborhood in our City has to deal with.
We want to be very clear in our opposition to deceptive tactics that strive to sell our residents a non profit service that is in
reality a for profit venture. The City should reflect on the principles it followed to regulate AirBNB. In this proposed project
we are also putting much needed housing at risk as owners will have an incentive and a pathway to convert housing into
Item 6-A
12/5/17
51 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
commercial pre schools, where profits are greater. And it is disingenuous for the developer to promote her project as a
“non profit” when only 1/3 of participants will be deemed “low income”. Moreover, there are no assurances of giving
preference for neighborhood children or local hire provisions. Our families deserve better.
In addition to the reasons stated above the PNA Board is submitting the following concerns that should be taken into
account as the Council decides on the appeal filed by residents that will be directly impacted by the development of the
Preschool:
1. Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood: The PNA will always give deference to the residents who will most
be directly impacted by a proposed project. Our PNA Exec Committee met with residents in the Gandara Park
Neighborhood and it was quite obvious that the proposed Untitled #1 Preschool is opposed by almost every neighbor in
the surrounding neighborhood, including all immediate neighbors.
2. Violates the LUCE: The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it eliminates existing housing stock and
allows for the encroachment of commercial uses into quiet residential neighborhoods. “They wouldn’t allow this to happen
North of Montana where the owner of the proposed pre school lives” is a common saying in our recent neighborhood
discussions on the topic. The City Council should reflect on the message we are sending by approving this very unpopular
project in our part of the City.
3. Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings: Before a CUP is granted, the SMMC[1] requires that nine mandatory
findings MUST be met. These findings are not met, including findings that it would not have an immediate adverse impact
on the quality of life of the neighborhood and the fact that the Applicant is asking for changes that are inconsistent with the
character of the existing neighborhood.
We sincerely hope that you listen to our residents whose lives, properties and quality of life will be directly impacted by
the commercial activity brought on by Untitled #1 pre school. We urge you to stand with Santa Monica residents, to
preserve the scale and character of our neighborhood and protect housing and residential neighborhoods from
commercial encroachment. Treat our residents and the neighborhoods they live in with the same respect you give
residents who live in more affluent parts of our City.
Sincerely,
PNA Board of Directors
Item 6-A
12/5/17
52 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maureen Jerrett <maureenjerrett@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 10:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:12/5/17 item 6-A
I am writing to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment of a 20-student preschool at 2953
Delaware Avenue. Allowing such a commercial operation on a narrow residential street like Delaware Avenue will damage
the residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
These inappropriate uses of family homes to run a business reduce the value of the homes adjacent to the property - in
fact - it would it limits their ability to resell as who in their right mind would move next to a daycare?
Thank you for doing the right thing.
Maureen Jerrett
1709 Maple St., SM
Item 6-A
12/5/17
53 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maryanne Laguardia <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:25 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Agenda Item 6A
There goes the neighborhood, literally and figuratively. How much more do you intend to burden a low income,
underrepresented neighborhood? Do you really wonder why people want district voting?
I support the appeal of the granting of a CUP for the nursery school on Delaware Avenue. I am not
against children, early education, or even high tuition, fancy schmancy but cutesy nursery
schools. I'm all for them, but not in R1 neighborhoods in general and Gandara in particular.
It's not enough these residents have to live with the all day and all night noises from the Expo yard
(drive by at 2 am sometime and see/hear what I am talking about), the increased traffic from those
going to and from work in the the ever-expanding nearby commercial office buildings as well as
others trying to avoid the traffic nightmare caused by the signal timing at Stewart and Olympic?
What happened to provisions in the LUCE purporting to protect R-1 neighborhoods? The proposal is
for a commercial use of a small residence in a neighborhood of small residences (probably the last
affordable such neighborhood in Santa Monica). Yes the use proposed involves children, but it also
involves 26 people (per the application) on this small site, noise (20 children make a heck of a lot
more noise than family children playing in their own yards) parking problems and traffic problems for
the entire neighborhood, and will serve at the high end of its tuition scale, commuters' children whose
parents can afford to pay the high tuition. It is noted that neighborhood residents will be encouraged
to attend, but this neighborhood cannot afford even the low end of the tuition scale discussed,so
accommodations for the few, if any, it accepts will have to raise the high end tuition. Do we want to
continue the city's war on single family residences by using neighborhoods to accommodate and
compensate for overdevelopment of office buildings?
The site is too small to support the proposed use (20 students, 6 adult workers), it removes a
residence from our short housing supply, it is not neighborhood resident-serving, and in fact is
opposed by residents, it is being granted concessions no homeowner can get from the city -- removal
of a garage, front in leiu driveway parking, specified street parking (in the form of a short term parking
place and other concessions) a property line 5 foot front fence totally out of character with the
neighborhood in addition to it's being against city regulations and not an an option for any residential
use. times for the bulk of the students has never. Not surprising the residents of Gandara feel
oppressed and targeted. They are.
This is isn't a situation of moving near a school then complaining. It is bringing a private school into a
long established residential neighborhood with and as such, the voice of the residents must be heard.
This isn't family day care which is smaller, regulated by the state, serves infants and toddlers, is run
by a resident in his or her own home, and is less expensive than privately owned and operated
"daycare." The Rand Study tells us we have a shortage of infant and toddler care, not nursery school
facilities. Even if there were a shortage of nursery school for older preschoolers, there are places all
Item 6-A
12/5/17
54 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
over the city better suited for nursery schools without neighborhood busting, and there are
SMMUSD's free nursery school and pre-k programs.
Don't consider this a pro and con child care issue and try to shame the good people of Gandara who
want to preserve their neighborhood and quality of life. This could be the Harvard of preschools
(although that honor will more likely go to the ECLS in which the city is so highly invested). Why
invade a residential neighborhood for a private school?
Please consider the effect on this neighborhood of giving special privileges to this private enterprise, no matter how
wonderful it aims to be. Do something for the residents -- stand up for a neighborhood that has no experience in
advocacy, is underrepresented by our elected officials, and already bears the brunt of nearby overdevelopment.
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 6-A
12/5/17
55 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maryanne Laguardia <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:25 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Agenda Item 6A
There goes the neighborhood, literally and figuratively. How much more do you intend to burden a low income,
underrepresented neighborhood? Do you really wonder why people want district voting?
I support the appeal of the granting of a CUP for the nursery school on Delaware Avenue. I am not
against children, early education, or even high tuition, fancy schmancy but cutesy nursery
schools. I'm all for them, but not in R1 neighborhoods in general and Gandara in particular.
It's not enough these residents have to live with the all day and all night noises from the Expo yard
(drive by at 2 am sometime and see/hear what I am talking about), the increased traffic from those
going to and from work in the the ever-expanding nearby commercial office buildings as well as
others trying to avoid the traffic nightmare caused by the signal timing at Stewart and Olympic?
What happened to provisions in the LUCE purporting to protect R-1 neighborhoods? The proposal is
for a commercial use of a small residence in a neighborhood of small residences (probably the last
affordable such neighborhood in Santa Monica). Yes the use proposed involves children, but it also
involves 26 people (per the application) on this small site, noise (20 children make a heck of a lot
more noise than family children playing in their own yards) parking problems and traffic problems for
the entire neighborhood, and will serve at the high end of its tuition scale, commuters' children whose
parents can afford to pay the high tuition. It is noted that neighborhood residents will be encouraged
to attend, but this neighborhood cannot afford even the low end of the tuition scale discussed,so
accommodations for the few, if any, it accepts will have to raise the high end tuition. Do we want to
continue the city's war on single family residences by using neighborhoods to accommodate and
compensate for overdevelopment of office buildings?
The site is too small to support the proposed use (20 students, 6 adult workers), it removes a
residence from our short housing supply, it is not neighborhood resident-serving, and in fact is
opposed by residents, it is being granted concessions no homeowner can get from the city -- removal
of a garage, front in leiu driveway parking, specified street parking (in the form of a short term parking
place and other concessions) a property line 5 foot front fence totally out of character with the
neighborhood in addition to it's being against city regulations and not an an option for any residential
use. times for the bulk of the students has never. Not surprising the residents of Gandara feel
oppressed and targeted. They are.
This is isn't a situation of moving near a school then complaining. It is bringing a private school into a
long established residential neighborhood with and as such, the voice of the residents must be heard.
This isn't family day care which is smaller, regulated by the state, serves infants and toddlers, is run
by a resident in his or her own home, and is less expensive than privately owned and operated
"daycare." The Rand Study tells us we have a shortage of infant and toddler care, not nursery school
facilities. Even if there were a shortage of nursery school for older preschoolers, there are places all
Item 6-A
12/5/17
56 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
over the city better suited for nursery schools without neighborhood busting, and there are
SMMUSD's free nursery school and pre-k programs.
Don't consider this a pro and con child care issue and try to shame the good people of Gandara who
want to preserve their neighborhood and quality of life. This could be the Harvard of preschools
(although that honor will more likely go to the ECLS in which the city is so highly invested). Why
invade a residential neighborhood for a private school?
Please consider the effect on this neighborhood of giving special privileges to this private enterprise, no matter how
wonderful it aims to be. Do something for the residents -- stand up for a neighborhood that has no experience in
advocacy, is underrepresented by our elected officials, and already bears the brunt of nearby overdevelopment.
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 6-A
12/5/17
57 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ahmad Sadeghi <asadeghi1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:36 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: preserve our neighborrhood
I am sure you are aware of approval to open an unwanted preschool in our
community in Delaware street in Santa Monica. I cannot emphasis more
than my neighbors objecting to this commercially oriented preschool for
profit purposes. My objection is based on unnecessary preschool in this
neighborhood that create noise, heavy traffic, safety concerns and change
our beautiful area into commercial zone. Please save our neighborhood by
voting NO to this proposal.
Ahmad Sadeghi from 2904 Delaware street in Santa Monica
Item 6-A
12/5/17
58 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Damon Ramos <damonr88@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Opposition to Development Project - 2953 Delaware Ave
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I am asking for your support in overturning a Planning Commission approval of turning 2953 Delaware into a
full-day, year-round preschool.
I am a third generation Santa Monica resident, residing in the Pico Neighborhood. I have a daycare center
operating next door to me. The noise and parking issues are very stressful. But I understand the necessity for
these family operated businesses and tolerate the issues it brings.
But, a large commercial endeavor in the middle of a quiet neighborhood is unacceptable.
With so many other properly zoned properties available for development. It is unfair and arrogant for people to
impose themselves on the lives and well being of a peaceful neighborhood, in the interest of making money.
And yes, even if this is a non-profit endeavor. We all know that the goal is to make money to pay staff and
officers and for the property.
The positions against this rezoning are numerous:
1. Traffic is already at a critical mass.
2. Delaware is a narrow street and when filled with parked cars and opposing traffic, is already extremely
difficult to navigate.
3. Most importantly, is the destruction of the peaceful togetherness of our community. The project will require a
6’ fence around the property, and construction modifications that will separate it from the unity and charm of
our neighborhood.
This is simply intolerable as regards the feel and connection of the community.
As a compromise, I would ask if the location could be operated as a normal Large Daycare Center.. This could
be beneficial to all parties as it would not necessitate the construction modifications and other aspects that will
separate the property from the look and feel of the neighborhood. These locations are plentiful, maintain the
look of the neighborhood, and can be returned to their original single family residential purposes when that day
comes.
For these reasons and others, I am asking you to please help me in overturning this Planning Commission
action.
Respectfully,
Damon Ramos
Item 6-A
12/5/17
59 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
PO BOX 5263
Santa Monica CA 90409
Item 6-A
12/5/17
60 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ilya Haykinson <haykinson@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:12/5/17 Item 6-A
Dear Council Members,
I write to urge you to allow the preschool to continue to exist in the neighborhood. It appears unreasonable for
this neighborhood to establish a precedent that an allowed use (daycare) will damage the neighborhood using
dubious data and appeals to unmeasurable statements of impact.
-ilya
Item 6-A
12/5/17
61 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David Guth <davidguth@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed
preschool with extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
CouncilPersons:
I write to support the Appeal of the approval of this 20-child childcare center in this residential
neighborhood. To be clear, I oppose the proposed development.
I agree that it is possible that a 20-child day care center might be able to be suitably located in some residential
neighborhood somewhere in Santa Monica, this development in this neighborhood is not suitable. I would
happily accept such a facility in my own neighborhood, on Stewart/28th street between Olympic and Ocean Park
Boulevards.
I strongly support the proposed planning alternative, to require that large developments provide adequate,
commercial day care for the children of their employees on-site. Is it possible to encourage this alternative by
decreasing the tax basis of the development by the square footage devoted to child care?
Thank you,
David L. Guth, 25 year resident at
26 Village Parkway
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 6-A
12/5/17
62 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vernice Hankins
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 11:49 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
From: Denise Anderson‐Warren
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 11:46 AM
To: Vernice Hankins <Vernice.Hankins@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: FW: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 ‐ Appeal from Gandara Park Neighborhood
Please process this as an Add-to for 6.A. It looks like it was also sent to the Clerk Mailbox.
Denise Anderson-Warren, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
From: Maria Loya [mailto:mloyadlt@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 8:50 AM
Subject: Letter to City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 ‐ Appeal from Gandara Park Neighborhood
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors write this letter to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-
0186 and prevent the encroachment of commercial development into residential neighborhood zones. Allowing such a
commercial operation (Untitled #1) on a narrow residential street like Delaware Ave. will not only be unsafe, it will continue
the pattern of ignoring Pico Neighborhood quality of life concerns. This unfortunate history of exclusionary policy making
has already placed environmentally harmful commercial and infrastructure development in our neighborhood, that no
other neighborhood in our City has to deal with.
We want to be very clear in our opposition to deceptive tactics that strive to sell our residents a non profit service that is in
reality a for profit venture. The City should reflect on the principles it followed to regulate AirBNB. In this proposed project
we are also putting much needed housing at risk as owners will have an incentive and a pathway to convert housing into
commercial pre schools, where profits are greater. And it is disingenuous for the developer to promote her project as a
“non profit” when only 1/3 of participants will be deemed “low income”. Moreover, there are no assurances of giving
preference for neighborhood children or local hire provisions. Our families deserve better.
In addition to the reasons stated above the PNA Board is submitting the following concerns that should be taken into
account as the Council decides on the appeal filed by residents that will be directly impacted by the development of the
Preschool:
1. Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood: The PNA will always give deference to the residents who will most
be directly impacted by a proposed project. Our PNA Exec Committee met with residents in the Gandara Park
Item 6-A
12/5/17
63 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Neighborhood and it was quite obvious that the proposed Untitled #1 Preschool is opposed by almost every neighbor in
the surrounding neighborhood, including all immediate neighbors.
2. Violates the LUCE: The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it eliminates existing housing stock and
allows for the encroachment of commercial uses into quiet residential neighborhoods. “They wouldn’t allow this to happen
North of Montana where the owner of the proposed pre school lives” is a common saying in our recent neighborhood
discussions on the topic. The City Council should reflect on the message we are sending by approving this very unpopular
project in our part of the City.
3. Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings: Before a CUP is granted, the SMMC[1] requires that nine mandatory
findings MUST be met. These findings are not met, including findings that it would not have an immediate adverse impact
on the quality of life of the neighborhood and the fact that the Applicant is asking for changes that are inconsistent with the
character of the existing neighborhood.
We sincerely hope that you listen to our residents whose lives, properties and quality of life will be directly impacted by
the commercial activity brought on by Untitled #1 pre school. We urge you to stand with Santa Monica residents, to
preserve the scale and character of our neighborhood and protect housing and residential neighborhoods from
commercial encroachment. Treat our residents and the neighborhoods they live in with the same respect you give
residents who live in more affluent parts of our City.
Sincerely,
PNA Board of Directors
Item 6-A
12/5/17
64 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sharon Dobeck <dobeckfamily@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 12:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preserve Gandara Park
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of myself, my husband and our children to affirm that we are completely opposed to a
preschool in our quiet residential neighborhood. We have lived at 2964 Delaware Avenue, across the street
from the proposed business, and have enjoyed the peaceful and very low traffic street for 26 years. Our dental
office is also in Santa Monica for 38 years and our three children attended Santa Monica schools. All three
children were in the Santa Monica High School Viking Band and we were active band parents as well as the
band treasurer. We devoted a lot of time to the the school and the community.
At this point, my husband is needing to retire from his practice because he has multiple myeloma, incurable
bone marrow cancer. He will hopefully be in a position to enjoy his home rather than having to be disturbed
with noise of children playing and the increased traffic of 20 cars dropping off and picking up their children on
a daily basis. We've been told there would be evening parent meetings, other activities and fundraising events
that would involve all 20 cars to be parked on the street at the same time.
We are concerned that the R1 zoning has been approved for our RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. A business
does not belong here. There are ample preschools in our 90404 zone. If Laila Taslimi feels so strongly that
another preschool needs to exist, she should find a more suitable setting, not in a residential area, for her vision
to become reality. It is unfortunate for ourselves and our neighbors that she has such strong financial backing
that she can use to leverage power with the city planners. The residents in this area are all opposed to this
business being here but we don't have the financial strength. We have unified to strongly show that we don't
want the invasion of this preschool into our neighborhood and we want to have our voices heard and heeded. It
was very distressing after a long night at the city planners meeting to be voted down. All of the residents who
spoke had very valid points to make. Mrs. Taslimi seemed ill-prepared to answer many of the questions posed
to her but still she prevailed so the probable explanation of this is that she simply has the money to sway the city
planners in her favor.
Please help the residents of Gandara Park neighborhood to preserve the peace and quiet that we have enjoyed
for many years and would like to continue to enjoy by voting against the 2953 Delaware preschool project.
Thank you for your time.
SIncerely,
Sharon & Charles Dobeck
Danielle Dobeck
Richard Dobeck
Cary Dobeck
Marissa Keisling
Item 6-A
12/5/17
65 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Deidre Hall <msdeidrehall@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 12:34 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Day care in Santa Monica
I don’t know when our charming, quaint Santa Monica became a daycare center but I am fiercely against it! Five kids is
bad enough but 20 kids? Insane! I cannot imagine the anger and frustration any of us would feel if suddenly a neighbor
was running a for‐profit business with boisterous children. Not to mention how it would clog up our streets!
Please stop this ridiculous and invasive plan in it’s tracks.
Deidre Hall
Item 6-A
12/5/17
66 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:MARYANNE LAGUARDIA <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 1:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Re: Agenda Item 6A -- corrected email
On Dec 4, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Maryanne Laguardia <aswml@aol.com> wrote:
There goes the neighborhood, literally and figuratively. How much more do you intend to burden a low
income, underrepresented neighborhood? Do you really wonder why people want district voting?
I support the appeal of the granting of a CUP for the nursery school on Delaware
Avenue. I am not against children, early education, or even high tuition, fancy
schmancy but cutesy nursery schools. I'm all for them, but not in R1 neighborhoods in
general and Gandara in particular.
It's not enough these residents have to live with the all day and all night noises from the
Expo yard (drive by at 2 am sometime and see/hear what I am talking about), the
increased traffic from those going to and from work in the the ever-expanding nearby
commercial office buildings as well as others trying to avoid the traffic nightmare caused
by the signal timing at Stewart and Olympic?
What happened to provisions in the LUCE purporting to protect R-1
neighborhoods? The proposal is for a commercial use of a small residence in a
neighborhood of small residences (probably the last affordable such neighborhood in
Santa Monica). Yes the use proposed involves children, but it also involves 26 people
(per the application) on this small site, noise (20 children make a heck of a lot more
noise than family children playing in their own yards) parking problems and traffic
problems for the entire neighborhood, and will serve at the high end of its tuition scale,
commuters' children whose parents can afford to pay the high tuition. It is noted that
neighborhood residents will be encouraged to attend, but this neighborhood cannot
afford even the low end of the tuition scale discussed,so accommodations for the few, if
any, it accepts will have to raise the high end tuition. Do we want to continue the city's
war on single family residences by using neighborhoods to accommodate and
compensate for overdevelopment of office buildings?
The site is too small to support the proposed use (20 students, 6 adult workers), it
removes a residence from our short housing supply, it is not neighborhood resident-
serving, and in fact is opposed by residents, it is being granted concessions no
homeowner can get from the city -- removal of a garage, front in leiu driveway parking,
specified street parking (in the form of a short term parking place and other
concessions) a property line 5 foot front fence totally out of character with the
neighborhood in addition to it's being against city regulations and not an an option for
any residential use. Not surprising the residents of Gandara feel oppressed and
targeted. They are.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
67 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
This is isn't a situation of moving near a school then complaining. It is bringing a private
school into a long established residential neighborhood with and as such, the voice of
the residents must be heard.
This isn't family day care which is smaller, regulated by the state, serves infants and
toddlers, is run by a resident in his or her own home, and is less expensive than
privately owned and operated "daycare." The Rand Study tells us we have a shortage
of infant and toddler care, not nursery school facilities. Even if there were a shortage of
nursery school for older preschoolers, there are places all over the city better suited for
nursery schools without neighborhood busting, and there are SMMUSD's free nursery
school and pre-k programs.
Don't consider this a pro and con child care issue and try to shame the good people of
Gandara who want to preserve their neighborhood and quality of life. This could be the
Harvard of preschools (although that honor will more likely go to the ECLS in which the
city is so highly invested). Why invade a residential neighborhood for a private school?
Please consider the effect on this neighborhood of giving special privileges to this private enterprise, no
matter how wonderful it aims to be. Do something for the residents -- stand up for a neighborhood that
has no experience in advocacy, is underrepresented by our elected officials, and already bears the brunt
of nearby overdevelopment.
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 6-A
12/5/17
68 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shirin Azad Tate <shirinazadtate@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 12:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:untitledno.1school@gmail.com
Subject:[SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Item 6, 2953 Delaware Avenue
Dear City Council,
We live on Lincoln Blvd. in Santa Monica, across the street from the wonderful preschool both of our children attend. We would support adding a quality
preschool to any of our city's residential neighborhoods because it is a great convenience to be able to walk our child to school. It is also a great way to
experience the neighborhood - on foot - in ways we would not by car, and for our children's curriculum to be enriched by going to school in a walkable
neighborhood. Living near our preschool makes a difference to us now and will in the future as we will continue to have fond memories of our time
here. Having this access to our beloved preschool makes us happy to live here! In fact, we moved homes to be close to it.
Signed,
Shirin Azad
Item 6-A
12/5/17
69 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Alex Novakovich <alexnovak@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 2:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Daycare on Delaware, 12/5/17 Agenda item 6-A
I urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment of a 20-student preschool at 2953 Delaware
Avenue. Allowing such a commercial operation on a narrow residential street like Delaware Avenue will damage the
residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
From 1988-2006 my family and I lived at 2943 Delaware and enjoyed the small town feel of the neighborhood. For the
past 21 years we have lived at 2607 26th St. between Pearl and Ocean Park Blvd., just two doors down from an in-home
daycare. I very much like my neighbor who runs the daycare but I DO NOT LIKE the constant traffic created by parents
transporting their children to and from the daycare and the consistent problem with parents carelessly parking and
blocking our driveway.
Delaware Ave., unlike 26th St. is a narrow street. Add 40-50 car trips per day and you’ve asking for accidents.
And no matter how you cut it, a 20 child daycare is a business, a large business at that, which has no business in a
residential neighborhood.
Please keep 2953 Delaware a single family home residence and do NOT allow it to become a 20-student preschool.
Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
2607 26th St.
Santa Monica
Item 6-A
12/5/17
70 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shari Weiller <sbweiller@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 2:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Subject:12/5/17 item 6-A
I am writing to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment of a 20-student preschool at 2953
Delaware Avenue. Allowing such a commercial operation on a narrow residential street like Delaware Avenue will damage
the residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
The ordinance that provides the possibility of this with a CUP is ill-advised at best. At what point is the character of our
increasingly impacted R1 neighborhoods preserved?
Shari Weiller
Santa Monica resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
71 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:PAULA GAUDET <pdgaudet@me.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 2:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:12/5/17 item 6-A
Dear Honorable Council Member:
I am writing to urge you to uphold the appeal 17ENT‐0186 and block the establishment of a 20 student preschool at
2953 Delaware avenue. The neighborhood is not designed for such a commercial operation on such a narrow residential
street and will further damage the residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood. The changes thus far have
maxed out if not exceeded a reasonable amount of growth and “improvement” to the neighborhood.
PAULA GAUDET
2526 30th Street
SM, CA 90405
pdgaudet@me.com
Item 6-A
12/5/17
72 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:modistmoz <modistmoz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 1:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:[SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Appeal 17ENT-0186
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment
of a 20-student preschool at 2953 Delaware Ave. Our city is already over-preschooled
and will irrevocably damage the residential character of Gandara Park Neighborhood,
which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and infrastructure
development.
As a resident of this beloved community, I have strong concerns regarding the
owner/applicant's inability to state what her commitment will be in accepting the low
income families she claims are at the center of the pre-school's focus and she will not
commit to hiring individuals from the community as employees to lessen the burden of
our already overly stretched commuter city.
Those issues aside, this tiny community deserves to have a family residing in the
home, not a business, non profit or not. Even with non-profit status, the owner will
stand to receive no less than $20,000 in annual income - considering if only ONE child
attended.
I am expecting twins myself and would not choose to have my children attend the pre-
school, but even if I did, I cannot afford to do so even at the claimed "low income" rate
of $1700/child (of which I imagine I wouldn't even qualify).
I won't join in the usual rhetoric that claims traffic will be an issue, or safety, but I will
stand by my neighbors regarding the following:
Violates the LUCE: The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it
eliminates existing housing stock and allows for the encroachment of commercial
uses into quiet residential neighborhoods.
Area is Already Over-Preschooled: According to a comprehensive 2015 RAND
Study, commissioned by the city, Santa Monica has a “surplus of preschool
spaces for city residents.” There are already 46 preschools within 2 miles of the
Proposed Preschool and 20 preschools and 15 existing daycares located within a
mile or less from the site. A new preschool in a residential neighborhood that
Item 6-A
12/5/17
73 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
already has too many preschools does not make sense and is not good City
planning.
Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings: Before a CUP is granted, the
SMMC[1] requires that nine mandatory findings MUST be met. These findings
are not met, including findings that it would not have an immediate adverse
impact on the quality of life of the neighborhood and the fact that the Applicant is
asking for changes that are inconsistent with the character of the existing
neighborhood.
Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood: The Proposed Preschool is
opposed by almost every neighbor in the surrounding neighborhood, including all
immediate neighbors. Gandara Park Neighborhood, although recently named,
has a long history with some residents, especially those of Japanese-American
descent that moved to the neighborhood, as it was one of the few places to allow
Japanese-Americans to buy homes following their internment during World War
II. Many of most impacted residents are Japanese-American internment camp
survivors in their 80s and 90s.
As a resident, I implore you to do the right thing and allow due process (which has
been overlooked) and to also see this for what it truly is. If Ms. Taibi and her husband
are confidants of yours, close or distant, step aside with your vote. If you are truly
objective, see this as it is... not about the children who are claimed would benefit from
the services offered, but a tax write off for a woman who acts as a NIMBY herself when
confronted about placing such a business in her own neighborhood.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michelle Parrella
2847 Delaware Ave. SM 90404
Item 6-A
12/5/17
74 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 2:53 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis; Terry
O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-Warren;
councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Cc:Reinhard Kargl; Rosemary Sostarich; betzi richardson; John C Smith; Deborah Roetman;
Laurence Eubank; Manju Raman; Lenore Morrell; Kate Bransfield; Jim Pickrell; Edward
Subject:City Council Agenda 6.A, 12/5/2017 - Support of Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board of Directors write this letter to urge you to uphold the
Appeal 17ENT-0186 and prevent the encroachment of commercial development into residential
neighborhood zones. Allowing such a commercial operation (Untitled #1) on a narrow residential street like Delaware Ave.
will not only be unsafe, it will continue the pattern of ignoring neighborhoods quality of life concerns. This unfortunate
history of exclusionary policy making has already placed environmentally harmful commercial and infrastructure
development in our neighborhood, that no other neighborhood in our City has to deal with.
We want to be very clear in our opposition to deceptive tactics that strive to sell our residents a non profit service that is in
reality a for profit venture. The City should reflect on the principles it followed to regulate AirBNB. In this proposed project
we are also putting much needed housing at risk as owners will have an incentive and a pathway to convert housing into
commercial pre schools, where profits are greater. And it is disingenuous for the developer to promote her project as a
“non profit” when only 1/3 of participants will be deemed “low income”. Moreover, there are no assurances of giving
preference for neighborhood children or local hire provisions. Our families deserve better.
In addition to the reasons stated above the Wilmont Board supports the concerns that PNA is submitting that should be
taken into account as the Council decides on the appeal filed by residents that will be directly impacted by the
development of the Preschool:
1. Strong Opposition by Entire Neighborhood: PNA has documented that it will always give deference to the
residents who will most be directly impacted by a proposed project. The PNA Exec Committee met with residents in the
Gandara Park Neighborhood and they have reported that it was quite obvious that the proposed Untitled #1 Preschool is
opposed by almost every neighbor in the surrounding neighborhood, including all immediate neighbors.
2. Violates the LUCE: The Proposed Preschool violates the LUCE, because it eliminates existing housing stock and
allows for the encroachment of commercial uses into quiet residential neighborhoods. “They wouldn’t allow this to happen
North of Montana where the owner of the proposed pre school lives” is a common saying in our recent neighborhood
discussions on the topic. The City Council should reflect on the message we are sending by approving this very unpopular
project in our part of the City.
3. Does Not Meet Mandatory CUP Findings: Before a CUP is granted, the SMMC[1] requires that nine mandatory
findings MUST be met. These findings are not met, including findings that it would not have an immediate adverse impact
on the quality of life of the neighborhood and the fact that the Applicant is asking for changes that are inconsistent with the
character of the existing neighborhood.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
75 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
We hope that you listen to the PNA residents whose lives, properties and quality of life will be directly impacted by the
commercial activity brought on by Untitled #1 pre school. We urge you to stand with Santa Monica residents, to preserve
the scale and character of our neighborhood and protect housing and residential neighborhoods from commercial
encroachment. Treat our residents and the neighborhoods they live in with the same respect you give residents who live
in more affluent parts of our City.
Sincerely,
Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 6-A
12/5/17
76 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:art is the answer <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 2:57 PM
To:Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems
Subject:Gandara Pre-School
The Gandara Park neighborhood is already under siege by over-
development, cut through traffic and the freeway. It deals with an
abundance of noise, loss of safety and identity.
It is too easy to accuse people of being 'against children or education. That
is not the point. But not in R1 neighborhoods. Would you want one in
yours? I bet not.
The area is being filled with office buildings. If children and their daycare
and pre-school needs are important- we need to require them in the
DA's. It is best to keep them on the work premises. Many companies are
already doing this.
It is also a violation of LUCE which promised to protect R1
neighborhoods. This adds a commercial venue to a small neighborhood.
None of you live there. It's also not affordable for most from this small
affordable area. Its for those well paid and from other areas to drop off
their kids and not have to deal with it in their own backyard.
This is a very small house and yard..also asking for a 5 ft fence in a 3 ft
fence area which is a violation of City regulations and not available to
other residents. Simply not allowing this and requiring a certain
percentage of the kids be from the area is not enough and not a good
enough excuse to vote for it as it was for ECLS.
The residents of Gandara are being singled-out as are the residents of other
lower income areas. They have a right to feel victimized and targeted.
They are being so. More proof of the inequities of many decisions being
made by the Council while not listening to the residents.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
77 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
This isn't about pro- child or not. It is using that to hide a more nefarious
agenda. It isn't about how nice or well- intentioned the proprietor is. If she
is so nice- why not allow her to open and run these and more infant and
toddler needed venues in the many buildings surrounding the area.
Please stand up for the residents and stop steamrolling lower income
areas. This is a great grass-roots effort by well-intentioned residents. Isn't
it time you listened to what we need instead of what you need?
Please vote the Appeal. They have the right not to be side-swiped this
way.
Danielle Charney
Resident Since 1981
Item 6-A
12/5/17
78 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Duresky <njdhope@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 2:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Terry
O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich
Subject:City Council Meeting December 5, 2017 Item 6A
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
I am writing in regard to the December 5th Council meeting, item 6A, the appeal of Planning Commission
approval re a proposed preschool with extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
In sum, please grant the appeal and DO NOT let there be a commercial childcare facility installed in that
neighborhood.
I oppose having childcare facilitates in residential neighborhoods because I lived next to one for two years and
it was a dreadful experience. About 4 years ago, a family rented the house next to mine and ran a nursery
school which provided childcare from what was supposed to be 7:30 am to 7:00 pm. I do not remember being
asked if I wanted that to happen or not. All of a sudden, I was living next to a nursery school, day care center.
First, the noise during the day was constant. There was usually some group of children in the back yard yelling
at the top of their lungs. If a parent dropped a child before the 7:30 start time, that child went in the back yard
to play and make noise. No matter the number of children in a yard, children will make noise. If it is just the
‘neighbor kids’ they won’t be in the yard making noise constantly from 7:30 am to 7:00 pm. It was noisy in my
yard and house all week days, all day long. The noise from neighbor children in the back yard and noise from
children in a childcare center are two different things.
Additionally, the children often ate in the back yard, dropping bits of food everywhere. That attracted rats,
possum and squirrels. It is disconcerting to find a rat posed on the fence between the houses waiting to go into
the yard and eat some of the dropped food. While the school was there, there was a huge difference in the
amount of trash left out on trash day.
Driving was an issue. Parents who were late to pick up their child or late dropping the child off and going to
work would speed on the street. Because our street was overcrowded with cars, due in part to the parked cars
used by the people who worked in the childcare center, there was limited parking. I frequently found either my
driveway used or blocked by a parent who was ‘sorry, I thought I would only be a minute.’ On a couple of
occasions, a dog would escape from the parent’s car and do its business on my front yard. That was never
picked up.
Finally, neighborhoods are supposed to be filled with neighbors. When someone runs a business out of their
house, they do not think about their home as a home-in-a-neighborhood. The address is their livelihood, not a
home. I know you understand this point because it was expressed when you were discussing Air B&Bs,
specifically buying a house in Santa Monica just to turn it into an Air B&B.
I never called the city to complain because I didn’t want to start a war with my neighbor and end up living in a
war zone – living next to a childcare center was bad enough. Fortunately, the lease on that house was not
renewed and the school moved away (notice, I did not say, our neighbors moved away.)
Item 6-A
12/5/17
79 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Please grant the appeal before the city council tonight and DO NOT let there be a commercial childcare facility
installed in that neighborhood.
Please ask the city planning commission to gather information about putting large childcare facilitates in
residential neighborhoods and re-think their position.
Thank you,
Nancy J Duresky
2317 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 6-A
12/5/17
80 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Neil Hobbs <hobbsy88@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 3:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Preserve Gandara Neighborhood
Importance:High
Dear Sirs,
I write with reference to the City Council planning appeal hearing scheduled for tomorrow (Dec. 5th) at
1815hrs concerning the planning application for 2953 Delaware Avenue, Santa Monica.
I am a homeowner at 2847 Delaware Avenue. I don't wish to highlight the many and varied flaws with Mrs
Tasilimi's planning application as this has already been done at length and in good detail in previous
submissions for your attention.
I do, however, wish to impress upon you the sense of community that exists in this neighborhood which is
undoubtedly threatened by the proposed corporate development at 2953. Never more so has this been
apparent than in the manner in which the members of this neighborhood have pulled together in their efforts
to object to this planning application. You need only take a drive around the streets of the Pico neighborhood ‐
and if you have not already I recommend that you do ‐ to see for yourself the out‐pouring of support for the
'Preserve Gandara Neighborhood' initiative.
This is a quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood which over the years has found itself constantly under
attack by freeways, waste transfer depots, and metro line maintenance yards. The community does not
deserve to have its own sense of self‐worth be further undermined by the attempt to change the
approved planning use of one of the City's scarce residential homes for dubious non‐profit business
purposes.
There are so many reasons not to approve and almost none for. There are so many valid questions about the
future stated intent, purpose and viability of United No. 1 that the applicant has thus far been unable (or
cannot) satisfactorily answer. Even by generous assessment the proposal is ill‐conceived and an unfair
imposition on the residents of this neighborhood.
I am conscious of the fact that the applicant is very well‐connected within the City. And, especially in light
of the disappointing experience at the previous application hearing on Sept 6th, I personally do not hold
out much confidence that the City will do right by this oft‐neglected pocket of Santa Monica. I hope that for
once business interests will not overrule the needs and wishes of this community.
But if, as I expect, Mrs Tasilimi's application proceeds to full grant I only hope that it does not do so
entirely unfettered. At the very least I would implore you to give good and careful consideration to the
reasoned views and counter‐arguments already articulated against the application and impose common‐sense
conditions to the grant of consent, as your obedient constituents expect and deserve.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
81 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
With best wishes,
Neil Hobbs
2847 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 6-A
12/5/17
82 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dennis Ozawa <dennis.ozawa@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 3:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preserve our Gandara Neighborhood
Dear Council Mambers,
We are writing to you to appeal to you to vote against the Preschool project. We live almost directly across the street
from the proposed site at 2948 Delaware. We would be most directly adversely affected be the increased traffic, noise
and cars parking.
We want to keep our neighborhood the way we've known it for decades.
Please consider the impact on real lives. Also consider what your position would be if it was happening across the street
from your house.
We don't have a long eloquent letter to present, but our appeal to you is as strong as any other letter you have received.
Please vote against the project.
thank you for you service and consideration.
Warmest regards,
Dennis and Gretchen Ozawa
Sent from my iPad
Item 6-A
12/5/17
83 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
(310) 451-3669
December 4, 2017
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 6.A
Untitled No. 1 School (Child Care and Early Education Facility)
APP 17ENT-0186; CUP 17ENT-0075; VAR 17ENT-0147;
MOD 17ENT--0148
Address: 2953 Delaware Avenue
Applicant/Our Client: Laila Taslimi
Appellants: Nada I. Shamonki, Esq. & Carol Chan, Esq.
Our File No. 22408.001
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing on behalf of Ms. Laila Taslimi and Untitled No. 1 School, a non-profit
educational organization. Ms. Taslimi and Untitled No. 1 School are the applicants in
the above-referenced matter, a proposed child care/early education (“preschool”) use at
2953 Delaware Avenue.
Untitled No. 1 School is a non-profit organization created in 2015 for the purpose
of forming a model preschool to serve the Santa Monica community and, in particular,
families from the Pico neighborhood/90404. Untitled No. 1 School will provide full-day
care (Monday through Friday) for 20 pre-kindergarten children of working families. This
preschool will bring together children and families evenly spread across upper, middle,
and lower income levels and envisions tuition subsidies to target that one-third, one-
third, one-third ratio. In nurturing socially engaged children, the school will practice and
promote concern for and conservation of the environment.
This preschool is a desirable use for Santa Monica and is the kind of use the City
Council should want to strongly encourage and support, even in the face of
neighborhood opposition and fears. As the Staff Report confirms:
“This application demonstrates sensitivity to its location in a
R1 single-unit residential zone through the preservation of
the existing residential structure, design of the fence with
kutcher@hlkklaw.com
Item 6-A
12/5/17
84 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
transparency, the proposed limitation on the number of
children, the drop-off and pick-up plan and the programming
and design of indoor and outdoor play spaces for small
groups of children to distribute activity and reduce noise
levels.” (Staff Report at p. 22.)
RECOMMENDATION
This letter asks the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of
this preschool, including the Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) (by a 6-1 vote), variances
(7-0) and fence height modification (6-1), and deny the appeal. The Planning
Commission acted in accordance with the law and exercised sound discretion in
approving the necessary permits for this preschool, and the City Council should uphold
the Commission’s decision and its thorough list of 58 conditions of approval that
maximize neighborhood compatibility.
Edits to Draft STOA.
This letter also asks the City Council to delete an indemnification provision
(Condition 38), which was not part of the Planning Commission’s decision, is not
required by the Municipal Code, and should not be imposed on a non-profit preschool
as a matter of public policy.
Because the existing house will not be demolished or boarded up, Condition 35
regarding demolition requirements should be revised or deleted. (Only the detached
garage will be demolished.)
I.
BACKGROUND
A. City Policies And Laws Encouraging Child Care/Early Education Uses,
Including In R1 Neighborhoods.
The City has a long-standing policy commitment to life-long learning, including
early childhood education. This commitment is embedded in the City’s Child Care
Master Plan, LUCE, Strategic Goals and SMART Metrics, and Zoning Ordinance.
The Master Plan identifies child care and early education as one of the
community’s most pressing concerns, and recognizes the critical importance of high-
quality, affordable child care and early education. The LUCE, adopted in 2010,
integrates the City’s policy commitment to child care and early education into the City’s
land use process. (LUCE Goal CE9 and Policy CE9.1.)
Item 6-A
12/5/17
85 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
City support for child care/early education is also reflected in the City’s Strategic
Goals and SMART Metrics, which includes expanded kindergarten readiness as part of
the City’s Learn + Thrive strategic goal. In a recent report to the City Council, City Staff
noted:
“SMC2C established the Building Blocks for Kindergarten
campaign which was launched in 2014. This campaign
provides a rich set of resources for parents, caregivers and
educators with the overarching goal of having all Santa
Monica children start kindergarten ready to learn, inside and
outside the classroom:
http://www.santamonicacradletocareer.org/building-blocks-
partners.”1
In 2015, the City Council adopted the new Zoning Ordinance to implement the
LUCE. The Zoning Ordinance states: “The provision of child day care and early
education in safe and convenient locations is an important policy objective of the City.”
(SMMC § 9.31.120) The Zoning Ordinance permits child care and early education uses
in the R-1 zoning district subject to a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). (Zoning
Ordinance Table 9.07.020.) The CUP process allows the City to craft conditions of
approval to best integrate the new child care/early education uses into the
neighborhood.
Mayor Winterer expressed the City Council’s policy reason for permitting child
care/early education uses in R-1 neighborhoods during the City Council’s hearing on the
new Zoning Ordinance:
“I’ve heard from a lot of people that think it would be terrible
if we allowed children to be taken care of in the R1 Districts.
It’s very clear from our Cradle to Career work and our
Wellbeing work that one of the greatest challenges that we
have in this City is that we have children that are just not
ready for kindergarten, and I believe that high-quality child
care can do a lot to alleviate that issue. I think that our
children are our future and should be taken care of in all
parts of the City, so I’m supportive of allowing these facilities
in R1.”2
1 City Council Information Item dated August 25, 2016 at p. 14.
2 City Council hearing on April 15, 2015 (Agenda Item No. 4-A).
Item 6-A
12/5/17
86 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
B. The Applicants: Ms. Laila Taslimi And Untitled No. 1 School, A Non-
Profit Educational Organization.
Applicant Laila Taslimi is a National Board Certified teacher
(http://www.nbpts.org/). Ms. Taslimi received her Master’s in Education and teaching
credential at UCLA. Ms. Taslimi taught 1st through 3rd grades at McKinley Elementary
in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for 17 years. After that, she taught
3rd/4th grade at the UCLA Lab School for 1 year.
While at McKinley, Ms. Taslimi served on several SMMUSD District-level task
forces and on the Superintendent’s Advisory Council. She is a Cotsen Foundation for
the Art of Teaching Fellow (http://cotsen.org/the-art-of-teaching-program/recruitment-
selection/selecting-cotsen-mentors-fellows/) and a certified Cross-cultural Language
and Academic Development (CLAD) teacher, trained to promote the acquisition of
English listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of English-learning students.
Untitled No. 1 School’s board of directors includes both expert educators and
residents from in and around the Pico neighborhood and the Santa Monica community.
The board includes:
• Laila Taslimi, M.Ed. - CLAD
and National Board Certified
Teacher, Cotsen Foundation
Fellow, and former SMMUSD
McKinley Elementary and
UCLA Lab School teacher,
longtime SM resident
• Monireh Kazemzadeh, JD -
Attorney, curriculum and
assessment developer for
McGraw Hill employed in SM
• Anne Sadeghpour, M.Ed. -
Bilingual Cross-cultural,
Language, and Academic
Development (BCLAD)
certified teacher with library
teaching credential, and
former teacher and librarian
for SMMUSD’s Edison
Language Academy and
Roosevelt School; Pico
Neighborhood resident
• LaShawn Moore, EdD -
National Board Certified
Teacher and current teacher
at SMMUSD’s McKinley
Elementary
• Kristina Lizama - Pico
Neighborhood resident and
former co-chair of the Pico
Neighborhood Association
A project handout providing further details is enclosed.
C. The Proposed Preschool.
The proposed preschool at 2953 Delaware Avenue will operate on a year-round
basis with a maximum of 20 children. The preschool is targeted for children ages 4-5.3
3 The preschool will primarily serve 4 and 5 year olds, but some children may turn
6 during their 2nd year at the preschool. This is explicitly allowed by the Planning
Commission Statement of Official Action. See Conditions of Approval No. 1.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
87 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
The preschool will provide “full-day” service. The regular program hours will be
from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday, with early drop off beginning at 7:30
am and late pick up until 6:00 pm.
The existing home will remain and the interior will be remodeled to include an
entry/library, four classrooms, an office, and restrooms. Under State licensing
requirements, a maximum of 23 children will be allowed. However, Ms. Taslimi and
Untitled No. 1 School have applied for their CUP to permit a maximum of 20 children.
(See Planning Commission STOA Condition # 1.)
The front and rear yards will provide outdoor play areas. These areas will be
enclosed by new fencing per State licensing requirements, which require a secure fence
of no less than four (4) feet in height. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 101238.2(g).4
The home’s existing rear garage will be demolished and replaced with two
parking spaces and one passenger loading space. A third parking space will be
provided on the existing driveway in the front yard, and a short-term parking space will
be provided at the curb in front of the preschool. Required short-term bicycle parking
will also be provided in the front yard.
Ms. Taslimi’s mission is to achieve socioeconomic diversity amongst the children
enrolled at the preschool. Toward that end, she is committed to making tuition
assistance available to lower and moderate-income families—particularly those families
who reside in the Pico neighborhood/90404.
II.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S VOTES APPROVING THIS
CHILD CARE/EDUCATION CENTER ARE SUPPORTED BY LAW
AND PUBLIC POLICY AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL
As the Staff Report confirms, three City land use permits are required for this
preschool: (A) a CUP; (B) variances with respect to parking and loading; and (C) a
fence height modification. (Staff Report at pp. 7-8.) The Planning Commission followed
the law and exercised reasonable discretion in approving these three permits with
extensive conditions of approval. And the Planning Commission made all of the
required findings for the permit. (Staff Report at p. 30.) Accordingly, the City Council
should affirm the Commission’s lawful and reasoned decision.
4 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 101238.2(g) requires that any outdoor playground
area “shall be enclosed by a fence to protect children and to keep them in the outdoor
activity area. The fence shall be at least four feet high.”
Item 6-A
12/5/17
88 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Each of the three sets of City land use approvals is addressed below.
A. The Conditional Use Permit.
The Planning Commission approved the CUP for the preschool use at this site,
subject to extensive conditions specifically designed to ensure its compatibility with
neighborhood residential uses. (See Section III of this letter at pp. 9-11.) In approving
the CUP, the Planning Commission made all of the required findings as specified in the
Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission also acted in full accordance with City laws and
policies supporting child care/early education uses, including in the R1 zoning district.
CUPs empower the Planning Commission (and City Council on appeal) to impose
appropriate conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses
(SMMC § 9.41.020(B)); CUPs are not intended as a mechanism to ban preschools from
residential neighborhoods, as the appeal is seeking here.
B. The Parking and Loading Variances.
The Planning Commission approved three variances for this preschool project, all
involving parking or loading: (1) a variance from the Zoning Ordinance’s enclosed
parking requirement in the R1 zoning district; (2) a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance’s restriction on using front yard driveways for parking; and (3) a variance to
address a technical conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code with
respect to parking and loading.
As the Planning Commission determined, these three variances are reasonably
necessary to accommodate the preschool use in the R1 zoning district consistent with
City policy and the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
1. Enclosed Garage Requirement.
The Planning Commission approved a variance to allow unenclosed parking
instead of enclosed parking, as the Zoning Ordinance normally requires in R-1
neighborhoods. (SMMC § 9.28.070.) As the Staff Report explains, the Zoning
Ordinance’s requirement of an enclosed garage is appropriate for a single-family home,
but not for a preschool. As Planning Commission Variance Finding No. 1 correctly
documents:
“W hile childcare facilities are conditionally permitted, the
standards do not consider the very different functioning of
parking and loading for these uses as compared with single-
unit homes. Enclosing the parking in a garage is not
Item 6-A
12/5/17
89 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
practical for this use, and it would necessitate a very large
structure in order to meet ADA requirements, which are not
applicable to single-unit homes.”
2. Driveway Parking.
Similarly, the Planning Commission approved the variance for driveway parking
because of the special circumstances associated with the proposed preschool use. In
this regard, Planning Commission Variance Finding No. 1 finds in relevant part:
“The childcare use must accommodate three parking spaces
as well as at least one loading space on the property. Use
of the front driveway in a similar manner to the previous
residential use, which had a driveway that could be used for
additional parking, meets the needs of the use. However, as
a required space, it is not permitted, which is again a special
circumstance occasioned by the proposed use.”
3. Technical Conflict: Parking and Loading.
Likewise, the City Council should uphold the Commission’s granting of the third
variance to reconcile technical conflicts between the Zoning Ordinance and the Building
Code. Variance Finding No. 1 explains the basis for this variance as follows:
“The last variance request, to reduce one loading space and
provide instead an on-street, short-term parking space, is
also justified by the special circumstance of the childcare
use, which is the only such use in the district that is allowed
an on-street loading space. However, the Building Code
requirements for loading, as opposed to short-term parking,
create a special circumstance that would compel the
applicant to undertake right-of-way improvements that would
be both costly and incompatible with the neighborhood.
Granting this variance addresses the conflict caused by
these requirements, given the special circumstances of the
childcare use”
Overall, the Commission appropriately found that the variances were necessary
to avoid “practical difficulties” and “unnecessary hardships,”5 pointing out that strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance would effectively prohibit the proposed preschool
5 See Zoning Ordinance § 9.42.020.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
90 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
contrary to City policy. Accordingly, the City Council should uphold the Commission’s
decision approving the variances.
C. Fence Height Modification.
The Planning Commission approved a Modification allowing a 5-foot fence in the
front yard setback. In so doing, the Planning Commission acted in accordance with the
law and exercised reasonable discretion in approving the fence height modification.
State licensing regulations require the preschool to enclose outdoor play areas
with at least four feet of fencing, as measured from inside the outdoor play area. Cal.
Code Regs. tit. 22, § 101238.2(g). City law allows preschools to have fences up to four
feet in height by right in order to comply with these regulations, with additional height
subject to a formal modification request. SMMC § 9.31.120(A). In this case, the grade
of the proposed front yard play area is above the sidewalk, and will be held back by a
retaining wall. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the height of a fence on top of a retaining
wall is measured from the top of the fence to the lowest point in a 3-foot radius which, in
this case, is the sidewalk. Accordingly, in order to provide 4 feet of fencing as
measured from inside the play area (and as required by State licensing regulations), a
modification allowing for a five-foot fence (as measured under the Zoning Ordinance) is
needed (see illustration, below).
Item 6-A
12/5/17
91 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
In approving the fence modification, the Planning Commission imposed a
condition (Condition No. 9) requiring the Planning Director to review and approve the
fence to ensure “some transparency in order to comply with the State licensing
requirements while maintaining the neighborhood’s open character to the extent
possible, with review and approval by the Director prior to issuance of Building Permits.”
In order to help ensure neighborhood compatibility, the area between the retaining wall
and the sidewalk will be landscaped with greenery and a public bench. (See Planning
Commission STOA Fence/Wall Hedge Modification Findings Nos. 1 and 3.)
III.
CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAREFULLY
TAILORED THE PRESCHOOL’S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO
ENSURE ITS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Both City Staff and the Planning Commission gave serious consideration to
neighborhood compatibility and crafted conditions addressing this concern, as
envisioned in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Taslimi and Untitled No. 1 School
cooperated in this effort, reaching agreement with all of the physical and operating
conditions recommended by City Staff and adopted by the Planning Commission. (Staff
Report at p. 7.)
The 58 conditions attached to the Planning Commission’s approval are
extensive. They include:
• The approved use is limited to a child care facility serving a maximum of
20 children, ages 4-6 years old (though State law would allow up to a
maximum of approximately 23 children). (Condition of Approval No. 1)
• The use of the child care facility shall be limited to Monday through Friday
between the hours of 7:30 am - 6:00 pm. The applicant is responsible to
ensure that all activity between 7:30 am and 8:00 am is restricted to the
indoor areas with no use of outdoor play areas permitted during this
period. (Condition of Approval No. 4)
• Organized outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 am to
6:00 pm or sunset, whichever comes first, on weekdays and no children
on weekends. (Condition of Approval No. 6)
• The front yard fencing may be a maximum height of five feet, provided that
the fence shall be set back from the property line by a minimum of 18
inches with greenery provided in front of the wall. The fencing shall be
designed with some transparency in order to comply with State licensing
Item 6-A
12/5/17
92 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
requirements while maintaining the neighborhood’s open character to the
extent possible, with review and approval by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of Building Permits. (Condition of Approval No. 9)
• Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare
a drop off/pick up plan for the Mobility Division’s approval that includes
assigning all parents to use specific loading zones, both in the alley and
on the street, in order to distribute trips between the alley and Delaware
Avenue and avoid causing back-ups that would inconvenience neighbors.
Staggered time assignments shall be made with consideration to the
regular schedules of each family. All parents shall be required to sign a
Drop Off and Pick Up Agreement that acknowledges their assignment and
assures compliance. (Condition of Approval No. 10)
• A total of three parking spaces, including one accessible space for
persons with disabilities and one accessible loading space, shall be
provided on the subject property to serve the approved use. A minimum
of two bicycle racks,6 as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided
and maintained for the use. (Condition of Approval No. 11)
• Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a request
to the City’s Transportation Engineer to permit a short-term parking space
on the street adjacent to the front of the subject property. The request will
be to designate the space for short-term parking of up to 15 minutes
during weekdays between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm. (Condition
of Approval No. 12)
• An on-site contact person shall be designated to serve as a neighborhood
liaison to address any neighborhood concerns related to the facility.
(Condition of Approval No. 13)
• The applicant shall encourage employees to commute through
alternatives to single-occupancy driving and shall provide employees with
incentives to rideshare, including, at a minimum, providing transit passes
or other transit reimbursement to employees in order to minimize trips and
parking generated by the facility. The applicant shall also encourage bike
riding by assisting staff to find the best bike routes to the subject property.
(Condition of Approval No. 15)
6 As a matter of clarification, there will be one bike rack to store two bicycles.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
93 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
• At such time that staff is being hired for the facility, the applicant shall
provide City Planning staff with evidence of good faith outreach to recruit
qualified staff living locally within the City and particularly in the 90404 zip
code. (Condition of Approval No. 17)
Thus, City Staff and the Planning Commission carried out their responsibilities as
envisioned in the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance in approving permits for this preschool.
IV.
THE APPEAL LACKS MERIT AND SHOULD BE DENIED
The appeal, filed by a group that calls itself “Residents for the Preservation of
Gandara Neighborhood,” essentially demands that the City Council second-guess and
abandon your policy supporting child care/early education uses in the R1 neighborhood.
If the City Council were to accept the arguments made in the appeal, there would be a
virtual prohibition against preschools in R1 neighborhoods.
Below, this letter responds to the main arguments presented in the appeal.
1. The LUCE Argument.
This argument that the proposed preschool is contrary to the LUCE ignores that
the LUCE encourages new child care uses in residential neighborhoods. The City
Council has determined that schools are integral parts of residential neighborhoods.
And, as the Staff Report confirms (pp. 21-23), allowing preschools in residential
neighborhoods (including R-1 neighborhoods) is consistent with the LUCE’s
neighborhood preservation policies.
In arguing to the contrary, the appeal claims the proposed preschool is a
“commercial business” and commercial businesses do not belong in residential
neighborhoods. This is a direct attack on the LUCE and the Zoning Ordinance, which
treat all schools (including preschools) as resident-friendly uses. Many child care/early
education facilities are located in residential neighborhoods, as are nearly all of Santa
Monica’s public schools. And several public schools (much larger than Ms. Taslimi’s
proposed 20-child preschool) are in R1 neighborhoods, including Grant, Franklin,
Roosevelt, Will Rogers, McKinley, and John Adams.
The Staff Report concludes that a “finding of consistency with the General Plan is
also supported by the project’s consistency with LUCE and Child Care Master Plan
goals to nurture the optimal growth, development and education of children and to
support families.” (Staff Report at p. 22.) The Staff Report explains:
Item 6-A
12/5/17
94 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
“The Master Plan states that childcare and early education
continue to be one of the most pressing concerns of
contemporary family life and acknowledges the importance
of quality, affordable and accessible child care and early
education by committing to protect existing resources and
expand their supply. LUCE Goal CE9 strives to integrate the
childcare and early education needs of those who live or
work in the community into the City’s land use planning
process. This goal is implemented through Policy CE9.1
[reference omitted]. Providing a safe place for children to
spend their days learning and growing in a stimulating
environment during hours that support working parents,
implements City policies that aim to provide nurturing
facilities for every baby born in Santa Monica ‘from cradle to
career.’ ” (Staff Report at pp. 22-23.)
2. The Preschool/Physical Incompatibility Argument.
The appeal also argues that there are physical and visual aspects of the
proposed preschool that would be inconsistent with the character of the existing
residential neighborhood.7
Like the appeal’s other arguments, this argument if accepted would effectively
ban preschools in residential neighborhoods. As the Staff Report explains, three
variances (relating to parking and loading) and a modification (related to fence height)
from the Zoning Ordinance’s physical development standards are necessary to
accommodate a child care/early education use in a R1 neighborhood. The Zoning
Ordinance includes variance and modification procedures designed for the purpose
applicable to this preschool: i.e., to accommodate uses such as child care/early
education for which the Zoning Ordinance’s physical development standards were not
designed.
Here, the R1 district’s physical development standards were designed for single-
family homes; they were not tailored for child care/early education uses. Yet the Zoning
Ordinance expressly allows such uses by CUP. In granting the parking/loading
variances and fence height modification, the Planning Commission acted in accordance
with a key purpose of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the R1 zoning district; i.e., to
allow child care/early education uses by CUP and accommodate deviations from the R1
7 See, e.g., Appeal at pp. 8, 13, 17, 19.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
95 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
zone’s physical development standards to the extent reasonably necessary to facilitate
this use.
And, as the Staff Report notes, only minor physical changes to the existing
single-family home are required to accommodate the proposed change to a preschool
use. (See Staff Report at pp. 18-20.)
3. The Noise Argument.
The appeal also claims that a small preschool with a maximum of 20 children
“will bring regular and systematic noise” into the neighborhood and “would violate the
noise regulations codified in” the Noise Ordinance.8 The appeal then describes “twenty
4-6 year-olds playing together” as “noise pollution.”9 Yet again, the appeal is arguing
that preschools do not belong in R1 neighborhoods (or, at least, their neighborhood),
contrary to City policy favoring child care/early education uses in residential
neighborhoods.10
The Staff Report quite appropriately rejects this argument:
“The sound of children playing in their yards is a typical
occurrence in a residential neighborhood, and the sound of
children playing in a childcare setting is a similar type of
normal, usual noise. Although sounds of children playing at
the childcare would be more consistent during the daytime
than at a typical single-family home, the premises would be
quiet at night and on the weekends.” (Staff Report at p. 21.)
4. The “Too Many Preschools” Argument.
The appeal’s claim that Santa Monica is “over-preschooled”11 is unsupported by
any substantial evidence in the administrative record and contrary to City policy. In this
regard, Ms. Taslimi will strive to maintain socioeconomic diversity within her school
enrollment by providing tuition subsidies to achieve this objective. As the Staff Report
confirms:
8 Appeal at p. 16.
9 Appeal at p. 16.
10 Ms. Taslimi’s preschool will be required to comply with the City’s Noise
Ordinance (see Condition No. 27).
11 See, e.g., Appeal at pp. 2, 10-12.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
96 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
“Working families eligible for subsidy often have a hard time
locating providers that will accept this subsidy and offer full-
time care. Of those waiting to place children ages 0-5,
generally about 60% reside in the 90404 zip code, according
to [Connections for Children]. The City’s Human Services
Division, which administers City programs in support of
childcare and staffs the Childcare Task Force agrees that
there is a clear need for more childcare centers, such as the
proposed facility, that offer full-time slots and accept
subsidies.” (Staff Report at p. 29.)
A key error in the appeal is that it focuses solely on resident demand for
preschool and ignores the needs of those who work in Santa Monica. Experience
shows that Santa Monica’s child care/early education centers are used by both those
who live and those who work in Santa Monica. Indeed, the City has required worker-
related child care in new development projects. (See, e.g., the Providence Saint John’s
Development Agreement, the Colorado Center Development Agreement and the 2700
Colorado Avenue Development Agreement.)
Moreover, many existing preschools do not provide full-day care, a service that is
critical to working parents.
In citing to a 2014 RAND study as concluding that Santa Monica has sufficient
preschool space to meet the needs of its residents, the appeal misses the crucial point
that Santa Monica’s preschool spaces are available to and serve Santa Monica’s
workers as well as residents. Overall, Santa Monica continues to have a shortage of
preschool spaces, especially for low and moderate-income families. Nothing in the
RAND study indicates to the contrary.
V.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT INCLUDE CITY STAFF’S
PROPOSED INDEMNITY PROVISION IN YOUR DECISION
Although not identified in the Staff Report, City Staff is recommending inserting a
multi-faceted indemnity provision in the City Council’s decision that would require this
no-profit preschool to (1) defend the City against any lawsuits challenging a City Council
decision to approve her preschool and (2) post a $100,000 bond in the event of
litigation. (See proposed City Council STOA Condition No. 21.)12 This indemnity
12 The new condition, Condition 21, reads as follows:
Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its boards,
commissions, agents, officers, and employees (collectively, “City”) from any claims,
Item 6-A
12/5/17
97 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
provision was not included in the Planning Commission’s decision, and we are not
aware of any legal basis for it in the City’s Municipal Code.
We urge the City Council not to include this indemnity provision in your decision
for several reasons:
• Consistent with the City’s past practice, the City Attorney’s office should
defend your land use decisions in court if challenged. (The applicant
would, of course, cooperate with the City in such a defense.)
• Imposing such an indemnity requirement on a non-profit preschool would
be contrary to the City’s strong public policy commitment to early
childhood education.
actions, or proceedings (individually referenced as “Claim” and collectively referenced
as “Claims”) against the City to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of 17ENT-
0075 or any Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any way
connected to the Applicant’s project. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
Claim and shall cooperate fully in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following
occur:
i. The City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs.
ii. The City defends the action in good faith.
iii. Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the
settlement is approved by the Applicant.
iv. In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or
annul all, or any, provisions of any approvals granted for the Project, or is
commenced for any other reason against the City for the act or omissions
relating to the Applicant’s project, within fourteen (14) days following notice
of such action from the City, the Applicant shall file with the City a
performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security
satisfactory to the City (“the Security”) in a form satisfactory to the City, and
in the amount of $100,000 to ensure applicant’s performance of its defense,
indemnity and hold harmless obligations to City. The Security amount shall
not limit the Applicant’s obligations to the City hereunder. The failure of the
Applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express
acknowledgment and agreement by the Applicant that the City shall have
the authority and right, without consent of the Applicant, to revoke the
approvals granted hereunder.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
98 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
• The bond requirement would be especially inappropriate given the
proposed use and the non-profit status of the applicant.
VI.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, we urge the City Council to affirm the Planning
Commission’s decision approving the preschool’s CUP, variances and fence height
modification.
We request that the new indemnification language (Condition 21) be deleted from
this non-profit’s CUP.
We recommend that Condition 35 regarding demolition be revised or deleted.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
Enclosure
cc: Rick Cole (w/ encl.)
David Martin (w/ encl.)
Jing Yeo (w/ encl.)
Roxanne Tanemori (w/ encl.)
Elizabeth Bar-El (w/ encl.)
Lane Dilg (w/ encl.)
Susan Cola (w/ encl.)
Laila Taslimi (w/ encl.)
Planning Commission (w/ encl.)
F:\WPDATA\22408\Cor\CC.1001c.KLK.JDM.docx
Item 6-A
12/5/17
99 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
THE PRESCHOOL AT 2953 DELAWARE DESERVES YOUR SUPPORT
Applicant Was A Longtime McKinley Teacher Who Formed This Non-Profit Preschool To
Care For Children Of Diverse Backgrounds
• Applicant Laila Taslimi is a National Board Certified teacher (http://www.nbpts.org/) who
taught 1st through 3rd grades at McKinley Elementary for 17 years. After that, she
taught 3rd/4th grade at the UCLA Lab School for 1 year. Mrs. Taslimi received her
Master’s in Education and teaching credential at UCLA. While at McKinley, Mrs.
Taslimi served on several District level task forces (e.g., curriculum, teacher evaluation)
and on the Superintendent’s Advisory Council. She is a Cotsen Foundation for the Art
of Teaching Fellow (http://cotsen.org) and a certified Cross-cultural Language and
Academic Development (CLAD) teacher trained to promote the acquisition of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing skills of English-learning students.
• Mrs. Taslimi believes that children have the potential to change the world, and
encourages them to experiment, challenge assumptions, and explore how and why
things work. She is passionate about bringing together families from all backgrounds
around the goal of nurturing active, socially aware, and intellectually curious children.
• The proposed preschool will be operated by “Untitled No. 1 School,” a nonprofit entity
created in 2015 for the purpose of forming a model preschool to serve the Santa
Monica community, including families from the Pico neighborhood. Untitled No. 1
School is committed to bringing together children and families evenly spread across
income levels, to nurturing socially engaged children, and to practicing and promoting
concern for and conservation of the environment.
• To fulfill its mission of serving families of all socioeconomic backgrounds, Untitled No. 1
will enroll one third of its children from low income families, one third from middle
income families, and one third from high income families. Two-thirds of enrolled
families will receive subsidies in part or in whole.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
100 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
This Preschool Will Be Headed By An Accomplished Board Of Directors And Is
Supported By Educators, Experts In Education, Community Leaders, And Residents
• Untitled No. 1 School’s board of directors includes both expert educators and residents
from in and around the Pico neighborhood and the Santa Monica community. This
board includes:
• Laila Taslimi, M.Ed. —
CLAD and National Board
Certified Teacher, Cotsen
Foundation Fellow, and former
SMMUSD McKinley
Elementary and UCLA lab
teacher, longtime SM resident
• Monireh Kazemzadeh, JD —
Attorney, curriculum and
assessment developer for
McGraw Hill
• Anne Sadeghpour, M.Ed. —
Bilingual Cross-cultural,
Language, and Academic
Development (BCLAD) certified
teacher with library teaching
credential, and former teacher
and librarian for SMMUSD’s
Edison Language Academy and
Roosevelt School; Pico
Neighborhood resident
• LaShawn Moore, EdD —
National Board Certified
Teacher and current teacher at
SMMUSD’s McKinley
Elementary
• Kristina Lizama —
Pico Neighborhood resident and
former co-chair of the Pico
Neighborhood Association
• The preschool is also supported by educators, experts in education, community
leaders, and local residents. Among others, the following persons and organizations
have provided or will provide support for the preschool in their public testimony and/or
correspondence:
• Tina Wiatrak —
California Mentor Teacher,
veteran teacher at the Growing
Place in Santa Monica, and
SM resident
• Sheila Banani, M.U.P. —
Former Santa Monica College
instructor, former Santa
Monica City Recreation &
Parks Commissioner, longtime
Santa Monica resident
• Irene Zivi —
Early childhood advocate,
Santa Monica resident
• Irma Carranza —
Longtime Pico Neighborhood
resident
• Michele Sartell —
Child Care Planning
Coordinator at the Los Angeles
County Child Care Planning
Committee; SM resident
• Patti Oblath —
Executive Director of
Connections for Children
• Pauline McPeake —
Executive Director, Growing
Place, a non-profit child
development center
• Nat Trives —
Former SM mayor and police
officer, SM resident
• Betsy Hiteshew —
Community activist, early
childhood education expert,
Santa Monica resident
• Michele Wittig —
Santa Monica Community
Activist, SM resident
• Yiching Grace, Ph.D. —
Professor, Early
Childhood/Education Dep’t at
SMC
• Hayde Cervantes —
National Board Certified
Teacher at SMMUSD’s Edison
Language Academy; lifelong
Pico Neighborhood resident
and parent
• Santa Monica Community for
Excellent Public Schools —
dedicated to the preservation
and betterment of public
schools in SMMUSD
• Patricia Nolan, RN —
Member and former chair of
SMMUSD District Advisory
Committee on Health & Safety
• Prof. John Rogers —
Professor of Education at
UCLA; Faculty Director, Center
X; SM Resident
• Judy Abdo —
Former SM mayor
• Lily Marquez —
Retired SMMUSD Bilingual
Community Liaison at
McKinley Elementary
• Veronica Martinez —
Parent residing in CCSM
apartment in 90404
• Louise Jaffe —
Founder of Santa Monica's
Lifelong Learning Community;
Santa Monica College Trustee;
Santa Monica resident
• Ben Swett —
SM Resident, community
activist
• Shari Davis —
Chair, Communtiy for Excellent
Public Schools, SM resident
• Barry Snell —
Vice Chair, SMC Board of
Trustees, SM resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
101 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
• Meghan Moroney —
Communications Director,
California Office of the Council
for a Strong American (a youth
advocacy org.), SM resident
and parent
• Lainy Parry —
Families in Action, Board
Member, SM resident
• Bridget Cook —
Co-founder of Meadow
Preschool on 26th St.; SM
Resident
• Aiden Hughes —
SAMOHI student and 90404
resident
• Rosa Chilin —
SM parent and 90404 resident
• Julie Taren, MA, MSW —
Professional Children, Youth
and Family Consultant; Adjunct
Faculty at UCLA Luskin School
of Public Affairs
• Ellen Khokha —
Founder, Growing Place
• Eileen Escarce, Ph.D., MA,
MSN —
Developmental psychologist
specialized in pediatric/child
psychology, preschool and
childcare consultation; SM
resident
• Rocio Garcia —
90404 resident; SMC student
Untitled No. 1 School Will Be A Socially Responsible Preschool For Children Of
Working Families
• The educational programming will focus on environmental awareness and justice,
nurturing socially engaged children, and bringing together children and families across
income levels.
• To meet the needs of working families, the preschool will provide year-round full-day
programming, serving the community between 8:00 am and 5:30 pm, Monday through
Friday, with possible early drop-off at 7:30 am and pick-up by 6:00 pm.
• The preschool will serve up to 20 children ages 4 to 6 when at full capacity—only six
more children than permitted for Large Family Daycares. (SMMC §§ 9.07.020;
9.51.020(A)(5)(b)) The preschool will enroll fewer children than allowed by State
licensing regulations to ensure the children get individualized attention and optimal
room to learn and grow.
• The preschool will be housed in a converted single-family home and will meet rigorous
State licensing requirements, including pre-operational and operational on-site
inspections.
The Location Of Untitled No. 1 School Was Thoughtfully Selected To Be Nurturing, Safe,
and Convenient In A Residential Neighborhood
• The preschool will be housed within an existing single-family home after completing
interior improvements to provide a comfortable, learning-conducive environment. This
setting benefits children’s education because, as noted by the Planning Commission
Staff Report, “a residential environment is more comfortable and comforting to
children.” (PC Staff Report, p. 8). The home also provides abundant natural light as
well as the opportunity to learn and play in a nature-based setting.
• This residential location was selected due to its proximity to Ishihara Park (which is
perfectly designed for child-friendly outdoor learning), its proximity to Bergamot Expo
Line Station (which, in addition to transit benefits, will be used for weekly field trips to
the farmers’ market, grocery stores, etc.), and the lack of other affordable and full-day
(for working families) preschools/early education facilities in the neighborhood.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
102 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
• By locating the preschool in a safe and comfortable residential setting near transit, this
preschool fulfills the mission of the City’s child care ordinance: “The provision of child
day care and early education in safe and convenient locations is an important policy
objective of the City.” (SMMC § 9.31.120)
Untitled No. 1 School Has Been Carefully Designed To Be Compatible With The
Surrounding Neighborhood
• The preschool remains compatible with the R1 neighborhood by keeping the existing
single-family home and only making minimal exterior modifications to comply with the
building code and State licensing requirements.
• The landscape plan creates a natural outdoor setting, with emphasis on the use of
natural elements designed to be compatible with those original to its surrounding
neighborhood.
• In line with its mission to promote environmental conservation and awareness, Untitled
No. 1 School is seeking LEED and WELL certifications.
• The preschool will include about 1,500 square feet of indoor space, including adjoining
classroom spaces, a kitchen workshop/learning space, a small library, an office, and
restrooms. The facility will also have outdoor learning and play areas, including an
outdoor lab deck, and a lunch deck outside the kitchen, a back yard, and a front-yard
arroyo-style play area—satisfying State requirements.
• The preschool will include a wood fence around the outdoor play areas with greenery
and flowering plants on the street side designed to be unobtrusive and harmonious with
the surrounding neighborhood. The fence will meet State licensing requirements and
provide safety for the outdoor play areas. The fence will also be setback from the
sidewalk by approximately 18 inches to create space to be landscaped with seating and
greenery in order to interact in a friendly manner with the sidewalk and streetscape.
• The preschool removes the existing detached rear garage in order to provide sufficient
unenclosed parking for families and staff. The detached garage will be replaced with
two unenclosed parking spaces and one unenclosed loading space, and provides the
required space for Resource Recovery and Recycling.
Untitled No. 1 School Provides Vehicle And Bicycle Parking And Is Conveniently
Located Near Transit
• The preschool will be conveniently located near rail transit, approximately 0.6 miles
from the 26th/Bergamot Expo Line Station. The available bus transit is also substantial.
Big Blue Bus stops within ½ mile of the preschool include Route 5, 16, and 43 stops
near Olympic Boulevard and Stewart Street, a Route 7 stop at Pico and 30th Street,
and a Route 7 Rapid stop at Pico and 28th Street.
• Two short-term bicycle spaces will also be provided in the front of the preschool. Bike
lanes on Stewart Street and the Expo Line Bike Path provide convenient bicycle
infrastructure.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
103 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
5
• The preschool will provide sufficient parking via five unenclosed parking spaces: three
regular parking spaces, one loading space, and one short-term parking space. Two of
the five spaces (one regular and one loading) will be ADA compliant.
• Three spaces, including two of the regular spaces and the loading space, will be
located in the rear of the property and will be accessed from the alley. One regular
space will be located in the front of the property, and will be accessed from the street.
The short-term parking space will be located on the street in front of the property, as
designated by City’s Transportation Engineer, and will be available for general use by
the public and neighbors outside of the preschool’s normal operating hours.
• In order to minimize or avoid traffic impacts, parents will sign and adhere to pick-up and
drop-off agreements assigning them to specific pick-up and drop-off time frames.
• Monthly TAP cards will be provided to staff, and Untitled No. 1 is committed to
encouraging families and staff to utilize transit.
Untitled No. 1 School Furthers The LUCE’s Child Care and Early Education Policies
• The LUCE specifically encourages child care and early education: “Child care and early
education continue to be one of the most pressing concerns of contemporary family life.
The [LUCE] acknowledges the importance of quality, affordable and accessible child
care and early education, and commits City resources as an employer, regulator and
catalyst to protect existing resources and expand their supply.” (LUCE, p. 3.5-16)
• With this proposed location and curriculum and its mission to serve families at all
income levels, the preschool clearly furthers LUCE Policy CE9.1 to “[s]upport the
development of high quality child care and early education facilities … to meet the
needs of those who work or live in Santa Monica.”
• The LUCE stresses the importance of “streamlined processing and permit regulations,
encourage[s] harmonious integration with the neighborhood, and fee reductions as
incentives.” (LUCE Policy CE9.1)
The City Council Unanimously Supported Preschools In R1 Neighborhoods During The
2015 Zoning Ordinance Update
• On April 15, 2015, the City Council unanimously voted to direct staff to revise the
Zoning Ordinance to allow preschools in R1 zones via a CUP.
• Current Mayor Ted Winterer articulated his clear support for these uses at that April 15,
2015 hearing:
It’s very clear from our Cradle to Career work and … our
wellbeing work that one of the great challenges that we have in
this city is that we have children that are just not ready for
kindergarten, and I believe that high-quality childcare can do a
lot to alleviate that issue. I think that our children are our future
and should be taken care in all parts of the city, so I’m
supportive of … allowing these facilities in R1.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
104 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
6
• Staff likewise supported establishing new preschools / Early Education Facilities in R1
districts, stating in their April 14, 2015 Staff Report:
Given the City’s long standing commitment to early childhood
and recognition that education does not begin at kindergarten,
removing obstacles to the provision of child care in all
residential zoning districts with safeguards would be consistent
with the LUCE. The consideration to allow Child Care and
Early Education Facilities in the R1 … residential districts is
based on the established safeguards in the CUP process….
This review process is in addition to the rigorous state licensing
requirements for indoor and outdoor space.
* * *
Modifying the Draft Zoning Ordinance to allow Child Care and
Early Education Facilities … would continue to advance the
City’s commitment to child care and early education, which is a
key component of the Santa Monica Cradle to Career (SMC2C)
Initiative.
The Planning Commission Overwhelmingly Approved The Following Entitlements For
Untitled No. 1 School
• CUP. Child Care and Early Education Facilities (including preschools) are allowed by
CUP in the R1 zone. (SMMC § 9.07.020). The purpose of a CUP is to provide for the
appropriate concentration of uses and to mitigate any effects of those uses. A CUP
was granted for Untitled No. 1 to establish a preschool for up to 20 children. The CUP
includes conditions related to the preschool’s hours, parking, design, and operation that
ensure the preschool will exist harmoniously within the surrounding neighborhood.
• Modification. A four-foot fence protecting the outdoor play areas is required by state
licensing requirements and allowed by right for preschools under the Zoning Code.
(SMMC § 9.31.120(A)) However, due to the grade differential between the street and
the property’s front yard, a four foot fence in this case would be treated as a taller fence
under the Zoning Code. Accordingly, modification allowing for a taller, 5-foot fence was
necessary. This fence will be thoughtfully designed to ensure that it is unobtrusive and
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Parking Variance. A variance was granted to allow two unenclosed parking spaces to
be located in the rear, to allow one parking space to be located within the front yard
setback, to provide only one loading space on-site, and to allow a second on-street
short-term parking space as a substitute for the second loading space. (Note: A
variance allowing the parking to be unenclosed would not be necessary under the
Staff’s recommended changes to SMMC § 9.28.070(A).)
Item 6-A
12/5/17
105 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
7
Item 6-A
12/5/17
106 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Weinraub <steven.weinraub@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 4:14 PM
To:Brian O'Neil
Cc:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Re: Daycare on Delaware, 12/5/17 Agenda item 6-A
We urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and block the establishment of a 20-student preschool at 2953 Delaware
Avenue.
Creating an ordinance in the City of Santa Monica which allows a commercial day care center to be located in
the heart of an R1 residential zone of Santa Monica, in essence, creates an “incurable defect” which attaches to
the nearby homes and causes the property value(s) of these homes to be reduced.
This ordinance, which allows a commercial day care center in a residential neighborhood, wrongfully
establishes the taking of property & property rights without due process and equal protection of the law and it
therefore it is a violation of the United States Constitution.
The damages as a result of the City ordinance which creates this “incurable defect” in a residential
neighborhood, is measured by determining the FMV of the properties nearby the commercial day care center at
the time of their sale, and the actual reduction of their value at the time of sale due to the required disclosure of
the existence of a nearby commercial day care center.
For this reason, and to avoid a future lawsuit against the City of Santa Monica based on the Constitutional
issues of the taking of property rights, we urge you to vote in favor of the Appeal.
Steven Weinraub
2436 26th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 6-A
12/5/17
107 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:cynthia cotton <cynthia.coco@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 4:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Cynthia Cotton;
support@preservegandara.org
Subject:GANDARA CHILDCARE CENTER
December 3, 2017
Dear Council Members:
It is important for each Santa Monica City Council member to vote against commercial development in R1
neighborhoods. I am speaking about Childcare Centers in particular. I live on 21st Place near San Vicente — 3 doors
down from one of these businesses. I can say from personal experience that these centers should not be allowed in R1
neighborhoods. There is excess disruptive noise, increased traffic, and parking problems, in addition to the problems
caused by the owners of the Daycare Center. The owners are not good neighbors. They are running a business and they
do things that are detrimental to the “neighborhood”, but perhaps good for their business.
In our case, it has resulted in long time residents, the Vishmid Family, who lived next door to the Childcare Center, to
move to an apartment to get away from the constant problems associated with the Daycare Center. The excess noise
and constant problems with the owners of the Childcare Center caused them to move out of their home, where they
have lived for 30 years. They will try to rent their home, but who wants to live next door to a noisy business which
increases traffic and parking problems on the street?
Please listen to the R1 residents of the City of Santa Monica. None of us deserves to be driven from our homes by a
commercial venture that was not there when we bought into our neighborhood. There are better solutions to be found.
Sincerely,
Cynthia C. Cotton
221 2st Place
Santa Monica, CA. 90402
cynthiacaffey@mac.com
Item 6-A
12/5/17
108 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
City Council of Santa Monica
RE: December 5, 2017 Agenda Item 6-A (Untitled No. 1 School)
Esteemed City Council Members,
I’m writing to express my support for Laila Taslimi, to operate a school that will serve
young children and families in Santa Monica. I have known Laila for two years, as she
was my student in two Early Childhood Education (ECE) classes (ECE 11: Child Family
Community; ECE 22: Practicum in Early Childhood Education). Through my interactions
with Laila, I have come to learn about her background in community service and her
strong commitment to the well-being of children, families, and communities. Laila is
driven by a strong sense of social justice that is truly inspiring, and I have no doubt that
the school she has envisioned will become a precious resource and inspiration to the
community. The need for high quality full-day ECE programs to support families could
not be greater and I strongly urge the City Council to uphold the Conditional Use Permit
that will allow Laila to bring her vision for a school to life.
I would like to share my thoughts regarding Laila’s choice to establish the preschool in a
residence and on a residential street. A house, as opposed to an office space or
basement for example, is more easily transformed into a high-quality environment for
young children. The residence she has chosen has plenty of existing windows for
natural light, plenty of indoor and outdoor space (which are already adjacent to each
other), a kitchen (for all that is envisioned there). Moreover, the location/address she
has chosen was intentional: a beautiful tree-lined street to spark awe and wonder, and
a location that puts the children just a short walk from so much more to explore in their
community and city (Ishihara Park and the Expo line, for example). The residential
location was also selected because Laila envisions a small school with small class sizes.
She understands that group size is an important indicator of quality and she wants to
provide the best possible experience for children, families, and teachers.
I imagine that the residents who oppose Laila’s school anticipate an increase in traffic
on their street that will decrease their quality of life. I know that Laila will do whatever
she can to alleviate these concerns. I also imagine that residents of the neighborhood
feel that the school threatens their quality of life because they will have to share the
beauty of their quiet neighborhood and the resources they enjoy nearby with the
children who will inhabit the preschool. I understand these concerns, but I also strongly
Item 6-A
12/5/17
109 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
believe that children deserve the very best that we can provide for them. Laila’s
selection of her preschool site was intentional. The resources that the residents want to
protect are the very same resources Laila hopes to make accessible for children.
Children deserve to be in the most beautiful places with access to as many resources
as possible. All the reasons that the residents love their neighborhood are the very same
reasons that children will benefit from having a preschool there.
I strongly urge the City Council to uphold the Conditional Use Permit that will allow Laila
to move forward with her plans for a new ECE program here at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
A special kind of leadership is needed to be the founder of a new ECE program – the
kind of leadership that is not only driven by strong values and an unwavering vision and
sense of purpose, but also rooted in strong relationships formed through trust, respect,
and collaboration. I see all of these qualities in Laila. And I look forward, with great
anticipation, to the opening of this school, which will become a precious resource in
the community, touching the lives of children and families for generations to come.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is any additional information I can
provide.
Sincerely,
Yiching Grace
Yiching H. Grace, Ph.D.
Early Childhood/Education Department Santa Monica College
1900 Pico Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405
grace_yiching@smc.edu
Item 6-A
12/5/17
110 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Chris Changprai <chris@changprai.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 6:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Cc:support@preservegandara.org
Subject:Protest Against Early Education Center at 2953 DELAWARE
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to protest the conversion of an SFR to an Early Education Center at 2953 DELAWARE AVE. I
am an owner/resident at a home nearby at 1912 Warwick Ave. I am convinced the integration of this
business will disrupt the peaceful feel of the neighborhood and it is an unneeded addition to the
neighborhood.
There are many reasons this business will cause disruption to the neighborhood but at the top of my list is
the inreased traffic concerns. Virginia Ave. is already congested with traffic deadlock during the evening
rush hours. The exhaust and honking from idling cars reduces our air quality and produce disruptive
noises. Adding this school would only further harm this quiet neighborhood by increasing traffic.
Furthermore, I believe the proposed school violates the intent of the LUCE and eliminates a housing stock
from an already tight housing supply. The feel of an SFR or cozy home, per the business owner intent,
can be replicated in other commercial zones nearby without disrupting this or other neighborhoods. An
example would be Little Dolphins By the Sea located along Nebraska Ave less than a two minutes drive
from the this neighborhood. I always try to look at every issue from other perspectives but I can't come
up with a good justification for why this non-occupied business needs to be located in a neighborhood.
The council argues that the school would benefit the people of neighborhood by providing a school within
close proximity. But based on the outcry of the neighborhood residents, this seems far from the truth.
Sincerely,
Christopher Changprai
Item 6-A
12/5/17
111 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
112 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vedanta Five <vedanta5@netscape.net>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:OUR DELAWARE AVE. RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY (Gandara Group)
Dear Santa Monica Government,
We, as long term residents on Delaware Ave., would like you to REJECT the pre-school that is to be located in our
community on Delaware Ave.. It would destroy the integrity, peace, and safety of our community. Residents here in our
community strongly object to this commercial business-corporate invasion of our neighborhood. Nearly everyone has
signs of protest & objection up in our front yards here. Their will be a sting of lawsuits against the city if this pre-school is
allowed to adversely effect everyone resident here with the danger and increased traffic it will bring.
Please stop this pre-school project from going forward and respect us residents of Santa Monica.
Thank You,
Sincerely,
Gary Drum
Item 6-A
12/5/17
113 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Christine Parra <rgenteen2@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Opposition of CUP for 2953 Delaware Ave.
Attachments:Christine Parra Opposition Letter 12-04-17.docx
Good Evening,
Attached please find my letter of opposition to the CUP for 2953 Delaware Ave.
Thank you for taking the time to read and for your consideration!
Best, Christine Parra
Item 6-A
12/5/17
114 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:lmarreola <lmarreola@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 7:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 6A , Dec. 5th 2017
Councilmembers. Please support the appeal of the Grandara Park Neighborhood Residents. No commercial
businesses in Residential neighborhoods.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
Item 6-A
12/5/17
115 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
To City Council and city staff,
If you would live in our neighborhood you would agree with our opposition to allowing a conditional use
permit to the proposed Untitled Number One School as daycare and early educational facility. At
present it can take 10 extra minutes to get in or out of our neighborhood. With trains running every
four minutes in each direction plus trains enter and exit the maintenance yard the gates at the Stewart
St. crossing are closed an awful lot and cars pile up. At rush hour cars are lined up on Virginia and
waiting to enter Centinela can take an equal amount of time. Staff members of six and twenty students
would mean 26 cars coming in to the neighborhood and 20 leaving at morning rush hour. In the evening
rush hour 20 cars would come in and 26 leaving. These extra car trips could easily cause another five
minutes delay to get in or out of the neighborhood. In an emergency a resident needing transport to
the hospital could be delayed 15 minutes till the paramedics get to him and another 15 minutes to get
to the hospital besides the regular time of the distance. A half hour delay could be a death sentence
and does not correspond to the provision of health and wellbeing guaranteed in the LUCE. Vehicles
from the city yard and Agencys come through our neighborhood as a short cut to and from the freeway.
There is no lack of early childcare facilities in and surrounding our neighborhood. Three family run
daycares are in our neighborhood. Within one mile radius there are 26. New businesses should be
obligated to have childcare on their premises.
Single family residences should be for families and not taken off the market for childcare business.
Noise from kids living in the neighborhood cannot be compared to 20 kids in a childcare facility.
Dropping off kids in the morning and picking them up in the evening cause traffic jams and noise in the
neighborhood. A timetable of scheduling parents to come in ten minutes interval never works because
of traffic and because families with kids have often trouble to get out of the house at exactly the same
time. Stops for public transportation are too far away for walking small kids to their school day by day.
To find employees who are willing to come to work by bicycle or public transportation is usually
unrealistic.
Residents of our neighborhood fought hard to get Ishihara Park as a buffer from the Expo Maintenance
Yard. Laila Taslimi openly admitted that she likes her school being in close proximity of that park. We
cannot allow that her school as a private business will monopolize the park as their playground, lunch
place and learning garden. Parents, local residents will be intimidated to bring their children if the park
is occupied by bigger groups of children from the school every day. I know elderly Japanese residents
who like to walk through the park frequently to enjoy the serenity which would be spoiled by groups of
noisy Untitled No. 1 students every day. If the Conditional Use Permit should be granted the usage of
Ishihara and Gandara Park needs to be limited to give residents preference. I suggest that the school
can use Ishihara and Gandara Park no more than twice a week each park and the learning garden no
more than once every month within their twice weekly visits to the park. Another method could be to
treat the school like the exercise businesses in our parks and have it pay a fee every time they use the
park, but that would mean regulating the usage on a daily basis.
I strongly urge you to not grant the Conditional Use Permit for the school. Enough is enough! ! !
Item 6-A
12/5/17
116 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:harry_gordon1307@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 9:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Sue
Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis
Subject:"12/5/17 item 6-A"
Dear Council Members,
I support the appeal of the neighbors on this issue. There is no place for a comercial 20 child day
care in an R1 district. The residents should not be forced to live with this for the convenience of the
businesses who move into the nearby office buildings. The day care center should be located in one
of the office buildings.
Thank for your support of the residents of Santa Monica.
Harry Gordon
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 6-A
12/5/17
117 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:aimeekg@aol.com
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 9:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preschool in a neighborhood
Please DO NOT allow this preschool to open in a R1 zoned area. We, the residents of Santa Monica, do not want a
business next door to single family, residential houses. Thank you, Aimee Goldberg, resident of Santa Monica since the
1980s.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
118 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Wen Lowery <wenlowery@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, December 4, 2017 10:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Trying to save Our neighborhood-Gandara Project
My name is Wendy Kobayashi Lowery and my husband Stuart, and my elderly mother Faith live on Delaware Ave. Our
home has been in our family since my grandparents who were the original owners bought it in the 1940”s, four
generations thus far. New young families have bought their first homes here in recent years as well as our elders who
have been here since they originally bought their homes and like myself who has been living here for over 30yrs. all
“cherish and love" very much our (semi) quiet pocketed community, obvious from the “fight” opposing this daycare
business wanting to come in.
I can and do appreciate businesses starting up and growing and then the inevitability of change, etc., but can’t places,
Our Homes be and stay sacred and not always giving into business, commerce, money, persons who don’t seem to care
about how “changes can effect others? Since Lantana, Beach body and the other businesses came (in which most of us
fought against and lost) individuals leave trash in front of our homes as some walk around on their lunch breaks,
speeding through our neighborhood, blowing thru stop signs which the city placed at every block anticipating the extra
cars coming thru. I as well as my neighbors feel we didn’t gain anything positive but just more congestion, traffic, grid
locked in our neighborhood, creating an issue of safety and we are just left “ to deal” with it. Now we are supposed to
welcome a “Business” right in the middle of our residential neighborhood? Literally, it can take 10‐20 minutes ( high
time traffic) just to reach home from Olympic Blvd and Pico Blvd. entering on to either Centinela or Stewart Av. and
that’s only 2‐3 blocks. Cars are sometimes 20+ deep lined up—backed up on Virginia Av, heading to the freeway
entrances and then again to mention the cars racing thru, not Stopping at the signs down our streets, Exposition Blvd.,
Delaware Ave.e, and Virgina Ave. trying to bypass the congestion.
Please, please try and understand. I can maybe understand if the residents in our neighborhood were going to use the
daycare( and not solely be a business) since as I said lots of new young families have moved in, then maybe there would
be a different reaction but as it stands, "no one" that lives here wants or welcomes this daycare or any other business
smack dab in the middle of our homes. There are 2 longtime family run daycares within our 6‐8 block neighborhood
who do reside in their homes located on the Virgina Ave. side. If we can stand in each others shoes for a moment I
would say, “try and live and accept and deal with what goes on in our neighborhood and then maybe our efforts in
trying to protect it would be more understood and clear”.
This is where WE live! This is our Home!
All I can say is that I hope and do pray that their is conscionable thought and consideration and understanding where
we stand on this issue and why. The individual(s) wanting to set up shop here isn’t living here, planning on living here.
They can do it somewhere else as a business.
Reagards, Wendy Kobayayshi Lowery
Item 6-A
12/5/17
119 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brian O'Neil <bpo42@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Brian ONeil
Subject:City Council Agenda 6.A, 12/5/2017 - Support of Appeal 17ENT-0186 (Gandara Park
Neighborhood)
Brian P. O’Neil
2929 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
December 4, 2017
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Conditional
Use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0147, & Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-
0148 permitting the establishment for a Child Care and Early Education Facility
for up to 20 children at 2953 Delaware Ave.
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to you as an individual, a husband and father of two small boys, and a proud
resident of the Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Simply put, I believe that the proposed preschool, if allowed to proceed, will bring
irrevocable harm to our small residential community. Having two young boys, and
being an educator myself, I am and have always been a strong proponent of a quality
education, especially early education. I also am certain that if we lived on a north-of-
Montana residential street (as the Applicant does) with square block after square block
of pristine R1 streets untouched by commercial development or heavy traffic, we would
feel differently about a proposal to open a 20-student preschool in the
neighborhood. But we live on Delaware Ave. in Gandara Park.
As I hope you can appreciate, more than any R1 residential community in Santa
Monica, Gandara Park is under constant siege by the surrounding commercial and
transportation infrastructure, all of which were previously approved by the City and all
of which, combined, make it a certainty that allowing a business to open on Delaware
will have an immediate adverse impact on the quality of life of the neighborhood. As
Item 6-A
12/5/17
120 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
you may know, the Gandara Park neighborhood, which is made up of three streets that
run east/west, is surrounded by crushing traffic and commercial development: to the
south of Virginia Ave. sits the 10 freeway, which has resulted in Virginia becoming a
cut-through for commuters heading to the freeway; to the west sits the City recycling
yard, the Expo station, and the metro train gates, which regularly back-up traffic along
Stewart Ave.; to the north sits the Expo Maintenance Facility, the chaos of the
commercial businesses on Exposition, and the constant traffic on Exposition and
Olympic Blvd.; to the east sits Centinela, which is home to several commercial
businesses, two freeway onramps, a freeway off ramp, and constant traffic and
congestion. Once all the new commercial developments just north of Olympic (Pen
Factory, SMCC Media Campus, Santa Monica Gateway) and east of Centinela (Expo
Station) are open for business in the next year, over a million sq ft of commercial office
space, with over 1000 parking structure spots, will be added to our general
neighborhood. These commercial developments will bring even more pressure on our
already suffocating community as commuters barrel through Gandara Park on their
way to and from the 10 freeway. This is not an arbitrary fear that we are sharing with
you. It is a certain reality demonstrated by our already fragile hold on peace in our
neighborhood and the fact that the city has already approved these new and enormous
commercial developments.
Delaware Ave. is the middle street in the three blocks of Gandara Park Neighborhood.
It is quite literally the only block in this small residential neighborhood that is not
already negatively impacted by commercial businesses and/or severe traffic and
congestion. Its strictly R1 nature allows the neighborhood as a whole to maintain a
semblance of peace and calm. Families and elders feel comfortable walking on our
quiet street and runners and bikers, often from near-by businesses, feel safe running
right down the middle of the street because very few cars drive down Delaware. This
is the reality of the neighborhood in which we live. We are not exaggerating when we
say that allowing the preschool to open will change the character of and detrimentally
harm our neighborhood, because it will put a business (with all the congestion, noise,
and traffic that any business brings) on the last remaining street that is not already
impacted by commercial businesses and traffic. Preserving the quality of life for
residents—the very livability of Gandara Park Neighborhood—mandates a grant of our
Appeal. Our neighborhood is united in its opposition to this business operating on
Delaware, because the harm it will bring to our neighborhood and community is a
simple and obvious reality for anyone interested in learning about our neighborhood
and ensuring that city planning is done in a fair, judicious, and informed manner.
The Planning Commission’s approval of the 2953 Preschool at the Sept. 6th hearing
made a mockery of representative government and sound city planning. Based on the
Commissioners’ comments and attitude towards residents in opposition to the project,
it was clear to all of us who attended the hearing that the Commissioners had already
decided to approve the project before the “public” hearing even began. Their uniform
condescension toward the residents of Gandara Park was disgraceful. Equally
Item 6-A
12/5/17
121 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
appalling was the lack of consideration or care for Gandara Park’s already fragile
situation. Their approval treated Delaware Ave. as if it existed in a bubble, all by itself,
not surrounded by the commercial and transportation infrastructure that has eaten
away at the livability of the neighborhood. They completely ignored the actual realities
of our neighborhood and community. The granting of a CUP for a preschool in an R1
neighborhood is to be done on a case-by-case basis, which requires taking into
account and carefully studying the context of the site, the neighborhood – the facts on
the ground – and meeting 9 necessary elements under the Santa Monica Municipal
Code. The Planning Commission gave only cursory consideration to the
neighborhood’s realities or the SMMC requirements, because the Commissioners
seemed intent on rubber stamping the preschool application. No serious studies on
how the preschool would impact neighborhood traffic, environmental and noise
pollution, or public safety have been done to date. Sadly, based on the current Staff
Report, the Planning Division continues to view this project as if it were in a tiny half-
block pocket. In reality, Delaware Ave. is the last semblance we have in Gandara Park
of residential peace and tranquility. It is, in essence, an oasis of calm surrounded by
growing mountains of encroaching commercial activity. To plop a 20-student
preschool in the middle of Delaware Ave. is not only immoral, it is the height of
government indifference to the welfare of its citizens.
I write to you about the adverse impacts a 20-student preschool will bring to our
neighborhood from first-hand experience. I’ve been doing preschool pick-ups and
drop-offs with my two boys for nearly four years. I know inherently the danger and
stress in these situations. Regardless of drop-off/pick up guidelines or staggered arrival
plans (the STOA’s alleged solution for the very real dangers of bringing 50+ additional
car trips onto our narrow street and alley), in the real world, parents are stressed out,
running late for work, often managing more than one child at a time. The chances of
them complying with the staggered drop offs and pick ups are slim. The chances of
them consistently doing it safely are virtually non-existent. The Applicant wants to
have some parents do drops offs in the alleyway behind the house. This is an even
bigger recipe for disaster. The alley is too narrow and encumbered with trashcans and
large bins from the adjacent multi-family apartments on Exposition to allow for a safe
preschool drop off zone. As things stand, the alley can barely accommodate one car
driving down the alley. What happens when a number of cars start driving down the
alley in opposite directions? What happens when parents dropping off their kids at the
preschool line up waiting to drop of their children at the preschool? What happens
when residents are trying to leave their own homes to head to their jobs and are stuck
waiting while parents drop off kids and back up in and out of the single drop off spot
available to drop kids in the alley while other cars are waiting to pull in? Moreover,
many neighborhood children that live on Exposition use the alley to walk to school in
the morning on their way to Edison and Grant elementary schools. Neighborhood
children that live on Delaware and Exposition often play in the alley. Inviting additional
cars in the alley will result in either a child being hit by a car or parents forbidding their
Item 6-A
12/5/17
122 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
children from ever walking or playing in the alley. This, alone, will change the way
residents in the neighborhood live their lives and go about their day.
Street drops-off would be equally dangerous given the one loading spot on Delaware
designated for the task. What, exactly, will be done while parents wait for the car
parked in the one loading spot to leave? Shall parents cue in the street, blocking traffic
for all? Will parents park illegally, negatively impacting the lives of residents? Who
exactly will police these misbehaviors as they are occurring in real time? As a matter of
pure public safety, to protect our neighborhood children and seniors from an onslaught
of outsider traffic rolling down Delaware and the back alley, this proposed preschool’s
CUP and the related variances should be revoked by the Council.
The Applicant and the Planning Commission in approving the STOA claimed that they
were doing it for children; because they care about children. Well, I must ask, what
about the children that actually live in our neighborhood? Do those children matter?
Don’t they deserve to have a little bit of peace and quiet in their own neighborhood?
Aren’t they allowed to be safe in their neighborhood without the fear of being hit by a
car if they happen to be in the alley or crossing Delaware? Caring about children and
the needs of children shouldn’t be limited to anonymous, unnamed children that might
someday attend the preschool. That care should extent to the actual children of
Gandara Park Neighborhood who will forever be negatively impacted once this
business opens on Delaware Avenue.
I ask you, I implore you, to please grant the Neighborhood’s Appeal and deny the
issuance of the CUP and the variances. If for nobody else, please do it for the children
of Gandara Park Neighborhood. These children are from every walk of life, every race,
ethnicity, and socio-economic background. Please care about our children and help us
preserve our residential neighborhood and keep it livable for all residents, especially
our most vulnerable and precious.
Highest Regards,
Brian O’Neil
Item 6-A
12/5/17
123 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Julia & Ryan Childers <juliaryan2017@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Subject: Appeal 17ENT-0861 of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0147, and Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148
Subject: Appeal 17ENT-0861 of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075,
Variance 17ENT-0147, and Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148
2953 Delaware Ave
Appellant: Nada Shamonki, Esq.
Applicant: Laila Taslim
Property Owner: untitled No. 1 School
Hello,
I live at 2928 Exposition Blvd, Santa Monica and I support the proposed preschool to be built on Delaware
Avenue. My husband and I are prospective parents (married in April) and this preschool could benefit us with
its scholarship and subsidy options. We are renters and have been part of the Gandara Park neighborhood for
over 2.5 years now. As a teacher myself I strongly support Early Childhood Education and often speak to many
parents in the community due to my job. These parents say finding quality preschools can be a challenge and
they would welcome the addition of another one. My husband and I both would strongly welcome this nonprofit
preschool to the neighborhood, and we look forward to meeting its owner and director.
The main organizer (Brian O’Neill) of this movement has lived in the neighborhood for less time than us. I find
that some of his complaints are unfounded. For example that the children in the neighborhood who play in the
alleys/streets may be affected by more traffic. That the traffic from more cars in the neighborhood could be
reason for caution. I work part-time and I never see children playing in the alley or on the streets during the
weekdays, it is only on weekends when cars from the preschool would not be in the neighborhood. Additionally
Brian’s complaint that this preschool could be taking away from public schools and Santa Monica is unfounded.
The grants the proposed school is asking for from Connections For Children come from both federal and state
money. Financial support for this Preschool would have nothing to do with public funds for the Santa Monica
school district. This organization of neighbors against the preschool, does not include all of us and I hope you
will also hear our voice. To suggest that a neighborhood is only the homeowners, I find to be inaccurate (and
wrong) as neighborhoods are a collection of homeowners and the renters that live there.
Please support this preschool for the families of Santa Monica.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Barnett
Item 6-A
12/5/17
124 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Aukstikalnis <amyauk@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 7:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich;
Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez
Subject:12/5/17 City Council Agenda Item 6A (Case No. 17ENT-0189) - Uphold the Appeal and
Deny the CUP
Dear City Council,
I am writing to request that you grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents of
the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications requested by the property owner.
Our City's general plan makes a commitment to the community to preserve and protect the of quality of life in our
residential neighborhoods. Allowing such a commercial operation at this location will irreparably damage the residential
character and quality of life for residents of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding
commercial and infrastructure development.
Allowing the property to be converted to a commercial day care center would also remove important affordable
housing stock in our community suitable for families by removing a single family home and the
potential for an affordable 2nd unit by demolishing the garage that otherwise could be converted to a
legal second unit. This city is woefully deficient in opportunities for young families of modest income
to purchase a home. Removing this housing stock is in direct conflict with our cities affordable
housing goals and state mandates.
Commerical childcare centers are better located in business districts onsite or in close proximity
to commercial development where individuals work. Awards have been won by forward-thinking businesses like
Patagonia for the on-site child care center at their Ventura headquarters. Such facilities place children and parents close to
each other and encourage the use of transit, reducing car trips into and out of fragile residential neighborhoods of our already
congested city.
Please support the residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood by upholding their appeal and denying the CUP for this
business.
Sincerely,
Amy Aukstikalnis
Santa Monica Resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
125 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Aukstikalnis <amyauk@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 7:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Sarah Gorman; Sue
Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez
Cc:Rick Cole
Subject:12/5/17 Council Meeting Agenda Item 6A - Please Postpone Hearing this Item Until a
Meeting with a Full Council
Dear City Council:
It has come to my attention that two city council members will be absent from tonight's city council meeting.
I am writing to respectfully request that you vote or take action at the beginning of tonight's meeting to direct staff to move
agenda item 6A to another meeting when all city council members will be present.
This is a matter of great importance to the community and the applicants should be afforded the
opportunity to have their appeal heard, discussed and debated by a full city council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Amy Aukstikalnis
Item 6-A
12/5/17
126 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 8:00 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City Council Agenda 6.A, 12/5/2017 - Support of Appeal 17ENT-0186 (Gandara
Park Neighborhood)
From: Brian O'Neil [mailto:bpo42@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor
<Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Brian ONeil <bpo42@yahoo.com>
Subject: City Council Agenda 6.A, 12/5/2017 ‐ Support of Appeal 17ENT‐0186 (Gandara Park Neighborhood)
Brian P. O’Neil
2929 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
December 4, 2017
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Conditional
Use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0147, & Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-
0148 permitting the establishment for a Child Care and Early Education Facility
for up to 20 children at 2953 Delaware Ave.
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to you as an individual, a husband and father of two small boys, and a proud
resident of the Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Simply put, I believe that the proposed preschool, if allowed to proceed, will bring
irrevocable harm to our small residential community. Having two young boys, and
being an educator myself, I am and have always been a strong proponent of a quality
education, especially early education. I also am certain that if we lived on a north-of-
Montana residential street (as the Applicant does) with square block after square block
of pristine R1 streets untouched by commercial development or heavy traffic, we would
Item 6-A
12/5/17
127 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
feel differently about a proposal to open a 20-student preschool in the
neighborhood. But we live on Delaware Ave. in Gandara Park.
As I hope you can appreciate, more than any R1 residential community in Santa
Monica, Gandara Park is under constant siege by the surrounding commercial and
transportation infrastructure, all of which were previously approved by the City and all
of which, combined, make it a certainty that allowing a business to open on Delaware
will have an immediate adverse impact on the quality of life of the neighborhood. As
you may know, the Gandara Park neighborhood, which is made up of three streets that
run east/west, is surrounded by crushing traffic and commercial development: to the
south of Virginia Ave. sits the 10 freeway, which has resulted in Virginia becoming a
cut-through for commuters heading to the freeway; to the west sits the City recycling
yard, the Expo station, and the metro train gates, which regularly back-up traffic along
Stewart Ave.; to the north sits the Expo Maintenance Facility, the chaos of the
commercial businesses on Exposition, and the constant traffic on Exposition and
Olympic Blvd.; to the east sits Centinela, which is home to several commercial
businesses, two freeway onramps, a freeway off ramp, and constant traffic and
congestion. Once all the new commercial developments just north of Olympic (Pen
Factory, SMCC Media Campus, Santa Monica Gateway) and east of Centinela (Expo
Station) are open for business in the next year, over a million sq ft of commercial office
space, with over 1000 parking structure spots, will be added to our general
neighborhood. These commercial developments will bring even more pressure on our
already suffocating community as commuters barrel through Gandara Park on their
way to and from the 10 freeway. This is not an arbitrary fear that we are sharing with
you. It is a certain reality demonstrated by our already fragile hold on peace in our
neighborhood and the fact that the city has already approved these new and enormous
commercial developments.
Delaware Ave. is the middle street in the three blocks of Gandara Park Neighborhood.
It is quite literally the only block in this small residential neighborhood that is not
already negatively impacted by commercial businesses and/or severe traffic and
congestion. Its strictly R1 nature allows the neighborhood as a whole to maintain a
semblance of peace and calm. Families and elders feel comfortable walking on our
quiet street and runners and bikers, often from near-by businesses, feel safe running
right down the middle of the street because very few cars drive down Delaware. This
is the reality of the neighborhood in which we live. We are not exaggerating when we
say that allowing the preschool to open will change the character of and detrimentally
harm our neighborhood, because it will put a business (with all the congestion, noise,
and traffic that any business brings) on the last remaining street that is not already
impacted by commercial businesses and traffic. Preserving the quality of life for
residents—the very livability of Gandara Park Neighborhood—mandates a grant of our
Appeal. Our neighborhood is united in its opposition to this business operating on
Delaware, because the harm it will bring to our neighborhood and community is a
Item 6-A
12/5/17
128 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
simple and obvious reality for anyone interested in learning about our neighborhood
and ensuring that city planning is done in a fair, judicious, and informed manner.
The Planning Commission’s approval of the 2953 Preschool at the Sept. 6th hearing
made a mockery of representative government and sound city planning. Based on the
Commissioners’ comments and attitude towards residents in opposition to the project,
it was clear to all of us who attended the hearing that the Commissioners had already
decided to approve the project before the “public” hearing even began. Their uniform
condescension toward the residents of Gandara Park was disgraceful. Equally
appalling was the lack of consideration or care for Gandara Park’s already fragile
situation. Their approval treated Delaware Ave. as if it existed in a bubble, all by itself,
not surrounded by the commercial and transportation infrastructure that has eaten
away at the livability of the neighborhood. They completely ignored the actual realities
of our neighborhood and community. The granting of a CUP for a preschool in an R1
neighborhood is to be done on a case-by-case basis, which requires taking into
account and carefully studying the context of the site, the neighborhood – the facts on
the ground – and meeting 9 necessary elements under the Santa Monica Municipal
Code. The Planning Commission gave only cursory consideration to the
neighborhood’s realities or the SMMC requirements, because the Commissioners
seemed intent on rubber stamping the preschool application. No serious studies on
how the preschool would impact neighborhood traffic, environmental and noise
pollution, or public safety have been done to date. Sadly, based on the current Staff
Report, the Planning Division continues to view this project as if it were in a tiny half-
block pocket. In reality, Delaware Ave. is the last semblance we have in Gandara Park
of residential peace and tranquility. It is, in essence, an oasis of calm surrounded by
growing mountains of encroaching commercial activity. To plop a 20-student
preschool in the middle of Delaware Ave. is not only immoral, it is the height of
government indifference to the welfare of its citizens.
I write to you about the adverse impacts a 20-student preschool will bring to our
neighborhood from first-hand experience. I’ve been doing preschool pick-ups and
drop-offs with my two boys for nearly four years. I know inherently the danger and
stress in these situations. Regardless of drop-off/pick up guidelines or staggered arrival
plans (the STOA’s alleged solution for the very real dangers of bringing 50+ additional
car trips onto our narrow street and alley), in the real world, parents are stressed out,
running late for work, often managing more than one child at a time. The chances of
them complying with the staggered drop offs and pick ups are slim. The chances of
them consistently doing it safely are virtually non-existent. The Applicant wants to
have some parents do drops offs in the alleyway behind the house. This is an even
bigger recipe for disaster. The alley is too narrow and encumbered with trashcans and
large bins from the adjacent multi-family apartments on Exposition to allow for a safe
preschool drop off zone. As things stand, the alley can barely accommodate one car
driving down the alley. What happens when a number of cars start driving down the
alley in opposite directions? What happens when parents dropping off their kids at the
Item 6-A
12/5/17
129 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
preschool line up waiting to drop of their children at the preschool? What happens
when residents are trying to leave their own homes to head to their jobs and are stuck
waiting while parents drop off kids and back up in and out of the single drop off spot
available to drop kids in the alley while other cars are waiting to pull in? Moreover,
many neighborhood children that live on Exposition use the alley to walk to school in
the morning on their way to Edison and Grant elementary schools. Neighborhood
children that live on Delaware and Exposition often play in the alley. Inviting additional
cars in the alley will result in either a child being hit by a car or parents forbidding their
children from ever walking or playing in the alley. This, alone, will change the way
residents in the neighborhood live their lives and go about their day.
Street drops-off would be equally dangerous given the one loading spot on Delaware
designated for the task. What, exactly, will be done while parents wait for the car
parked in the one loading spot to leave? Shall parents cue in the street, blocking traffic
for all? Will parents park illegally, negatively impacting the lives of residents? Who
exactly will police these misbehaviors as they are occurring in real time? As a matter of
pure public safety, to protect our neighborhood children and seniors from an onslaught
of outsider traffic rolling down Delaware and the back alley, this proposed preschool’s
CUP and the related variances should be revoked by the Council.
The Applicant and the Planning Commission in approving the STOA claimed that they
were doing it for children; because they care about children. Well, I must ask, what
about the children that actually live in our neighborhood? Do those children matter?
Don’t they deserve to have a little bit of peace and quiet in their own neighborhood?
Aren’t they allowed to be safe in their neighborhood without the fear of being hit by a
car if they happen to be in the alley or crossing Delaware? Caring about children and
the needs of children shouldn’t be limited to anonymous, unnamed children that might
someday attend the preschool. That care should extent to the actual children of
Gandara Park Neighborhood who will forever be negatively impacted once this
business opens on Delaware Avenue.
I ask you, I implore you, to please grant the Neighborhood’s Appeal and deny the
issuance of the CUP and the variances. If for nobody else, please do it for the children
of Gandara Park Neighborhood. These children are from every walk of life, every race,
ethnicity, and socio-economic background. Please care about our children and help us
preserve our residential neighborhood and keep it livable for all residents, especially
our most vulnerable and precious.
Highest Regards,
Brian O’Neil
Item 6-A
12/5/17
130 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
To City Council and city staff,
If you would live in our neighborhood you would agree with our opposition to allowing a conditional use
permit to the proposed Untitled Number One School as daycare and early educational facility. At
present it can take 10 extra minutes to get in or out of our neighborhood. With trains running every
four minutes in each direction plus trains enter and exit the maintenance yard the gates at the Stewart
St. crossing are closed an awful lot and cars pile up. At rush hour cars are lined up on Virginia and
waiting to enter Centinela can take an equal amount of time. Staff members of six and twenty students
would mean 26 cars coming in to the neighborhood and 20 leaving at morning rush hour. In the evening
rush hour 20 cars would come in and 26 leaving. These extra car trips could easily cause another five
minutes delay to get in or out of the neighborhood. In an emergency a resident needing transport to
the hospital could be delayed 15 minutes till the paramedics get to him and another 15 minutes to get
to the hospital besides the regular time of the distance. A half hour delay could be a death sentence
and does not correspond to the provision of health and wellbeing guaranteed in the LUCE. Vehicles
from the city yard and Agencys come through our neighborhood as a short cut to and from the freeway.
There is no lack of early childcare facilities in and surrounding our neighborhood. Three family run
daycares are in our neighborhood. Within one mile radius there are 26. New businesses should be
obligated to have childcare on their premises.
Single family residences should be for families and not taken off the market for childcare business.
Noise from kids living in the neighborhood cannot be compared to 20 kids in a childcare facility.
Dropping off kids in the morning and picking them up in the evening cause traffic jams and noise in the
neighborhood. A timetable of scheduling parents to come in ten minutes interval never works because
of traffic and because families with kids have often trouble to get out of the house at exactly the same
time. Stops for public transportation are too far away for walking small kids to their school day by day.
To find employees who are willing to come to work by bicycle or public transportation is usually
unrealistic.
Residents of our neighborhood fought hard to get Ishihara Park as a buffer from the Expo Maintenance
Yard. Laila Taslimi openly admitted that she likes her school being in close proximity of that park. We
cannot allow that her school as a private business will monopolize the park as their playground, lunch
place and learning garden. Parents, local residents will be intimidated to bring their children if the park
is occupied by bigger groups of children from the school every day. I know elderly Japanese residents
who like to walk through the park frequently to enjoy the serenity which would be spoiled by groups of
noisy Untitled No. 1 students every day. If the Conditional Use Permit should be granted the usage of
Ishihara and Gandara Park needs to be limited to give residents preference. I suggest that the school
can use Ishihara and Gandara Park no more than twice a week each park and the learning garden no
more than once every month within their twice weekly visits to the park. Another method could be to
treat the school like the exercise businesses in our parks and have it pay a fee every time they use the
park, but that would mean regulating the usage on a daily basis.
I strongly urge you to not grant the Conditional Use Permit for the school. Enough is enough! ! !
Item 6-A
12/5/17
131 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Hellie Baines <helliebaines@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 8:18 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:2953 Delaware LLC - Gandara Neighborhood- protecting residences as homes
I am writing to urge council members to keep all the residences in Gandara Park for the purpose they were built ‐ as
residences.
At a time when we all recognize that there is a critical housing shortage to turn a residence into a business is contrary to
good sense. Especially in Santa Monica where commercial property is built at a fast pace and there is ample commercial
property available for rent.
While the idea of a quaint residential home functioning as a business may appeal to the emotional side, this property is
clearly not a family home business ‐ it is a residential property purchased with the sole intent to be a business. It is a
clear manipulation of perspective to make the 'home' school more appealing to prospective clients.
Additionally vacant properties at night may be subject to criminal mischief and vandalism which potentially spills to
neighboring properties.
As someone who lives across the street from a preschool I can attest to the increased traffic, noise, litter, and utterly
horrendous driving (often from the parents who are rushed to drop off the child and get to jobs on time). I have
personally witnessed two separate incidents where vehicles struck pedestrians who were legally walking on the
crosswalk in my 'quiet' area and both incidents were during the school drop off hour. Residential neighborhoods are
just not equipped to deal with commercial traffic demands.
Gandara is a residential area already subject to other encroaching developments and issues that challenge quality of life
for the residents and to deliberately allow a business on the street with so much neighborhood opposition in place, and
so many other options available to the 'nonprofit' preschool, would be punitive to the residents.
Please consider this issue as if it were occurring next to your home, in your residential area, and send this business into a
commercial zone which is where it rightfully belongs.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Baines
Item 6-A
12/5/17
132 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
December 1, 2017
Re: My concerns about the proposed school to be located at 2953 Delaware Ave.
I am Roger Hartmann, born and raised and have lived at 3054 Delaware for 62 years. I have seen many
changes to this neighborhood in my lifetime. I am speaking up about this school as if it were locating
next to me. I ask you to consider the concerns that I write about in this email to you, as your final
decision will if in favor of this will affect we the residents of Delaware for the rest of time.
I oppose the approval of this school locating on Delaware Ave.,
My concerns:
1. Traffic Flow: the curb to curb measurement is 30 feet: if you use 7 feet as a normal car width X 2
equals 14 feet taken from 30 feet leaves a 16 foot roadway. It works but is tight. The school will
have up to 20 kids attending with daily drop off and pickup each school day.
Delaware Ave, between Stewart St and Centinella, is being used morning and night as a short cut
path from the Freeway to anywhere West in the city.
2. Parking: The existing parking in front of 2953 Delaware is on the South side of the street is parking
by permit only and on the North side, there is 2 hour parking. The neighborhood has petitioned the
city to change the North side to permit parking only as well.
The applicant proposes stagger drop off and pickup using the street and ally for this purpose.
The ally is 20 feet wide and has a higher traffic flow because of the multi-family apartments located
on Exposition having many parking areas accessed from the ally only.
3. Front yard fence line: existing zoning requires a front yard fence line no higher then 42”. The fence
line is proposed after going in front of the planning commission to be at 60” or 5 feet. I like
neighborhood uniformity. I see what happens when people stop conforming to the rules as has
happened at many properties down on Walgrove South of Rose Ave in LA. There are many 6 foot
high fences there. I know the applicant is following the rules here by applying for the Modification
to the fence height. Neighborhood uniformity speaks volumes about how a neighborhood feels
about pride of ownership, respect for one another, having a home to retreat to after a hard days work
in which one can have piece and quite to relax, rest and enjoy life. This school will interfere with
what I speak of here. We have 3 existing day care centers located in the neighborhood already, one
of which is behind me in my ally. I hear the noise of the children during the day as most of the kids
play in the rear yard.
4. R-1 Single family homes: I ask the question: is it not important in Santa Monica, to protect the
single family housing stock in the City?. This removes 1 R-1 home from the City. This could have
a negative affect on our property prices.
5. Safety concerns: This school is a private business that will not be occupied at night. The plans for
this school, show a parking area at the rear of the site that because it is not fenced in at night could
become a place for the homeless to camp out at night. The narrow street and ally present potential
safety concerns I have for the children during drop-off and pick up. At night, the 5 foot high fence
line will make it difficult to see what is happening in the front yard of the property, if there is
problem behavior happening there.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
133 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
6. Neighborhood make up: a large number of the residents living on the 3 blocks of Delaware Ave that
I am talking about here, are retired folks who have worked hard to raise there families. Many are
now just the husband and the wife and in some cases widows as the husbands have passed and the
kids have grown up and have families of there own. I cherrish the decission that my mom and dad
made in buying our home on Delaware Ave in 1948. This is and has been a great place to raise a
family. This area used to be a very close neighberhood where we all knew each other as families.
When the Freeway went in the feeling of neighberhood was greatly divided and reduced.
Delaware Ave is just beginning to change as new younger families are mnoving in to start the cycle
of life all over again.
In Closing I would like to say ThankYou! for your time and hard work that you do for all of us
here in Santa Monica.
Roger Hartmann
Item 6-A
12/5/17
134 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:bbeitcher@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 9:04 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Subject:Daycare centers
How many of you City Council members would like to live next to or close to a day care center or pre school? Raise your
hands. That’s what I thought, none of you would. But you’re looking at mandating that day care centers can be
anywhere, in any neighborhood. I do live next to a daycare. The one that resides at the corner of 21st place and San
Vicente. It has neither been community building or pleasant to have in the neighborhood. I don’t see a lot of moms and
dads actually walking their little ones to the daycare near me, I see a lot of dropping off. So the fallacy that the neighbors
benefit from this really is a fallacy. There is no mutual love between the families, the daycare provider and all of us who
endure screaming children, and cars parked in red zones continually during the day. Has anyone ever reached out to ask
what the impact has been on a neighborhood? How about the retired couple who have lived in their home for 30 years,
worked hard to have that home, and have now moved out because their life style of retiring is no longer the American
dream. They are prisoners in their own home. What positive aspects of having daycares in neighborhoods really
provide? Not much. Money for the city, lots of income for the owner of the property and it’s seems lots of that. Does the
daycare make the neighborhood more desirable? I don’t think so. Is my house value going to change?
We have zoning laws for a reason, or thought we had them for a reason. How can you have an LLC company buy a house
and put in a daycare? The woman who will be the proud owner of this facility doesn’t even have to live there, so she’s
not going to go out of her way to become part of the community. Do the little people who work hard, own their homes,
want a neighborhood that serves the community, have no say in what the future of their neighborhood will be? What
happens when they try to sell the homes that they have worked so hard to own and actually live in? What benefit does
having a daycare do for all the little people living near it? I’d have to say absolutely nothing. What is the voice of us that
our elected officials here? Not much.
Carol Beitcher
Item 6-A
12/5/17
135 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 9:10 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; David Martin; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig
Subject:FW: 17ENT-0186 -- Delaware Avenue Preschool
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the 2953 Delaware Ave appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Jennifer Polhemus [mailto:jenniferpolhemus@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 7:59 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: 17ENT‐0186 ‐‐ Delaware Avenue Preschool
Dear Councilmembers –
I urge you to support the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a commercial
business at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
The City has a longstanding official policy to support and encourage the character of
residential neighborhoods, ALL residential neighborhoods. This is a matter of economic justice.
Why should this particular area of the Pico neighborhood, already experiencing the brunt of
the Metro maintenance facility, be asked to bear the visual, noise, and traffic impacts of
commercial development, just because land is less expensive in the Pico neighborhood?
What does the character of residential neighborhoods really mean? Additional childcare
facilities are needed, and there are various options for where they can be located. But there is
only one place the character of an R‐1 residential neighborhood can be located. No one can
say that permitting a commercial business, with more than 25 persons (students and staff) on
site daily, plus the activity of parents’ daily transport, will maintain the character of this
residential neighborhood. This is not a good urban planning idea.
I am a childcare advocate, mother of two, former preschool PTA president, 35‐year Santa
Monica resident, and Santa Monica small business owner.
I believe you should support this appeal.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
136 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Jennifer L. Polhemus
Phone 310.399.1441
jenniferpolhemus@verizon.net
Item 6-A
12/5/17
137 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
138 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
139 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2701 Ocean Park Boulevard • Suite 253 Santa Monica, CA 90405 • Phone (310) 452-3325 • Fax (310) 452-3984
www.connectionsforchildren.org
December 4, 2017
Mayor Winterer and City Councilmembers
City of Santa Monica
RE: Untitled No.1 School (Item 6.A. on the Agenda for 12-5-2017)
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
Over the many years that Connections For Children has administered the City’s
funding for child care subsidy, one of the greatest challenges has been the lack of
spaces in centers accepting the scholarship. Santa Monica families often do not
have the full range of options for child care when they receive subsidy funds and it
frequently takes longer for them to find a space for their child or children. It is very
difficult for low-income families to find space for their children in high-quality
preschools.
Untitled #1, a new preschool proposed to be opened on Delaware Avenue will
help to address these challenges in the Santa Monica community. Ms. Taslimi, the
director and owner of Untitled #1 has made a commitment to reserve one-third of
her spaces for children of low-income families and another third for moderate
income families. Very few child care programs in the city have made a
commitment such as this to ensure access for families from all income levels.
While five to eight spaces may not seem like enough to make much difference,
that represents 10 - 15% of the children receiving subsidy from Connections For
Children. It will offer vulnerable, low-income families a new option for quality early
care and education, maximizing the learning potential for each child to develop
and grow.
Sincerely,
Patti Oblath
Executive Director
Connections For Children
Item 6-A
12/5/17
140 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 9:12 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; David Martin
Subject:FW: In Support of Laila Taslimi and Untitled No.1 Preschool on Delaware Avenue, Santa
Monica
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the 2953 Delaware Ave appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Parand Youssefi [mailto:parand.youssefi@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 6:32 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: In Support of Laila Taslimi and Untitled No.1 Preschool on Delaware Avenue, Santa Monica
Dear Council Members,
I have known Laila Taslimi for close to 30 years and I am proud and honored to call her my friend. I am also a
resident of Santa Monica and reside in zip code 90404.
Laila is a compassionate, thoughtful and civically engaged individual but above all she is an advocate for
children's education. I know this because I met some of the students Laila taught while working at McKinley
Elementary and witnessed how she went above and beyond to not only assist them in their education, but also to
support their families in every way possible.
What Laila aims to do is praiseworthy and I believe the residents on Delaware Avenue will in time come to
recognize that having the school on their street is an asset to their neighborhood. Laila's motives are pure,
loving and wholly in the benefit of the children that will have the privilege of attending Untitled No.1.
One of the things Laila and I share in common is our passion to serve, especially the underserved. Also, giving
back to our community is fundamental to our core values.
My years of volunteerism as a Domestic Violence Counselor with Sojourn Services for Battered Women and
Their Children (a service of OPCC) inspired me to pursue a career in law. I am currently working as a legal
advocate at Jenesse Center http://jenesse.org/ a Domestic Violence Service Provider located in South Los
Angeles.
As a working mother of two daughters, I know first hand how vital it is to have a full-day preschool close to
home that is both trustworthy and progressive.
Laila has taken great care in researching and selecting an early childhood program that will greatly aid young
minds to grow and flourish, and chosen a location in Santa Monica that is in need of a full-day preschool.
For the reasons mentioned above, I am in support of Laila Taslimi and Untitled No.1 Preschool on Delaware
Avenue.
Parand Karen Youssefi
Item 6-A
12/5/17
141 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
A Santa Monica Resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
142 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Khokha <ellen@growingplace.org>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 9:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:RE: Item 6A for this evening hearing
Dear Members of the Council,
Tonight you will hear what might be perhaps emotional testimony on whether to permit the opening of a
small
program for young children on a residential street. I would like to ask just a simple question:
Where do our children belong if not in a neighborhood?
It is with intention that I use the term "our" children. They are as much citizens of our community,
our neighborhood, our Santa Monica, and our country as any of us. Despite their lack of vote or political
constituency, they have rights as citizens. We give a great deal of lip service to what an important role they will
play in our democracy, economy, and country's future. We also give significant public dollars to their public
schools
in the hopes that they will excel and make a difference as citizens.
How will any of this matter if they don't get a good start in an intimate home like setting? If "our" children were
in your
seats voting tonight there is no question what their choice would be.
I urge you to approve this project.
Sincerely,
Ellen Khokha
Founder
The Growing Place
For the privacy and protection of our families, this email is intended for the sole use of the original recipient(s). Images
and documentation contained within belong to Growing Place. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you
please notify us, by reply email, and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
143 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Christina Chilin <christychi20@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preschool Item 6-A for Dec. 5 Council Meeting
To whom it may concern,
I am an alumna from the University of California, Santa Barbara and attended
elementary, middle, and high school in Santa Monica. As a student who went
through the public school system in Santa Monica I know the city offers great
resources for its schools and children. I believe that the diversity of cultures
and socio-economic backgrounds that can be found in the schools creates an
environment for children to thrive and truly learn from one another. I feel my
transition to college life was made much easier because of my early exposure
to an environment where I was surrounded by children from incredibly diverse
backgrounds. It’s vital for our future that we begin by educating the youngest
members of our society of the importance of cross cultural collaboration. Only
by seeing one another as equal, learning from each other, and working together
can we make progress and solve issues like the achievement gap. Mrs. Laila
Taslimi’s preschool will be a place where children can begin to connect
regardless of their heritage cultures or socio-economic statuses. Santa Monica
is famous for its beauty and its school system and many parents, like my
mother,make great sacrifices to live in the city so their children can be in the
Santa Monica school district. I wholeheartedly applaud and support her efforts
to establish her preschool. Many individuals acknowledge that there issues in
our society, Mrs. Taslimi is one of those truly rare individuals who has taken
action. Her actions have the potential to change children’s lives. Being one of
her former students myself I can attest that her support and care for me and my
family has never wavered. I fully support her preschool at 2953 Delaware
Avenue in Santa Monica and truly hope the city of Santa Monica see’s this
schools potential in impacting the lives of all the children who walk through its
doors.
Sincerely,
Item 6-A
12/5/17
144 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Christina Chilin
Item 6-A
12/5/17
145 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Phil Brock <commissionerbrock@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:20 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Conditional use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0417, & Fence/Wall Modification
17ENT-0418
I urge the City Council to oppose the granting of a permit for a larger than normal
pre-school at 2953 Delaware Ave. While I strongly support neighborhood early
childhood education, this school will be a disruptive force in a neighborhood that has
endured much on its borders over the decades.
The bottom line is simple. There are a few salient points. Each neighborhood must have
the right to determine the shape of its surroundings. Commercial enterprises must not
be allowed to encroach onto a neighborhood without the neighborhood's consent. The
Gandara neighborhood is the last affordable R1 neighborhood in our city. This
neighborhood opposes this “day-care” Center, not because it is “day-care” but because
of its potential damage to this neighborhood. There are not a shortage of daycare
facilities in our city. In fact, the number of children who live in Santa Monica is
declining. There is, however, a shortage of free or inexpensive daycare. This proposed
facility does not alleviate the “affordability” of Santa Monica based daycare even with
their promises of financial aid, hence the residents are justified in opposing this
facility.
The Pico Neighborhood has always been the victim of the commercialization and
industrialization in their portion of the city without any local representation. This is a
chance for the City Council to show that they care about every neighborhood in
our city. Support this neighborhood’s efforts. I am.
Phil Brock
--
Phil Brock / Santa Monica Arts Commission
CommissionerBrock@gmail.com
2013 California Parks & Recreation Commissioner Of The Year/42nd President,
CalParkBoards/Past Chair, Santa Monica Recreation & Parks Commission/President,
Kiwanis Club Of Santa Monica/President, Santa Monica High School Alumni Association,
Santa Monica Elks Club/Columnist,Santa Monica Mirror/Host,Brock On Your Block
Item 6-A
12/5/17
146 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:steve kandell <skandell@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:28 AM
To:Ted Winterer
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed
preschool with extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Dear City Council Member:
As a 40 year resident of the Pico Neighborhood I am requesting that the City Council grant the Appeal (Case
No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and
Fence Modifications approved by Planning Commission so that the residents may preserve peace in their and
our neighborhood.
the application that was approved by the Planning Commission clearly exceeds Zoning.
this area is already congested with traffic with cars using alleys and side streets to cut through because of the
congestion.
this home was purchased with the intent of introducing a commercial venture into a quiet residential
neighborhood. This is not a small family daycare: it is a large commercial operation being run by a corporation
and would change the neighborhood. This home will no longer be residential.
The Commission approved variances to allow the owner to demolish the garage in order to put a drop-off
parking space off the narrow alley, and to allow a 5-foot-high fence around the front yard. This is a residential
area, not a commercial area and these changes are not acceptable.
We already have dozens of family daycare homes with up to 14 children in the Pico and Sunset Park
neighborhoods. If this project goes forward, it seems that we'll soon also have dozens of commercial daycare
homes with up to 20 children because houses in our neighborhoods are less expensive than those north of
Wilshire and north of Montana.
To allow this project on Delaware Avenue to move forward with the requested expansions beyond what the
Zoning allows is not consistent with the stated aim of this Council to encourage housing production. With the
new regulations for second unit "granny flats," not only will the house be lost to the housing market, but there
will also be the loss of a potential affordable second unit.
While the need for affordable housing has been clearly measured, no data has been presented by the applicant or
City staff to show the need for a child care facility in this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign on the front lawn of this property describes it as "Untitled No. 1 School" suggests there
will be more such applications to convert more single homes into commercial day care centers that
ask more than the Code allows, removing more homes from the market, and creating more conflicts between
City Hall and residents.
I urge City Council to grant the Appeal for these reasons and all of the reasons articulated by the residents of the
Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Thank you
Item 6-A
12/5/17
147 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
Steve Kandell
Item 6-A
12/5/17
148 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
12/05/2017
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
We are writing to support the Untitled No. 1 School initiative. Our input is based on our
experiences, as well as the evidence based research that supports quality education environments
for preschoolers. In our current roles as helping professionals here in Santa Monica, we serve
young children and their families who have been designated at high risk due to the community
based systemic difficulties they face in accessing social provisions. We have seen that one of the
outstanding issues impacting Santa Monica families is the lack of reasonably priced early
education for our youngest children. From our perspective, as well as evidence-based research
studies (Zero to Three, Harvard University Center for the Developing Child, along with well-
defined national research), without question, investing in quality early education promotes
positive kindergarten ready children.
We realize that the opportunity to go forward with this early education environment in
the Pico neighborhood has been highly contested by some Pico neighborhood residents.
However, there are as many residents in the Pico neighborhood who are in support of their young
children having the opportunity to attend a quality program that can equip them with socio-
cultural, emotional, and educational capital. We are saddened to witness a fear’ based rhetoric
being prompted to describe an initiative for our youngest citizens to dissuade the potential
success of Santa Monica young children.
The positive outcomes far outweigh the inconveniences pertaining to the development of
the preschool. The preschool attempts to promote socio-diversity, which will help expand socio-
cultural growth within the community. Many children who experience poverty often times have a
difficult time accessing quality preschools that promote inclusion and cultural humility. We
believe this preschool aims to provide access to a diverse rich learning environment and a
culturally rich greater Santa Monica community.
Respectfully,
Nora Daley MFT
Elizabeth Sanchez ASW
Item 6-A
12/5/17
149 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:elena estrin <efestrin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:39 AM
To:Terry O’Day
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed
preschool with extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Dear City Council Member:
As a 40 year resident
of the Pico
Neighborhood I am
requesting that the
City Council grant the
Appeal (Case No.
17ENT-0189)
submitted by residents
of the Gandara Park
Neighborhood and
deny the CUP,
Variance, and Fence
Modifications
approved by Planning
Commission so that
the residents may
preserve peace in
their and our
neighborhood.
the application that
was approved by the
Planning Commission
clearly exceeds
Zoning.
this area is already
congested with traffic
with cars using alleys
and side streets to cut
through because of
the congestion.
this home was
purchased with the
intent of introducing a
commercial venture
into a quiet residential
neighborhood. This is
Item 6-A
12/5/17
150 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
not a small family
daycare: it is a large
commercial operation
being run by a
corporation and
would change the
neighborhood. This
home will no longer
be residential.
The Commission
approved variances to
allow the owner
to demolish the
garage in order to put
a drop-off parking
space off the narrow
alley, and to allow
a 5-foot-high fence
around the front
yard. This is a
residential area, not a
commercial area and
these changes are not
acceptable.
We already have
dozens of family
daycare homes with
up to 14 children in
the Pico and Sunset
Park neighborhoods.
If this project goes
forward, it seems that
we'll soon also have
dozens
of commercial daycar
e homes with up to 20
children because
houses in our
neighborhoods are
less expensive than
those north of
Wilshire and north of
Montana.
To allow this project
on Delaware Avenue
to move forward with
the requested
expansions beyond
what the Zoning
allows is not
consistent with the
Item 6-A
12/5/17
151 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
stated aim of this
Council to encourage
housing
production. With the
new regulations for
second unit "granny
flats," not only will
the house be lost to
the housing market,
but there will also be
the loss of a potential
affordable second
unit.
While the need for
affordable housing
has been clearly
measured, no data has
been presented by the
applicant or City staff
to show the need for a
child care facility in
this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign
on the front lawn of
this property
describes it as
"Untitled No. 1
School" suggests
there will
be more such
applications to
convert more single
homes into
commercial day care
centers that
ask more than the
Code allows,
removing more homes
from the market, and
creating more conflict
s between City Hall
and residents.
I urge City Council to
grant the Appeal for
these reasons and all
of the reasons
articulated by the
residents of the
Item 6-A
12/5/17
152 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
Gandara Park
Neighborhood.
Thank you
elena estrin
Item 6-A
12/5/17
153 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Aukstikalnis <amyauk@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 11:13 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:12/5/17 Council Meeting Agenda Item 6A - Please Postpone Hearing this Item Until a
Meeting with a Full Council
Dear City Council:
It has come to my attention that two city council members will be absent from tonight's city council meeting.
I am writing to respectfully request that you vote or take action at the beginning of tonight's meeting to direct staff to move
agenda item 6A to another meeting when all city council members will be present.
This is a matter of great importance to the community and the applicants should be afforded the
opportunity to have their appeal heard, discussed and debated by a full city council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Amy Aukstikalnis
Item 6-A
12/5/17
154 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 11:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; tony.vazquez@smgov.nett;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; terry.oday@smgov.nett; Sue Himmelrich; Pam
OConnor
Subject:Appeal 17ENT-0186 Agenda Item 6A
Dear City Council and Mayor,
Questions:
Where is reliable data to support the claim in the Staff Report that the preschool will
not cause an immediate adverse impact on the quality of life of the neighborhood?
Where is reliable data to support the Staff Report claim that the nine mandatory
findings under the SMMC were met before issuing the CUP?
Where is data showing all Santa Monica children seeking local preschool
opportunities are receiving seats?
Where is data showing existing SM preschools are in compliance with their CUPs
requiring resident serving seats?
Where is reliable data to support the need for another preschool in Santa
Monica?
Where is data showing the number of preschool seats serving parents who work
in Santa Monica but do not reside here?
Where is the audit information to show these preschool are in compliance with
their CUPs?
Most if not all this information exists so why has staff failed to include it in their
report?
The staff report says our Zoning Ordinance Specific Use Standards were developed to
address needs, however the report fails to demonstrate a preschool is necessary in the
Gandara Park Neighborhood and there's no supporting data determining need. Do you
know what the public sees when staff recommends this business activity in a
residential neighborhood, without data and without demonstrating a benefit to the
neighborhood or community? We see this as staff's play to serve development to the
detriment of the residents' well-being. Santa Monica is over saturated with
preschools - - even while our families remain confused and potentially under served
by what already exists here. Additionally the deep pocketed supporters of the project
are significantly outnumbered. A well informed council vote cannot be had without
a data driven proof of need, an honest report, the public's buy-in, transparency
and majority support. Based on the absence of these things, it would be remiss
of this Council to approve the CUP or variance requests regardless of how nice,
Item 6-A
12/5/17
155 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
how well intentioned, or how good or prepared the applicant appears to be. This
is a forced marriage and it simply won't work.
We wonder who will be served by this preschool and who is served by our pre-existing
preschools when all available data tells us Santa Monica is already over-
preschooled. DecisionInsite's demographic data showing Santa Monica's declining
child population was sent to council and presented in public testimony during our
Zoning Ordinance Update. This data is commissioned annually by our school
district and specifically shows Santa Monica has a declining Pre-K
population. These reduced numbers continue today. Additionally, the 2014
Rand study, now three years and several new preschools later, concluded Santa
Monica is preschool saturated in comparison to our population. Therefore, it is
remiss of staff and the applicant to exclude demonstrating need to counter this data
driven evidence readily available in the public domain, which shows that there is
actually no need for another preschool, and certainly no need for a preschool
here. We suspect need was included as a piece of our updated zoning ordinance to
require the study of aspects of mobility, like excessive car trips, as our city diligently
works to combat climate change and enhance sustainability efforts.
Page 9 of the staff report is inaccurate. The first line states, "The Council has also
established a Child Care & Early Education Task Force." This is not true and we are
sick and tired of staff's blatant attempt to manipulate the record with this report! Council
never sanctioned any such group nor did you appoint members to serve as advisers so
the meeting minutes must include a correction for the public record. Also, the report cites
Connections for Children's regional wait list as a pretext to demonstrate need in this
narrowly defined perimeter within the Pico Neighborhood. The numbers provided
conflate a regional need with a local one and fail to distinguish our local needs for
infant and toddler care as opposed to local need for a preschool serving 4 and 5 yr
olds. We're being led to believe Santa Monica's local low income children are lacking
preschool access and this is simply not true. Furthermore, we wonder why
Connection's for Children's staff report data as well as their Planning Commission
referenced letter at the Sept. 6th hearing wasn't attached to either city agenda.
Our PRA Requests have been routinely dismissed, making it
impossible for the public to do its work. Over the weekend, Council
received my forwarded email containing an initial PRA request
dated November 24th along with a screenshot of the Sept.
6th Planning Commission's staff presentation. My PRA asked for
copies of the CUPs for all the preschools in Santa Monica in order
to prepare for this meeting. The city clerk, upon receiving a
response for the city Planning Department, responded that the city
Item 6-A
12/5/17
156 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
doesn't have the addresses for Santa Monica's preschools or day
cares so in order to fulfill my PRA I would need to provide a list of
addresses. However, staff's Sept. 6th presentation to the Planning
Commission displayed a city map pinpointing every single Santa
Monica preschool! How was that map created without first having
all those preschool addresses? The good people of Santa Monica pay for
good service so why are we not receiving it? We certainly deserve better.
We expected the staff report would provide documentation demonstrating existing
Santa Monica preschools are actively and efficiently serving the needs of Santa
Monica's children. In October alone, we've seen requests from eighty resident moms
actively engaged in a quest for information about our local preschools. These mothers
are anxious and desperate for answers. CRAZY, right? There's some well being data
you never had before! Parents want to make informed decisions about what's
available in terms of care and preschool choices but our families have systemically
been denied transparent access to this information. Why? Because you all voted
against commissioned recommendations (RAND) to reinstate a centralized day care
and preschool wait list for resident families. To quote Laurel and Hardy "Well, here's
another fine mess you've gotten us into!" The Gandara Park Neighborhood would not be
under siege today if you'd done the right thing with your votes! A motion by
Councilwoman Himmelrich was on the table to return our city to a centralized wait list
during the Zoning Ordinance update and you all voted it down. We expect better and at
this point we see no alternative but to petition for reinstatement of a resident serving
priority list. Santa Monica families should not have to compete against the region for
our local daycare and preschool space. Furthermore, we deserve the services we are
paying for - not some randomly generated short list delivered from Connections for
Children.
Thus far, support for this preschool has been limited. A Bloomberg funded
spokesperson, individulas profiting from early childhood education and a non resident
spokesperson from a non city sponsored task force. On the other hand, residents of
Delaware Ave. and its surrounding blocks, the Pico Neighborhood Association,
Wilmont Neighborhood Board, Friends of Sunset Park Board and North East
Neighbors Association plus neighbors across the city stand united in opposition to this
proposal. Why, without the necessary data to establish need and in direct opposition to
the data at hand, ought the desires of the few outweigh the informed people's
opposition?
For the above reasons, we respectfully ask council to do the following:
Deny this CUP and the requests for any variance.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
157 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
Direct staff to study the CUPs of all existing preschools, regularly update this
information and make it easily available to the public as well as anyone making
an application to open a preschool in Santa Monica.
Request staff to prepare an amendment to our zoning ordinance for the purpose
of restoring the centralized preschool and daycare wait list that will prioritize
seats for resident families
Direct staff to attach a needs-based data analysis each time a preschool CUP is
brought before the Planning Commission.
Thank you,
The Thanawalla Family
Santa Monica Moms Advocates for SM Day Care and Preschool Directory (SMMA-
DCPD)
Item 6-A
12/5/17
158 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Cc:Nikki Kolhoff
Subject:City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
Dear City Council,
I agree with the comment of the Board of Friends of Sunset Park and incorporate it herein in its
entirety. In addition, I urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and prevent the encroachment of
commercial development into residential neighborhood zones for the following additional reasons.
1. City’s Failure to Plan and Use Planning Tools Should Not Become the Burden of the
Neighborhoods. It should be obvious that our City’s decision to add thousands of housing units and
millions of square feet of commercial development would result in an increased demand for child
care, particularly from non-residents commuting to our city for work. So it is inexcusable that our City
Staff failed to use the tools available to them to create sufficient space. How many mixed use
developments has the City approved through Development Agreements with no on-site day
care? Even more egregious is the entire Downtown Community Plan that adds three million square
feet of commercial space and not a single child care seat.
The only way to get child care space is to require it in the code or negotiate for it in a Development
Agreement and our City will do neither downtown. This is because, in the interest of developers, all
developments under 75,000 sq ft will be fast-tracked administrative approvals. The only
Development Agreement are expected in connection with luxury hotels and we doubt they want a
daycare in their lobby. Oh sure, the City will collect fees, but fees do not magically create
space. And that is why we see commercial day care providers buying up the “cheap” real estate in in
Santa Monica’s most sensitive R1 neighborhoods to build daycare centers and then happily accept
the developer fees as tuition offsets for non-resident children. The neighborhoods lose, all because
our City failed to require on-site daycare for new development.
2. It is Disingenuous to Say This is Permitted by the Code. First, the applicant is seeking waivers
from the rules. There is a process for seeking the waivers under the Code, but let’s be clear that this
development is NOT by right, and no more permitted than any other discretionary deviation requested
in this City. The applicant is not entitled to this project and they do not appear to have met the CUP
or Fence/Wall/Hedge requirements.
Second, neighborhood groups fought this commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods
during the Zoning Ordinance Update of 2015, so the fact that a waiver process even exists for this
project is insulting to residents. Resident comments were ignored by City Staff, the Planning
Commission and City Council during the ZOU, so while commercial day care is technically permitted
with a CUP, the option was inserted against the wishes of residents and violates the LUCE’s promise
to preserve the character of our neighborhoods.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
159 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
As a reminder, members of boards of four of seven Neighborhood Organizations wrote about this in
their extensive comments to City Council for the ZOU and asked the City to remove Commercial
Child Care from all residential neighborhoods since this is a commercial use. We said that state
mandated small and large family daycare in residential districts is more appropriately scaled for
residential neighborhoods and adequately meets the needs of residents. We do not want to
incentivize the commercialization of residential neighborhoods via commercial child care.
The LUCE calls for neighborhoods to be protected from commercial incursions. The State of
California does not require this commercial intrusion into residential neighborhoods and no rationale
has been provided for this significant policy change. Residential neighborhoods continue to welcome
small- and large family daycare. Commercial Child Care is a greater intensification of commercial use
of facilities in the residential districts. These facilities have the ability for a significant amount of
children, with added traffic and noise for extended hours. This commercial activity should be limited to
the Commercial and Mixed Use Corridors.
3. The City has a Terrible Enforcement Track Record. If this is approved, it will be based on
promises made by the applicant and with strings attached. We have learned from experience that
Staff often fails to accurately capture applicant promises as conditions in the CUP. We have also
learned that the City has a terrible record of enforcing compliance with its own laws, CUPs and other
entitlements, and even grants more entitlements to property owners in violation for the sake of
revenue. Projects such as The Shore, PS1, PaliHouse, and 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard come to
mind - all of which continue to operate in violation of their entitlements with apparent impunity.
Residents are still waiting on the ordinance that Staff was directed by Council to draft last February
that prohibits the City from granting more entitlements to a property already in violation of its existing
entitlements, which shows how high a priority enforcement of compliance is to the City. We have
learned that Staff has not begun to put pen to paper and that it would not be broad enough to cover
future projects of the same owner, which is obviously a necessary scope increase given projects like
this school that are intended to be the first in a series.
4. There is no Data Showing a Need for this Project. This point is perhaps the most important in
whether you are carrying out your legal and ethical obligations and fiduciary duties owed to the
residents whom you represent to use our resources in a responsible manner. We have yet to see
comprehensive data presented in support of this project showing how many children need day care in
Santa Monica, how many day care spaces currently exist in Santa Monica, how many of these needs
and seats are residents and how many are for non-residents generated by all the development in
Santa Monica, and whether day care is needed in this particular location and for what ages. Absent
this data, there is no way Staff, Planning Commission or Council could possibly make an informed
determination that all of the exceptions to our laws are justified and to grant the CUP.
Again, I urge you to to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186. In addition, I also request that you direct staff
to include the zoning ordinance amendments suggested by residents back in 2015 in order to protect
residential neighborhoods from commercial encroachment, as required by the LUCE.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
160 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:Council 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Support for the appeal
December 5, 2017
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council members.
I write on my own behalf to support the appeal in 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A for the reasons below:
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-
Preservation/Santa%20Monica%20Citywide%20Historic%20Context%20Statement_2.4.2017.pdf
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: February 10, 2017
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Draft Historic Resource Inventory Update Historic Context Statement
Dear Commissioners: Please find the enclosed Draft Historic Resource Inventory Update Historic Context
Statement dated January 31, 2017 prepared by Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group….
p. 270 -- THEME: JAPANESE AMERICAN COMMUNITY (1899-1977)
OVERVIEW - This theme addresses residential, institutional, and commercial properties relating to the history
of the Japanese American community in Santa Monica from 1899 to 1977. This period represents the earliest
known development related to the Japanese community in Santa Monica, through approximately forty years in
the past. There may be extant resources associated with Santa Monica’s Japanese population from the recent
past that are outside the scope of this study.
The Asian American population of the United States has long been subjected to discriminatory practices;
though the Nikkei community of Santa Monica lived relatively peacefully amongst the City’s culturally diverse
population, they were subjected to nationwide policies such as
-- the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907-1908, barring Japanese immigrant laborers from entering the U.S.; and
-- the Alien Land Laws of 1913 and 1920, which prohibited first generation Japanese Americans from owning
land until 1952.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
161 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
When thousands of west coast Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II, peaceful
enclaves like Santa Monica’s were completely disrupted. Only a small number of Japanese residents resettled in
Santa Monica after the war, usually in working class areas like the Pico neighborhood.
The community was again devastated with the construction of the Santa Monica (Interstate 10) Freeway in
the late 1950s and 1960s.
For these reasons, many resources relating to this theme are no longer extant; remaining resources are
predominantly found in the Pico or Ocean Park neighborhoods of the City. This theme is arranged
chronologically in a narrative format that describes major patterns of development, events, and persons
significant to the history of Japanese Americans in Santa Monica….”
p. 42 -- Completion of Pico Boulevard in 1914, the shortest route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica and Ocean
Park, was instrumental in its growth and development. However, another transportation milestone, the
completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension, later scarred the Pico neighborhood – disrupting the natural
flow of traffic and resulting in the demolition of hundreds of homes. Many of today’s industrial parcels adjacent
to the freeway were originally residential streets of modest houses and bungalows.
p. 273 -- Japanese incarceration during World War II effectively eliminated Santa Monica’s Japanese
community.
p. 274 -- Santa Monica witnessed the arrival of new and returning Nikkei in the decade between 1950 and 1960.
They primarily moved to the center of the city, as opposed to the scattered residential settlement before the war.
The community first congregated near the Free Methodist Church, before settling on Michigan Avenue,
Delaware Avenue, 12th Street, 18th Street, 19th Street, Yorkshire Avenue, Urban Avenue, Virginia Avenue,
Kansas Avenue, and 22nd Street….
p. 275 – The history and hardships endured by the Nikkei of Santa Monica have been recognized in the
community since the late 1950s. In 1959, a memorial tower entitled Ireito was erected at Santa Monica’s
Woodlawn Cemetery to commemorate those Japanese residents buried there and who had made sacrifices in
World War II and the Korean War.
p. 274 -- In 1966, the Santa Monica’s Japanese community and several other of its ethnic enclaves were
disrupted, as the newly constructed Santa Monica Freeway barreled through the center of the Pico
neighborhood. Politically disenfranchised and underrepresented in local government, those living within
the path of the Freeway had no choice but to sell their homes, often for paltry sums. Unable to afford most
housing in Santa Monica, minorities were forced to move to neighboring communities. African Americans and
Latinos primarily relocated outside the city, while the majority of Japanese American families were able to find
housing in Santa Monica north or south of the freeway.
************************************************************
If you deny the appeal of the 2953 Delaware project, you will be writing the next chapter in this
history.
How so?
Elderly residents of Japanese ancestry who lived through these sorry events still live in the Pico
neighborhood near Gandara and Ishihara Parks, including next door to the proposed project.
Delaware Street is peaceful, but it is a tiny enclave surrounded by
Item 6-A
12/5/17
162 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
-- the noisy I-10 Santa Monica Freeway to the south,
-- Centinela Avenue to the east -- a busy commuter street due to the I-10 freeway entrance and exit
near Pico Blvd.
-- the Exposition Light Rail maintenance yard to the north (which seems to noisily
operate all night long),
-- heavily trafficked Stewart Street, which backs up due to the at grade rail crossing at
Exposition Blvd. and Stewart
-- Gandara/Stewart Park, buit atop a landfill which apparently releases methane gas
-- the City Yards and trash transfer station a bit further west
In addition, south of the Expo line are office buildings which generate a lot of commuter traffic:
-- Agensys at 1800 Stewart Street, which has not been able to meet its AVR goals
-- Lantana campus on Olympic and Exposition Blvds., stretching from Stewart nearly
to Centinela
Just north of the Expo line are:
-- The Pen Factory at 2701 Olympic Blvd. (stretching from 26th to Stewart) with
222,000 sq ft and 700 parking spaces
-- The new SMC Center for Design and Media satellite campus (80,000 sq ft) and the new 3-story
KCRW Media Center at 1660 Stewart Street
-- Santa Monica Gateway at Stewart and Colorado, with 192,000 sq ft and 640 parking spaces
All of this additional development, plus the increasing use of WAZE by commuters, portends much
more cut-through commuter traffic on Delaware and the surrounding streets.
Please do not dump even more on these residents.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
163 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
Zina Josephs
Item 6-A
12/5/17
164 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Cc:Nikki Kolhoff
Subject:City Council re Agenda Item 6.A, Dec. 5, 2017 - Appeal from Gandara Park
Neighborhood
Dear City Council,
I agree with the comment of the Board of Friends of Sunset Park and incorporate it herein in its
entirety. In addition, I urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186 and prevent the encroachment of
commercial development into residential neighborhood zones for the following additional reasons.
1. City’s Failure to Plan and Use Planning Tools Should Not Become the Burden of the
Neighborhoods. It should be obvious that our City’s decision to add thousands of housing units and
millions of square feet of commercial development would result in an increased demand for child
care, particularly from non-residents commuting to our city for work. So it is inexcusable that our City
Staff failed to use the tools available to them to create sufficient space. How many mixed use
developments has the City approved through Development Agreements with no on-site day
care? Even more egregious is the entire Downtown Community Plan that adds three million square
feet of commercial space and not a single child care seat.
The only way to get child care space is to require it in the code or negotiate for it in a Development
Agreement and our City will do neither downtown. This is because, in the interest of developers, all
developments under 75,000 sq ft will be fast-tracked administrative approvals. The only
Development Agreement are expected in connection with luxury hotels and we doubt they want a
daycare in their lobby. Oh sure, the City will collect fees, but fees do not magically create
space. And that is why we see commercial day care providers buying up the “cheap” real estate in in
Santa Monica’s most sensitive R1 neighborhoods to build daycare centers and then happily accept
the developer fees as tuition offsets for non-resident children. The neighborhoods lose, all because
our City failed to require on-site daycare for new development.
2. It is Disingenuous to Say This is Permitted by the Code. First, the applicant is seeking waivers
from the rules. There is a process for seeking the waivers under the Code, but let’s be clear that this
development is NOT by right, and no more permitted than any other discretionary deviation requested
in this City. The applicant is not entitled to this project and they do not appear to have met the CUP
or Fence/Wall/Hedge requirements.
Second, neighborhood groups fought this commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods
during the Zoning Ordinance Update of 2015, so the fact that a waiver process even exists for this
project is insulting to residents. Resident comments were ignored by City Staff, the Planning
Commission and City Council during the ZOU, so while commercial day care is technically permitted
with a CUP, the option was inserted against the wishes of residents and violates the LUCE’s promise
to preserve the character of our neighborhoods.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
165 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
As a reminder, members of boards of four of seven Neighborhood Organizations wrote about this in
their extensive comments to City Council for the ZOU and asked the City to remove Commercial
Child Care from all residential neighborhoods since this is a commercial use. We said that state
mandated small and large family daycare in residential districts is more appropriately scaled for
residential neighborhoods and adequately meets the needs of residents. We do not want to
incentivize the commercialization of residential neighborhoods via commercial child care.
The LUCE calls for neighborhoods to be protected from commercial incursions. The State of
California does not require this commercial intrusion into residential neighborhoods and no rationale
has been provided for this significant policy change. Residential neighborhoods continue to welcome
small- and large family daycare. Commercial Child Care is a greater intensification of commercial use
of facilities in the residential districts. These facilities have the ability for a significant amount of
children, with added traffic and noise for extended hours. This commercial activity should be limited to
the Commercial and Mixed Use Corridors.
3. The City has a Terrible Enforcement Track Record. If this is approved, it will be based on
promises made by the applicant and with strings attached. We have learned from experience that
Staff often fails to accurately capture applicant promises as conditions in the CUP. We have also
learned that the City has a terrible record of enforcing compliance with its own laws, CUPs and other
entitlements, and even grants more entitlements to property owners in violation for the sake of
revenue. Projects such as The Shore, PS1, PaliHouse, and 2901 Ocean Park Boulevard come to
mind - all of which continue to operate in violation of their entitlements with apparent impunity.
Residents are still waiting on the ordinance that Staff was directed by Council to draft last February
that prohibits the City from granting more entitlements to a property already in violation of its existing
entitlements, which shows how high a priority enforcement of compliance is to the City. We have
learned that Staff has not begun to put pen to paper and that it would not be broad enough to cover
future projects of the same owner, which is obviously a necessary scope increase given projects like
this school that are intended to be the first in a series.
4. There is no Data Showing a Need for this Project. This point is perhaps the most important in
whether you are carrying out your legal and ethical obligations and fiduciary duties owed to the
residents whom you represent to use our resources in a responsible manner. We have yet to see
comprehensive data presented in support of this project showing how many children need day care in
Santa Monica, how many day care spaces currently exist in Santa Monica, how many of these needs
and seats are residents and how many are for non-residents generated by all the development in
Santa Monica, and whether day care is needed in this particular location and for what ages. Absent
this data, there is no way Staff, Planning Commission or Council could possibly make an informed
determination that all of the exceptions to our laws are justified and to grant the CUP.
Again, I urge you to to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-0186. In addition, I also request that you direct staff
to include the zoning ordinance amendments suggested by residents back in 2015 in order to protect
residential neighborhoods from commercial encroachment, as required by the LUCE.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 6-A
12/5/17
166 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:Council 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Support for the appeal
December 5, 2017
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council members.
I write on my own behalf to support the appeal in 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A for the reasons below:
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-
Preservation/Santa%20Monica%20Citywide%20Historic%20Context%20Statement_2.4.2017.pdf
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: February 10, 2017
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Draft Historic Resource Inventory Update Historic Context Statement
Dear Commissioners: Please find the enclosed Draft Historic Resource Inventory Update Historic Context
Statement dated January 31, 2017 prepared by Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group….
p. 270 -- THEME: JAPANESE AMERICAN COMMUNITY (1899-1977)
OVERVIEW - This theme addresses residential, institutional, and commercial properties relating to the history
of the Japanese American community in Santa Monica from 1899 to 1977. This period represents the earliest
known development related to the Japanese community in Santa Monica, through approximately forty years in
the past. There may be extant resources associated with Santa Monica’s Japanese population from the recent
past that are outside the scope of this study.
The Asian American population of the United States has long been subjected to discriminatory practices;
though the Nikkei community of Santa Monica lived relatively peacefully amongst the City’s culturally diverse
population, they were subjected to nationwide policies such as
-- the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907-1908, barring Japanese immigrant laborers from entering the U.S.; and
-- the Alien Land Laws of 1913 and 1920, which prohibited first generation Japanese Americans from owning
land until 1952.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
167 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
When thousands of west coast Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II, peaceful
enclaves like Santa Monica’s were completely disrupted. Only a small number of Japanese residents resettled in
Santa Monica after the war, usually in working class areas like the Pico neighborhood.
The community was again devastated with the construction of the Santa Monica (Interstate 10) Freeway in
the late 1950s and 1960s.
For these reasons, many resources relating to this theme are no longer extant; remaining resources are
predominantly found in the Pico or Ocean Park neighborhoods of the City. This theme is arranged
chronologically in a narrative format that describes major patterns of development, events, and persons
significant to the history of Japanese Americans in Santa Monica….”
p. 42 -- Completion of Pico Boulevard in 1914, the shortest route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica and Ocean
Park, was instrumental in its growth and development. However, another transportation milestone, the
completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension, later scarred the Pico neighborhood – disrupting the natural
flow of traffic and resulting in the demolition of hundreds of homes. Many of today’s industrial parcels adjacent
to the freeway were originally residential streets of modest houses and bungalows.
p. 273 -- Japanese incarceration during World War II effectively eliminated Santa Monica’s Japanese
community.
p. 274 -- Santa Monica witnessed the arrival of new and returning Nikkei in the decade between 1950 and 1960.
They primarily moved to the center of the city, as opposed to the scattered residential settlement before the war.
The community first congregated near the Free Methodist Church, before settling on Michigan Avenue,
Delaware Avenue, 12th Street, 18th Street, 19th Street, Yorkshire Avenue, Urban Avenue, Virginia Avenue,
Kansas Avenue, and 22nd Street….
p. 275 – The history and hardships endured by the Nikkei of Santa Monica have been recognized in the
community since the late 1950s. In 1959, a memorial tower entitled Ireito was erected at Santa Monica’s
Woodlawn Cemetery to commemorate those Japanese residents buried there and who had made sacrifices in
World War II and the Korean War.
p. 274 -- In 1966, the Santa Monica’s Japanese community and several other of its ethnic enclaves were
disrupted, as the newly constructed Santa Monica Freeway barreled through the center of the Pico
neighborhood. Politically disenfranchised and underrepresented in local government, those living within
the path of the Freeway had no choice but to sell their homes, often for paltry sums. Unable to afford most
housing in Santa Monica, minorities were forced to move to neighboring communities. African Americans and
Latinos primarily relocated outside the city, while the majority of Japanese American families were able to find
housing in Santa Monica north or south of the freeway.
************************************************************
If you deny the appeal of the 2953 Delaware project, you will be writing the next chapter in this
history.
How so?
Elderly residents of Japanese ancestry who lived through these sorry events still live in the Pico
neighborhood near Gandara and Ishihara Parks, including next door to the proposed project.
Delaware Street is peaceful, but it is a tiny enclave surrounded by
Item 6-A
12/5/17
168 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
3
-- the noisy I-10 Santa Monica Freeway to the south,
-- Centinela Avenue to the east -- a busy commuter street due to the I-10 freeway entrance and exit
near Pico Blvd.
-- the Exposition Light Rail maintenance yard to the north (which seems to noisily
operate all night long),
-- heavily trafficked Stewart Street, which backs up due to the at grade rail crossing at
Exposition Blvd. and Stewart
-- Gandara/Stewart Park, buit atop a landfill which apparently releases methane gas
-- the City Yards and trash transfer station a bit further west
In addition, south of the Expo line are office buildings which generate a lot of commuter traffic:
-- Agensys at 1800 Stewart Street, which has not been able to meet its AVR goals
-- Lantana campus on Olympic and Exposition Blvds., stretching from Stewart nearly
to Centinela
Just north of the Expo line are:
-- The Pen Factory at 2701 Olympic Blvd. (stretching from 26th to Stewart) with
222,000 sq ft and 700 parking spaces
-- The new SMC Center for Design and Media satellite campus (80,000 sq ft) and the new 3-story
KCRW Media Center at 1660 Stewart Street
-- Santa Monica Gateway at Stewart and Colorado, with 192,000 sq ft and 640 parking spaces
All of this additional development, plus the increasing use of WAZE by commuters, portends much
more cut-through commuter traffic on Delaware and the surrounding streets.
Please do not dump even more on these residents.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
169 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
4
Zina Josephs
Item 6-A
12/5/17
170 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brian O'Neil <bpo42@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:22 PM
To:Gleam Davis
Cc:Nada Shamonki; councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Motion to Continue Item 6A (Gandara Park Appeal)
Dear Mayor Pro Tempore Davis,
I write on behalf of the Gandara Park Neighborhood’s Appeal 17ENT-0186,
which is scheduled to be to heard at tonight’s council meeting (Item 6-A).
In light of the fact only 5 council members will be present tonight (Winterer
and O’Day being on excused absences), we have requested that our
hearing be continued to a later date when all seven (or at least six)
members will be present. We are simply seeking a fair and full hearing, and
we believe that having to get 4 out of 5 votes from the members present is
an unfair burden on the Gandara Park residents (the appellant).
Sue Himmelrich has indicated that she will introduce a motion to continue
Item 6-A at the beginning of tonight’s council meeting at 5:30pm.
In the interest of fairness and adequate due process of our appeal, I urge
you to vote in favor of the motion to continue.
Highest Regards,
Brian O’Neil
562-252-6110
Item 6-A
12/5/17
171 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:PNA SM <pna90404@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; tony.vazquez@smgov.nett;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; terry.oday@smgov.nett; Sue Himmelrich; Pam
OConnor
Subject:Council Item # 6 appeal 17ent-0186
Dear City Councilors I am writting to you as an idividual, please deny this agenda item.
The Cities general plan is mandated by state law, every California City and county
must adopt a comprehensive long term general plan containing 7 State mandated
elements, elelment #3 is housing.
You are not protecting Santa Monica’s housing as required by State Law.
The Proposed Preschool is opposed by almost every neighbor in the surrounding
neighborhood, including all immediate neighbors. Gandara Park Neighborhood,
although recently named, has a long history with some residents, especially those of
Japanese-American descent that moved to the neighborhood, as it was one of the few
places to allow Japanese-Americans to buy homes following their internment during
World War II. Many of most impacted residents are Japanese-American internment
camp survivors in their 80s and 90s. (we currently have over 200 petition signatures
against the proposed Preschool)
yours Sincerely Cris McLeod
Item 6-A
12/5/17
172 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
173 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
174 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
175 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
176 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
177 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
178 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
179 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
180 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
181 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
182 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
183 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
184 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
185 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
186 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
187 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
188 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
189 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
190 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
191 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
192 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
193 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
194 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
195 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
196 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
197 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
198 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
199 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
200 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
201 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
202 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
203 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
204 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
205 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
206 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
207 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
208 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
209 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marilyn Judson <marilynjudson@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 1:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Preschool in Pico Neighborhood near Ishihara Park
Dear Council Members and Madame City Clerk,
Please oppose the development permit being sought in the Pico Neighborhood for a preschool in a residential neighborhood
near Ishihara Park. This school is larger than the “family day care” envisioned by the recent zoning change, which also was
inconsistent with the goal of a quiet neighborhood. Most of the neighborhood associations opposed that zoning change last
year. Now that the Planning commission has approved something even larger that will bring in even more traffic and noise, I
am very disappointed.
Please, please, please: remember who lives in Santa Monica, not just who works here!
Warmly,
Marilyn Judson
850 Princeton St.
Santa Monica, CA 90403-2218
Phone: 310-453-1892
FAX: 310-453-1892
(must call prior to FAXing)
Cell: 310-804-5300
Before printing a copy of this email, please consider the impact on forests and global warming.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
210 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carol Dickinson <caroldickinson@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 2:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Gandara Park
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carol Dickinson <caroldickinson@verizon.net>
Subject: Gandara Park
Date: December 5, 2017 at 2:31:49 PM PST
To: gleam.davis@smgov.net
Dear Pro Tem Davis,
As a resident of Santa Monica and a longtime pre-school teacher, I find it outrageous that the
city is considering placing a commercial pre-school in a residential area. The character of
Gandara Park will be destroyed due to the resulting noise, traffic, congestion, daily disruptions
and safety concerns the will inevitably result from such an action. We already have enough pre-
schools in the city. Why should a residential neighborhood be sacrificed? Would you personally
want to live next door to this commercial venture?
As a pre-school teacher, I am well aware of the problems that will occur. These are families
and seniors who live in this neighborhood. Please consider them!
Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 6-A
12/5/17
211 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ryan Childers <rmchilders@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 2:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Liz Bar-El
Subject:Support of Conditional use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0417, & Fence/Wall
Modification 17ENT-0418 located at 2953 Delaware Ave., Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Appeal 17ENT-0861 of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0147, and
Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148
2953 Delaware Ave
Appellant: Nada Shamonki, Esq.
Applicant: Laila Taslim
Property Owner: untitled No. 1 School
Hello,
My name is Ryan Childers and I wanted to write to express my support of the proposed school at 2953
Delaware Ave under Permit 17ENT-0417. I am a resident of the neighborhood that the preschool is located in
and I think it would be great to have a neighborhood preschool that is attempting to inclusive of local families
and provide a preschool within walking distance of residence. Local preschools are often utilized by the
families who live in the neighborhood and enrich the community they are in. I hope that it fulfills it's mission to
provide some tuition assistance to low income families and hire local teachers.
I live at 2928 Exposition Blvd which is located across the alley to the north west of the proposed preschool. The
parking for my building shares the same alley way with the back of the school and I do not believe the proposed
parking or drop off for children would have detrimental affects to the neighborhood. The alley way is used by
neighborhood residences to both park and some residents run businesses in their garage. It's not a very busy
alley, it is a decently wide alley for 2 cars to pass and there is plenty of room for everyone.
Delaware Avenue is not a busy street even during peak rush hour traffic. It is very easy to park on this street,
there is an abundance of street parking and I don't see how a few more cars entering the neighborhood for a
quick trip would make the larger traffic issue in the area any worse.
The fence modification is asking for a modest height accommodation due to the site conditions and there are
reasonable accommodations for the fence to be set back from the wall and open to view. This should keep the
open feel of the neighborhood.
I find that the reaction from the Preserve Gandara Neighborhood Group to be misleading as it misrepresents
how a preschool works and many of the stipulations required by the zoning code. I have taken the time to read
the planning commissions findings for the conditional use permit, variance and fence wall modification and find
that reasonable accommodates were made to mitigate traffic, noise and disruptions in the community.
I understand the homeowners along Delaware Ave are concerned about the unknown potential for the preschool
on the street, but they don't take into account that their street is part of a larger community. This preschool
could be utilized by many families in the neighborhood. Many of my neighbors that are one block away rent
and have children that could attend. 70% of Santa Monica households rent in the 90404 zip code and the houses
along Delaware are not affordable to the vast majority of residents. These houses sell for over 1 million dollars
and you would have to have an income of almost triple the average resident of Santa Monica to owner a house
Item 6-A
12/5/17
212 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
in this neighborhood. The an annual income to afford a house here is around $200,000, while the median
income in this zip code is $74,000.
It saddens me that it appears that is is all or nothing for this preschool, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground
in this neighborhood or a way to compromise. It'd like to see a way to allow this school to operate there. I hope
you vote to allow this preschool, I would welcome it in the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ryan Childers
Item 6-A
12/5/17
213 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Celina M <celina.meites@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 3:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6, 2953 Delaware Avenue
Dear City Council Members,
I understand that you are reviewing the application for Untitled No 1. School. I would like to express my
support of adding high quality preschools to our City's residential neighborhoods.
I have been a homeowner in the City since 2011 and like many others in our community, decided to make this
City my home for reasons including the ability to experience life here on foot. I walk to stores, to restaurants,
and over the last 5 years, to my children's schools.
My children attended a fantastic preschool, in an otherwise mostly residential area, which was located 2
buildings down from my first home. Having access to a school so close was very much a part of the walk-able
lifestyle I chose when choosing to make Santa Monica my home.
I have since moved a few blocks away from the preschool and now own a home only a block away from
Roosevelt Elementary School, another neighborhood school, and still have the joy of being able to share a
walking commute with my children.
Santa Monica has offered my family a special lifestyle and a great sense of community by permitting
neighborhood schools. I hope other families in other parts of the City will have the ability to experience Santa
Monica as we have.
Thank you giving my comments your consideration.
Sincerely,
Celina Meites
Item 6-A
12/5/17
214 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
215 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
216 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
217 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
218 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
219 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
Item 6-A
12/5/17
220 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 3:27 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Katie E. Lichtig; David Martin
Subject:FW: Proposed Child Care and Early Education Facility at 2953 Delaware
Council‐
Please see the email below regarding the 2953 appeal.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: John Maceri [mailto:jmaceri@thepeopleconcern.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 2:44 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Proposed Child Care and Early Education Facility at 2953 Delaware
Dear Council Members,
Unfortunately, I’m not able to attend tonight’s Council meeting to speak on Item 6A, but wanted to express my support
for this project. I appreciate the significant challenges involved in siting anything within the City, and the increasing
frustration residents have with development and traffic, which influences how they feel about their quality of life. I
know you have to balance multiple competing priorities, many of which put things that will benefit the larger
community at odds with the local neighbors. Our agency has been involved with many of these siting battles over the
years, and we know first‐hand the toll it takes on everyone involved, yourselves included.
As you thoughtfully consider all the information, I urge you to think about the long‐term benefits to the children and
their families that will be cared for and educated at the facility. It’s impossible to know the collective impact that a
quality program will produce over the years, but there’s no doubt that our community and its residents need and
deserve more opportunities to access high quality early education programs. The City’s commitment to Well‐Being and
Life‐Long Learning are supported by this project.
There are always going to be arguments to oppose projects. Some of them reasonable and legitimate, and some not. In
the end, I hope the facts and allowed use under the zoning code will prevail. I appreciate your consideration of this
important issue.
Sincerely,
John
Item 6-A
12/5/17
221 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
2
John Maceri
Executive Director
THE PEOPLE CONCERN | OPCC & LAMP COMMUNITY UNITED
p: 310.264.6646 ext. 229
a: 1453 16th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
w: www.thepeopleconcern.org e: jmaceri@thepeopleconcern.org
OPCC & Lamp Community are united under one name and one mission. Click here to learn more.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
222 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:William Schoene <williamschoene@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:12/5/17 item 6-A
Honorable City Councilpersons:
I urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT‐0186 and block the establishment of a 20‐student preschool at 2953 Delaware
Avenue.
As socially desirable as child care is in general, commercial child care is a business nonetheless, and permitting a
commercial childcare business to replace R1 housing is NOT socially desirable, either for the R1 neighborhood being
affected, or for the city's stated goal of increasing the housing stock.
What was the basis for approving this zoning variance in the first place? Does this represent a new city policy? What
would be the basis for denying another such request and could a denial be defended in court? In other words what will
prevent other R1 homes from being converted into commercial childcare facilities? Or other businesses?
This permit would appear to be a dangerous precedent.
Specifically, allowing a commercial operation on a narrow residential street like Delaware Avenue will degrade the
residential character of the Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already stressed from all the commercial and
infrastructure development that continues in the surrounding areas.
Item 6-A
12/5/17
223 of 223 Item 6-A
12/5/17
ATTACHMENT E
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting
requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant
posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 8 weeks prior to
the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting
and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number,
brief project description, name and telephone number of appli cant, site address, date,
time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is
the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a (300 foot or 500 foot) radius of the project and published in the Santa
Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing.
December 5, 2017 Council Hearing (Appeal)
Site posting verification: Received on October 11, 2017
Applicant and appellant received confirmation of scheduled hearing date: September 26,
2017
September 6, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing
Site posting verification: Received on June 26, 2017
Applicant notified by e-mail of the subject hearing date: June 22, 2017
In addition, in the CUP application, the applicant provided the following information
documenting outreach to property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood
associations:
December 22, 2015
Santa Monica Daily Press advertisement introduced Untitled No. 1 early
education center and stated its non-discriminatory policy.
December 2015/January 2016
Applicant hand-delivered flyers in English and Spanish door-to-door to
(approximately 70) Delaware Ave. neighbors introducing Untitled No. 1with
intent to site the early education center on their street, prior to acquiring a
property. This process included personal conversations with neighbors who
came to their door.
May 2016
Applicant hand-delivered flyers in English door-to-door to (approximately 70)
Delaware Ave. neighbors about intent to site the early education center on
their street, with specific request for referrals to potential homeowners
interested to sell their house for this purpose. This process again included
personal conversations with neighbors who came to their door.
February 2017 & March 2017
Emailed News 01 to wider community that site was found. Emailed News 02 to
wider community that architects were selected. Email list included those (so far
5) on Delaware Ave. who gave their email addresses.
February 25, 2017
Applicant attended grand opening of Ishihara Park and conversed with
neighbors there about Untitled No. 1's intent to be stewards of the park.
March 6, 2017
Applicant attended Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board to introduce Untitled
No. 1and offered further involvement.
May 2017
Applicant hand-delivered flyers in English door-to-door to (approximately 60)
Delaware, Stewart, Exposition, and Dorchester neighbors about the early
education center including address, contact name and email address (all flyers
always included Untitled No. 1's email address). This process again included
personal conversations with neighbors who came to their door.
August 20, 2017
Informational meeting for neighbors, to be held onsite. Images, renderings
available will be shared and questions answered. Applicant will reflect and
respond in follow up communication to any new or unforeseen concerns that
may arise. This gathering is to serve as a neighborhood forum to discuss
Untitled No. 1.
The applicant held a Neighborhood Forum at the subject site on August 20, 2017. City
staff was present at the meeting. (A summary discussion of the meeting is provided in the
staff report.)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appeal 17ENT-0861 of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use
Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance (17ENT-0147), & Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148
2953 Delaware Avenue
APPLICANT: Laila Taslimi/Untitled No. 1 School
APPELLANT: Nada Shamonki, Esq.
PROPERTY OWNER: Untitled No. 1 School
The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the following request:
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-
0147 and Fence Modification 17ENT-0148 to allow the establishment of a Child Care and Early Education
Facility for up to 20 children in the R1 (Singe-Unit Residential) zoning district. The Variance is required to
allow parking that is not located in a garage, to allow one parking space in the front setback area, and to
provide only one loading space. A Fence Modification is required to permit a front yard fence height of
more than four feet.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2017, AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Appeal, 2953 Delaware Avenue
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Or email to councilmtgitems@smgov.net
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Elizabeth Bar -El, AICP
at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at liz.bar-el@smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter
during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.smgov.net. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For
disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance.
Every attempt will made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format
upon request. The Metro Exposition Line Downtown Santa Monica Terminus Station, Santa Monica “Big Blue” Bus
Lines #2, #3, Rapid 3, #7, #8 and #9 service City Hall and the Civic Center. Bike racks are provided. Pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may
be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al
número (310) 458-8341.
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cassendra Munro <cassendra_s@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 13, 2018 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Appeal, 2953 Delaware Ave
Dear City Clerk,
I own and live at 3008 Exposition Blvd. I am in opposition of facilitating a Child Care and Early
Education Facility in my neighborhood. I do not wish for the approval of the permit, variance or fence
modification. This would adversely affect the neighborhood's appearance and peaceful setting. I do
not want an increase in traffic since the traffic has already been severly and poorply impacted by the
Metro.
Thank you for taking my concern to the on Jan 23.
Cassendra A. Munro, MSN, RN, CNOR
Item 6-A
01/23/18
1 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Michele P.Sartell
2407 Fourth Street 9 •Santa Monica California 90405 310.452.5629 michelesartell@gmail.com
November 20,2017
The Honorable Ted Winterer, Mayor
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street,Room 209
Santa Monica,California 90401
AGENDA ITEM —DECEMBER 5,2017
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER -2953 DELAWARE AVENUE,SANTA MONICA
SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Winterer:
I am writing as a long-time resident of Santa Monica to urge the support of you and your
councilmember colleagues for the proposed child development center at 2953 Delaware
Avenue,Santa Monica 90404. The center proposes providing high quality early care and
education services to up to 20 preschool age children of mixed economic backgrounds with a
commitment to children of low-income families eligible for subsidized services.
While Santa Monica compared to communities throughout Los Angeles County hosts a more
than adequate supply of early care and education services for working families with preschool
age children,capacity runs short for low-to moderate-income families eligible for subsidized
services.According to 2016 needs assessment data compiled by the Los Angeles County Child
Care Planning Committee,44%of preschool age children of income eligible families residing in
90404 are unable to access subsidized services.Neighboring zip codes —90402,90403 and
90405 —also show unmet need.(See Subsidized Early Care and Education Capacity for Low
Income Working Families -Preschool (Ages 3 to 5)-2016 at
http://cao.lacounty qov/ccp/pdf/Subsidized/Subsidized Child Development%20-
%20Preschool.pd
As a parent of a now 22 year old young man,I understand the enduring value of our
participation in a high quality early care and education program that serves a diverse population
of children and families. Our family was privileged to participate in The Children’s Place located
in Ocean Park,which has served both families eligible for subsidized services as well as fee
paying parents.I credit the program in part for instilling values of kindness,generosity,
openness to others and empathy in my son.Furthermore, some of his friendships established
in program continue to this day.
Thank you for your thoughiful consideration of the proposed center and the families of our
communities that struggle to access early care and education services so they may work and
contribute to their children and families’overall well-being.
Cc:Mayor Pro Tempore Gleam Davis
Councilmember Sue Himmeirich
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Pam O’Connor
Councilmember Terry O’Day
Councilmember Tony Vasquez
Ms.Laila Talimi
Item 6-A
01/23/18
2 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
3 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: John Rogers <rogers@gseis.ucla.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 8:55 PM
To: <council@smgov.net>
Subject: support for Untitled No. 1 preschool at 2953 Delaware Ave (item for Dec 5)
Dear Council Members: I am writing in support of the new pre-school scheduled to open at
2953 Delaware Ave. I have known Laila Taslimi, the founding director of this proposed pre-
school for nearly two decades. She was a student in my teacher education class at UCLA
before she became a teacher in Santa Monica public schools. I know from this long history that
Laila has a deep commitment to educational equity. Her plans for the new school promise to
expand access and to do so in a manner that promotes understanding and exchange across
lines of race and social class. All of this is promising from an educational standpoint. In
addition, I believe that the school will benefit its neighborhood. I am a long-time resident of 21st
street in Santa Monica. About fifteen years ago, a pre-school was established two houses down
from us. It is always a joy to see the young children and their families walking to and from
school every day.
Thank you for your consideration.
John Rogers
John Rogers
Professor of Education, UCLA
Faculty Director, Center X
Director, UCLA IDEA
(310) 206-4620; fax (310) 267-4751
https://centerx.gseis.ucla.edu
http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/
Read our new report: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Trump
Item 6-A
01/23/18
4 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: Bridget Cook <bridget@meadowpreschool.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Subject: CUP up for appeal at 2953 Delaware Ave.
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net
To whom it may concern,
I am a preschool operator who similarly converted a residential zoned property to a preschool in Santa Monica. We
went through the CUP process last year and luckily did not have to go through the appeal process as well. Like Laila
(at 2953 Delaware Ave.), we had neighbors coming to our hearing and protest the opening of a preschool in their
neighborhood. But since we have opened the neighbors have realized it is not as disruptive as they once thought. In
fact having children in the neighborhood makes the neighborhood more welcoming. We have had zero complaints
since opening. I've looked over the website that was created by the neighbors that are appealing this CUP. They are
gaining signatures for a petition by spreading lies on their website. Of course I'm not in politics so maybe this is how
it is always done. The developer of this project is NOT a big real estate developer. She is a life long teacher wanting
to do something nice for her city. I met her while serving on the Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force. Her
intentions are all good. Also she is only seeking to have 20 kids at most at her property during weekdays. With 6
less children she wouldn't even have to go through the CUP process because California allows daycare centers of 14
kiddos at any residence as long as it is more than 100 yards away from another. And she could be open whenever
she decided to get licensed for. Luckily for the neighbors she chose the CUP process where the planning
commission could put conditions on her permit. Please don't let misinformed neighbors stop a good thing happening
to our city. Once the school is open I'm sure they will also realize it's not that big of a deal.
Thanks,
Bridget Cook
Meadow Preschool
Item 6-A
01/23/18
5 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: "Wittig, Michele A" <Michele.Wittig@csun.edu>
Date: November 21, 2017 at 11:01:50 AM PST
To: "gleam.davis@smgov.net" <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, "Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET"
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>, "terry.oday@smgov.net" <terry.oday@smgov.net>, Tony Vazquez
<tvazquez55@yahoo.com>, "pam.oconnor@smgov.net" <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>,
"ted.winterer@smgov.net" <ted.winterer@smgov.net>, "sue.himmelrich@smgov.net"
<sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>
Subject: Dec 5 Agenda item: pre school permit
Dear Council Members,
A previous commitment prevents me from appearing in person at your meeting on December 5.
I'm writing in support of Ms Laila Tasmini's request to operate a small preschool on Delaware Ave.
I have no financial interest in, nor do I serve in any advisory capacity on, this non-profit project.
There are good reasons that applications for preschools in R1 neighborhoods undergo extensive public
review.
I've acquainted myself with online material relating to the project, including some of the neighbor's concerns,
and Laila's responses to them.
I feel strongly that Laila has addressed the reasonable concerns of the site's neighbors, both in substance and
in spirit.
Based on Laila's resources, qualifications, enrollment plan, educational model and respect for the neighbors, I
feel sure that this will be among the best community-serving preschools in the city.
Please approve her application to proceed with the project.
Michele Wittig
Santa Monica resident
Item 6-A
01/23/18
6 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Schloss <jrschloss@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 5:51 PM
To:Ted Winterer
Cc:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez
Subject:Local opposing 2953 Delaware request for variance for a Pre-School in residential
neighborhood near Exposition and Centinela.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and Council: I live in the Pico Neighborhood on Exposition Blvd. under the freeway on the
wrong side of the railroad tracks in a cut off community with only two access roads: Centinela and Stewart. I went to
Santa Monica High Class of ’81. We have narrow streets and narrow alleys. Allowing a change to the zoning ordinance
for a school at 2953 Delaware will severely hurt all of us living here because there will be daily traffic jams on these small
streets. We already have traffic jams if one car stops, or parks in the alley, or the trash pick up comes through.
There are plenty of pre‐schools in Santa Monica already, plus private schools, plus the public schools. There are other
places better suited and its not fair to those who live here to impact us.
It’s odd this went through. This neighborhood was gutted by the freeway but it sure looks like that in return the
planners took steps to limit traffic, which is a necessity because our streets are so narrow and there is no easy way
around if a roadway or alley gets blocked. Thank you.
Jamie R. Schloss, 2928 Exposition Blvd Apt C Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 6-A
01/23/18
7 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Michele P.Sartell
2407 Fourth Street 9 •Santa Monica California 90405 310.452.5629 michelesartell@gmail.com
November 20,2017
The Honorable Ted Winterer, Mayor
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street,Room 209
Santa Monica,California 90401
AGENDA ITEM —DECEMBER 5,2017
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER -2953 DELAWARE AVENUE,SANTA MONICA
SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Winterer:
I am writing as a long-time resident of Santa Monica to urge the support of you and your
councilmember colleagues for the proposed child development center at 2953 Delaware
Avenue,Santa Monica 90404. The center proposes providing high quality early care and
education services to up to 20 preschool age children of mixed economic backgrounds with a
commitment to children of low-income families eligible for subsidized services.
While Santa Monica compared to communities throughout Los Angeles County hosts a more
than adequate supply of early care and education services for working families with preschool
age children,capacity runs short for low-to moderate-income families eligible for subsidized
services.According to 2016 needs assessment data compiled by the Los Angeles County Child
Care Planning Committee,44%of preschool age children of income eligible families residing in
90404 are unable to access subsidized services.Neighboring zip codes —90402,90403 and
90405 —also show unmet need.(See Subsidized Early Care and Education Capacity for Low
Income Working Families -Preschool (Ages 3 to 5)-2016 at
http://cao.lacounty qov/ccp/pdf/Subsidized/Subsidized Child Development%20-
%20Preschool.pd
As a parent of a now 22 year old young man,I understand the enduring value of our
participation in a high quality early care and education program that serves a diverse population
of children and families. Our family was privileged to participate in The Children’s Place located
in Ocean Park,which has served both families eligible for subsidized services as well as fee
paying parents.I credit the program in part for instilling values of kindness,generosity,
openness to others and empathy in my son.Furthermore, some of his friendships established
in program continue to this day.
Thank you for your thoughiful consideration of the proposed center and the families of our
communities that struggle to access early care and education services so they may work and
contribute to their children and families’overall well-being.
Cc:Mayor Pro Tempore Gleam Davis
Councilmember Sue Himmeirich
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Pam O’Connor
Councilmember Terry O’Day
Councilmember Tony Vasquez
Ms.Laila Talimi
Item 6-A
01/23/18
8 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: John Rogers <rogers@gseis.ucla.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 8:55 PM
To: <council@smgov.net>
Subject: support for Untitled No. 1 preschool at 2953 Delaware Ave (item for Dec 5)
Dear Council Members: I am writing in support of the new pre-school scheduled to open at
2953 Delaware Ave. I have known Laila Taslimi, the founding director of this proposed pre-
school for nearly two decades. She was a student in my teacher education class at UCLA
before she became a teacher in Santa Monica public schools. I know from this long history that
Laila has a deep commitment to educational equity. Her plans for the new school promise to
expand access and to do so in a manner that promotes understanding and exchange across
lines of race and social class. All of this is promising from an educational standpoint. In
addition, I believe that the school will benefit its neighborhood. I am a long-time resident of 21st
street in Santa Monica. About fifteen years ago, a pre-school was established two houses down
from us. It is always a joy to see the young children and their families walking to and from
school every day.
Thank you for your consideration.
John Rogers
John Rogers
Professor of Education, UCLA
Faculty Director, Center X
Director, UCLA IDEA
(310) 206-4620; fax (310) 267-4751
https://centerx.gseis.ucla.edu
http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/
Read our new report: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Trump
Item 6-A
01/23/18
9 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: Bridget Cook <bridget@meadowpreschool.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Subject: CUP up for appeal at 2953 Delaware Ave.
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net
To whom it may concern,
I am a preschool operator who similarly converted a residential zoned property to a preschool in Santa Monica. We
went through the CUP process last year and luckily did not have to go through the appeal process as well. Like Laila
(at 2953 Delaware Ave.), we had neighbors coming to our hearing and protest the opening of a preschool in their
neighborhood. But since we have opened the neighbors have realized it is not as disruptive as they once thought. In
fact having children in the neighborhood makes the neighborhood more welcoming. We have had zero complaints
since opening. I've looked over the website that was created by the neighbors that are appealing this CUP. They are
gaining signatures for a petition by spreading lies on their website. Of course I'm not in politics so maybe this is how
it is always done. The developer of this project is NOT a big real estate developer. She is a life long teacher wanting
to do something nice for her city. I met her while serving on the Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force. Her
intentions are all good. Also she is only seeking to have 20 kids at most at her property during weekdays. With 6
less children she wouldn't even have to go through the CUP process because California allows daycare centers of 14
kiddos at any residence as long as it is more than 100 yards away from another. And she could be open whenever
she decided to get licensed for. Luckily for the neighbors she chose the CUP process where the planning
commission could put conditions on her permit. Please don't let misinformed neighbors stop a good thing happening
to our city. Once the school is open I'm sure they will also realize it's not that big of a deal.
Thanks,
Bridget Cook
Meadow Preschool
Item 6-A
01/23/18
10 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: "Wittig, Michele A" <Michele.Wittig@csun.edu>
Date: November 21, 2017 at 11:01:50 AM PST
To: "gleam.davis@smgov.net" <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, "Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET"
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>, "terry.oday@smgov.net" <terry.oday@smgov.net>, Tony Vazquez
<tvazquez55@yahoo.com>, "pam.oconnor@smgov.net" <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>,
"ted.winterer@smgov.net" <ted.winterer@smgov.net>, "sue.himmelrich@smgov.net"
<sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>
Subject: Dec 5 Agenda item: pre school permit
Dear Council Members,
A previous commitment prevents me from appearing in person at your meeting on December 5.
I'm writing in support of Ms Laila Tasmini's request to operate a small preschool on Delaware Ave.
I have no financial interest in, nor do I serve in any advisory capacity on, this non-profit project.
There are good reasons that applications for preschools in R1 neighborhoods undergo extensive public
review.
I've acquainted myself with online material relating to the project, including some of the neighbor's concerns,
and Laila's responses to them.
I feel strongly that Laila has addressed the reasonable concerns of the site's neighbors, both in substance and
in spirit.
Based on Laila's resources, qualifications, enrollment plan, educational model and respect for the neighbors, I
feel sure that this will be among the best community-serving preschools in the city.
Please approve her application to proceed with the project.
Michele Wittig
Santa Monica resident
Item 6-A
01/23/18
11 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leonora <leonorasc@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 10:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment on Item 6A for 1/23/18 meeting - Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the Planning
Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075, Variance 17ENT-0147,
and Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148 permitting the establishment of a Child Care
and Early Ed...
I am writing to ask that the Council deny the appeal and 1. Approve Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075 2.
Approve Variance 17ENT-0147 3. Approve Fence Modification 17ENT-0148 4. Adopt the Statement of
Official Action, pursuant to the draft findings and conditions.
I am a resident in Santa Monica and have a baby. It is extremely difficult to find quality daycare in Santa
Monica. All of the good daycare centers in the city have long waiting lists. My baby is on several waiting lists
that are over a year long. Santa Monica needs more daycares and the idea that this daycare center will be
disruptive to the community is laughable. I live near a preschool and in my experience, the neighborhood is
enhanced by its presence. The only noise is the pleasant sound of children laughing and playing.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Leonora Yetter
Item 6-A
01/23/18
12 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
NATHANIEL TRIVES<>2007 NAVY STREET<>SANTA MONICA, CA 90405-5945
TELEPHONE: 310-399 1788<>EMAIL: NTRIVES@VERIZON.NET
The Honorable Ted Winterer January 23, 2018
Mayor
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Mayor Winterer and Members of the City Council:
I arrived in Santa Monica in 1949 and my family found an apartment in the then Lincoln
Junior High School district. Since this item concerns uses in R-1 zones my recollection
going back sixty-eight years is that schools, parks, and education type uses have been
successfully functioning in residential neighborhoods all over town.
In the 1970’s while a member of the City Council and as Mayor we put forth any number
of initiatives that led to more park space in residential neighborhoods, including the
expansion of Virginia Avenue Park, improvements at Silva Field [now Gandara Park]
and the acquisition and demolition of the Douglas Aircraft Company’s Ocean Park Blvd
site for the future home of Clover Park.
I believe the City’s Well Being Project embraces the use that is being appealed here
tonight, in that its core principles are cradle to grave driven initiatives, such as early
childhood education, access to City services across a wide range of opportunities, that
are designed for the benefit of our residents. I live in Sunset Park and I am happy to see
baby strollers being pushed through the neighborhood in what seems to be greater
numbers than in recent years.
Existing data on preschool-aged children residing in 90404 clearly shows the need here
and this project offers scholarships to 2/3 of the families, which means this preschool
will have a valuable impact on this community. Simply stated, the supply of pre-school
aged children will meet the demand for additional childcare facilities in our
neighborhoods throughout our community and I am whole heartedly in support of
allowing this high-quality pre-school project to go forward.
Finally, I commend the applicant, Laila Taslimi, for her continued service to our City as
an advocate for social justice causes. We served together on the Martin Luther King Jr.
Westside Coalition and she was a dedicated hard-working volunteer.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Trives
Former Mayor
City of Santa Monica
Item 6-A
01/23/18
13 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
NATHANIEL TRIVES<>2007 NAVY STREET<>SANTA MONICA, CA 90405-5945
TELEPHONE: 310-399 1788<>EMAIL: NTRIVES@VERIZON.NET
The Honorable Ted Winterer January 23, 2018
Mayor
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Mayor Winterer and Members of the City Council:
I arrived in Santa Monica in 1949 and my family found an apartment in the then Lincoln
Junior High School district. Since this item concerns uses in R-1 zones my recollection
going back sixty-eight years is that schools, parks, and education type uses have been
successfully functioning in residential neighborhoods all over town.
In the 1970’s while a member of the City Council and as Mayor we put forth any number
of initiatives that led to more park space in residential neighborhoods, including the
expansion of Virginia Avenue Park, improvements at Silva Field [now Gandara Park]
and the acquisition and demolition of the Douglas Aircraft Company’s Ocean Park Blvd
site for the future home of Clover Park.
I believe the City’s Well Being Project embraces the use that is being appealed here
tonight, in that its core principles are cradle to grave driven initiatives, such as early
childhood education, access to City services across a wide range of opportunities, that
are designed for the benefit of our residents. I live in Sunset Park and I am happy to see
baby strollers being pushed through the neighborhood in what seems to be greater
numbers than in recent years.
Existing data on preschool-aged children residing in 90404 clearly shows the need here
and this project offers scholarships to 2/3 of the families, which means this preschool
will have a valuable impact on this community. Simply stated, the supply of pre-school
aged children will meet the demand for additional childcare facilities in our
neighborhoods throughout our community and I am whole heartedly in support of
allowing this high-quality pre-school project to go forward.
Finally, I commend the applicant, Laila Taslimi, for her continued service to our City as
an advocate for social justice causes. We served together on the Martin Luther King Jr.
Westside Coalition and she was a dedicated hard-working volunteer.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Trives
Former Mayor
City of Santa Monica
Item 6-A
01/23/18
14 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Tony
Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Cc:Brian O'Neil; Rick Cole; David Martin
Subject:January 23, 2018 Council Meeting - Item 6.A. - GRANT THE APPEAL PLEASE
Dear Mayor Winterer and Esteemed City Council Members -
I am writing in support of the residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood who are begging you to grant their appeal, and overturn the
Planning Commission's thoughtless and tone deaf approval of this commercial day care center.
Specifically, please:
1. Approve the appeal.
2. Overturn the Planning Commission's approval AND take the following actions:
3. Deny Conditional Use Permit 17ENT-0075
4. Deny Variance 17ENT-0147
5. Deny Fence Modification 17ENT-0148
6. Do not adopt the Statement of Official Action, pursuant to the draft findings and conditions.
It truly will be a tragedy and a travesty if this commercial day care center is allowed to go in. LA County and Rand data
apparently demonstrate that this neighborhood is already OVER-PRESCHOOLED. Accordingly, this commercial
endeavor is superfluous, with any alleged benefits greatly outweighing the many negative impacts it will have on an
already over-burdened neighborhood.
If you allow the commercial day care center to proceed, you will be sanctioning the very worst sort of "neighborhood vs.
neighborhood imperialism" to take place - a wealthy North side resident seeks to site her commercial business in one
of our most vulnerable and impacted South side neighborhoods over vociferous resident objection. Any of you who
espouse equity and social justice ideals simply cannot allow this to happen on those grounds alone.
And if you have not done so already, please closely and carefully read this excellent SMDP editorial piece written by one of the
Gandara Park Neighborhood residents. It says it all: http://smdp.com/your-column-here-preserve-our-residential-
neighborhoods/163992
Thank you for your time and attention.
Please do the right thing.
Best, Ann Hoover
SM resident, 21 years
310-560-9902
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 6.A., City
Council meeting of Jan. 23, 2018.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
15 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:03 AM
To:Rick Cole; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 1/23/18 item 6-A -- 2953 Delaware appeal -- Support
January 21, 2018
To: City Council
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 6-A: Residents' appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a CUP,
variance (to demolish the garage), and fence/wall modification permitting a Child Care and Early Education
facility for up to 20 children (and 6 staff) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Speaking only for myself, I support the appeal. When you have to approve variances and garage
demolitions on top of the required CUP, in order to cram 26 people into a little 1,400 sq ft house, then this
project really doesn’t belong in an R1 neighborhood. It's not good for the neighbors, who are entitled to
the quiet enjoyment of their homes, and it's not good for the kids.
***********************************************************
Background:
1) History of the Japanese American community in Santa Monica and the
Pico/Gandara Park neighborhood
2) Current stresses on the Pico/Gandara Park neighborhood
1) Draft Historic Resource Inventory Update Historic Context Statement dated January 31, 2017
prepared by Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-
Preservation/Santa%20Monica%20Citywide%20Historic%20Context%20Statement_2.4.2017.pdf
p. 270 -- JAPANESE AMERICAN COMMUNITY (1899-1977)
OVERVIEW - This theme addresses residential, institutional, and commercial properties relating to the history
of the Japanese American community in Santa Monica from 1899 to 1977….
Item 6-A
01/23/18
16 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
2
The Asian American population of the United States has long been subjected to discriminatory practices;
though the Nikkei community of Santa Monica lived relatively peacefully amongst the City’s culturally diverse
population, they were subjected to nationwide policies such as:
-- the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907-1908, barring Japanese immigrant laborers from entering the U.S.; and
-- the Alien Land Laws of 1913 and 1920, which prohibited first generation Japanese Americans from owning
land until 1952.
When thousands of west coast Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II, peaceful
enclaves like Santa Monica’s were completely disrupted. Only a small number of Japanese residents resettled in
Santa Monica after the war, usually in working class areas like the Pico neighborhood.
The community was again devastated with the construction of the Santa Monica (Interstate 10) Freeway in
the late 1950s and 1960s….
p. 42 -- Completion of Pico Boulevard in 1914, the shortest route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica and
Ocean Park, was instrumental in its growth and development. However, another transportation milestone, the
completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension, later scarred the Pico neighborhood – disrupting the natural
flow of traffic and resulting in the demolition of hundreds of homes. Many of today’s industrial parcels
adjacent to the freeway were originally residential streets of modest houses and bungalows.
p. 273 -- Japanese incarceration during World War II effectively eliminated Santa Monica’s Japanese
community.
p. 274 -- Santa Monica witnessed the arrival of new and returning Nikkei in the decade between 1950 and
1960. They primarily moved to the center of the city, as opposed to the scattered residential settlement before
the war. The community first congregated near the Free Methodist Church, before settling on Michigan Avenue,
Delaware Avenue, 12th Street, 18th Street, 19th Street, Yorkshire Avenue, Urban Avenue, Virginia Avenue,
Kansas Avenue, and 22nd Street….
p. 275 – The history and hardships endured by the Nikkei of Santa Monica have been recognized in the
community since the late 1950s. In 1959, a memorial tower entitled Ireito was erected at Santa Monica’s
Woodlawn Cemetery to commemorate those Japanese residents buried there and who had made sacrifices in
World War II and the Korean War.
p. 274 -- In 1966, the Santa Monica’s Japanese community and several other of its ethnic enclaves were
disrupted, as the newly constructed Santa Monica Freeway barreled through the center of the Pico
neighborhood. Politically disenfranchised and underrepresented in local government, those living within the
path of the Freeway had no choice but to sell their homes, often for paltry sums. Unable to afford most housing
in Santa Monica, minorities were forced to move to neighboring communities. African Americans and Latinos
primarily relocated outside the city, while the majority of Japanese American families were able to find housing
in Santa Monica north or south of the freeway.
“Pomp and Special Circumstances”
7/30/2001 – Santa Monica Lookout
Item 6-A
01/23/18
17 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
3
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2001/Jul-
2001/07_30_2001_Pomp_and_Special_Circumstances.htm
“Like most seniors, they wore royal blue mortarboards with matching tassels and made their way slowly to the
sounds of "Pomp and Circumstance" and the applause and cheers of their families, classmates and well-wishers.
But this time, it was the children and grandchildren, armed with camcorders and digital cameras, who jockeyed
with television news crews to record the bestowing of diplomas Saturday afternoon in the Fairmont Hotel
ballroom.
More than half a century after they were forced into a U.S. internment camp in the dusty and desolate Owens Valley town
of Manzanar, ten Japanese American members of Santa Monica High School's classes of 1943 and 1944 finally had the
chance to walk up the aisle and receive the diplomas that time forgot. "I'm really so happy that all of you are here,"
Kazuyuki Yamamoto, a graduate of the class of 1943 told the 150 Diploma Luncheon attendees…. "I'm very proud of the
diploma I received from Manzanar [Relocation Camp]," said Arnold Maeda, class of 1944, who was class president in the
camp. "A few years after I returned, I drove past Santa Monica High School and began to cry. This diploma we received
today, I cherish."
When their Samohi classmates walked up the aisle during World War II, Yamamoto and Maeda were more than 200 miles
away in Manzanar, one of ten internment camps in the United States where 120,000 Japanese Americans and nationals
were incarcerated following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1942….
The event was spurred by the discovery of a 1942 graduate list that included the handwritten names of Japanese
American students and the instruction by then principal W.F. Barnum to send the students their diplomas. But Barnum
soon became ill and subsequently died before the students in the classes of 1943 and 1944 received their diplomas….”
“Graduation Day, Six Decades Late” -- Now in their 70s and 80s, Japanese Americans interned during
WWII don caps and gowns for high school ceremony.
8/22/2005 – Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/22/local/me-nisei22
“Dozens of Japanese Americans who as teenagers were forced to relocate to internment camps during World War II and
never received diplomas from their hometown high schools donned caps and gowns, corsages and leis for a belated
graduation ceremony Sunday.
Some of the seniors, ranging in age from the mid-70s to 83, wept as they shook hands with Los Angeles Community
College District board member Warren Furutani and received retroactive honors in slim black leather folders. Others
simply beamed as they crossed the stage at Los Angeles Trade Tech College. Proud adult children of the graduates
snapped photos of their parents, urging them to pose and smile.
In cases in which a graduate had died, relatives were welcome to walk across the stage to represent loved ones. Silver-
haired Yoshiro "Babe" Fujioka, 77, received his brother Ted's diploma from Hollywood High School with a smile on his
face and tears in his eyes. Sixty-one years later, he still misses the big brother who fought in the famed all-Japanese
442nd Regimental Combat Team and died in November 1944 in the south of France….
The World War II internment camps are central to the Japanese American experience, he said. But for many years, it was
a time that those who lost their businesses or homes rarely discussed. "It's almost like being raped," Furutani said. "You
ask yourself, 'What did I do wrong to have this happen?' and either you decided 'I'm mad' or you let it recede….At the
ceremony's end, Furutani applauded the graduates: "Ladies and gentlemen, I present the classes of 1942, 1943, 1944,
1945...."
Item 6-A
01/23/18
18 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
4
“UC to Award Honorary Degrees to Former WW II Internees”
August 2009 – University of California
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/news/source/honorarydegrees.august2009.html
At the request of the Academic Senate, the UC Board of Regents has voted to grant honorary degrees to students of
Japanese ancestry who were unable to complete their education due to their internment during World War II….
Approximately 700 UC students of Japanese ancestry were enrolled in graduate and undergraduate programs at
Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Davis during the 1941-1942 academic year and forced to leave the University
under Executive Order 9066. The honorary diplomas will bear the inscription “Inter Silvas Academi Restituere Iustitiam” --
“to restore justice among the groves of the academe.”….Although some graduated in 1942 with the aid of sympathetic
faculty and administrators, some returned to graduate after the War, and some obtained degrees at other universities,
many never completed their educations.
**********************************************************
2) Current stresses on the Pico/Gandara Park neighborhood
If the City Council denies the Pico neighborhood residents’ appeal of the 2953 Delaware project, it will be
writing the next chapter in this history. How so?
Elderly residents of Japanese ancestry who lived through these sorry events described above still live in
the Pico neighborhood near Gandara and Ishihara Parks, including next door to the proposed project on
Delaware.
Delaware Street is peaceful at the moment, but it is in a tiny oasis surrounded by:
‐‐ the noisy I‐10 Santa Monica Freeway to the south,
‐‐ Centinela Avenue to the east ‐‐ a busy commuter street due to the I‐10 Centinela
freeway entrance and exit near Pico Blvd.,
‐‐ the noisy Exposition Light Rail and maintenance yard to the north,
‐‐ heavily trafficked Stewart Street to the west, which backs up due to the at‐grade
light rail crossing at Exposition Blvd.,
‐‐ Gandara/Stewart Park, built atop a landfill which apparently releases methane gas,
Item 6-A
01/23/18
19 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
5
has been sinking, which creates a lake in the middle of the ball field when it rains
‐‐ the City Yards and odiferous trash transfer station a bit further west of the park.
In addition, nearby office buildings generate a great deal of commuter traffic:
‐‐ Agensys ‐‐ 1800 Stewart St. – 160,000 sq ft ‐‐ 1,395 daily car trips – has been unable
to meet the AVR goals in its DA
‐‐ Lantana Media Campus – 4 office buildings totaling 478,000 sq ft – located on Olympic
Blvd. and Exposition Blvd., stretching from Stewart nearly to Centinela Avenue
Just north of the Expo line are:
‐‐ The Pen Factory at 2701 Olympic Blvd. (stretching from 26th to Stewart) ‐‐
222,000 sq ft of office space and 700 parking spaces
‐‐ The new SMC Center for Design and Media satellite campus (80,000 sq ft) and
the new 3‐story KCRW Media Center ‐‐ 1660 Stewart Street ‐‐ 1,482 daily car trips
‐‐ Santa Monica Gateway (formerly Colorado Creative Studios) ‐‐ Stewart and Colorado –
200,000 sq ft of office space and 640 parking spaces – 2,092 daily car trips
‐‐ Village Trailer Park (Millenium East Village) ‐‐ 2930 Colorado – 341,390 sq ft –
374 apartments and 25,000 sq ft of commercial space – 1,863 daily car trips
Item 6-A
01/23/18
20 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
6
All of this additional development, plus the increasing use of WAZE by commuters, portends much more
cut‐through commuter traffic on Delaware and the surrounding streets, making it difficult for
Pico/Gandara Park residents to get to and from their homes.
Please do not add to the problems this little neighborhood is facing. Support the appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Zina Josephs
Item 6-A
01/23/18
21 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter L. Garcia <peterg0825@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 5:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; tony.vazquez@sm.gov.net;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor
Dear council members,
My name is Pete Garcia my family lives at 3002 Delaware and has owned this property for over forty years. I for one was
raised in this house and grew‐up in this neighborhood. This house, this neighborhood they are home. Our little
neighborhood is unique and peaceful and should be preserved for families. To put a business in the center of it is tragic.
These houses are for families not businesses. Consider the additional traffic, noise and possible crime it will bring to our
peaceful street.
Thank you,
Garcia family
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Item 6-A
01/23/18
22 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Michele P.Sartell
2407 Fourth Street 9 •Santa Monica California 90405 310.452.5629 michelesartell@gmail.com
November 20,2017
The Honorable Ted Winterer, Mayor
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street,Room 209
Santa Monica,California 90401
AGENDA ITEM —DECEMBER 5,2017
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER -2953 DELAWARE AVENUE,SANTA MONICA
SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Winterer:
I am writing as a long-time resident of Santa Monica to urge the support of you and your
councilmember colleagues for the proposed child development center at 2953 Delaware
Avenue,Santa Monica 90404. The center proposes providing high quality early care and
education services to up to 20 preschool age children of mixed economic backgrounds with a
commitment to children of low-income families eligible for subsidized services.
While Santa Monica compared to communities throughout Los Angeles County hosts a more
than adequate supply of early care and education services for working families with preschool
age children,capacity runs short for low-to moderate-income families eligible for subsidized
services.According to 2016 needs assessment data compiled by the Los Angeles County Child
Care Planning Committee,44%of preschool age children of income eligible families residing in
90404 are unable to access subsidized services.Neighboring zip codes —90402,90403 and
90405 —also show unmet need.(See Subsidized Early Care and Education Capacity for Low
Income Working Families -Preschool (Ages 3 to 5)-2016 at
http://cao.lacounty qov/ccp/pdf/Subsidized/Subsidized Child Development%20-
%20Preschool.pd
As a parent of a now 22 year old young man,I understand the enduring value of our
participation in a high quality early care and education program that serves a diverse population
of children and families. Our family was privileged to participate in The Children’s Place located
in Ocean Park,which has served both families eligible for subsidized services as well as fee
paying parents.I credit the program in part for instilling values of kindness,generosity,
openness to others and empathy in my son.Furthermore, some of his friendships established
in program continue to this day.
Thank you for your thoughiful consideration of the proposed center and the families of our
communities that struggle to access early care and education services so they may work and
contribute to their children and families’overall well-being.
Cc:Mayor Pro Tempore Gleam Davis
Councilmember Sue Himmeirich
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Pam O’Connor
Councilmember Terry O’Day
Councilmember Tony Vasquez
Ms.Laila Talimi
Item 6-A
01/23/18
23 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: John Rogers <rogers@gseis.ucla.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 8:55 PM
To: <council@smgov.net>
Subject: support for Untitled No. 1 preschool at 2953 Delaware Ave (item for Dec 5)
Dear Council Members: I am writing in support of the new pre-school scheduled to open at
2953 Delaware Ave. I have known Laila Taslimi, the founding director of this proposed pre-
school for nearly two decades. She was a student in my teacher education class at UCLA
before she became a teacher in Santa Monica public schools. I know from this long history that
Laila has a deep commitment to educational equity. Her plans for the new school promise to
expand access and to do so in a manner that promotes understanding and exchange across
lines of race and social class. All of this is promising from an educational standpoint. In
addition, I believe that the school will benefit its neighborhood. I am a long-time resident of 21st
street in Santa Monica. About fifteen years ago, a pre-school was established two houses down
from us. It is always a joy to see the young children and their families walking to and from
school every day.
Thank you for your consideration.
John Rogers
John Rogers
Professor of Education, UCLA
Faculty Director, Center X
Director, UCLA IDEA
(310) 206-4620; fax (310) 267-4751
https://centerx.gseis.ucla.edu
http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/
Read our new report: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Trump
Item 6-A
01/23/18
24 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: Bridget Cook <bridget@meadowpreschool.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Subject: CUP up for appeal at 2953 Delaware Ave.
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net
To whom it may concern,
I am a preschool operator who similarly converted a residential zoned property to a preschool in Santa Monica. We
went through the CUP process last year and luckily did not have to go through the appeal process as well. Like Laila
(at 2953 Delaware Ave.), we had neighbors coming to our hearing and protest the opening of a preschool in their
neighborhood. But since we have opened the neighbors have realized it is not as disruptive as they once thought. In
fact having children in the neighborhood makes the neighborhood more welcoming. We have had zero complaints
since opening. I've looked over the website that was created by the neighbors that are appealing this CUP. They are
gaining signatures for a petition by spreading lies on their website. Of course I'm not in politics so maybe this is how
it is always done. The developer of this project is NOT a big real estate developer. She is a life long teacher wanting
to do something nice for her city. I met her while serving on the Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force. Her
intentions are all good. Also she is only seeking to have 20 kids at most at her property during weekdays. With 6
less children she wouldn't even have to go through the CUP process because California allows daycare centers of 14
kiddos at any residence as long as it is more than 100 yards away from another. And she could be open whenever
she decided to get licensed for. Luckily for the neighbors she chose the CUP process where the planning
commission could put conditions on her permit. Please don't let misinformed neighbors stop a good thing happening
to our city. Once the school is open I'm sure they will also realize it's not that big of a deal.
Thanks,
Bridget Cook
Meadow Preschool
Item 6-A
01/23/18
25 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
From: "Wittig, Michele A" <Michele.Wittig@csun.edu>
Date: November 21, 2017 at 11:01:50 AM PST
To: "gleam.davis@smgov.net" <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, "Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET"
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>, "terry.oday@smgov.net" <terry.oday@smgov.net>, Tony Vazquez
<tvazquez55@yahoo.com>, "pam.oconnor@smgov.net" <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>,
"ted.winterer@smgov.net" <ted.winterer@smgov.net>, "sue.himmelrich@smgov.net"
<sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>
Subject: Dec 5 Agenda item: pre school permit
Dear Council Members,
A previous commitment prevents me from appearing in person at your meeting on December 5.
I'm writing in support of Ms Laila Tasmini's request to operate a small preschool on Delaware Ave.
I have no financial interest in, nor do I serve in any advisory capacity on, this non-profit project.
There are good reasons that applications for preschools in R1 neighborhoods undergo extensive public
review.
I've acquainted myself with online material relating to the project, including some of the neighbor's concerns,
and Laila's responses to them.
I feel strongly that Laila has addressed the reasonable concerns of the site's neighbors, both in substance and
in spirit.
Based on Laila's resources, qualifications, enrollment plan, educational model and respect for the neighbors, I
feel sure that this will be among the best community-serving preschools in the city.
Please approve her application to proceed with the project.
Michele Wittig
Santa Monica resident
Item 6-A
01/23/18
26 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:42 AM
To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: 2953 Delaware preschool
Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance on R‐1 zoning.
From: Guy Cass [mailto:guy@guyarchitect.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:39 PM
To: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: 2953 Delaware preschool
Hello Rick Cole & City Council,
I am opposed to allowing 20 student preschool at a single family residence.
Please DON”T set a precedence for this increased intensity use in a single family zone.
Thank you.
Guy
Guy Cosman Cass | Architect, AIA, NCARB
1919 ½ 19th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404
T: 310.393.5148 | C: 310.721.1484 | F: 310.451.4575
Guy@GuyArchitect.com | www.GuyArchitect.com
Design is Good Business. It doesn’t just add value; it multiplies it.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
27 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:50 AM
To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Support for Preserve Gandara Neighborhood against the proposed pre-school
development
Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance for R‐1 zoning.
From: Noah Arthur Bardach, PhD [mailto:noah.bardach@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 4:41 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Support for Preserve Gandara Neighborhood against the proposed pre‐school development
Dear Council,
As a Santa Monica native and Pico Neighborhood resident, I am writing to voice my strong support for Preserve Gandara
Neighborhood AGAINST the encroachment of the proposed Delaware Ave pre‐school.
Foisting a noisy, traffic‐generating business onto the residents of an unwilling residential neighborhood is UNFAIR and
UNDEMOCRATIC.
The neighbors of the proposed business have been very clear in their opposition to the pre‐school. I support them in
their self‐determination and ability to control, within the limits of the City Code, the nature of their neighborhood.
The owner of the proposed business lives in a wholly different part of Santa Monica (north of Montana) and her
insistence that the proposed pre‐school is good for the neighborhood flies in the face of the very vocal opposition of the
actual residents of that area.
Furthermore, as someone who works from home, I can tell you definitively that an adjacent pre‐school, with all of the
unavoidable noise, would make it impossible for me to focus on my work, have important calls, host meetings, etc. I
would essentially be forced from home by such a business.
And, I have no doubt that a pre‐school located adjacent to my property would make it harder to sell and would certainly
lower its value.
Finally, this neighborhood has suffered more than enough imposition for the greater public good (freeway, dump, Metro
Maintenance Yards, etc.). They deserve to not be forced into further disruption.
Thank you for your consideration. All best, Dr. Noah Bardach
Noah Arthur Bardach, PhD
c: (415) 710‐2151 / f: (310) 829‐7293
noah.bardach@gmail.com
Item 6-A
01/23/18
28 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:51 AM
To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Commercial Development on Delaware Ave.
Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance for R‐1 zoning.
From: Hillel [mailto:Farceur1@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 5:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Commercial Development on Delaware Ave.
Dear elected officials and City Manager:
I’m writing to you expressing my humble but strong conviction that a business does not belong in the
middle of a residential neighborhood.
Seen the actual trend in our beloved city I feel this could become a precedent for future decisions. Please take in
consideration the opinions and feelings of the affected neighbors, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillel, a Pico Neighborhood resident.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
29 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Deny permit for Daycare Please
Dear Council Members:
I hope to attend on Tues 1/23/2018 for the hearing of the day care issue in a residential area. City staff and
Planning Commission have not adequately addressed the issues that develop in neighborhoods that are required
to have day care on their blocks.
Example, 9th Street between Wilshire and Arizona is now being heavily impacted by Piper Preschool. The
parents are not allowed to drop off children as the arrive but must wait on the sidewalk. They are double
parking and blocking our alley by parking for 15 minutes or more.
This type of issues developed at PS 1 School on Broadway and continue to occur. City Staff has never
adequately addressed these problems for residences. I don't expect them to improve on their dismal track
record.
Therefore I object to any Day Care in residential areas especially mid blocks.
Sound walls do not help. Children screaming and crying in small groups are disruption.It is not the decibels
but the emotional impact of hearing children crying and not being able to help.
Traffic must be considered for all residents on the block. As well as all commuters.
The traffic on Stewart is now the worst backup in the City at peak times which is within the hours of service at
this facility.
Preservation and protections of neighborhoods was the main improvement promised in the LUCE and
zoning. City Planning Department and Plan Commission must MAKE THIS HAPPEN. This plan passed by
them is inadequate for any area of the City.
Sincerely'
Ellen Hannan
1218 9th Street #6
Santa Monica CA 90401
310395-4356
Item 6-A
01/23/18
30 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:42 AM
To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: 2953 Delaware preschool
Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance on R‐1 zoning.
From: Guy Cass [mailto:guy@guyarchitect.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:39 PM
To: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: 2953 Delaware preschool
Hello Rick Cole & City Council,
I am opposed to allowing 20 student preschool at a single family residence.
Please DON”T set a precedence for this increased intensity use in a single family zone.
Thank you.
Guy
Guy Cosman Cass | Architect, AIA, NCARB
1919 ½ 19th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404
T: 310.393.5148 | C: 310.721.1484 | F: 310.451.4575
Guy@GuyArchitect.com | www.GuyArchitect.com
Design is Good Business. It doesn’t just add value; it multiplies it.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
31 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Clerk
Mailbox
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council - 1/23/18 item 6-A - Appeal of 2953 Delaware project - FOSP Board
letter
January 21, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 6-A: Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed preschool with
extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal (see our December 3, 2017 letter below).
When it takes not only a CUP but also a variance and the demolition of a garage to make this commercial
project work in a little house in an R1 neighborhood, it seems that we're trying to cram a square peg into a
round hole.
There is no demonstrated need for child care or a preschool in the Pico/Gandara Park neighborhood.
And since the City Council has stated that preserving affordable housing is a priority, it makes little sense to
convert a relatively affordable family home to a commercial business use.
City Council Strategic Goals: Inclusive and Diverse Community -- Santa Monica is
committed to maintaining an inclusive and diverse community by expanding affordable housing,
raising workers’ incomes, and helping Santa Monica residents stay in their homes and build their
community network.
**********************************************************
December 3, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed preschool with
extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Item 6-A
01/23/18
32 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
2
The FOSP Board requests that City Council grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents
of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications approved by
Planning Commission so that the residents may preserve peace in their neighborhood
Residents of many neighborhoods have signed the petition supporting this Appeal because the application that
was approved by the Planning Commission clearly exceeds what the Zoning allows.
Friends of Sunset Park and Northeast Neighbors fought very hard to stop City Council from allowing
commercial day care centers in single family (R1) neighborhoods during the Zoning Ordinance Update. We lost
that fight.
Now we have the first case of a home that has been purchased and plans presented that seek permission from
the City to expand even further the commercial child care center standards now permitted in the Zoning, an
application to run a commercial venture in a single family home.
The state of California has long permitted "family day care" in residential neighborhoods. Such daycare
programs are low key and low cost and allow residents who open them to run small scale programs that
generate needed income. The state sets a maximum of 8 children in "small family daycare" and a maximum
of 14 children in "large family daycare."
The new commercial level of child care center that our City Council approved for R1 is of a whole different
order. The one planned for the Gandara Park neighborhood is owned by a group called Delaware LLC, which
plans to hire up to five employees and to accept up to 20 children for a reported tuition of $1,700 a month.
The owner will not live in the converted home. These factors describe a commercial enterprise that could
generate a gross income of $34,000 a month. In contrast, a house the same size on the same block just rented
for $5,000 a month.
While supporting early childhood education and family daycare, during the Zoning Ordinance update,
neighborhood organizations, including Friends of Sunset Park and Northeast Neighbors, argued against
allowing commercial child care centers in R1 neighborhoods
NEN pointed out that a better public policy approach would be to require on-site child care centers in
development agreements and DR projects instead of the practice of collecting child care fees, saying that
awards have been won by forward-thinking businesses like Patagonia for the on-site child care center they offer
at their Ventura headquarters. Such facilities would place children and parents close to each other and
encourage the use of transit, reducing car trips in and out of neighborhoods in our already congested city.
To allow this project on Delaware Avenue to move forward with the requested expansions beyond what the
Zoning allows is not consistent with the stated aim of this Council to encourage housing production. With the
new regulations for second unit "granny flats," not only will the house be lost to the housing market, but there
will also be the loss of a potential affordable second unit.
While the need for affordable housing has been clearly measured, no data has been presented by the applicant or
City staff to show the need for a child care facility in this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign on the front lawn of this property describes it as "Untitled No. 1 School" suggests there
will be more such applications to convert more single homes into commercial day care centers that
ask more than the Code allows, removing more homes from the market, and creating more conflicts between
City Hall and residents.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
33 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
3
We urge City Council to grant the Appeal for these reasons and all of the reasons articulated by the
residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
34 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Christhild Andersen <christhildandersen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:50 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Terry
O’Day; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; David Martin
Cc:Catherine Eldridge; PNA Board
Subject:Council Meeting Agenda 6 A, Appeal
To City Council and Staff,
Imagine you live in our neighborhood on Delaware Ave. with your family. Every day you have to drive to work
and come back at rush hour. Because of the Expo, high traffic volume in the area and cars cutting through our
neighborhood to get or come from the freeway via Centinela, either way you go it takes you 10 to 15 minutes
to get out or come back to the neighborhood. Your partner has to take one of your kids to school and with
traffic delay she has to get two kids ready an extra fifteen minutes earlier as a 2 year old can’t be left at
home. Now add 26 cars coming in to the neighborhood as staff comes to work and parents dropping of their
kids at the Number 1 preschool. Twenty cars have to get back out of the neighborhood and will come back at
evening rush‐hour and then 26 cars are leaving the neighborhood. These cars can easily cause another five to
ten minutes delay. Even the paramedics can’t cross the tracks when the gates are down and have a hard time
to pass the increased traffic in the narrow streets. To transport a critically sick person to the hospital could
easily take a delay of half an hour which could cause the death to one of your neighbors.
Around ten or eleven a ’clock your partner wants to take your two year old to Ishihara Park
playground. Getting there they see that there is a group of ten students from the Number 1 School with three
adults. All the equipment and sand area is occupied. Your child starts crying but there are too many kids and
the parent takes him home. Next day they come in the afternoon but again the playground is occupied by the
students of the new business on your street, which uses the nearby public park as an incentive for
enrollment. Talking to other parents in the neighborhood, they share the same experience. You and your
fellow residents fought for this park after your City Council let you down and allowed the maintenance yard
come to your neighborhood.
With all these experiences, I am sure you will not endorse a business, a school for twenty students and 6 staff
in your neighborhood. We are already the neighborhood which has been impacted the most: The freeway,
the city yard with waste processing, the Expo maintenance yard, a three rail crossing, Agency’s traffic cutting
through our neighborhood, and more commercial development North of Olympic Bld.
By walking in our shoes you know that this business Number 1 School will make our lives unbearable, not to
talk about the extra noise and disturbance it brings to our neighborhood. Be an empathetic human being and
decline the application of the Number 1 School in our R1 neighborhood and support the Appeal of the
neighbors.
With best regards and trusting that you do the right thing for the voters in our neighborhood.
Sincerely, Christel Andersen.
Ms. Christel Andersen
Email: Christhildandersen@yahoo.com
Item 6-A
01/23/18
35 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Katz <betsyjkatz@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:support@preservegandara.org
Subject:Agenda Item 6A Gandara neighborhood January 23, 2018
Dear City Council Members,
I am not a resident of the Gandara Neighborhood but I am writing in support of their efforts to stop a daycare
center from operating in their R1 zoned neighborhood. I would oppose such an operation in my own
neighborhood especially a business run by a non-resident!
This is disruptive, unsafe and unfair especially for a neighborhood already over-burdened with noise and
pollution from the freeway, city dump and the Metro maintenance yard.
I urge the City Council to give the Gandara Neighborhood a break and not permit this preschool to become a
reality.
Thank you.
Betsy Katz
3016 Ruskin Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Betsyjkatz@gmail.com
Item 6-A
01/23/18
36 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Pat Pyfrom <ppyfrom@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 4:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Cc:'Brian O'Neil'
Subject:Supporting the Appeal 17ENT-0186
City Council Members:
This is in support of the appeal opposing allowing a commercial preschool in the Gandara neighborhood.
I lived next to a family day care for several years. The disruption to myself and the rest of the neighborhood was
infuriating. The major disruptions were not just from the children, the parents of the children and the resulting
traffic. The owners were not at all respectful of the neighbors. On the contrary, they felt an entitlement to behave
however they wished, knowing that the city would in all cases support them. Any complaints from the neighbors were
not just ignored, but were mocked by city staff as though the only reason we would complain was because we “hated
children.” This was in spite of the fact that the facility served many more children than their license allowed, (by the
way, at very high tuition rates).
We were fortunate that the owners eventually moved to another neighborhood in the city.
Now the city wants to open up R‐1 neighborhoods to commercial preschools, where the owners do not even live
there. Why is that good for the city?
I urge you to support the appeal and deny a permit to the preschool.
Patricia L. Pyfrom
437 10th Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90402
Item 6-A
01/23/18
37 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
(310) 451-3669
January 22, 2018
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Applicant’s Responses to Appellants’ CEQA and Environmental Justice
Arguments
Agenda Item No. 6-A
Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of CUP (17ENT-0075),
VAR (17ENT-0147), and Fence Modification (17ENT-0148)
Property address: 2953 Delaware Avenue
Applicant/Our client: Laila Taslimi/Untitled No. 1 School
Our File No. 22408.001
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing on behalf of Ms. Laila Taslimi and Untitled No. 1 School, a non-profit
educational organization. Ms. Taslimi and Untitled No. 1 School are the Applicants in
the above-referenced matter, a proposed preschool at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
This letter responds to the Appellants’ arguments in their December 5, 2017
communication asserting that this project is not categorically exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), that the Santa Monica Municipal Code
mandates formal environmental review of this preschool project, and that permitting the
preschool would violate the LUCE’s commitment to environmental justice. As this letter
explains, those arguments lack merit.1
1 Arguably, the Appellants failed to timely appeal the CEQA exemption determination as
required by Zoning Ordinance Sections 9.37.040 and 9.62.020. Appellants failed to raise their
objections on grounds of CEQA until the December 5, 2017 communication, which was well
after the governing 14-day appeal period.
kutcher@hlkklaw.com
Item 6-A
01/23/18
38 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 2
I.
APPELLANTS’ CEQA ARGUMENTS LACK MERIT
A. This Preschool Project, Including The Demolition Of The Existing
Garage, Is Categorically Exempt Under CEQA.
Appellants’ argument that this 20-child preschool project is not categorically
exempt because it includes both the conversion of the existing house into a preschool
and the demolition of the existing garage lacks legal merit. In making this argument, the
Appellants exhibit their lack of understanding of CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et
seq.).
Under CEQA, a public agency may combine several categorical exemptions to
find an entire project exempt. It is of no legal consequence that the City is relying on two
or more separate exemptions to exempt the entire project from CEQA. See e.g.,
Surfrider Found. v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 26 Cal. App. 4th 151,156 (1994) (finding that
two different exemptions applied to two different aspects of a project); Cal. Farm Bureau
Fed'n v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd., 143 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (2006) (finding
nothing improper where an agency considers the project as a whole and determines
that the combined effect of two exemptions places the entire project outside the scope
of CEQA).
Here, two categorical exemptions apply. First, the house’s conversion into a
preschool is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which categorically
exempts:
[The] construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures; installation of small new
equipment and facilities in small structures; and the
conversion of existing small structures from one use to
another where only minor modifications are made in the
exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures
described in this section are the maximum allowable on any
legal parcel. [Emphasis added.]
Second, the garage’s demolition is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15301(l)(4), which categorically exempts the “[d]emolition and removal of individual
small structures listed in this subdivision” including “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures
including garages….”
Both categorical exemptions are cited in the proposed City Council STOA.
These categorical exemptions are directly on point.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
39 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 3
Moreover, such an exemption determination need only be supported by
substantial evidence. Walters v. City of Redondo Beach, 1 Cal. App. 5th 809, 817
(2016); see also Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1243, 1251 (1999)
(“[T]he substantial evidence test governs our review of the city’s … determination that a
project falls within a categorical exemption.”). And that substantial evidence may be
located anywhere in the administrative record, including in the Applicant’s materials, any
documents previously before the Planning Commission, “all written materials relevant to
the respondent public agency’s … decision on the merits of the project,” in Staff
Reports, and in testimony, among other places. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21167.6(e);
County of Orange v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1, 8 (2003) (“[CEQA]
contemplates that the administrative record will include pretty much everything that ever
came near a proposed development or to the agency’s compliance with CEQA in
responding to that development.”).
Ample evidence in the record supports the City’s determination that this project is
categorically exempt. The Applicant’s project plans, the City Council Staff Report, the
Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, and various other documents clearly
show the nature of the project and the entitlements requested.2 The record shows that
the preschool involves “the conversion of existing small structures from one use to
another” (in this case, from a home to a preschool) as explicitly exempted by State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and that it clearly involves the conversion of a single-
family residence, as exempted by subsection (a) of that same Section.
Moreover, the preschool plans, City Council Staff Report, and numerous other
documents in the record demonstrate that the proposed preschool is less than 1,500
square feet in size on a 6,500 square foot lot.3 While the State CEQA Guidelines do not
define “small structure,” the preschool is much smaller than other structures that courts
have found to be covered by the exemption. See, e.g., Ass'n for the Prot. of Envtl.
Values in Ukiah v. City of Ukiah, 2 Cal. App. 4th 720, 724 (1991) (finding that the same
exemption applied to a 2,700 square foot house on a 8,840 square foot lot).
2 See Project Plans (attached to City Council Staff Report on Agenda Item #6A, dated
January 23, 2018, as Attachment “d”) (showing the nature of the project); City Council Staff
Report on Agenda Item #6A, December 5, 2017, pp. 1-8 (discussing the nature of the project
and the project’s necessary entitlements); and Planning Commission STOA, pp. 1-2 (showing
the entitlements granted by the Planning Commission).
3 Project Plans, “Title Sheet” (showing proposed building square footage); City Council
Staff Report on Agenda Item #6A, dated December 5, 2017, pp. 1, 4.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
40 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 4
Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the City’s CEQA exemption determination
is supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the preschool is exempt
under the plain meaning of the State CEQA Guidelines.
B. Appellants Have Not Shown That Unusual Circumstances Exist, And
The City Is Not Obligated To Conduct Noise And Traffic Studies To
Determine Whether “Unusual Circumstances” Exist.4
Here, Appellants’ argue that the City should have conducted studies to determine
whether the “unusual circumstances” exception applies. Not only are Appellants wrong,
but Appellants ignore the clear evidentiary record before the City Council.
1. The City has no obligation to conduct noise and traffic studies.
Appellants incorrectly contend that the City was legally obliged to conduct noise
and traffic studies to determine whether there are unusual circumstances related to the
project. The City bears no such burden under CEQA, which—if true—would defeat the
very purpose of categorical exemptions. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300
provides in full:
Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code requires these
Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have
been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from
the provisions of CEQA.
In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources
has found that the following classes of projects listed in
this article do not have a significant effect on the
environment, and they are declared to be categorically
exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents.
[Emphasis added.]
CEQA does not require that an agency prove that no exception to the stated
categorical exemption is applicable. An agency’s determination that the project falls
within a categorical exemption automatically includes an implied finding that no
4 While the City had no obligation to do so, the City has performed traffic counts
confirming that there will be no significant adverse traffic impacts projected for this preschool
use. (See City Council Supplemental Staff Report on Agenda Item #6A, dated January 23,
2018, p. 3. and Attachment A.)
Item 6-A
01/23/18
41 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 5
exception listed in the State CEQA Guidelines applies. Save Our Carmel River
v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist., 141 Cal. App. 4th 677, 689 (2006)
(“A determination by the agency that a project is categorically exempt constitutes an
implied finding that none of the exceptions applies.”). And here, City Staff’s
supplemental Staff Report and Draft Statement of Official Action also excludes an
explicit finding that no unusual circumstances exist.5 The burden is on the Appellants—
not the City—to show that an exception to the stated exemption applies. Protect Tel. Hill
v. City & Cty. of S.F., 16 Cal. App. 5th 261, 270 (2017).
Appellants mistakenly argue to the contrary. In their view, once the public has
made a fair argument that the preschool may have a significant effect on the
environment, the City must conduct environmental studies to defend its exemption
determination. But the California Supreme Court expressly rejected this argument in
Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1106 (2015), stating:
Allowing project opponents to negate [categorical exemption]
determinations based on nothing more than a fair argument
that the project will have significant environmental effects
would be fundamentally inconsistent with the Legislature's
intent in establishing the categorical exemptions.
Appellants attempt to avoid this result by relying on cases that have no legal
relevance here. For example, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296
(1988), and City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino, 96 Cal. App. 4th 398 (2002),
both involved inadequate Initial Studies and Negative Declarations. There, the agencies
were not invoking categorical exemptions, and those cases did not address what is
required to rely on a categorical exemption. Similarly, Parker Shattuck Neighbors v.
Berkeley City Council, 222 Cal. App. 4th 768 (2013), also cited by Appellants, involved
the decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and not to prepare an EIR. That
case also did not involve a categorical exemption, nor did it address what is required for
an agency to rely on a categorical exemption.
2. The preschool does not involve “unusual circumstances” as defined in the
CEQA case law.
Appellants have failed to show that this preschool project involves any
circumstances that are “unusual” as defined in the CEQA case law. Preschools and
other early education facilities in residential neighborhoods (including R1
5 City Council Supplemental Staff Report on Agenda Item #6A, dated January 23, 2018,
p. 2 & Attachment B (“Draft Statement of Official Action”), pp. 4-5.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
42 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 6
neighborhoods) are commonplace.6 Appellants’ own appeal claims that there are “over
46 preschools … located within two miles of the Proposed Preschool; over 20
preschools are located a mile or less from the proposed preschool.”7 The existence of
these comparable facilities in close proximity to the proposed preschool—including in
residential neighborhoods—defeats Appellants’ claim of unusual circumstances. Bloom
v. McGurk, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1307, 1316 (1994) (“The presence of comparable facilities
in the immediate area adequately supports the [agency’s] implied finding that there were
no ‘unusual circumstances’ precluding a categorical exemption in this case.”); City of
Pasadena v. State of California, 14 Cal.App.4th 810, 826–27 (1993) (“[T]he lease of the
… site for use as a parole office does not constitute an ‘unusual circumstance’ within
the meaning of CEQA in light of the presence of the other custodial and criminal justice
facilities in the immediate area.”).
In this regard, virtually every Santa Monica public school (including public
preschool) is surrounded partially or completely by residentially-zoned land, including
R1 zones.8 This reflects our City’s values: schools (and our children who attend them)
belong in residential neighborhoods, not on commercial boulevards. There is nothing
“unusual” at all about the preschool’s location in a residential neighborhood.
Nor do the Appellants’ claims about parking, traffic and noise constitute “unusual
circumstances.” Potential impacts on traffic, parking, and noise do not constitute
unusual circumstances as long as they are typical of similar projects in the exempt
class. Walters v. City of Redondo Beach, 1 Cal. App. 5th 809, 821-22 (2016) (“The
general effects of an operating business, such as noise, parking and traffic, cannot
serve as unusual circumstances in and of themselves.”); San Lorenzo Valley Cmty.
Advocates for Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 139 Cal.
App. 4th 1356, 1394-95 (2006) (rejecting the unusual circumstances exception where
students from two schools were transferred to two other schools, and where petitioners
argued that the increased attendance would create issues related to safety, parking,
traffic, and emergency access); Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1243,
1260 (1999) (finding no unusual circumstances related to a small office project because
nothing distinguished it from other small office projects that also tend to have minor
adverse impacts on traffic).
6 See January 2015 map prepared by the City of Santa Monica showing the childcare
and early education facilities in the City limits, provided on the City’s website at:
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/CCS/Youth_Portal/EECC_zoning_map.pdf
7 Appeal dated September 20, 2017, p. 10.
8 See Applicant’s Request for Administrative Notice, December 5, 2017, pp. 5-6,
Requests No. 18 and 22.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
43 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 7
Here, Appellants have not offered any expert testimony, traffic data, or other
credible evidence demonstrating impacts on traffic, noise, or parking. Instead, they
merely offer personal opinion and speculation, which does not and cannot amount to
substantial evidence supporting the unusual circumstances exception. CREED-21
v. City of San Diego, 234 Cal. App. 4th 488, 516 (2015) (“…argument, speculation, or
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative … does not constitute substantial evidence
showing the unusual circumstances exception to the project's exemption applies.”). And
even if Appellants had offered credible evidence, any impacts on parking, traffic, or
noise would merely be typical of other similar projects, and would not be enough to
demonstrate unusual circumstances. See Walters v. City of Redondo Beach, 1 Cal.
App. 5th 809, 821-22 (2016).
C. Appellants’ CEQA Arguments Ignore The Planning Commission’s
Extensive Conditions That Address Appellants’ Concerns.
The courts have held that the environmental impacts of a project must be based
on a project as approved, including the conditions of approval. See Walters v. City of
Redondo Beach, 1 Cal. App. 5th 809, 819-20 (2016) (rejecting unusual circumstances
exception and rejecting petitioner’s argument that a car wash would have significant
noise impacts when the car wash, as approved, included a condition that the project
would adhere to the City’s noise ordinance).
Here, the Planning Commission imposed (and City Staff is recommending)
extensive conditions that address and mitigate Appellants’ various concerns which they
cite in their “unusual circumstances” argument—including concerns about traffic,
parking and noise. These conditions include:
Condition #1: Limiting the preschool to a maximum of 20 children,
thereby mitigating the project’s potential traffic, parking, and noise
impacts. This condition also limits open house and parent meetings to the
indoors if they take place outside of normal operating hours, thereby
limiting potential noise impacts.
Condition #4: Restricting the preschool’s normal operating hours to
between 7:30 am and 6:00 pm, ensuring that the preschool will not create
adverse impacts in the evenings or weekends. This condition also
prohibits outdoor activity between 7:30 am and 8:00 a.m., helping mitigate
early morning noise impacts.
Condition #5: Restricting the number of special events to two events per
year, ensuring that the preschool won’t generate traffic, noise, or parking
impacts outside of its normal operations.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
44 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 8
Condition #6: Limiting organized outdoor activities to the hours between
8 am and 6 pm or sunset, whichever comes first, and to weekdays,
thereby eliminating potential evening and weekend noise impacts.
Condition #8: Stating, “The operation shall at all times be conducted in a
manner that is not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents in
terms of excessive and unreasonable noise levels and illegal parking
and/or loading by employees and visitors to the facility.”
Condition #10: Requiring a drop-off-and-pick-up plan, subject to the
City’s approval, that staggers child drop off and pick up times and
distributes drop offs and pick ups between the street and alley, thereby
helping to avoid traffic and parking backups.
Condition #11: Requiring short-term bicycle racks, thereby encouraging
alternative transportation (and helping reduce vehicle trips and parking).
Condition #13 Requiring an on-site contact person to serve as a
neighborhood liaison to address any neighborhood concerns related to the
preschool (including traffic, parking and noise).
Condition #15: Requiring that the preschool provide incentives to use
public transportation and utilize alternative transportation. This includes
providing employees with transit passes or transit reimbursement. This
condition encourages non-single-occupancy vehicle transportation,
thereby also reducing traffic and parking.
Condition #17: Requiring that the Preschool make a good faith effort to
hire qualified staff from within the 90404 zip code, thereby increasing the
likelihood that staff will be located nearby and employ alternative
transportation (such as walking or biking), thus also reducing potential
impacts on traffic.
Condition #26: Requiring that the “operation shall at all times be
conducted in a manner not detrimental to the surrounding properties or
residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.”
Condition #27: Requiring that “[t]he project shall at all times comply with
the provisions of the Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12).
Appellants fail to acknowledge these conditions and fail to counter their
relevance to Appellants’ CEQA arguments, even though these conditions are designed
Item 6-A
01/23/18
45 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 9
to address the very traffic, parking, and noise concerns that ostensibly motivate
Appellants’ opposition to the preschool.
In sum, Appellants have offered no evidence that any traffic, parking, or noise
impacts of this small preschool project are at all unusual, especially given the extensive
conditions of approval imposed by the City. Indeed, if this preschool is at all unique, it is
due to its uniquely small size (with 20 students maximum) combined with the extensive
list of conditions limiting its impacts and ensuring its compatibility with the
neighborhood.
II.
APPELLANTS’ MUNICIPAL CODE ARGUMENT LACKS MERIT
Appellants argue that the City’s own Municipal Code required the City to conduct
formal environmental review of this preschool project regardless of whether the project
is exempt under the CEQA Guidelines. As explained in the Supplemental Staff Report
at pages 4-5, this argument too lacks legal merit.
The Municipal Code provision in question is Section 9.14.060, which sets forth
the findings that must be made before a CUP may be granted. One of these findings, in
subsection (G), states:
Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no
potentially significant environmental impacts or any
potentially significant environmental impacts have been
reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation
measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been adopted.
Apparently, the Appellants assume this Municipal Code provision requires the
City to conduct formal environmental review in all CUP cases, extending far beyond
CEQA’s requirements. The plain meaning of this Code provision does not compel such
an interpretation; such an interpretation is contrary to the City’s consistent
administrative practice and would lead to absurd results.
A. The City’s Administrative Practice Does Not Require Formal
Environmental Review For All CUP Applications.
The City’s past administrative practice has not been to require formal
environmental review for all CUP applications. Indeed, such a review is only performed
when required by CEQA. Because most projects are exempt from CEQA, the City’s
Item 6-A
01/23/18
46 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 10
administrative practice has been not to require formal environmental review for the vast
majority of CUP applications.
Over the last three years, for example, the City has granted at least three CUPs
allowing the conversion of structures in residential neighborhoods into preschools
(16ENT-054; 15ENT-0280; 14ENT-014).9 In none of those cases did the City require
formal environmental review. Indeed, in all three cases, the City found that the projects
were exempt from CEQA under the same exemption relied upon in this case.
Clearly, the City has never interpreted its own Municipal Code as requiring formal
environmental review for every CUP. The City’s interpretation of its own Municipal Code
is generally afforded significant weight and deference. See Citizens for Responsible
Equitable Envtl. Dev. v. City of San Diego, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1032, 1047 (2010). In fact,
where a City’s interpretation of its own Municipal Code has been long-standing and
consistent, a court will not disturb that interpretation unless it is clearly erroneous.
Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal. 4th 1, 21 (1998); Rizzo v. Bd.
of Trs., 27 Cal. App. 4th 853, 861 (1994) (“Long-standing, consistent administrative
construction of a statute by those charged with its administration, … is entitled to great
weight and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.”). Thus, Appellants’
strained interpretation of the Municipal Code—which flies in the face of the City’s long-
standing administrative practice—must be rejected.
B. Appellants’ Interpretation Of The Municipal Code Would Lead To Absurd
Results.
Appellants’ interpretation of the above-quoted Municipal Code provision would
also lead to absurd results, an interpretation disfavored in the law. Chaffee v. S.F. Pub.
Library Comm’n, 134 Cal. App. 4th 109, 114 (2005) (“[A]lthough we look first to the
statutory language, we do not give the words a literal meaning if to do so would result in
an absurd result that was not intended.”).
Here, Appellants’ interpretation would expand formal environmental review far
beyond the requirements of CEQA. Indeed, the City would have to undertake formal
environmental review for all CUP applications regardless of the nature of the project.
This would, for example, include CUPs to allow the incidental on-site sale and
consumption of alcohol for an existing use. This would be both resource intensive and
9 Planning Commission STOA on CUP #16-0054, with a determination date of
September 7, 2016, pp. 1-2 & 4-5; Planning Commission STOA on CUP #15-0280, with a
determination date of February 3, 2016, pp. 1, 4; Planning Commission STOA on CUP #14-014,
with a determination date of June 17, 2015, p. 1.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
47 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 11
pointless. This result is absurd, cannot be what the City intended, and should be
avoided.
III.
THIS PROPOSED PRESCHOOL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT RAISE LEGITIMATE
ISSUES CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Appellants also argue that permitting the preschool would violate the LUCE’s
commitment to environmental justice. In making this argument, Appellants misrepresent
the meaning of environmental justice to mask what are, quite clearly, their Not In My
Back Yard (“NIMBY”) concerns.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized the concept of
environmental justice, defining it broadly as “the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.” (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). This concept has
evolved through the leadership of groups such as the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) to include the protection of communities (especially low-income and
minority communities) that have, often without their participation or knowledge, become
the prime locations for polluting and hazardous land uses.
However, in order to merit environmental justice concerns, a proposed use must
unfairly force a community to bear the burdens of what is commonly referred to as a
“locally unwanted land use” or LULU. This term—LULU—requires more than a use
being unwelcome by some neighbors. LULUs ordinarily create noxious odors, extreme
noise that constitute health hazards, or make residents fearful of increased crime and
imminent danger within their communities. Examples of LULUs include waste treatment
centers, landfills, powerplants, highways, prisons, and certain kinds of factories. See
generally Denis J. Brion, An Essay on LULU, NIMBY, and the Problem of Distributive
Justice, 15 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 437 (1988).
Quite clearly, preschools are not LULUs. Preschools are a neighborhood
amenity, not an environmental hazard. The preschool at issue here has registered for
LEED® and WELL® certification and will include environmental justice as part of its
core curriculum.10
10 See generally, Applicant’s Discretionary Permit Application for this Conditional Use
Permit, Detailed Project Description, p. 3.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
48 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Santa Monica City Council
January 22, 2018
Page 12
When schools generate neighborhood opposition as here, they do so for NIMBY
reasons and not out of concern about the environment. Appellants’ claim that a
preschool in a residential neighborhood raises environmental justice concerns is
specious, and the notion that a preschool serving no more than 20 students raises
serious environmental justice concerns is unsupported by law, evidence or common
sense.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The City Council, in approving the City’s new Zoning Ordinance less than three
years ago, determined that preschools are an appropriate use in all residential
neighborhoods, including R1 neighborhoods. In doing so, the City Council implemented
LUCE policies favoring early childhood education including preschools. By requiring a
CUP for preschools, the new Zoning Ordinance empowers the Planning Commission
(and City Council on appeal) to impose conditions of approval to ensure neighborhood
compatibility. That is what the Planning Commission did here, and that is what City Staff
is recommending to the City Council.
The City Council should not be persuaded by Appellants’ CEQA or environmental
justice arguments. The City’s CEQA exemptions are directly on point and supported by
substantial evidence. The City was not required to study whether unusual
circumstances exist or to conduct any formal environmental review; the City’s Municipal
Code does not require otherwise. Moreover, Appellants have not, and cannot, point to
anything about the project that constitutes unusual circumstances, nor identify any
legitimate environmental justice concerns. Put simply, Appellants’ arguments are
without merit, and their appeal should be denied.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Kutcher
cc: Rick Cole
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Roxanne Tanemori
Elizabeth Bar-El
Lane Dilg
Susan Cola
Laila Taslimi
F:\WPDATA\22408\Cor\CC.1003a.KLK.JDM.docx
Item 6-A
01/23/18
49 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sheri Linzell <swlinzell@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Cc:Aaron Swerdlow
Subject:Support for Appeal 17ENT-0186
Dear City Council Members,
My husband, Aaron Swerdlow, and I are homeowners on Delaware Avenue in the Gandara Park neighborhood.
In advance of tomorrow night's City Council meeting, we are writing to reiterate our support for Appeal 17ENT-0186 of the CUP
that was granted to permit a large preschool to be established at 2953 Delaware Avenue in our R1 neighborhood.
Below are several of the reasons that we feel strongly that a preschool is not appropriate on our street, which is comprised of
single family homes.
Area is Already Over-Preschooled: According to a 2015 RAND Study (which was commissioned by the City), Santa
Monica has a “surplus of preschool spaces for city residents.” There already are 46 preschools within 2 miles of the
proposed preschool and 20 preschools and 15 existing daycares located within a mile or less from the site.
Additionally, there are very few preschool-aged children who live in the neighborhood, so it likely would serve
children primarily from outside of the neighborhood.
Congestion - Delaware Avenue is a narrow street that already regularly is clogged with parked cars and cars cutting
through the neighborhood to get to nearby businesses. We already have to pull to the side of the street to let cars
going the opposite direction through. It is hard to imagine how pickups and dropoffs for 20 children even will be
feasible on the street without significantly affecting residents and traffic flow.
Strong Opposition by Neighborhood - The residents of the neighborhood strongly oppose the the preschool. Many of us
chose to live on Delaware Avenue because it is a residential street, and adding a business like a large preschool
completely changes the character of the street.
We strongly urge you to support the Appeal 17ENT-0186. Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Sheri Linzell & Aaron Swerdlow
Item 6-A
01/23/18
50 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 6:04 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:SUPPORT Appeal of proposed preschool at 2953 Delaware- Agenda item 6-
A,1/23/2018
January 22, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Northeast Neighbors
RE: 1/23/18 Agenda item 6-A: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a proposed preschool
at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Dear City Council,
We are writing to request that you grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents
of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications requested
by the property owner.
Our City's general plan makes a commitment to the community to preserve and protect the quality of
life in our residential neighborhoods. Allowing such a commercial operation at this location
will irreparably damage the residential character and quality of life for residents
of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
Allowing the property to be converted to a commercial day care center would also remove important
affordable housing stock in our community suitable for families by removing a single family home and
the potential for an affordable 2nd unit by demolishing the garage that otherwise could be converted
to a legal second unit.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
51 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
2
This city is woefully deficient in opportunities for young families of modest income to purchase a
home. Removing this housing stock is in direct conflict with our city’s affordable housing goals and
state mandates.
Commercial childcare centers are better located in business districts onsite or in close proximity
to commercial development where individuals work. Awards have been won by forward-thinking
businesses like Patagonia for the on-site child care center at their Ventura headquarters. Such
facilities place children and parents close to each other and encourage the use of transit, reducing car
trips into and out of fragile residential neighborhoods of our already congested city.
Please support the residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood by upholding their Appeal and
denying the CUP for this business.
Sincerely,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 6-A
01/23/18
52 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ray and Dina Johnson <rayndina@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:Gandara Park preschool
Council,
Please do not allow this preschool in a residential neighborhood. This one is the camel's nose under the tent. It is not
right for the neighbors.
Raymond Johnson
Item 6-A
01/23/18
53 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Taffy Patton <taffypatton1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Cc:Home; David Martin; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi;
Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Leslie Lambert
Subject:1/23/18 Item 6-A Apeal PC Approval 2953 Preschool Delaware
Dear City Council, City Manager and Staff:
Please grant the appeal submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance,
and Fence Modifications requested by the commercial property owner.
Permitting this property to be converted to a commercial daycare center/pre-school would remove affordable
housing stock for families, as well the potential for converting the garage to an affordable 2nd unit. Removing
housing stock from our limited supply is in direct conflict with our city’s affordable housing goals and State
mandates.
This business will also damage the residential character and quality of life for residents
of Gandara Park Neighborhood, a neighborhood already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
Commercial childcare/pre-school does not belong in any residential neighborhood. Instead, commercial
childcare/preschool centers must be located on-site within developments and business districts where employees
work. On-site childcare places children close to parents and encourages use of public transit without impacting
fragile residential neighborhoods and without adding car trips to our already crowded streets.
Please support the residents of Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Uphold their Appeal and deny the CUP for this intrusive business.
Best regards,
Taffy Patton
Chair, Residents Coalition
Item 6-A
01/23/18
54 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ray and Dina Johnson <rayndina@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:Gandara Park preschool
Council,
Please do not allow this preschool in a residential neighborhood. This one is the camel's nose under the tent. It is not
right for the neighbors.
Raymond Johnson
Item 6-A
01/23/18
55 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Taffy Patton <taffypatton1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Cc:Home; David Martin; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi;
Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Leslie Lambert
Subject:1/23/18 Item 6-A Apeal PC Approval 2953 Preschool Delaware
Dear City Council, City Manager and Staff:
Please grant the appeal submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance,
and Fence Modifications requested by the commercial property owner.
Permitting this property to be converted to a commercial daycare center/pre-school would remove affordable
housing stock for families, as well the potential for converting the garage to an affordable 2nd unit. Removing
housing stock from our limited supply is in direct conflict with our city’s affordable housing goals and State
mandates.
This business will also damage the residential character and quality of life for residents
of Gandara Park Neighborhood, a neighborhood already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
Commercial childcare/pre-school does not belong in any residential neighborhood. Instead, commercial
childcare/preschool centers must be located on-site within developments and business districts where employees
work. On-site childcare places children close to parents and encourages use of public transit without impacting
fragile residential neighborhoods and without adding car trips to our already crowded streets.
Please support the residents of Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Uphold their Appeal and deny the CUP for this intrusive business.
Best regards,
Taffy Patton
Chair, Residents Coalition
Item 6-A
01/23/18
56 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Woodson-Boulton <woodson.boulton@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:16 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis;
Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day
Cc:Luke; Tricia Crane
Subject:1/23/18 Agenda item 6-A: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a proposed
preschool at 2953 Delaware Avenue
Dear City Council,
I write to support the letter from Northeast Neighbors (see below) that requests that you grant the
Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny
the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications requested by the property owner.
As the Northeast Neighbors Board writes,
Our City's general plan makes a commitment to the community to preserve and protect the
quality of life in our residential neighborhoods. Allowing such a commercial operation at this
location will irreparably damage the residential character and quality of life for residents
of Gandara Park Neighborhood, which is already under siege from surrounding commercial and
infrastructure development.
Allowing the property to be converted to a commercial day care center would also
remove important affordable housing stock in our community suitable for families by removing a
single family home and the potential for an affordable 2nd unit by demolishing the garage that
otherwise could be converted to a legal second unit.
This city is woefully deficient in opportunities for young families of modest income to purchase a
home. Removing this housing stock is in direct conflict with our city’s affordable housing goals
and state mandates.
Commercial childcare centers are better located in business districts onsite or in close proximity
to commercial development where individuals work. Awards have been won by forward-thinking
businesses like Patagonia for the on-site child care center at their Ventura headquarters. Such
facilities place children and parents close to each other and encourage the use of transit,
reducing car trips into and out of fragile residential neighborhoods of our already congested
city.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
57 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
2
Like many residents, I understand that there are many competing needs that we (and you, for us!) try
to balance as our city grows and changes. We need childcare, transit, parks, and affordable housing.
Many of these things can only be achieved with profit-driven developments rather than public
management. As the mother of two young sons, I recognize the urgent need for good infant care,
preschool, and after-school care. However, this is a case where the balance tips in favor of
preserving affordable housing and allowing the existing rules to regulate childcare facilities in
residential areas.
Please deny the CUP for this business.
Thank you for your time and work,
Amy Woodson-Boulton
Item 6-A
01/23/18
58 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
December 4, 2017 SENT VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica Councilmembers
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407
Re: Opposition to Project 17ENT-0075, Conditional Use Permit for Education Center at
2953 Delaware Ave.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I have lived on Delaware Avenue for the last 18 years. What endeared this neighborhood to us was the
“quiet” charm and character of this beautiful tree-lined street. This neighborhood because of its location
is like a little hidden pocket; with multiple neighbors having lived here for 60+ years. We all know one
another and look out for each other, especially our seniors. Many (of the seniors), are like pseudo
grandparents to my 3 kids; constantly stopping by to drop off home-baked treats and snacks.
I shared the above so that you may have a picture of what our street and neighborhood means to us.
Prior to this proposed project, and for many years, we wrote letters and attended various Planning and
City Council Meetings to oppose the construction of the Expo line in our neighborhood on Exposition. We
were concerned about traffic, we were concerned about our little hidden pocket being exposed to people
from the outside that did not know we were there, we were concerned about crime, we were concerned
about noise and, we were concerned about air quality. As you can see, we lost that fight. Not only were
we defeated but, all of our concerns have come to fruition.
Almost every weekend one of cars, homes or yards are burglarized, we now have many, many unknown
people walking down our street, people trying to avoid the Expo crossing on Stewart cut through our
neighborhood at high rates of speed causing 10-20 car back-ups during peak hours on Virginia and
Exposition and, we get to hear screeching brakes and horns from the trains at any given time, day or night.
Most recently, usually about 2am.
To say that we are a frustrated community, is an understatement and now, we must fight again. We do
not want an education center in our neighborhood that has the potential for 26 more vehicles to come in
and out of our neighborhood during peak hours. We do not want the noise that will be constant and
every day from 7:30am to 5:30pm. There are already 3 home daycares in our neighborhood and 1
education center just south of the 10 freeway. We are a community of seniors/older adults, why would
we need 4 childcare facilities in a 5 block radius? It’s absurd!
Item 6-A
01/23/18
59 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
This change of occupancy use is a detriment to our beloved neighborhood. It will set a precedent for
others to take away the opportunity for a family to move into our sweet neighborhood. The applicant has
no intention of living in the home because this is nothing but a business to her. Businesses can be found
in commercial districts not in single family neighborhoods.
I have had the opportunity to speak to the applicant several times. She has never been able to clearly
answer my concerns but rather, dances around the questions and answers with all the wonderful things
she is planning for her school. Parking and loading and unloading have also been of concern. The parking
plans she has submitted and re-submitted are unrealistic. Again, I’m a parent of 3. I have had all my kids
in preschool. I know what parking and unloading looks like. To think that a parent will park, drop off the
child and leave within 5-10 minutes, is unreasonable. What happens if 20 parents arrive at the same time?
Where will they park? Where will they wait? Will they be congregating outside? Talking? Waking up the
98 year old neighbor that lives right next door?
As I have previously mentioned, traffic is a huge concern to us. I have read the staff report for this project.
There clearly is no mention of the increased traffic that we will also experience as result of the 3 enormous
commercial buildings that are almost complete on Stewart and Olympic and Stewart and Colorado. It’s
too much!
I am respectfully requesting a denial of this conditional use permit. Please help us protect our
neighborhood and allow us the opportunity to renew our faith in the City wanting the same for our sweet
neighborhood.
Thank you for time and consideration.
Best,
Christine Parra
Christine Parra
310-678-7442
Item 6-A
01/23/18
60 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
61 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
62 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
63 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
64 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
65 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
66 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
67 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
68 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
69 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
70 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
71 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
72 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
73 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
74 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
75 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
76 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
77 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
78 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
79 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
80 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
81 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
82 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
Item 6-A
01/23/18
83 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
84 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
85 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
86 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
87 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
88 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
89 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
90 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
91 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
92 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
93 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
94 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
95 of 101
I
t
e
m
6
-
A
0
1
/
2
3
/
1
8
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Drew Traglia <drew@drewtraglia.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; sue.himmerlich@smgov.net; Pam OConnor; Clerk Mailbox; Rick
Cole; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:1/23/18 Agenda item 6-A: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a proposed
preschool at 2953 Delaware Avenue
To Whom It May Concern,
I'm writing to respectfully request that you grant the Appeal (Case No.
17ENT‐0189) submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence
Modifications requested by the property owner.
Commercial childcare centers are better located in business districts onsite or in close proximity to commercial
development where individuals work. Such facilities place children and parents close to each other and encourage the
use of transit, reducing car trips into and out of fragile residential neighborhoods of our already congested city.
Thank you for your consideration,
Drew Traglia
24th Street
Item 6-A
01/23/18
96 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Loya <mloyadlt@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Cc:David Martin; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Mario
Fonda-Bonardi; Leslie Lambert
Subject:Item 6-A Apeal PC Approval 2953 Preschool Delaware
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors write this letter to urge you to uphold the Appeal 17ENT-
0186 submitted by residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications
requested by the commercial property owner.
Allowing a preschool on a narrow residential street like Delaware Ave. will not only be unsafe, it will continue the pattern of
ignoring Pico Neighborhood quality of life concerns. This unfortunate history of exclusionary policy making has already
placed environmentally harmful commercial and infrastructure development in our neighborhood, that no other
neighborhood in our City has to deal with.
We want to be very clear in our opposition to deceptive tactics that strive to sell our residents a non profit service in order
to over ride the opposition of impacted residents. The City should reflect on the principles it followed to regulate AirBNB.
In this proposed project we are also putting much needed housing stock at risk as owners will have an incentive and a
pathway to convert housing into commercial pre schools or similar service for profit activities, where profits are greater.
Furthermore, residents on Delaware and the adjacent streets bare the environmental burden of the I-10 freeway, the
City’s waste facilities and the Expo Maintenance Yard. And now a preschool is being proposed that will add to the
burdens that residents already have to live with. No other segment of the City is forced to make such sacrifices.
What is very telling is that the people that are in favor of the commercial preschool don’t live in the neighborhood while
everyone who lives there is opposed to this project. We sincerely hope that you listen to our residents whose lives,
properties and quality of life will be directly impacted by the commercial activity brought on by Untitled #1 preschool.
Stand with us to preserve the scale and character of our neighborhood and protect housing and residential neighborhoods
from commercial encroachment. Treat our residents and the neighborhoods they live in with the same respect you give
residents who live in more affluent parts of our City.
The PNA Board also strongly supports NOMA, FOSP and NEN in advocating to fix our residential
building codes to curb city approval of new mega-homes that are too big and too impactful for their
neighbors. We urge the City Council to adopt an interim zoning ordinance that addresses the
mansionization taking place throughout the City.
PNA Board of Directors
Item 6-A
01/23/18
97 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:janedempsey@earthlink.net
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Clerk
Mailbox; zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:RE: City Council - 1/23/18 item 6-A - Appeal of 2953 Delaware project
Dear City Councilmembers.
I strongly support the position of Friends of Sunset Park, email dated January 21 and support the appeal. I agree
that there is no demonstrated need for child care or a preschool in the Pico/Gandara Park neighborhood.
Residents are getting mixed messages about what the City and City Councilmembers feel should be in and
adjacent to R1 zoning.
Jane Dempsey
To: CouncilMtgItems@smgov.net, kevin@mckeown.net, tony.vazquez@smgov.net,
gleam.davis@smgov.net, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, pam.oconnor@smgov.net,
terry.oday@smgov.net, ted.winterer@smgov.net, rick.cole@smgov.net,
david.martin@smgov.net, jing.yeo@smgov.net, Clerk@smgov.net
Cc: zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent: 1/22/2018 1:16:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: FOSP: City Council - 1/23/18 item 6-A - Appeal of 2953 Delaware project - FOSP
Board letter
January 21, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 6-A: Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed preschool
with extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
The FOSP Board strongly supports the appeal (see our December 3, 2017 letter below).
When it takes not only a CUP but also a variance and the demolition of a garage to make this
commercial project work in a little house in an R1 neighborhood, it seems that we're trying to cram a
square peg into a round hole.
There is no demonstrated need for child care or a preschool in the Pico/Gandara Park neighborhood.
And since the City Council has stated that preserving affordable housing is a priority, it makes little
sense to convert a relatively affordable family home to a commercial business use.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
98 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
2
City Council Strategic Goals: Inclusive and Diverse Community -- Santa Monica is
committed to maintaining an inclusive and diverse community by expanding affordable
housing, raising workers’ incomes, and helping Santa Monica residents stay in their homes
and build their community network.
**********************************************************
December 3, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 12/5/17 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal of Planning Commission approval re a proposed preschool
with extended daycare (7:30 AM to 6 PM) at 2953 Delaware Avenue
The FOSP Board requests that City Council grant the Appeal (Case No. 17ENT-0189) submitted by
residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood and deny the CUP, Variance, and Fence Modifications
approved by Planning Commission so that the residents may preserve peace in their neighborhood
Residents of many neighborhoods have signed the petition supporting this Appeal because the
application that was approved by the Planning Commission clearly exceeds what the Zoning allows.
Friends of Sunset Park and Northeast Neighbors fought very hard to stop City Council from allowing
commercial day care centers in single family (R1) neighborhoods during the Zoning Ordinance Update.
We lost that fight.
Now we have the first case of a home that has been purchased and plans presented that seek permission
from the City to expand even further the commercial child care center standards now permitted in the
Zoning, an application to run a commercial venture in a single family home.
The state of California has long permitted "family day care" in residential neighborhoods. Such daycare
programs are low key and low cost and allow residents who open them to run small scale programs that
generate needed income. The state sets a maximum of 8 children in "small family daycare" and a
maximum of 14 children in "large family daycare."
The new commercial level of child care center that our City Council approved for R1 is of a whole
different order. The one planned for the Gandara Park neighborhood is owned by a group called
Delaware LLC, which plans to hire up to five employees and to accept up to 20 children for a reported
tuition of $1,700 a month.
The owner will not live in the converted home. These factors describe a commercial enterprise that
could generate a gross income of $34,000 a month. In contrast, a house the same size on the same block
just rented for $5,000 a month.
While supporting early childhood education and family daycare, during the Zoning Ordinance update,
neighborhood organizations, including Friends of Sunset Park and Northeast Neighbors, argued against
allowing commercial child care centers in R1 neighborhoods
NEN pointed out that a better public policy approach would be to require on-site child care centers in
development agreements and DR projects instead of the practice of collecting child care fees, saying
Item 6-A
01/23/18
99 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
3
that awards have been won by forward-thinking businesses like Patagonia for the on-site child care
center they offer at their Ventura headquarters. Such facilities would place children and parents close to
each other and encourage the use of transit, reducing car trips in and out of neighborhoods in our
already congested city.
To allow this project on Delaware Avenue to move forward with the requested expansions beyond what
the Zoning allows is not consistent with the stated aim of this Council to encourage housing
production. With the new regulations for second unit "granny flats," not only will the house be lost to
the housing market, but there will also be the loss of a potential affordable second unit.
While the need for affordable housing has been clearly measured, no data has been presented by the
applicant or City staff to show the need for a child care facility in this neighborhood.
The fact that the sign on the front lawn of this property describes it as "Untitled No. 1 School" suggests
there will be more such applications to convert more single homes into commercial day care centers
that ask more than the Code allows, removing more homes from the market, and creating more conflicts
between City Hall and residents.
We urge City Council to grant the Appeal for these reasons and all of the reasons articulated by
the residents of the Gandara Park Neighborhood.
Item 6-A
01/23/18
100 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Edward <edward@LAocean.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 4:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor
Cc:Council Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Item 6-A: Residents' appeal -- I Support the Appeal
Please place in the public record.
FROM: Ed Hunsaker
TO: Mayor Wilson, and Councilmembers O’Connor, O’Day, Davis, Himmelrich, Vazquez, McKeown.
RE: 6‐A: Residents' appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of CUP, variance (to demolish the garage), and
fence/wall modification permitting a Child Care and Early Education facility for up to 20 children (and 6 staff)
at 2953 Delaware Avenue
I support the residents’ appeal re the CUP permitting of a commercial Child Care and Early Education facility for up to 20
children and 6 staff at 2953 Delaware Avenue.
I support quality education for everyone at any age.
I do not support the notion that every proposal is proper and the best choice.
No one would support three pre‐schools of this size on one length of street in a residential neighborhood; that would
not be proper or the best choice. So, where do we draw the line? At 2? 1?
In this specific case, the line must be drawn at zero, but only because the size of this proposed pre‐school facility, placed
in that neighborhood, on that street, is not proper or the best choice.
The idea that this enterprise can only be placed at that address is short‐sighted, and does not give proper consideration
to the families who live on that street.
The idea that building commercial enterprises into R1 neighborhoods is wrong.
I support a pre‐school, but not at that address. We can do better.
Thank you,
Ed Hunsaker
Wilmont Board member
814 Idaho Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 6-A
01/23/18
101 of 101 Item 6-A
01/23/18
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Appeal of Planning Commission’s
Approval of Conditional Use Permit
(17ENT-0075), Variance 17ENT-0147, &
Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT-0148
2953 Delaware Avenue
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Subject Site: 2953 Delaware Av enue
Proposed Change of Use from Single-Family Home
to
Child Care & Early Education Facility
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
General Plan: Child Care Uses,
Neighborhood Conservation
LUCE Goal CE9
•Integrate the childcare and early education needs of
those who live or work in the community into the City’s
land use planning process
LUCE GOAL N.1
•Protect, preserve and enhance the residential
neighborhoods
•N1.1 Respect and preserve the existing housing stock…
•N1.2 Encourage the enhancement of neighborhood services
to achieve the goal of creating complete neighborhoods…
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Zoning Ordinance:
Child Care Uses
R-1 Zone
•Small Family Day Care (8 kids) and Large Family Day Care (14
kids) are residential uses and allowed ‘by-right’
•Child Care Facilities (nonresidential) are conditionally permitted
(CUP)
•The discretionary CUP process allows for public input and
any approval granted includes conditions to protect
surrounding residents through mitigating potential design
and operational impacts.
No R-1 Childcares, three R2 Child Care Facilities approved
since adoption of new Zoning Ordinance
•One (Meadows) opened in new academic year
•One not going forward due to difficulty of complying with
CUP conditions (Harvard St.)
•One on 22nd Street, building permit issued.
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Context: Childcare Facilities
and Need in Santa Monica
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Planning Entitlement
Applications
Conditional Use Permit
•To allow a change of use for the establishment of a Child Care
and Early Education Facility
Va riances
•For parking in the front yard setback as prohibited by SMMC
9.28.070.A.1.
•To provide one on-site passenger loading space instead of the
two passenger loading spaces as required by SMMC
9.28.080.E.4.D
•Due to a recent Code change, the variance request to allow
parking not located in a garage has been removed.
Fence/Wall Modification
•To allow a fence over four feet high in the front setback, which
the Director may authorize per SMMC 9.31.120.
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue Property Location
R1 District –Single-unit Residential
Current Use Single-Family Home (vacant)
Lot Size: 6,491 sf |1,478 sf one-story building
Subject Site
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Neighborhood
Overview
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Rear Alley
Neighborhood/Access
Street View
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue Site Plan
Parking & Loading
•Three Parking Spaces Required
•Tw o Passenger Loading Spaces
Required
•Parking complies; loading variance
with substitute short-term parking
Child Day Care Center –1,478sf
•Mon. –Fri., 7:30 a.m. –6:00 p.m.
•3 Classrooms
•Outdoor Play area –2,598 sf
•Up to 20 Children
5’fence àß8’ f ence
5’fence àß8’ f ence
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
PC Statement of Official Action:
Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval
•Maximum enrollment of 20 children, ages 4-6; events associated with
childcare, such as parent meetings, allowed.
•Neighbors within 300 feet to be given notification at least one week
prior of activities to happen outside of hours.
•Compliance with State and local regulations
•Hours of operations limitations:
•7:30am –6:00pm, Monday-Friday
•7:30am -8:00am –Indoor only
•Organized outdoor activity: Only between 8am-6pm or sunset, if
earlier
•Up to two special events may be allowed by PCD Director annually
•Request to Director at least 45 days in advance
•Notice to neighbors within 300 feet at least one week in advance
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
PC STOA: Conditions
of Approval
Conditions of Approval
•Three parking spaces, one loading space, short-term parking space
request must be submitted
•15-minute limit between 8am-6:00pm, Monday-Friday
•Designate an on-site contact as neighborhood liaison
•Consult with Connections for Children, the PNA and others to reach
community in need
•No signage
•Required employee rideshare incentives
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
PC STOA: Conditions
of Approval
Conditions of Approval
•Drop off/Pick Up Plan required;
•Parents assigned to parking locations based on planned arrival
times to distribute use of both sides of facility. Must sign agreement
as condition of enrollment.
•Peak drop-off between 7:45am –8:30am
•Working parents: Will be allowed to drop off at 7:30am to
support work day needs. Late pick-up until 6:00pm
•Pick-ups occur between 5:00pm –6:00pm
•Applicant will encourage rideshare, including walking and biking for local
residents and transit for parents working in the Bergamot Station area.
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
PC STOA: Conditions
of Approval
Conditions of Approval
•Planning Commission approval for any substantial change in mode or
character of the use
•Conduct in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood
•No excessive or unreasonable noise
•Operator responsible to ensure that parents park and load legally
•Maximum five-foot front yard fence with transparency and landscaping.
Required if childcare use reverts back to single-family unit:
•Fence above generally permitted height to be removed
•Parking to comply with Code
•Short-term parking space to be removed
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Planning
Commission Action
September 6, 2017 Public Hearing
•Approved CUP (6-1), Variances (7-0), Fence
Modification (6-1)
–Approved Draft Conditions of Approval and added:
•Front yard fence of up to 5 feet
•Applicant to make efforts to hire local
•Strengthened rideshare assistance and incentives
•Applicant added to project description concept of
serving mixed economic levels
•Public Testimony: 21 in opposition; 6 in favor
•Written comments also received
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
Filed on September 20, 2017
By Nada Shamonki
Appeal of Project
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
–Challenges the Planning Commission’s approval
on multiple levels, consistent with testimony given
in opposition to the application at hearing
•Cites strong neighbor opposition
•Expands on Traffic concerns
•Claims LUCE violation
•Claims lack of need for pre-schools
•Disagrees with the Commission’s findings
•Objects to the Commission’s proceedings.
Appeal of PC Decision
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•Strong neighbor opposition
–Response: The public hearing process provides
opportunities for expression of all opinions and
concerns. The Planning Commission received all
comments submitted. They were aware of the
opposition as well as the support voiced by others.
–Opposition is a consideration but not a finding for
decision-makers considering an application.
Points of Appeal
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•Traffic concerns
–Response: The childcare center would introduce a
maximum of 26 a.m. trips and 26 p.m. trips, at
staggered times. Addressed and mitigated through
the Drop-Off/Pick-Up Plan.
–The application is categorically exempt from CEQA,
and does not fall into an “exception” category (CEQA,
Section 15300.2), in terms of cumulative effect or
significant effect due to unusual circumstances.
Points of Appeal
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•Supplemental report: Traffic Count
–Conducted January 11, 2018
–320 Average daily trips on this stretch of
Delaware Avenue
–80 additional trips = significant impact
–Proposed Early Education Facility will add 52
trips.
Conclusion: No unusual circumstances and
project is exempt from CEQA.
Traffic Count
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•LUCE violation claim
–Response: The project is a reuse of the existing
dwelling structure and, as conditioned is consistent
with LUCE policies for the Pico Neighborhood, for
providing community services within walking distance
of residential uses, and for providing childcare
facilities as a community priority.
–LUCE goals and policies envision neighborhoods with
nearby services to meet needs within walking
distance.
–Childcare is a LUCE priority.
Points of Appeal
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•Lack of need for pre-schools
–Response:
•The RAND study cited in the appeal explored the
development of more pre-schools, focusing on
quality. The study is not a source for the argument
that there are too many pre-schools.
•City policy continues to encourage more early
education facilities for residents and the Santa
Monica workforce.
•There is not a statutory finding related to
establishing need for the requested use in order to
grant the entitlements associated with this request.
Points of Appeal
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•Disagreement with findings
–Response:
•The Commission made all findings in the
Statement of Official Action. Each finding is
supported by appropriate analysis.
•The staff report includes a summary of findings.
Decision-makers review the full record, including
the draft STOA.
Points of Appeal
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
•Disagreement with Commission’s
Proceedings and Conclusions
–Response:
•The report responds with explanation of the
analysis conducted and conclusions.
•The Commission heard testimony and information
presented, discussed and debated the proposed
project extensively and rendered their decision.
Points of Appeal
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue Recommendation
Recommended Actions
•Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning
Commission’s Approval:
–Approve CUP17ENT-0075
–Approve Variance 17ENT-0147
–Approve Fence Modification 17ENT-0148
–Adopt the Statement of Official Action
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Extra slides
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue Variance Findings
•#1: Special circumstances based on the
intended use that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity
•#2: Not detrimental to general vicinity
•#3, #9: Strict application of the Code would
result in practical difficulties, unreasonable
deprivation of use of the property
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Fence
Modification Findings
•Fence is compatible and required to mitigate
proximity to the public ROW
–As designed and conditioned for transparency
–Required for separation of play area from sidewalk
•Not detrimental or injurious
–Requires 5’ HVO triangle by adjacent driveway
•Not impair neighborhood character/integrity
–As designed and conditioned
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Zoning Ordinance:
Child Care Uses
9.31.120: Specific Use Standards
A.Fences and Walls.
•In required front setback, 4’height allowed by right. Higher than 4’
requires modification.
•Materials, textures, colors, and design must be compatible with on-site
development and adjacent properties.
B.Outdoor Play Area. In compliance with applicable State requirements.
C.Organized Outdoor Ac tivities—Hours. In a Residential District,
limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever comes first, on
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever comes first, on
weekends .
D.Passenger Loading.Passenger loading plan required with Director
approval. On-site, or Director may authorize one required on-street
passenger loading space along a frontage curb during operating hours.
E.State and Other Licensing. Must be State licensed, operate in
compliance with State and local regulations.
F.Neighborhood Liaison. Must designate an on-site contact person to
serve as a neighborhood liaison to address neighborhood concerns
City Council
January 23, 2018
2953 Delaware Avenue
Passenger Loading:
ADA Compliance