SR 05-10-2022 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 21
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and
Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0275 and approve Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and
Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 for a 7,280 square foot expansion to the
Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29% increase to the allowable ground
floor parcel coverage, based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this
report.
2. Adopt the CEQA Findings in this Staff Report under “Compliance with California
Environmental Quality Act.”
Summary
Carlthorp Elementary School (“Carlthorp”) operates a 280-student K-6 school at 438
San Vicente Boulevard. On November 4, 2020, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066
(amending Conditional Use Permit 95-012) to allow a 7,280 square foot expansion to
the school and new rooftop playcourt and a 0.29% increase to the allowable ground
floor parcel coverage for the school. On November 18, 2020, the appellant, Steven
Salsberg, filed a timely appeal (20ENT-0275) of the Planning Commission’s approvals.
The appeal statement raises concerns regarding (1) incorrect plan exhibits, (2)
violations of CUP 95-012, the Conditional Use Permit issued to Carlthorp in 1995 that
currently governs use of the property, (3) compliance of the proposed project with the
Zoning Ordinance, (4) concerns over use of the proposed multipurpose room and
6.A
Packet Pg. 486
2 of 21
whether it qualifies as a classroom requiring additional parking, (5) procedural flaws, (6)
noise impacts, (7) privacy impacts, and (8) concerns about lack of access to
information. On February 21, 2022, Frank P. Angel of Angel Law submitted a letter to
the City Council on behalf of the Appellant and “all similarly situated residents of Santa
Monica and all Santa Monica citizens interested in or benefitting from City Council
compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act requesting that the public hearing for Appeal
20ENT-0275, originally scheduled for February 22, 2022, be taken off calendar and re-
noticed. On February 22, 2022, for agenda management purposes, the City Council
voted 7-0 to continue the appeal hearing to March 15, 2022. On March 15, 2022, the
City Council voted 7-0 to continue the appeal hearing to April 12, 2022. The Appellant
requested this item be continued beyond April 12, 2022, and it was rescheduled for May
10, 2022.
The letter asserts two separate violations of California law to support the request that
the appeal hearing be continued:
• Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”) – improper notice of the appeal hearing
• California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) - Inappropriate use of CEQA
Exemptions
The Appeal section of this staff report responds to the claims raised in Mr. Angel’s letter
and concludes that no violation of the Brown Act or CEQA has occurred. However,
some inadvertent typographical errors relating to the CEQA exemption were discovered
in the original staff report and, therefore, an updated Draft STOA with CEQA exemption
determination has been prepared (Attachment B).
The City Council voted on March 15, 2022 to continue the appeal hearing. Since that
time, the appellant submitted concerns regarding the proposed project’s compliance
with zoning standards. Specifically, the appellant asserted that two portions of the
existing building do not meet the definition of a basement, based on the current Zoning
Ordinance. As a result, the applicant submitted revised plans on March 31, 2022 that
reduced upper level parcel coverage to be within maximum parcel coverage limits.
Subsequently, the appellant asserted that parcel coverage was shown incorrectly on the
6.A
Packet Pg. 487
3 of 21
plans. On April 26, 2022, the applicant submitted further revised plans that updated
parcel coverage calculations on the ground floor and upper levels and also clarified
parcel coverage and floor area on the plans through color coding and labelling.
However, main components of the project and the applicant’s minor modification
request did not change.
Approval of the CUP and Minor Modification would afford Carlthorp School the ability to
add square footage below grade, at-grade and at the second-floor levels and as
conditioned, the request is comparable to the adjacent residential uses within the area
and will maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the appeal as it relates to Carlthorp’s requests, and has determined
that the required findings set forth in SMMC Section 9.41.060 and 9.43.090 can be
made in the affirmative to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification, respectively, as detailed in the draft Statement of Official Action
(Attachment B).
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.37.130 relating to appeals, Council’s review of the
Conditional Use and Minor Modification approval is de novo. Council may review and
take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar
actions that were in the purview of the Planning Commission.
Background
Carlthorp School was established in 1939 and has been in operation at its present
location since 1941. The school is a private kindergarten thru 6th grade elementary
school. Subsequent to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the school expanded in lot size
and building floor area after acquiring and demolishing an adjacent, vacant 17-unit
apartment building that was “red-tagged” or deemed structurally unsound. On June 12,
1996 the Planning Commission approved the following entitlements:
• Development Review Permit 95-003;
• Conditional Use Permit 95-012;
6.A
Packet Pg. 488
4 of 21
• Variance 95-022;
• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Statement of
Overriding Considerations
The subject property is located in the Low Density Multi-family Residential (R2) Zone
District on a rectangular parcel of 46,362 SF, situated on the south side of San Vicente
Boulevard between 4th and 7th Streets. The parcel is surrounded by multi-family
properties to the east (22-unit condominium) and west (24-unit apartment) and two
single-family dwellings located across from Georgina Place Alley to the south. The
school acquired and expanded onto an adjacent property in 1996 and as such the
school parcel is larger than any other parcel on this block.
Figure 1: Site Map
6.A
Packet Pg. 489
5 of 21
Table 1: Existing Conditions
Zoning District Low Density Multifamily Residential (R2)
Land Use Element
Designation
Low Density Housing
Parcel Area (SF)/Dimensions 46,362 SF / slightly irregular lot approximately 217.6’ W
x 213.09’ D
Existing On-Site
Improvements
Private elementary school, outdoor play yard, surface
and covered parking.
Rent Control Status N/A – School
Adjacent Zoning Districts &
Land Uses
North: R2 – Multi Unit Dwelling
East: R2 – Multi Unit Dwelling
South: R1- Single Unit Dwelling
West: R2 – Multi Unit Dwelling
Historic Resources Inventory
Subject property is listed as a non-contributing building
within the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment
Historic District
On November 4th, 2020 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit
19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066, with a 6-1 and 7-0 vote, respectively,
to allow the proposed expansion of the existing school. The Planning Commission’s
approval authorized:
• An amendment to Conditional Use Permit 95-012 to allow the 7,280 sf expansion
of a private school and addition of a new playcourt for the school within the R2
zoning district; and
• Minor Modification to increase parcel coverage by 0.29% from the maximum
allowable 45% to 45.29%
The Planning Commission’s approval includes conditions that address all of these
concerns. There are conditions regarding use of the outdoor loudspeakers and lighting
which the school has begun to implement. Additionally, a detailed Traffic Demand
Management program will improve the vehicular circulation.
Project Description
6.A
Packet Pg. 490
6 of 21
Carlthorp School proposes a new 7,280 square-foot (SF) school addition comprised of a
4,793 SF basement multi-purpose room + associated corridors, 938 SF lunch seating
area, 250 SF of administrative offices; a 9,142 square-foot rooftop playcourt is also
proposed and while not defined as floor area, is included under the proposed
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit as a change in the use of a school building.
If approved, the proposed project would result in a two-story school classroom building
comprised of a 20,998 main level, an 18,516 SF second story, and a 16,303 SF
basement area.
Figure 2: Carlthorp School front elevation
6.A
Packet Pg. 491
7 of 21
Figure 3: students arriving to school
Landmark Commission Concept Review: San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment
Historic District
Carlthorp School is within the designated San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment
Historic District, which was designated by the City Council on January 12, 2016. The
Historic District was adopted based on its association with multi-family development
patterns and the distinctive concentration of courtyard apartments with L-, O-, I-, C-, or
U-shaped plans that partially or fully surround a landscaped courtyard.
Figure 4 San Vincente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District Boundaries
6.A
Packet Pg. 492
8 of 21
The District’s period of significance is from 1937-1956, and contributors to the District
are courtyard apartments with architectural styles typically associated with the period of
significance. The subject parcel on which Carlthorp is located is one of thirteen non-
contributing structures out of 40 total structures within the District. The Carlthorp School
is a non-contributing structure and parcel as the school was constructed outside the
period of significance and is not a courtyard apartment. Although not a contributing
structure, the Landmarks Commission reviews and issues Certificates of
Appropriateness for alterations to both contributing and non-contributing structures in
the District, including Carlthorp. As a result, the project had a preliminary review by the
Landmarks Commission on October 14, 2019. The Landmarks Commission was
generally supportive of the project, noting that the addition would not be visible from the
street.
The Landmarks Commission will conduct its formal review of a Certificate of
Appropriateness application including compatibility with the overall District character
should the Council deny the appeal and approve the proposed project.
Planning Commission Action
6.A
Packet Pg. 493
9 of 21
On November 4, 2020, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to
consider Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066.
The Commission received public testimony in support of and opposition to the project.
Supporters spoke of the importance of the school and need for expansion, whereas
public testimony that was in opposition to the project, cited traffic related impacts, size,
scale and location of the project and overall compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
The project was originally scheduled to be heard at the May 21, 2020 Planning
Commission meeting, but was continued to allow Code Enforcement to investigate a
complaint alleging that the school was operating in violation of their existing Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 95-012). The complaint included concerns regarding excessive light,
noise, vehicle queueing, parking, and landscaping. The Code Enforcement Division
reviewed the complaint letter and took no action. The school has been operating on
and off-site during the pandemic. During the 2019-2020 school year, the school
reduced the on-site population by half with upper grade students attending school at an
off-site location, therefore in-person learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic was not
consistent. City staff investigated all complaints/comments as much as possible and
moved the item forward for a Planning Commission public hearing on November 4,
2020.
The potential impacts proposed with the school’s expansion are distilled down to two
issues: the noise generated by school children playing outside and the impact of
loading/ unloading and parking on the surrounding neighborhood. No new parking
impacts are associated with the current proposal. Condition #4 memorialize the
school’s special events.
The Planning Commission made findings in support of approving the Minor Modification
and the Conditional Use Permit. In approving the project, the Commission included
conditions of approval that addressed the school’s operations, sports activities, and
special events and concerns about impacts to circulation (loading/unloading/parking)
6.A
Packet Pg. 494
10 of 21
and noise. The general consensus of the Commission was that with the school having
been at the site since 1941 and an integral part of the neighborhood, every effort for
dialogue should be made with opponents and proponents to address the on-going
school operations. The specific conditions of 19ENT-0250 provide concrete direction
and guidance to further that dialogue. These conditions include:
• Designating a school-appointed neighborhood liaison;
• Implementation of a parking, loading and operations plan (PLOP);
• Providing netting surrounding the upper-level play court;
• Ensuring the multi-purpose room not be used as a classroom;
• Shielding exterior lighting from neighbors;
• Including a landscaped screen (e.g. a landscaped fence) at stairwell along the
west elevation;
• Providing a subsequent acoustical analysis to City staff once play court is
operational;
• Including a valet plan utilizing one side of the street and existing on-site parking.
The Minor Modification was approved but not extensively debated by the Commission.
The existing main floor level is not at the same elevation across the entire level due to a
grade change in the parcel from front to rear, and thus, the exhibits shown to the
Planning Commission did not correctly identify each floor. Subsequent to the Planning
Commission’s action, the project plans were updated to demonstrate compliance with
the Planning Commission’s actions and provide a clearer parcel coverage exhibit. The
plan exhibits have been updated to clarify lower, main, and upper floor levels and are
compliant with the Planning Commission’s approval, as conditioned.
On November 18, 2020, the appellant, filed a timely appeal (20ENT-0275) of the
Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification to allow the proposed Carlthorp school expansion.
https://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Planning-
Commission/2020/20201104/a20201104.htm (Planning Commission agenda link
6.A
Packet Pg. 495
11 of 21
11.4.2020) + (Planning Commission audio link 11.4.2020)
http://santamonica.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=4591
Discussion
Purpose of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification
According to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.08.020, a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) is required for a school use in a Residential Zone. CUP 95-012 was
approved for the expansion of the school in 1996. A CUP is intended to provide a
mechanism for approval or conditional approval of expansions in the use of land or
buildings or changes in the character of use of land or buildings. These uses require an
additional level of review and have a higher threshold of approval to ensure
compatibility with adjacent land uses and compliance with the goals and intent of the
General Plan. A CUP allows for mitigation of potential impacts of a proposed use by
allowing the City to impose conditions of approval on the use (for example, to address
design, siting, and operational impacts).
Pursuant to SMMC 9.40.050, in order to approve a CUP and Minor Modification,
Council on appeal must make the following findings in an affirmative manner, as more
fully set forth in Attachment B:
• The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan
• The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the
subject parcel if the land uses are to remain;
• The proposed use is compatible with the existing and permissible land uses
within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located
which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation,
number of employees, or the nature of the operation;
• The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
6.A
Packet Pg. 496
12 of 21
Minor modifications allow for minor adjustments to the dimensional requirements and
design standards, including an increase in parcel coverage by up to 5%. The Minor
Modification request to increase parcel coverage by 0.29% would normally be reviewed
without a public hearing and issued by staff; however, pursuant to SMMC Section
9.37.170, if any application is filed concurrently with another application that would
normally be reviewed by the Planning Commission, all related applications are reviewed
by the Planning Commission. In this case, since the Planning Commission’s approval
was appealed the Council shall review the Minor Modification and determine whether
findings can be made in support of the request to allow a minor increase in parcel
coverage for the project.
Appeal
On November 18, 2020, the appellant, filed an appeal (20ENT-0275) of the Planning
Commission’s decision to approve the Carlthorp school expansion. The appeal
statement raises concerns regarding (1) incorrect plan exhibits, (2) violations of CUP
95-012, (3) noncompliance of the proposed project with the Zoning Ordinance, (4)
concerns over use of the proposed multipurpose room and whether it qualifies as a
classroom requiring additional parking requirements, (5) procedural flaws, (6) noise
impacts, (7) privacy impacts, and (8) concerns about lack of access to information. After
review of the appeal, staff determined that it is generally based on interpretations of the
Zoning Ordinance that are inconsistent with how the Zoning Ordinance has been
consistently applied, and procedural elements that are not germane to considering
whether findings can be made to support the proposed project and do not warrant
upholding the appeal.
This report has grouped the appeal complaints in these eight categories, and includes a
chart noting each of the appellant’s objections; the source of the discussion i.e. from
Code, entitlements, or procedural guidelines; the appellant’s assertion; and staff
response. A detailed item by item description is included as Attachment E.
6.A
Packet Pg. 497
13 of 21
Additional responses to the letter submitted by Frank P. Angel of Angel Law on behalf of
the appellant asserting (9) violations of the Brown Act and (10) violations of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are also provided in this section.
1. Plan Exhibits Incorrectly Represent the Proposed Project
The appeal asserts that the plan exhibits are incorrect in a number of ways:
interpretation of the definition of basement, number of stories, adjacency of different
zone as it impacts setback and height requirements, and that plans do not comply with
current parking regulations.
Staff has reviewed the plans and found them to be compliant with the Code. Further,
staff has also reviewed each element of the appeal assertion and found that each
assertion relies on an incorrect interpretation of the Code. The existing building floor
levels are on multiple levels due to the property’s slope and construction occurring over
time creating existing legal non-conforming conditions that are allowed by Code. Staff
has found that the calculations of the basement, various levels, setbacks and parking
requirements to be correct. Staff has reviewed the plans and found the interpretation of
requirements correct and has also found the proposal to comply with Code.
2. Violations of CUP 95-012
The appeal asserts that the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-012), which
currently governs the use of the property, has been violated and therefore no other
entitlements or permits can be issued. Staff has reviewed all the conditions in CUP 95-
012 and found that the school has complied with all conditions with the exception of the
condition to provide a clear view from the street and to change the surface of the play
yard from grass to artificial turf as conditioned in the 1995 CUP. This application
requests those conditions be modified to reflect the existing physical condition providing
additional security and water cost savings for the school and its students. Staff
recommends approval of these revised conditions because they reflect the school’s
current operations and do not raise or alter noise impacts. If Council does not approve
the conditions as proposed, the applicant will be required to bring the property into
compliance with CUP 95-012.
6.A
Packet Pg. 498
14 of 21
3. Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The appeal asserts numerous ways the project is not Code Compliant including the
interpretation of basement, number of stories, floor area calculations, setback
definitions, and parking requirements. Staff has thoroughly reviewed each assertion by
the appellant on this subject and determined that the appeal statement does not
correctly apply the Code. As a multi-level property, the floor area calculation is not
straightforward. Staff has closely reviewed the sections and plans to carefully identify
what areas of the project meet the Code definition of basement and are therefore not
included in the floor area. The application’s drawings and parcel coverage calculations
reflect a Code-compliant project subject to approval of the Modification request.
The appeal also asserts the setbacks should be calculated differently as the property
adjoins an R1 zone. The property is separated from the R1 zone by an alley and
therefore does not adjoin the R1 zone and the Code provisions referred to in the appeal
do not apply.
The City Council voted on March 15, 2022 to continue the appeal hearing. Since that
time, the appellant submitted concerns regarding the proposed project’s compliance
with zoning standards. Specifically, the appellant asserted that two portions of the
existing school do not meet the definition of a basement, based on the current Zoning
Ordinance. After review of the appellant’s assertions and new information regarding the
location of certain levels of the existing building relative to finished grade provided by
the applicant that was not previously included in the proposed plans, staff determined
that the proposed plans exceeded maximum allowable upper level parcel coverage.
Staff notified the applicant of this code compliance issue; as a result, the applicant
submitted revised plans on April 26, 2022 that reduced upper level parcel coverage to
be within maximum parcel coverage limits. The main components of the project and the
applicant’s minor modification request did not change.
4. Required Parking
6.A
Packet Pg. 499
15 of 21
The appeal asserts that the proposed multi-purpose room should be considered an
additional classroom and therefore requires Carlthorp to provide additional parking. The
applicant has provided information representing that the use of the proposed multi-
purpose room will be an assembly/multi-purpose room that will be used by the school
community but not as a classroom. A proposed condition of approval memorializes the
restriction on the multi-purpose room being used as a classroom and thus, additional
parking is not required.
5. Procedural Flaws
The appeal asserts that there have been flaws in processing the project. Specifically,
the appeal asserts that staff has incorrectly accepted an amended application and not
provided the appellant with requested documents. The land survey included in the
original application contained an error. When this error was discovered, the application
was modified to include a Minor Modification.
6. Noise Impacts
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, in-person school attendance had ceased during the
time that the application was under consideration by the Planning Commission with no
indication when in-person instruction would resume. Overall noise complaints are
therefore difficult to verify. However, the school has previously paid for replacement of
the windows in the building on the adjacent property as conditioned in CUP 95-012.
The school has also committed to a much more limited use of the public address
system as part of the current application and has proposed to designate a neighborhood
liaison to facilitate communication between the school and its neighbors, which are
included in the draft conditions of approval for the project. An acoustical study has
been prepared based on two site visits conducted pre-Covid 19 (prior to March of 2020),
with an additional test completed May 2020. A condition of approval has been
proposed to review noise levels for compliance with the acoustical study once
construction has completed and the approved uses are in active use.
7. Privacy Impacts
6.A
Packet Pg. 500
16 of 21
The appellant did not elaborate on the privacy impacts and stated an amended appeal
statement would provide an explanation. As of the writing of this staff report, no
additional information has been received.
8. Access to Information
The appeal cites lack of documents, zoning interpretations and access to public records
as an obstacle to scheduling public hearings and amending the appeal. The appellant
has requested a substantial amount of public records and staff time including:
➢ All related documents 1995 and 2019 CUP applications
➢ Three public records requests
➢ Multiple scheduled phone and virtual meetings
In response to these requests, staff created electronic records, requested all previous
file records, granted access to view construction drawings for the prior entitlement and
fulfilled the volume of public requests and requests for all staff emails relating to the
project all during the period of the Covid-19 stay at home order. Additionally, staff
digitized application material and Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Code Sections
from 1995 and provided a xero copy of paper records from 1995. These requests were
made and completed when City Hall was not open to the public due to the COVID-19
emergency. As such, documentation was provided consistent with updated COVID-19
protocols. The appellant contends staff willfully withheld public documents. City staff
have collectively spent many hours over the course of the past 18 months responding to
records requests regarding the project, reviewing questions, and explaining various
aspects of the Code to the appellant.
The two substantive obstacles that have thwarted a resolution of the entitlement request
include setting and keeping scheduled hearing dates; fulfilling the voluminous requests
for information, formal interpretations, assistance and examinations.
The applicant, the appellant, staff and members of the public have an expectation that
the development application process will move forward with some level of certainty and
fair adjudication of the request. City staff received the initial application in June of 2019.
6.A
Packet Pg. 501
17 of 21
The Planning Commission heard and approved the project on November 4, 2020, and
the appeal was filed on November 18, 2020. The appeal to the City Council has been
rescheduled multiple times; staff’s objective is to bring this item to the City Council for
final resolution of the requested entitlement. Attachment D contains a project timeline.
9. Claim of Violation of the Brown Act
The letter claims that there was a violation of the Brown Act because the agenda
description for this appeal did not specifically reference an action to be taken by the City
Council under CEQA.
Staff has reviewed and determined that the agenda description for the February 22,
2022 public hearing did not need to include a separate reference to an action to be
taken under CEQA because no separate action need be taken, and the agenda
description was sufficient for purposes of the Brown Act. Based on evidence in the
record, the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. As a matter of
practice, and consistent with CEQA, the City Council does not take a separate action to
make a determination that a project is exempt from CEQA. Because no separate action
will be taken by the City Council, no exemption determination was listed separately on
the Council’s agenda for this item.
Nonetheless, the City has had an opportunity to re-notice the hearing due to the
continuances. And, as described in more detail below, because the appellant has
challenged the City’s reliance on certain Categorical Exemptions under CEQA, staff
recommends that the City Council make an affirmative determination that the proposed
project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
10. Claim of CEQA Violation
The letter claims that staff’s recommended CEQA exemptions under Class 3 and Class
31 are “unsubstantiated and erroneous”. Staff has reviewed and determined that the
exemptions are supported by substantial evidence in the record as set forth in the Draft
Statement of Official Action (“STOA”).
6.A
Packet Pg. 502
18 of 21
The letter assumes that the City relies, in part, on CEQA’s “common sense” exemption,
which is appropriately used when “it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”
The letter claims that the City cannot rely on this exemption because it is contradicted
by language in CUP Finding No. 7, which states that “any potentially significant
environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of
mitigation measures incorporated in the project.”
The Appellant asserts that CUP Finding No. 7 is evidence that the City relied upon the
“common sense” exemption. CUP Finding No. 7 states, “[b]ased on environmental
review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental impacts or
(emphasis added) any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced
to less than significant levels because of mitigation incorporated in the project.” Staff did
not actually rely on the “common sense” exemption. Instead, staff determined that two
categorical exemptions apply (Class 14 and Class 31). When a project is categorically
exempt, CEQA does not require analysis of potentially significant environmental
impacts. Under CEQA, categorically exempt projects have been determined to not
have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, even if CUP Finding No. 7 was
recited in the STOA, the portion that states “potentially significant environmental
impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation
incorporated in the project” is not applicable where, as here, the project is categorically
exempt.
The letter claims that the Class 3 and Class 31 categorical exemptions are
inappropriate for the proposed project. The Class 31 categorical exemption is cited
because the proposed project is located within the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard
Apartments Historic District.
Staff has discovered, however, that the reference to a Class 3 exemption in the Draft
STOA was an inadvertent typographical error. The analysis is actually for a Class 14
categorical exemption and thus, a revised Draft STOA has been prepared in Attachment
6.A
Packet Pg. 503
19 of 21
B correcting that typographical error. In addition, the analysis to support the Class 14
categorical statement in the “Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act”
section of the staff report was also inadvertently omitted from CUP Finding No. 7 and
thus, the revised Draft STOA also adds in the missing analysis that was already in that
section of the staff report.
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15314 (Class 14) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. This section exempts minor additions to existing schools where the addition
does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms. The
school’s existing size is 38,397. The proposed addition of 7,280 square feet, a 20.6%
increase in size that is intended to accommodate existing student capacity. The school
has 22 existing K-6 classrooms and the addition will not add any new classrooms.
Therefore, the addition, will not increase the number of classrooms or students and no
further environmental analysis is required.
The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that the proposed addition to a non-contributor in the San Vicente
Boulevard Courtyard Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by Anne
E. Grimmer, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District. The District is characterized by courtyard
apartments oriented around landscaped spaces constructed during an architectural
period of significance dating from 1937-1956. The proposed project consists of a 4,793
sf subterranean multi-purpose room+ associated corridors and 938 sf lunch seating
area and 250 sf of administrative offices within the interior courtyard of the existing
building envelope that will not be visible from San Vicente Boulevard. Further, the
proposed rooftop play area is on an existing building adjacent to the alley
(approximately 170 feet from the North property line) and would be minimally visible
6.A
Packet Pg. 504
20 of 21
from San Vicente Boulevard only due to required safety fencing. The proposed project
does not change the existing front elevation or landscape features of the non-
contributing school and therefore, would have no impact on the overall character or
significance of the historic district. Further, the proposed addition requires review and
approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the City’s Landmarks Commission to
ensure the structure would not potentially impact the character-defining features of the
District.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action.
Prepared By: Beth Rolandson, Administrative Services Officer
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement
B. Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente
Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED
C. PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.)
D. carlthorp time line 5.10.22
E. Table of appeal complaints
F. City Council Public Hearing Notice 5.10.22
G. Written Comments
H. ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1
I. ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2
J. Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22
K. Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020
L. Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022
M. comments post Feburary 2022
N. Carlthorp School play court 5.10.22
O. Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22
6.A
Packet Pg. 505
21 of 21
P. Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22
Q. 2022-02-21 angellaw comment ltr
R. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and
Amended Application
S. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2
T. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven
Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022
U. ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4
V. ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-
2022
W. ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-
2022
X. Written Comments
6.A
Packet Pg. 506
November 18, 2020
Szilak20ENT-0275
conformed copy
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
1
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven
Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at
438 San Vicente Boulevard
This appeal relates to how the subject application for discretionary entitlements, if built,
would violate the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) zoning ordinance. I also
provide, herein, specific current and ongoing violations of conditions that the Carlthorp
School (the “Applicant”) must abide by based on its already existing discretionary
entitlement permit. One such requirement of the Carlthorp School’s existing
discretionary entitlement permit is that it may not obtain approval of any additional
entitlements so long as it is violating any such conditions. Therefore, the Planning
Commission should not have approved the Carlthorp School’s Application for
additional entitlements because it is in violation of at least one of such conditions.1
(It is actually in violation of multiple Conditions.) And, the Planning Commission
should not have approved Carlthorp School’s application because the proposal
violates SMMC zoning ordinances.
This appeal also relates to many other issues and concerns, including how the proposed
project presents an unreasonable imposition upon the Applicant’s neighbors, design
issues, compatibility issues, environment issues, and much more.
The Parcel Coverage on the Second Floor Would Violate the SMMC; and the Staff
Report and the Application Are Deficient
SMMC Section 9.08.030, Development Standards, would be violated if the Applicant
were permitted to develop its proposed project. The subject property is in an R2 District
where the Maximum Parcel Coverage on the Second Floor is limited to 90% of the
allowable Ground Floor coverage. (SMMC Section 9.08.030.) The Maximum Parcel
Coverage on the Ground Floor is 45% of the entire Parcel. (Id.) Therefore, the
Maximum Parcel Coverage on the Second Floor is 40.5%.2 (45% * 90% = 40.5%)
However, the Applicant’s Parcel Coverage Calculations, “FOR PURPOSES OF CODE
COMPLIANCE,” as depicted in Attachment D. Project Plans, at pages A121-B and
A122-B, are grossly in error. (Staff Report, Attachment D. Project Plans, at A121-B and
A122-B.)
Page A121-B refers to and calculates the “Main Level” Parcel Coverage. Page A122-B
refers to and calculates the “Upper Level” Parcel Coverage. The Main Level is
1 The “Application” that I refer to is a reference to the Applicant’s request 19ENT-0250, (Conditional Use
Permit), and 20ENT-0066 (Minor Modification). The Applicant is the Carlthorp School (and Ken Parr),
located at 438 San Vicente Boulevard in Santa Monica, CA. 2 In part, the Applicant’s request is to increase their Parcel Coverage from 45% to 45.05%. Also, in some
places in the documents there are references to 45.06% parcel coverage and other places 45.05%.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
2
essentially the Ground Floor, and the Upper Level is essentially the Upper Story or
Second Floor, according to SMMC 9.08.030. The Applicant’s erred in its calculation
because it utilized “THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY[, which] ARE
TREATED AS THE MAIN LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF [the] CALCULATION OF
PARCEL COVERAGE,” in conducting its “Main Level” Parcel Coverage calculation.
(Attachment D. Project Plans, at A121-B.) However, those classrooms are on the Second
Floor, not the First Floor, as the Applicant concedes. The Parking Garage beneath the
Second Floor classrooms is the First Floor, as the Applicant also concedes.
The Staff Report and the application (Case Numbers 19ENT-0250 (CUP) and
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification)) are deficient because the Parcel Coverage calculation
for the First Floor (or Main Level) is based on the wrong floor.
The Parcel Coverage calculation for the Second Floor is grossly in error because it
completely excludes the row of classrooms above the parking garage, which is indeed a
part of the Second Floor, as depicted in Pages A121-B and A122-B of the Staff Report,
Attachment D. Project Plans. The Second Floor Parcel Coverage exceeds the Maximum
Parcel Coverage of 40.5% for the Second Floor. And, regardless, the Staff Report and
the application are deficient because the Parcel Coverage calculation for the Second Floor
(or Upper Level) is grossly inaccurate.
The Parcel Coverage for both the First Story and the Second Story violates the Zoning
Ordinance, even with the approval of the Applicant’s requested Minor Modification.
And, regardless as to whether the First Story and/or Second Story Parcel Coverage
exceed the maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance (SMMC Section 9.08.030.), the
Staff Report with attachments and with all other submissions materially misinformed the
Planning Commission and the public thus causing the process to be tainted and invalid.
The Planning Commission and the City of Santa Monica must follow proper procedures,
which were not followed here.
And, the Applicant’s Minor Modification request was for an increase from 45% parcel
coverage to 45.06% parcel coverage.3 At the Planning Commission hearing, a partial
correction of the miscalculation relating to the First Story was presented by Staff to the
Planning Commission, increasing the First Story Parcel Coverage calculation from
45.06% to 45.29%. Essentially, this modification of the Minor Modification request was
conducted like an “audible” in a football game and the Planning Commission approved
the Minor Modification for 45.29%. Such a procedure is not proper. The public and the
Planning Commission were not given proper notice and there are other procedural flaws
to increasing the Minor Modification at the last moment.
SMMC 9.08.030.F.3
3 Some places in the documents there are references to 45.06% parcel coverage and other places 45.05%.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
3
The proposed project appears to violate SMMC 9.08.030.F.3.
Zoning Code Violations in the South Wing Building
The Applicant proposes redesigning the south wing building so that it would have three
stories, in violation of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”). The subject
property is in an R2 zone, where no more than two stories are permitted. (See SMMC
Section 9.08.030 (Development Standards).) The parking area level is the first story,
contrary to the Applicant’s false and misleading assertion in its Discretionary Permit
Application that the proposed rooftop playground would be “above a single-story
(including basement) wing of the campus.” (See Minor Mod Project Description, at 2.)
SMMC Section 9.52.020.2320 defines what a “Story” is, which does exclude an attic and
a basement. (See, also, SMMC Section 9.04.060 (Determining the Number of Stories in
a Building).) However, the parking area level is not a basement because more than three
feet of the parking area level projects more than 3 feet above the Average Natural Grade.
(SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining “Basement”). The second story, which the
Applicant admits to, is immediately above the parking area level and primarily contains
classrooms.
The Applicant proposes that it be permitted to add a third story above the other two
stories described above. The area above the second story is at least a full seven feet high
up to the top of the roof, as depicted in the Staff Report, Attachment D, Project Plans,
Plan Numbers A200, A201, A300, and A301. While the definition of a Story does
exclude an attic (see SMMC Section 9.52.020.2320), the space above the second story
does not meet the definition of an attic and it is thus a third story. (See SMMC Section
9.52.020.0180 (limiting an attic to an “area less than 7 feet in height”).) The Planning
Commission should not have permitted the Applicant to build a playground on top of the
southern wing of its campus because the additional third story that the Applicant
proposes building beneath the roof would exceed the limitation of two stories in an R2
zone. (See SMMC Section 9.08.030 (Development Standards).) It was unlawful for the
Planning Commission to have approved the Applicant’s plans and proposal.
The Applicant addressed the above zoning code violations, relating to adding an illegal
third floor, in a letter to Regina Szilak, dated 9/1/2020, from Kenneth Kutcher, but it is
incorrect and neglects to address the facts and law that I present.
The Planning Commission should also have rejected the Applicant’s proposal because it
would create a second and a third zoning violation. SMMC Section 9.08.030, which
specifies certain Development Standards, increases the rear setback to 20 feet for rear
setbacks for parcels bordering an R1 District zone in the rear of the parcel. (See SMMC
Section 9.08.030.D.2.) The Applicant’s parcel borders an R1 District zone in the rear of
its parcel. “Where a rear parcel line abuts an alley, the rear setback shall be measured
from the center line of the alley.” (SMMC Section 9.04.130.B.) According to the
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
4
Applicant’s plans the south wing building is approximately 16 feet from the centerline of
the alley. (See Staff Report, Attachment D, Project Plans, Plan Number A101.) The
Applicant cannot execute its proposal without violating SMMC Section 9.08.030.D.2.,
and therefore the Planning Commission should have rejected the Applicant’s proposal.
A third zoning violation would occur because the height of a structure within 25 feet of
an R1 District zone is limited to 23 feet for a building with a flat roof. (See SMMC
Section 9.08.030.D.1.) As stated in the previous paragraph, the Applicant’s parcel
borders an R1 District zone in the rear of the parcel and at its closest point, the building is
only approximately 16 feet from the centerline of the alley. Thus, the first 9 feet of the
building from the southern perimeter of the building would be in violation of the zoning
code because the Applicant proposes that it install a flat roof where the building height
would become 30 feet, in violation of SMMC Section 9.08.030.D.1. The Planning
Commission should have rejected the Applicant’s proposal.
Noise and Privacy
Additional Reasons for and Allegations relating to the Appeal regarding Noise and
Privacy concerns shall be added to this document in the near future with supplementary
submissions. Amongst the most egregious impositions upon the Applicant’s neighbors
and the neighborhood relate to the excessive and unreasonable noise that the Applicant
generates. The proposed project would substantially compound such imposition.
The Applicant Plans to Use the Proposed Subterranean Space for Teaching Classes,
Thus Requiring Additional Parking That is Not Included in the Proposal
The Planning Commission should have rejected the proposal also because the project
would add classroom space and thus require additional parking, which is not a part of the
proposal. The subterranean room for music and performance classes and for performance
activities is functionally adding classroom space, for which the zoning code requires that
the school add parking spaces. However, the Applicant misled the Planning Commission
and the public with the specious claim that the proposed large multipurpose room would
not be used for classroom purposes to avoid having to increase their already substantially
deficient amount of parking. The Applicant admitted that its proposed “subterranean
multi-purpose room” would be used for teaching classes and as classroom space when
it said that the proposed expansion would be used for “performances and other K-6
educational activities, which include music and performing arts classes.” (See City of
Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San
Vicente Blvd, for a Minor Modification (not dated or signed), attached sheets Project
Description (“Minor Mod Project Description”), at 2.)
The Applicant’s admission that it plans to use the subterranean multi-purpose room for
teaching classes and as classroom space is their long-standing position. The Applicant
made the same admission in their initial application. (See City of Santa Monica – City
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
5
Planning Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd., 19ENT-
0250 (CUP), and 19ENT-0251 (CDRP), signed by Tim Kusserow, attached sheets Project
Description, at 2.) The Applicant again admitted that it plans to use the proposed
subterranean multipurpose room for teaching classes and as classroom space in their
first amendment. (See City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Discretionary
Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd., 20ENT-0066, signed by Tim Kusserow
(3/3/2020), attached sheets Project Description, at 2.)
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom
Space
On May 1, 2020, I discussed the Applicant’s proposals with Jing Yeo, the City’s
Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator. I inquired why the Applicant had not
planned on adding parking spaces to satisfy zoning requirements, considering that it was
adding classroom space. Ms. Yeo told me that if the Applicant is adding classrooms, it
must also add parking. I then pointed out that the Applicant had admitted that it plans to
add classroom space using the subterranean multipurpose structure. Ms. Yeo told me a
day or two later that she informed the Applicant as to what I had said. The Applicant
immediately began rationalizing and trying to cover up its admission that it intends to use
the subterranean structure for teaching music and performing arts. Within a few days, the
Applicant produced a draft of what became a propaganda piece, the Carlthorp School
Statement Regarding Existing and Planned Multipurpose Rooms (“Multipurpose Room
Misleading Rationalization Statement”), which was obviously designed to cover up their
obvious and admitted intention of using the proposed subterranean structure for teaching
music and performing arts.
As described above, the Applicant claimed that it intended to use the multipurpose room
as a classroom in several of its documents. The Applicant also has a long history of
misleading and misrepresenting its intentions. (See the section, below, The Applicant’s
Long History of Misleading the City and the Planning Commission.) And, the Applicant
has a long history of violating conditions of its CUP. Further, the multipurpose room will
amplify how the Applicant is already overtaxing the surrounding neighborhood with its
off-site parking needs. As described, below, the Applicant told the Planning Department
when it applied for its currently existing CUP that it would only be expanding from a
staff of 22 people (15 full time and 7 part time) to only 32 people (24 full time and 8 part
time), but instead it expanded to a staff of 80, after assuring the community and the
Planning Department that it would not grow its staff to exceed 32 people. The Applicant
now has disingenuously and deceptively claimed that it will not expand its existing
enrollment of 280 or their staff of 80. The Applicant cannot be trusted when it claims
that it will not use the multipurpose room for teaching classes. The Applicant misled
the Planning Commission and the public and cannot be trusted and is not reliable and has
disrespected the City and its Officers, the City’s zoning ordinance, and the Applicant’s
neighbors.
.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
6
After many of the above facts and arguments were made prior to the Planning
Commission hearing, which had been scheduled for May 20, 2020, the matter was taken
off calendar due to many of the assertions and allegations presented herein and ultimately
rescheduled for November 4, 2020. In preparation of the November 4, 2020 hearing, the
Applicant submitted a revised propaganda piece Multipurpose Room Misleading
Rationalization Statement, Attachment J, Multipurpose Room, as part of the Staff Report.
The Staff Report absurdly justifies that the multipurpose room will not be used as a
classroom referring to the proposed STOA Condition 17, which is self-contradictory
because it prohibits the multi-purpose room as a classroom while also saying that it will
be used in the manner described in Attachment J. (See Staff Report, Attachment B,
(Draft Statement of Official Action) and Attachment J (Applicant’s Description of
Multipurpose Room for Carlthorp School (the “Multipurpose Room Misleading
Rationalization Statement”)).) However, the Multipurpose Room Misleading
Rationalization Statement describes several classroom activities, including orchestra
practices, theatrical practices, and climbing for physical education classes. (See id.,
Attachment J.) Anytime that such room is used to teach students that room would be
used as a classroom. The Applicant intends for the music teacher to teach music to
students, for the theater teacher to teach theater to students, and for the physical education
teacher to teach PE to students, all in the multipurpose room. Clearly the Applicant
intends to use such room as a classroom. And, the Staff Report, Attachment J, thus
provides permission for the Applicant to use the multipurpose room as a classroom, in
violation of the zoning code. If the Applicant wants to build the multipurpose room, it
must either add additional parking or obtain a variance.
And, during the Planning Commission hearing, one of the commissioners implicitly or
actually admitted that the multipurpose room would be used for classroom activity, but
such commissioner said that the Planning Commission would allow the building to be
built despite that fact because it was doing so with a wink and a nod. The project was
thus approved without requiring the necessary additional parking by the Applicant who
has already expanded its staff far beyond the level it had committed to years prior, and
thus it has heavily imposed itself upon and substantially taxed the local street parking
capacity in the neighborhood.
The Applicant clearly intends to use the multipurpose room, at least in part, as a
classroom. The Applicant should have been required to concomitantly increase its
number of parking spaces. And, conditions should have been made to prohibit the
Applicant from increasing the number of staff and students.
The multipurpose room is below ground but its adverse impact on the neighborhood will
still be substantial. There is no way to monitor how the multipurpose room is being used
and whether it is being used in compliance with the Applicant’s CUP. The Applicant
must not be permitted to function as a “fox guarding the henhouse.” There must be a
rigorous method devised to assure independent verification on a continuing basis, without
causing a burden to the neighborhood or the City. And, an officer of the Applicant
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
7
should be required from time to time to sign a log that is kept on a daily basis that details
exactly how the multipurpose room is being used at all times. Such officer should be
required to sign an affidavit under penalties of perjury that such log is accurate. And, the
log and affidavits should be available to the public.
The Planning Division in its Staff Report disgracefully accepted the Applicant’s
Multipurpose Room Misleading Rationalization Statement in Attachment J, relating to
the proposed multipurpose room, instead of accepting the obvious and the Applicant’s
earlier series of admitting that it has been planning to use the proposed subterranean
structure for teaching music and performing arts classes. The Planning Commission
should not have allowed the Applicant to build the subterranean structure because the
Applicant in-so-doing would be increasing its classrooms, and thus it would be required
to concomitantly increase the number of parking spaces, which is not a part of the
Application. (See SMMC 9.28.060 (describing Off-Street Parking requirements).)
The school already has been operating by, amongst other things, making substantial noise
and imposing substantial stress upon the local neighborhood’s already overtaxed parking
and traffic capacity. The school already does not have adequate parking (approximately
34 spaces) for its staff of 80 people, and has activities, inviting large numbers of visitors,
whereby both staff and visitors every week day and occasionally for weekend events and
at night park on the street as far as blocks away. On a daily basis, the school causes
trains of vehicles idling and double-parked for an extended period of time that extend
more than a block away, causing traffic interference and hazards to both pedestrians and
vehicles. Such condition would be substantially aggravated by the school’s aggressive
expansion proposals. The Applicant should absolutely not have inter-scholastic events.
The Applicant’s Long History of Misleading the City and the Planning
Commission
The Applicant cannot be trusted and its statements are disingenuous and the Applicant
has a long history of misleading the City and Planning Commission and its neighbors.
For example, the Applicant told the City when it applied for its current Conditional Use
Permit (“CUP”) and variance, that their total staff would be expanded from 22 people (15
full time and 7 part time) to only 32 people (24 full time and 8 part time), which was a
comparable percentage increase to their planned enrollment expansion of slightly less
than 50% at that time. (See Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer,
to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995, at 1.) The
Applicant in 1996 received a variance to allow for their parking configuration, which
would have been sufficient to support their “planned” staff of 32 people. However, the
Applicant’s staff swelled to 80 people after receiving their CUP and variance in 1996.
Prior to that, the Applicant misled its neighbors when it told its neighbors that “[t]he
enrollment of Carlthorp School will not increase [and] there will be positively no increase
in the future.” (Letter (attached herein) of Dorothy Menzies, of the Carlthorp School
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
8
(dated 9/25/1986) (eliciting cooperation from its neighbors for an expansion project in the
1980s).) Such statement was obviously disingenuous. The Applicant’s student body was
then less than half of its current level.
The Applicant now says that their proposed project would not expand their existing
enrollment of 280 or their staff of 80. The Applicant cannot be trusted. As presented,
nothing in their proposal would prevent them from increasing their enrollment or their
staff after the City grants them additional entitlements, yet the school’s proposals would
expand their functionality and concomitantly making it more likely that they would need
more staff and be more capable of increasing their enrollment. That must not occur.
Generally, people are often inclined to be sympathetic to the causes of schools. Schools
are charged, in part, to instill good values and character into the young. However, the
Applicant bullies and harms its neighbors and misleads the City and the public. The
Applicant is not worthy of any sympathy as an instiller of values and character and
integrity.
The Applicant should have to negotiate directly with its neighbors if it wants to expand,
rather than be permitted to dictate aggressive expansion plans upon its neighbors.
Contrary to the Staff Report and statements made by the Applicant, the Applicant made
minimal effort in reaching out to and consulting with its neighbors regarding this
extremely large and invasive expansion proposal.
The Application Should Have Been Rejected in its Totality Due to Procedural Flaws
The Planning Commission should have rejected the application out of hand because the
Minor Modification to Allow an Additional .06% Ground Floor Parcel Coverage was not
signed or dated, which also made it confusing to the public in part because such
document was the Applicant’s second amendment to its initial application.
The Planning Commission should have also rejected the application because I requested
numerous documents and information, which I was denied or delayed in receiving. Some
of the documents that I requested I never received. One particular concern that I
expressed to Staff a number of times over a period of many months prior to the Planning
Commission hearing, was that the parcel coverage calculations, for which the Applicant
requested a Minor Modification, had not been verified. More than six months ago, I
requested to receive certain information which, in part, probably would have been
sufficient for me to conduct my own calculations to verify whether the parcel coverage
conclusions in the application and in the Staff Report were actually correct. The
Planning Division several times made commitments to me to provide such information.
However, the Planning Division, only a day or two prior to the Planning Commission
hearing agreed to provide me with such requests, leaving me insufficient time to process
such information and incorporate it into my comments and analysis. The Planning
Commission should not have confirmed the application until I would have had the
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
9
opportunity to receive such relevant information and had ample time to conduct such
relevant calculations. This is only one of many examples as to how the process was
clearly tainted – heavily favoring the Applicant and heavily disfavoring the public.
Additional Potential Zoning Code Noncompliance Issues
Arguably, the subterranean large “multipurpose” room is a Community Assembly room,
falling under SMMC 9.31.100, and would therefore require one parking space for every
four seats. (See SMMC 9.28.060 (relating to Off-Street Parking).)
Amongst other things, the Applicant is proposing to alter its courtyard. It must comply
with SMMC Section 9.08.030.F.4., which requires that its courtyard “shall be visible and
accessible from the sidewalk” and for the depth of Applicant’s courtyard, it must have an
opening not less than 18 feet. The Applicant’s proposal does not consider this
Development Standard and therefore the Planning Commission should reject the
Applicant’s proposal. The Applicant’s proposal violates this code section.
Also, more than one-half of the perimeter of the Applicant’s courtyard must border a
building. The Applicant’s proposal reduces this percentage. It is unclear from the
drawings whether such ratio is sufficient. I allege that the proposed project violates this
requirement.
SMMC Section 9.08.030.F.5 is also violated.
Other Issues
Additional Reasons for and Allegations relating to the Appeal regarding other issues,
such as the proposed project would block sunlight from entering into the windows of the
Applicant’s neighbors, shall be added to this document in the near future with
supplementary submissions.
Violations and Issues Related to the 1996 STOA
Conditions
Plans
Condition # 1. This condition requires that a copy of the plans dated, July 27,
1995, “shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. During my research
and investigation, I asked the City Planning Division for a copy of these plans and to see
these plans. I was denied that opportunity. The City Planning Division told me that they
do not have a copy of those plans. I was told that Building and Safety might have a copy
of such plans but that due to the City’s closure since March of this year, I would not be
permitted to see such plans. This condition has been violated and I was denied the
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
10
opportunity to sufficiently conduct my research and investigation. Only after numerous
requests and many hours spent making such requests did the City Planning Division
make such plans available to me, but not until a day or two before the Planning
Commission hearing on November 4, 2020, and I thus did not have the opportunity and
time to review such plans and incorporate them into my comments and analysis, nor was
Staff afforded the opportunity to incorporate any comments that I might have generated
into their Staff Report. The public was thus denied access to such Plans and Condition
#1 was violated. The Planning Commission should not have approved the applications
until I, and the remaining public, had been given sufficient access to those plans and
ample opportunity to review them and integrate such review into my research and
investigation.
Architectural Review Board
Condition # 11. I believe that the Applicant is in violation of the 1996 SMMC
Section 9.04.10.02.130. The Applicant has a storage area that appears to not be in
compliance with this code section.
Miscellaneous Conditions
(The following references and quotes are to Attachment G, the Annotated 1996 STOA
(the “Annotated 1996 STOA.”)
Condtion # 25. The Applicant has consistently been a horrible neighbor and has
continuously acted detrimentally to its neighbors. The Applicant has been operating in
violation of this and other Conditions continuously for many years. I have complained
dozens of times directly to the Applicant itself and to the SMPD, who told me on those
multiple occasions that it would visit the Applicant, and I told such fact to the Planning
Division multiple times. Claims made by the Applicant that it has been a good neighbor
and that its proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and that it is in compliance
with the 1996 STOA and the Zoning Code are duplicitous and misleading. The Staff
Report ignores contrary facts and describes a glossed over and falsely positive depiction
of the Applicant’s responsiveness and treatment of its neighbors.
The Applicant is currently and has been violating this condition in numerous ways for
many years. The Applicant’s high-powered lights shine onto neighboring properties.
The Applicant has been making loud noises, using its sound amplification system
excessively and at high volumes. Some of its children shriek very loudly at random times
that far exceed normal school playground noise, and which was very unlikely to have
been picked up by the dubious noise study. Applicant’s staff leads organized cheering,
and they hold organized activities, which generate elevated levels of noise and which was
unlikely to have been registered by any controlled noise study that may have been
conducted. On a daily basis, the Applicant organizes several dozen motor vehicles to
block traffic by double-parking on San Vicente Boulevard, lining backward and wrapping
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
11
around 4th Street, and then wrapping again around Georgina Avenue with a long line of
double-parked cars extending for many hundreds of yards through a residential
neighborhood. In so doing, Applicant causes substantial hazards and dangers to local
pedestrians (including children and babies in carriages), vehicles (both moving and
parked), and animals. On a daily basis, the Applicant imposes its excessive and weighty
staff upon the neighborhood’s limited parking resources because it deceived the Planning
Commission 25 years ago when it applied for the permits that it currently operates under
by claiming that it would only grow to a staff of 32 instead of its current staff level of 80.
(See attached Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K.
Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995, at 1; and see supra, at 8.)
Yet, the Applicant was able to obtain substantial relaxation of parking requirements by
misleading the PC1996, by telling it that the Applicant would only grow to a staff level of
32 people, and thus it has substantially insufficient parking to meet the needs of its staff
of 80 people. (See id.)
Also, on a daily basis, the Applicant’s staff and students and their parents trespass on
Applicant’s neighbor’s property. Code Enforcement has now been informed of some of
these violations of this condition, but it is busy now dealing with the current state of
emergency.
The Applicant planted trees that have grown tall and thick along the western perimeter of
its property, which shed substantial amounts of bark, leaves, twigs, flowering and other
reproductive pods, and small branches into the swimming pool where I swim on a weekly
and daily basis, year-round, thus causing an invasive nuisance. The pool is often covered
with disgusting and decaying organic materials that fall from Applicant’s trees, creating
an unsanitary condition in the swimming pool, sometimes rotting for several days. Much
of this organic material sinks to the bottom long before the pool maintenance service
cleans it up. This is a health hazard and creates substantial discomfort to the Applicant’s
neighbors.
Validity of Permits
Condition # 31. Applicant need not receive an “order to comply” or “notices of
violation” for this condition to prevent the Planning Commission from granting further
entitlements. This condition says that if the Applicant “fails to comply with any
conditions of the [1996 STOA], no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of
occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” As this
document describes, the Applicant is in violation of numerous Conditions of the 1996
STOA. I presented such documentation and proof to the Planning Commission that the
Applicant was not in compliance of the 1996 STOA and CUP. Therefore, the Planning
Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s application.
Special Conditions
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
12
Condition # 36. The Planning Division assured me that the Applicant has not
received approval of any modifications nor has the Applicant applied for any
modifications to their 1996 entitlements by or to any division or department, including
the Architecture Review Board. However, the Applicant has hedges along the front and
western side of its parcel that also function as a wall, and that violate height limitations.
(See SMMC 9.21.050; see also attached photos.) The Applicant also has trees that were
planted so close together and have grown so thick along its western perimeter that they
function as a hedge and as a de facto wall, and that violate height limitations. (See id.)
These trees also block light from entering the windows of neighboring buildings, and thus
harming Applicant’s neighbors.
Condition # 39. Please see my statements related to Condition # 25, (under the
heading, Miscellaneous Conditions), describing how the Planning Division is not
functioning impartially regarding the Staff Report and this application and has been made
aware that the student pick-up and drop-off system that the Applicant uses on a daily
basis causes dangerous hazards to life and property by organizing several dozen motor
vehicles to block traffic by double-parking on San Vicente Boulevard, lining backward
and wrapping around 4th Street, and then wrapping again around Georgina Avenue with a
long line of double-parked cars extending for hundreds of yards through a residential
neighborhood.
Condition # 49. As discussed above, this Condition, which required that the
Applicant install extra thick windows in the adjacent building to the west, demonstrates
how the building to the west of the Applicant’s parcel would be impacted with noise at a
very high level and that this Condition was designed to mitigate such impact. However,
this Condition only mitigates on cold and cool days when it is tolerable to keep the
windows closed during the day. This Condition does nothing to mitigate on warm and
hot days, which is approximately half of the time during the normal school year and
virtually all of the days during the summer session and when the Applicant holds events
during the summer and on hot days. Despite the planning staff and the Applicant having
been notified as to this crucial problem well in advance, the Staff Report and the
conditions of approval do not address this crucial quality of life issue for the Applicant’s
neighbors relating to the warmer months. The noise conditions generated by the
Applicant are already unreasonable and intolerable during the warmer months and with
this proposal, the City would allow the Applicant to compound the already excessive
noise that it generates. The Applicant is not a small pre-school, nor is it a school buffered
by streets between neighbors. The Applicant directly borders residential neighbors on
both sides and only a narrow alley separates it from its residential neighbors in its rear.
Condition # 56: The issues presented in the 1996 STOA should be revisited, or the
Applicant fails to satisfy this condition. The level of noise that the Applicant produces,
almost continuously throughout the day, is excessive. If this condition is effective then
the Applicant is not satisfying this condition. If this condition is not effective then it
would be best if the Applicant should be required to concentrate recess and plan times
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
13
and at regular times so that neighbors would only be adversely affected by noise at
limited times during the day, particularly during the warmer months.
The Applicant should concentrate loud outdoor activities to one or two hours per day at
regular times, and then make the school grounds quiet the rest of the day. That way the
whole day wouldn’t be disrupted and neighbors could then organize our time much more
productively. Such change in these conditions, particularly during the warm and hot
months when it is necessary to keep the windows open, would probably solve many
problems.
Such condition would reduce the number of hours that neighbors are adversely affected,
while only increasing the relative noise slightly during the concentrated noise periods.
During those limited hours neighbors could close their windows or find alternative
adjustments, rather than having noise forced upon them throughout almost the entire day.
This concern is particularly at issue as society adjusts towards a work-from-home system.
Having such an intense noise generator nestled amongst numerous residences is
completely incompatible. The Applicant should not be permitted to increase its noise
generating capacity, which this proposal does. Instead, the Applicant should be required
to reduce its noise generating capacity.
Condition #57. The Applicant fails to satisfy this condition.
Condition # 59. In Attachment G, the Annotated 1996 STOA, the Applicant admits
that it defied this Condition and disrespected the Planning Commission and the City by
unilaterally tearing out its grass – that it is required to have and maintain – and replacing
it with artificial turf that, instead of emitting fresh oxygen as grass does, emits harmful
noxious fumes that adversely affect the health of its neighbors and caused my dear sweet
mother to suffer and contributed to her demise. The Applicant apparently misled the
Planning Commission and the public again, here, by rationalizing and not disclosing the
real reason the Applicant replaced the required grass with artificial turf: so that the
Applicant could produce noisy outdoor activity all day long instead of only on a limited
basis. The Applicant has admitted that it is – and has been for many years – in violation
of this condition of the 1996 STOA; Condition #31 prohibits the Applicant from
receiving any additional entitlements “until such violation has been fully remedied,”
which it has not (with respect to this Condition #59 and other Conditions); and therefore,
the Planning Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s proposals.
Condition # 61. The Applicant is, and has obviously been openly defying its CUP
for a number of years on a continuing basis, not in compliance with this Condition. This
Condition requires that the front yard fence and landscaping shall be “installed and
maintained so as not to obstruct a clear view through the fence.” It is plainly obvious to
anyone passing by the Applicant’s parcel in the front on San Vicente Boulevard that the
view through the fence is completely obstructed. Photos taken six months ago depict that
obstructed view. (Please see photos attached to my 5/20/2020 comment letter that were
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of
Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard November 18, 2020
14
taken on 5/19/2020.) The view today is still obstructed. I have photos taken on the day
of the November 4, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, which prove that the view is
completely obstructed. The Applicant is also in open defiance of SMMC Section
9.08.030.F.4., which requires that Applicant’s courtyard “shall be visible and accessible
from the sidewalk.” Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Planning
Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s application because the Applicant
was not in compliance with its existing CUP.
Condition # 62. Applicant is not in compliance with this Condition, which requires
that it “provide periodic reports regarding compliance with [the 1996 STOA] conditions.”
The Planning Division told me that it provided me with the entire file relating to
Applicant’s 1995 – 1996 application for entitlements and all documents related to the
Applicant’s current application. While the Planning Division has not provided me with
all of the documents that I have asked for, it is clear that I have not received copies of any
such period reports. Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Planning
Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s application because Applicant has
failed to provide such periodic reports.
Additional Issues
The process of this application as it was being prepared and when it reached the Planning
Commission was not fair to the Applicant’s neighbors and anyone else that may wish to
oppose the application. I have requested documents and information from the Planning
Division related to this application, which was withheld from me. Some such documents
and information that I requested over the course of the past nine months I never received.
Other information and documents I received very late and I was not given sufficient time
to process before the Planning Commission hearing. For many of my document and
information requests, I had to make multiple requests and waste a lot of time, only
receiving some of the information and documents that I requested. As the Planning
Division ignored many of my requests for information and documents, it raced to
prematurely push this matter to go before the Planning Commission. The process was
patently unfair. The Planning Commission also should not have approved the
Applicant’s application until I had received all of the documents and information that I
had requested and had ample time to review such information and documents.
The Applicant has disrespected and flouted the Planning Commission and the laws of the
City by changing the use of a neighboring spacious three-bedroom residential apartment
and using it as administrative offices, in violation of the zoning ordinances. Perhaps they
concomitantly converted administrative offices on their campus to classrooms without
honoring the requirement to gain approval and add parking.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: 20ENT-0275 Appeal Statement (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
City of Santa Monica City Planning Division CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL
ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: 19ENT-0250 (Conditional Use Permit) and
20ENT-0066 (Minor Modification);
20ENT-0275 (Appeal) LOCATION:
438 San Vicente Boulevard APPLICANT: Carlthorp School/ Ken Parr
APPELLANT: Steven Salsberg PROPERTY OWNER: Carlthorp School CASE PLANNER: Gina Szilak, Associate Planner
REQUEST:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 95-012 to allow 7,898 square foot expansion to Carlthorp Elementary School and rooftop playcourt with a Minor Modification for a .29% increase in parcel coverage (45.29)
CEQA STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15314303 (Class 143) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This section exempts minor additions to existing schools where the addition
does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or
10 classrooms. The school’s existing size is 38,397 square feet with a proposed addition of 7,898 square feet, a 20.6% increase in size that is intended to accommodate existing student capacity. The school has 22 existing K-6 classrooms and the addition will not
add any new classrooms. Therefore, the addition, will not increase
the number of classrooms or students and no further environmental analysis is required. The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the proposed addition to a non- contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
Anne E. Grimmer, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District. The District is characterized by courtyard apartments oriented around landscaped spaces constructed during an architectural period of significance dating from 1937-1956. The
proposed project consists of a 4,793 sf subterranean multi- purpose room and 938843 sf lunch seating area and 250840 sf of administrative offices within the interior courtyard of the existing building envelope that will not be visible from San Vicente Boulevard. Further, the proposed rooftop play area is on an
existing building adjacent to the alley (approximately 170 feet from the North property line) and would be minimally visible from San Vicente Boulevard only due to required safety fencing. The proposed project does not change the existing front elevation or landscape features of the non-contributing school and therefore,
would have no impact on the overall character or significance of the historic district. Further, the proposed addition requires review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the City’s Landmarks Commission to ensure the structure would not potentially impact the character-defining features of the District.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
2
CITY COMMISSION COUNCIL ACTION
February May 1022, 2022 Determination Date
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the X conditions below.
Denied. Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS February May 1022, 2022
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: February May 1022, 2029
(5 years + 2 years pursuant to Interim
Ordinance 2688 adopted on January
24, 2022)
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE
EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*:
6 months
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
3
* Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City
Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
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 such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District
and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other
titles of the Municipal Code. The existing school was established through an
approved Conditional Use Permit and was previously expanded in 1995 when it
acquired the adjoining lot after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The proposed
expansion of an existing school is a permitted use in the R2 district with the
approval of an approved Conditional Use Permit.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plan. Specifically, the project is conditionally permitted with an approved via a
Conditional Use Permit application and is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan in the following areas. The addition of on-site
long and short term bike parking is consistent with Policies CE.7, CE 14.1 and CE 14.2; as well as goal CE14. Additionally, the project is consistent with stated transit and transportation demand management goals and policies including: Goal CE15; T 14.2, N1.7, N4, and Policy N4.1 which incentivize alternative transportation modes and monitor the outcomes. The North of Montana and San Vicente Boulevard Goals N8 and N8.3 are met via the Certificate of Appropriateness project review by the Landmarks Commission as a non-
contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed. The existing Carlthorp School is located on a 46,362 SF parcel and will comply with the R2 development standards for the proposed expansion with the exception of the parcel coverage. The maximum parcel coverage in the R2 zoning district is 45% while the proposed expansion constitutes a 45.29% overall parcel coverage, an overage of .29% or 134 SF for the less than 1% parcel coverage overage requested with a Minor Modification. This small increase over the allowable parcel coverage would permit a roofed lunch area but requires a
Minor Modification application. The school has been in operation for 79 years
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
4
since 1941 without negatively impacting the adjoining neighbors and residential
buildings along its east, west, and south sides. The school enrolls approximately
280 students and the proposed expansion would not increase the enrollment
level. The expansion would facilitate and enhance the existing academic services
and student experience. No new classrooms are included in the proposal.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the
subject parcel if the land uses are to remain. The school has been operating on
the site for since 1941; the previous expanded operations conditions of approval
(Development Review 95-003, Conditional Use Permit 95-012, Variance 95-002 and an approved Environmental Impact Report) are consistent with the existing on-site use. The proposed conditions of approval will serve to further mitigate potential impacts such as noise, parking, construction impacts, and a comprehensive drop-off and pick up plan for the benefit of the students, faculty and on-site administrators.
5. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation. Since Carlthorp elementary school has been located on this site since 1941 and the school previously expanded with the approval of Development Review 95-003, Conditional Use Permit 95- 012, Variance 95-022 and an approved Environmental Impact Report, the proposed expansion via a Conditional Use Permit includes a number of specific
project conditions to address potential parking impacts, noise, construction
impacts and the viability of the school’s current and future drop off plans. These
project specific conditions #1-20 can be found in the Statement of Official Action.
6. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. The project is located in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District. The proposed addition and elevators are most visible to the interior courtyard, and not from San
Vicente Boulevard. The upper level play court walls are visible from the street
but are located in the rear, furthest from the street. The potential impacts altering
visibility, building volume envelope or site design have been mitigated as the
proposed project is for additions facing the interior courtyard that are compliant
with the R2 development standards with the exception of a slight parcel coverage modification. Additionally, as a non-contributing structure in the district, the Landmarks Commission shall review and provide issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness to ensure the new school expansion do not impact the integrity of the district nor character defining features of the contributing district structures. The potential impacts associated with ambient and the noise levels regulated via the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance have been analyzed and mitigated. A noise analysis report dated May 27, 2020 verifies the noise levels will be at or below
these standards. Staff has added conditions #8-12 to ensure the potential noise
impacts are minimized. The parking, loading circulation and bike parking plans
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
5
shall be reviewed by the Mobility Division and condition #5 mitigates and
regulates these operational and on-site requirements.
7. 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. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section
15314 (Class 14) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This section exempts minor additions to existing schools where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms. The school’s existing size is 38,397. The
proposed addition of 7,898 square feet, a 20.6% increase in size that is intended to accommodate existing student capacity. The school has 22 existing K-6 classrooms and the addition will not add any new classrooms. Therefore, the addition, will not
increase the number of classrooms or students and no further environmental analysis
is required. The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class
31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the proposed addition to a non-contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring,
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by Anne E. Grimmer, and
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District. The District is characterized by courtyard apartments oriented around landscaped spaces constructed during an architectural period of significance dating from 1937-1956. The proposed project
consists of a 4,793 sf subterranean multi-purpose room and 843 sf lunch seating
area and 840 sf of administrative offices within the interior courtyard of the existing building envelope that will not be visible from San Vicente Boulevard. Further, the proposed rooftop play area is on an existing building adjacent to the alley (approximately 170 feet from the North property line) and would be
minimally visible from San Vicente Boulevard only due to required safety fencing.
The proposed project does not change the existing front elevation or landscape features of the non-contributing school and therefore, would have no impact on the overall character or significance of the historic district. Further, the proposed addition requires review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
City’s Landmarks Commission to ensure the structure would not potentially
impact the character-defining features of the District.
8. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. The conditions added per the Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 will provide mitigation to ensure the existing school’s proposed expansion is compatible with the surrounding neighbors and will not impact the public interest or the general welfare and minimize the effect of the use on adjacent neighbors.
MINOR MODIFICATION FINDINGS
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
6
1. The approval of the minor modification is justified by site conditions, location of existing improvements, architecture or sustainability considerations, or retention of
historic features or mature trees in that the site has unique conditions which justify
granting the minor modification. The school has been in operation for 79 years since 1941 without negatively impacting the adjoining neighbors and residential buildings along its east, west, and south sides. The modification allows for the addition of two elevators along the exterior of the existing building as well as
enclosure of a roofed lunch area. The addition of the elevators within the existing
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
7
architecture poses unnecessary hardships and would require major structural and architectural revisions. 2. The requested modification is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable area or specific plans. The requested modification is consistent with the
provisions, purpose and goals of the General Plan in that Santa Monica Schools
and educational facilities are among the City’s most important assets. Facilitating bike access, parking and loading operations plan, transportation demand management are included in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) goals and policies: The addition of on-site long and short term bike parking is consistent
with Policies CE.7, CE 14.1 and CE 14.2; as well as goal CE14. Additionally, the project is consistent with stated transit and transportation demand management goals and policies including: Goal CE15; T 14.2, N1.7, N4, and Policy N4.1 which incentivize alternative transportation modes and monitor the outcomes. The North of Montana and San Vicente Boulevard Goals N8 and N8.3 are met via the
Certificate of Appropriateness project review by the Landmarks Commission as a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District.
3. The project as modified meets the intent and purpose of the applicable zone district and is in substantial compliance with the district regulations. Granting the proposed minor modification will not adversely affect orderly development in this district in that the request for 45.29% parcel coverage primarily facilitates
pedestrian circulation, including new elevators. The two added elevators required for disabled access total 276 SF and the parcel coverage overage is 134 SF.
4. The parcels sharing common parcel lines with the subject parcel will not be adversely affected as a result of approval or conditional approval of the minor modification, including but not limited to, impacts on the privacy, sunlight, or air. The adjacent parcels will not be adversely impacted by the parcel coverage
overage of .29% or 134 square feet in that the additional square footage includes two elevators of 276 square feet and enclosure of an 843 square foot lunch area. The proposal will not impact the adjacent properties with regard to privacy, sunlight and air since all these areas are located within the buildable footprint of the parcel, are not adjacent to the property lines or encroach into required setbacks.
5. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working at the site. Granting the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of a person residing or working on the site. The
requested 0.29% additional parcel coverage will facilitate pedestrian circulation and disabled access via new elevators, enclosure of an existing roofed outdoor eating area to provide shade.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
8
Project Specific Conditions 1. If there are any conflicts between the conditions set forth in this Statement of Official Action and Conditions set forth in the Statement of Official Action for Conditional Use Permit 95-012, the conditions set forth in this Statement of Official
Action shall control.
2. The requested Conditional Use Permit Amendment is granted for: a. An upper level play court addition above existing parking and offices located at the rear, adjacent to Georgina Place North Alley; and
b. An addition to the existing first floor, second, and basement level of the school totaling approximately 7,898 sf.
3. The requested Minor Modification for 0.29% additional parcel coverage is granted for a total ground floor parcel coverage of 45.29%.
4. The approved use is for a private school with an enrollment of 280 children. Only activities directly associated with the private school shall be allowed at the site, which includes events such as student class performances and parent meetings. Any schoolwide event that draws more than 50 adult attendees (excluding School
administrators or faculty and immediate neighbors) to the School campus shall be
considered a “Special School Event.” Sports league games and morning flag line (morning announcements typically held on the outdoor play field) shall not constitute Special School Events. The School shall host no more than 18 Special School Events per academic year. No more than 6 of these events may be held
after school hours without the Planning Director’s approval. Written requests for
after school hours 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 9.44.040. In addition, at least one week prior to the event, the applicant shall
provide public notice of the event for informational purposes to all residents within a 300-foot radius of the property.
5. Parking and Loading Operations Plan (PLOP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Mobility Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be
reviewed for compatibility with the protected bikeway vision along San Vicente Boulevard and shall include a site plan and circulation features, such as the locations where pick-up/drop-off occurs, and show path of travel between passenger loading locations to the building entrance. The PLOP shall also address parking procedures for Special School Events, including parking-related
information to be included on invitations. The PLOP may be amended from time to time as appropriate with the approval of the Planning Director. 6. Valet parking shall be provided for any Special School Event expected to draw more than 150 vehicles, or other Special School Events as required by the
Planning Director. The applicant shall provide a detailed bike and automobile valet
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
9
plan to the City Mobility Division for review and approval at least 72 hours prior to such a Special School Event. This plan shall include a narrative detailing drop-off, circulation, event hours, estimated number of persons attending, and off-site vehicle staging and the plans must mitigate impacts to the adjacent public right-of- way. These special events shall be allowed to use the existing parking for events
(32 spaces from the Georgina Place North alley) and any valet parking operations shall be restricted so that only one side of any street may be used for parking vehicles. Any invitations sent out for Special School Events shall include a description of the limited availability of parking near the School, and shall encourage walking, biking, ridesharing and use of public transportation.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the first phase of the project, the construction plans shall include 32 bike parking spaces comprised of 11 long-term and 21 short-term stalls, on-site shower facilities, and a location for an electrical vehicle recharge station. The facilities shall be designed with the City standards
and approved by the Mobility Division.
8. There are currently three “zones” of fixed outdoor speakers including (1) the play court in the inner courtyard, (2) the artificial turf field, and (3) the outdoor lunch area. As a result of the Project, the lunch area will be enclosed. Therefore,
speakers in that area shall be removed. 9. The Applicant’s outdoor speakers shall be used primarily for emergency purposes. The only daily use of the speaker system shall occur during the School’s brief morning assembly at the beginning of the school day. The only speakers that may
be utilized during morning assembly are those installed at the ground floor play court that face inward towards the court zone.
10. Speakers shall not be utilized during afternoon student pickup. Walkie talkies or other technologies that do not contribute significantly to neighborhood noise may
be used. 11. The applicant shall conduct an acoustical analysis of the upper level playcourt after the structure is constructed and fully operational and in active use. This analysis should be completed and submitted to the City Planning Division within 30 days
from the start of the first school session after Certificate of Occupancy for the playcourt construction. The test results shall be analyzed and compared with the noise assumptions made in the report dated May 27, 2020. If the test results exceed the conclusions of the May 27, 2020 report, the applicant shall have 60 days to propose additional mitigation recommended by the preparer of the
acoustical analysis. The applicant shall then have 60 additional days to implement such mitigation. 12. An on-site contact person shall be designated to serve as a neighborhood liaison to address any neighborhood concerns related to the school. Notification of the
staff liaison and applicable contact information, including telephone and email
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
10
address, shall be provided to all residents within a 300-foot radius of the subject site prior to the commencement of the school session after Certificate of Occupancy for the playcourt construction, and at least once per year thereafter. 13. To address the potential for ball play equipment or other objects that may fall
outside the walled containment area of the playcourt into the alley or adjacent yard
areas, a lightweight netting material with 50% minimum transparency shall be installed around the outdoor playcourt in compliance with allowable projections per Section 9.21.060.
14. Pursuant to SMMC Section 8.98.040 a Construction Management Plan to
coordinate, communicate, and manage the temporary effects of construction
activity on surrounding residents, and commuters shall be submitted and approved
by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit.
15. The large playfield to the west on the expanded school campus shall be
landscaped with grass or artificial turf rather than hard surface material, to absorb
sound. The artificial turf shall consist of acrylic-coated sand or other similar non-
toxic material. Crumb rubber fill shall be prohibited unless the material is
determined to be safe and effective by the manufacturer and the administrators of
Carlthorp School.
16. The applicant is required to implement the Transportation Demand Management
Plan as described in Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report, as
may be amended from time to time with review and approval by the City’s Mobility
Division.
17. The subterranean multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner described in
Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom.
18. The applicant proposes to accomplish construction phased over a five-year period.
Thus, approval of CUP 19ENT-025 is granted a five-year term. In addition,
pursuant to the Interim Ordinance 2688, permits approved between January 25,
2022 and the expiration of the Interim Ordinance are extended for an additional
two years.
The west and east facing walls of the playcourt shall be solid/ non-transparent.
The applicant shall consider murals, artwork or architectural details on walls enclosing the playcourt, especially on the south facing wall. Any lighting installed for the rooftop playcourt shall be shielded light fixtures so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto adjacent properties. Such lighting shall be turned off when
not in use.
19. The exterior stairwell along the west elevation shall be screened with a green
wall/landscaping as allowed by applicable Building and Fire Codes.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
11
Administrative 20. The Planning Commission’s approval, conditions of approval, or denial of
Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250, or Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 may be
appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator
within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission’s
determination in the manner provided in Section 9.40.070. An appeal of the
approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with
the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning
Commission determination in the manner provided in Section 9.54.070(G). Any
appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The
approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within five
years from the permit’s effective date allowing phased construction. Exercise of
rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction.
21. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.37.110(D), if the Building Official determines that
another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months prior to the date
on which the building permit for this project has received all plan check approvals
and none of the relevant exceptions specified in Sections 9.37.110(C) and (E)
apply, the Building Official shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the
date and time of day that the permit application received all plan check approvals,
and the term of this approval and other City approvals or permits necessary to
commence the project shall be automatically extended by the amount of time that
a project remains on the waiting list. However, the permit shall also expire if the
building permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of
Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC Section
8.08.060. One 1-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of
Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions shall not be granted if
development standards or the development process relevant to the project have
changed since project approval. Extension requests to a subdivision map must be
approved by the Planning Commission.
22. Applicant is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval
of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by
the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any such permits.
23. 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.
24. 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
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
12
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.
25. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on
site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until
a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly
when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design
Review Permit.
26. 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.
Indemnity 27. 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 this Variance concerning the Applicant's proposed project, or any
Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any 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 prohibits
the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following
occur:
(1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs. (2) The City defends the action in good faith.
Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the
settlement is approved by the Applicant.
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
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
13
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. Conformance with Approved Plans 28. This approval is for those plans dated January 25, 2022 and additional exhibits, 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. 29. 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, Architectural Review Board, or Director of Planning.
30. 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 31. 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, conditions of approval,
and/or adopted city fee schedule. Cultural Resources 32. The City shall not approve the demolition of any building or structure unless the
applicant has complied with all of the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.25, including no demolition of buildings or structures built 40 years of age or older shall be permitted until the end of a 75-day review period by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an
application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
14
a final determination is made on the application by the Landmarks Commission, or City Council on appeal. 33. 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.
Final Design
34. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Landmarks Commission (San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District).
35. 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.
36. 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. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. 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. Unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board, 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.
37. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.
38. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti. Construction Management Plan Requirements
39. 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:
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
15
• 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.
• 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. 40. 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.
Standard Conditions 41. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained.
42. For security purposes, the overheight front yard fence and landscaping as approved in 1996 may be re-established following construction but is no longer required to provide a clear view through the front fence.
43. 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.
44. 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
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
16
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 applicable noise zone. 45. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
PUBLIC LANDSCAPE 46. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, per the specifications of the Public Landscape Division of the Community & Cultural Services 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.
47. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit all street trees that are adjacent to or will be impacted by the demolition or construction access shall have tree protection zones established in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. All tree protection zones shall remain in place until demolition and/or construction has been completed.
48. Replace or plant new street trees in accordance with Urban Forest Master Plan and in consultation with City Arborist. OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
49. Developer is hereby informed of the availability for free enrollment in the Savings By Design incentive program where available through Southern California Edison. If Developer elects to enroll in the program, enrollment shall occur prior to submittal of plans for Architectural Review and an incentive agreement shall be executed
with Southern California Edison prior to issuance of a building permit. 50. The project shall comply with requirements in section 8.106 of the Santa Monica Municipal code, which adopts by reference the California Green Building Standards Code and which adds local amendments to that Code. In addition, the
project shall meet the landscape water conservation and construction and demolition waste diversion requirements specified in Section 8.108 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) General Conditions
51. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following Public Works Department (PWD) permit fees prior to issuance of a building permit:
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
17
a. Water Services
b. Wastewater Capital Facility
c. Water Demand Mitigation
d. Fire Service Connection
e. Tieback Encroachment
f. Encroachment of on-site improvements into public right-of-way
g. Construction and Demolition Waste Management – If the valuation of a project is at least $50,000 or if the total square feet of the project is equal to or greater than 1000 square feet, then the owner or contractor is required to complete and submit a Waste Management Plan. All demolition projects are required to
submit a Waste Management Plan. A performance deposit is collected for all Waste Management Plans equal to 3% of the project value, not to exceed $30,000. All demolition only permits require a $1,000 deposit or $1.00 per square foot, whichever is the greater of the two.
Some of these fees shall be reimbursed to developer in accordance with the City’s standard practice should Developer not proceed with development of the Project. In order to receive a refund of the Construction and Demolition performance deposit, the owner or contractor must provide receipts of recycling 70% of all materials listed on the Waste Management Plan.
52. Any construction related work or use of the public right-of-way will be required to obtain the approval of the City of Santa Monica, including but not limited to: Use of Public Property Permits, Sewer Permits, Excavation Permits, Alley Closure Permits, Street Closure Permits, and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.
53. Plans and specifications for all offsite improvements shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
54. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around any portions of the
construction site exposed to the public rights-of-way. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
55. Until completion of construction, a sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign requirements, which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner, developer and contractor for the
purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.
56. 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 Building & Safety Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
18
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 Certified 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. Water Resources
57. Connections to the sewer or storm drains require a sewer permit from the PWD - Civil Engineering Division. Connections to storm drains owned by Los Angeles County require a permit from the L.A. County Department of Public Works.
58. Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with potential oil and grease content are required to pretreat the wastewater before discharging to the City storm drain or sewer system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site.
59. If the project involves dewatering, developer/contractor shall contact the LA
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain an NPDES Permit for
discharge of groundwater from construction dewatering to surface water. For more information refer to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/ and search for Order # R4-2003-0111.
60. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a sewer
study that shows that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire
development. If the study does not show to the satisfaction of the City that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire development, prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any downstream deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if
calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water Resources Engineer. 61. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a water
study that shows that the City’s water system can accommodate the entire development for fire flows and all potable needs. Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any water flow/pressure deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to
receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
19
62. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a hydrology study of all drainage to and from the site to demonstrate adequacy of the existing storm drain system for the entire development. Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any system deficiencies, to the satisfaction of City Engineer, if calculations show that the project will cause such facilities to receive
greater demand than can be accommodated. All reports and improvement plans shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval. The study shall be performed by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California.
63. Developer shall not directly connect to a public storm drain pipe or direct site drainage to the public alley. Commercial or residential units are required to either
have an individual water meter or a master meter with sub-meters.
64. All existing sanitary sewer “house connections” to be abandoned, shall be removed and capped at the “Y” connections.
65. The fire services and domestic services 3-inches or greater must be above ground, on the applicant’s site, readily accessible for testing.
66. Developer is required to meet state cross-connection and potable water sanitation guidelines. Refer to requirements and comply with the cross-connections guidelines available at: http://www.lapublichealth.org/eh/progs/envirp/ehcross.htm. Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, a cross-connection inspection shall be completed. 67. 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.
Urban Water Runoff Mitigation
68. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan shall be required by the PWD pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval, the applicant shall contact PWD to determine applicable requirements,
such as: a. The site must comply with SMMC Chapter 7.10 Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance for the construction phase and post construction activities;
b. Non-storm water runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction
site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
c. Any sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site;
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
20
d. Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments are not tracked into the street or adjoining properties;
e. No runoff from the construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; and
f. Drainage control measures shall be required depending on the extent of
grading and topography of the site.
g. Development sites that result in land disturbance of one acre or more are required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Effective September 2, 2011, only individuals who have been certified by the Board as a “Qualified SWPPP
Developer” are qualified to develop and/or revise SWPPPs. A copy of the SWPPP shall also be submitted to the PWD.
69. Prior to implementing any temporary construction dewatering or permanent groundwater seepage pumping, a permit is required from the City Water Resources Protection Program (WRPP). Please contact the WRPP for permit
requirements at least two weeks in advance of planned dewatering or seepage
pumping. They can be reached at (310) 458-8235. Public Streets & Rights-of-Way
70. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, all required offsite improvements, such as AC pavement rehabilitation, replacement of sidewalk, curbs and gutters, installation of street trees, lighting, etc. shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Public Landscape Division.
71. All off-site improvements required by the Public Works Department shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off-site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
72. Unless otherwise approved by the PWD, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project.
73. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project or needed improvement prior to the project, as determined by the PWD shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the PWD. Design, materials and workmanship shall match the adjacent elements including architectural concrete, pavers, tree wells, art elements, special landscaping, etc.
74. Street and alley sections adjacent to the development shall be replaced as determined by the PWD. This typically requires full reconstruction of the street or alley in accordance with City of Santa Monica standards for the full adjacent length of the property.
Utilities
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
21
75. Prior to submittal of plan check application, make arrangements with all affected utility companies and indicate points of connection for all services on the site plan drawing. Pay for undergrounding of all overhead utilities within and along the development frontages. Existing and proposed overhead utilities need to be
relocated underground.
76. Location of Southern California Edison electrical transformer and switch equipment/structures must be clearly shown on the development site plan and other appropriate plans within the project limits. The SCE structures serving the proposed development shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
Resource Recovery and Recycling
77. Development plans must show the refuse and recycling (RR) area dimensions to demonstrate adequate and easily accessible area. If the RR area is completely enclosed, then lighting, ventilation and floor drain connected to sewer will be required. Section 9.21.130 of the SMMC has dimensional requirements for various
sizes and types of projects. Developments that place the RR area in subterranean garages must also provide a bin staging area on their property for the bins to be placed for collection.
78. Contact Resource Recovery and Recycling RRR division to obtain dimensions of the refuse recycling enclosure.
79. For temporary excavation and shoring that includes tiebacks into the public right- of-way, a Tieback Agreement, prepared by the City Attorney, will be required. 80. Nothing contained in these Conditions of Approval shall prevent Developer from seeking relief pursuant to any Application for Alternative Materials and Methods of
Design and Construction or any other relief as otherwise may be permitted and available under the Building Code, Fire Code, or any other provision of the SMMC.
Construction Management plan
81. A Construction Management Plan per SMMC 8.98.040 shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the following City departments prior to issuance of a building permit: Public Works, Fire, Community Development, and Police. 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:
a. Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; b. Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; c. Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;
d. Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construction;
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
22
e. Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations; f. Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons; g. Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings;
h. Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; i. Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; j. State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed;
k. Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks; l. Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; m. Provide a grading and drainage plan;
n. Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking; o. List a designated on-site construction manager; p. Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of construction waste;
q. Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact materials in building construction; and r. Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.
VOTE 20ENT-0275 (Appeal)
Ayes:
Nays: Abstain:
Absent:
VOTE Minor Modification 20ENT-0066
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain: Absent:
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
23
VOTE Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250
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.
Chairperson 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
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment B Council STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) 5-10-22 REVISED [Revision 3] (5012 : Appeal
1 Attachment C
Public Notification Information
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL
ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066
LOCATION: 438 San Vicente Boulevard
APPLICANT: Carlthorp School/ Ken Parr
PROPERTY OWNER: Carlthorp School
CASE PLANNER: Gina Szilak, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 95-012 to allow
7,259 square foot expansion to Carlthorp Elementary
School and rooftop playcourt with a Minor Modification for
a .29% increase in parcel coverage (45.29)
CEQA STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to
Section 15303 (Class 3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
This section exempts minor additions to existing schools
where the addition does not increase original student
capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms. The
school’s existing size is 47,709 square feet with a
proposed addition of 6,477 square feet, a 14% increase in
size that is intended to accommodate existing student
capacity. The school has 22 existing K-6 classrooms and
the addition will not add any new classrooms. Therefore,
the addition, will not increase the number of classrooms or
students and no further environmental analysis is required.
The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that the proposed addition to a non-
contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard
Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
2
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017),
revised by Anne E. Grimmer, and would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of the San
Vicente Courtyard Historic District. The District is
characterized by courtyard apartments oriented around
landscaped spaces constructed during an architectural
period of significance dating from 1937-1956. The
proposed project consists of a 5,575 sf subterranean multi-
purpose room and 844 sf lunch seating area and 840 sf of
administrative offices within the interior courtyard of the
existing building envelope that will not be visible from San
Vicente Boulevard. Further, the proposed rooftop play
area is on an existing building adjacent to the alley
(approximately 170 feet from the North property line) and
would be minimally visible from San Vicente Boulevard
only due to required safety fencing. The proposed project
does not change the existing front elevation or landscape
features of the non-contributing school and therefore,
would have no impact on the overall character or
significance of the historic district. Further, the proposed
addition requires review and approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the City’s Landmarks Commission to
ensure the structure would not potentially impact the
character-defining features of the District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 4, 2020 Determination Date
X
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
Denied.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF
NOT APPEALED:
November 19, 2020
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS
GRANTED:
November 19, 2027
(5 years + 2 years pursuant to the
Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive
Order of the Director of Emergency
Services Declaring the Existence of a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
3
Local Emergency adopted on May 29,
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.
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 such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District
and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other
titles of the Municipal Code. The existing school was established through an
approved Conditional Use Permit and was previously expanded in 1995 when it
acquired the adjoining lot after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The proposed
expansion of an existing school is a permitted use in the R2 district with the
approval of an approved Conditional Use Permit.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plan. Specifically, the project is conditionally permitted with an approved via a
Conditional Use Permit application and is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan in the following areas. The addition of on-site
long and short term bike parking is consistent with Policies CE.7, CE 14.1 and
CE 14.2; as well as goal CE14. Additionally, the project is consistent with stated
transit and transportation demand management goals and policies including:
Goal CE15; T 14.2, N1.7, N4, and Policy N4.1 which incentivize alternative
transportation modes and monitor the outcomes. The North of Montana and San
Vicente Boulevard Goals N8 and N8.3 are met via the Certificate of
Appropriateness project review by the Landmarks Commission as a non-
contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
The existing Carlthorp School is located on a 46,362 SF parcel and will comply
with the R2 development standards for the proposed expansion with the
exception of the parcel coverage. The maximum parcel coverage in the R2
zoning district is 45% while the proposed expansion constitutes a 45.29% overall
parcel coverage, an overage of .29% or 134 SF for the less than 1% parcel
coverage overage requested with a Minor Modification. This small increase over
the allowable parcel coverage would permit a roofed lunch area but requires a
Minor Modification application. The school has been in operation for 79 years
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
4
since 1941 without negatively impacting the adjoining neighbors and residential
buildings along its east, west, and south sides. The school enrolls approximately
280 students and the proposed expansion would not increase the enrollment
level. The expansion would facilitate and enhance the existing academic services
and student experience. No new classrooms are included in the proposal.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the
subject parcel if the land uses are to remain. The school has been operating on
the site for since 1941; the previous expanded operations conditions of approval
(Development Review 95-003, Conditional Use Permit 95-012, Variance 95-002
and an approved Environmental Impact Report) are consistent with the existing
on-site use. The proposed conditions of approval will serve to further mitigate
potential impacts such as noise, parking, construction impacts, and a
comprehensive drop-off and pick up plan for the benefit of the students, faculty
and on-site administrators.
5. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within
the District and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which
may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of
employees, or the nature of the operation. Since Carlthorp elementary school
has been located on this site since 1941 and the school previously expanded
with the approval of Development Review 95-003, Conditional Use Permit 95-
012, Variance 95-022 and an approved Environmental Impact Report, the
proposed expansion via a Conditional Use Permit includes a number of specific
project conditions to address potential parking impacts, noise, construction
impacts and the viability of the school’s current and future drop off plans. These
project specific conditions #1-20 can be found in the Statement of Official Action.
6. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. The project is located in
the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District. The proposed
addition and elevators are most visible to the interior courtyard, and not from San
Vicente Boulevard. The upper level play court walls are visible from the street
but are located in the rear, furthest from the street. The potential impacts altering
visibility, building volume envelope or site design have been mitigated as the
proposed project is for additions facing the interior courtyard that are compliant
with the R2 development standards with the exception of a slight parcel coverage
modification. Additionally, as a non-contributing structure in the district, the
Landmarks Commission shall review and provide issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness to ensure the new school expansion do not impact the integrity
of the district nor character defining features of the contributing district structures.
The potential impacts associated with ambient and the noise levels regulated via
the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance have been analyzed and mitigated. A noise
analysis report dated May 27, 2020 verifies the noise levels will be at or below
these standards. Staff has added conditions #8-12 to ensure the potential noise
impacts are minimized. The parking, loading circulation and bike parking plans
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
5
shall be reviewed by the Mobility Division and condition #5 mitigates and
regulates these operational and on-site requirements.
7. 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. The proposed project is also categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the
proposed addition to a non-contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard
Historic District is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017), revised by Anne E.
Grimmer, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District. The District is characterized by
courtyard apartments oriented around landscaped spaces constructed during an
architectural period of significance dating from 1937-1956. The proposed project
consists of a 5,575 sf subterranean multi-purpose room and 844 sf lunch seating
area and 840 sf of administrative offices within the interior courtyard of the
existing building envelope that will not be visible from San Vicente Boulevard.
Further, the proposed rooftop play area is on an existing building adjacent to the
alley (approximately 170 feet from the North property line) and would be
minimally visible from San Vicente Boulevard only due to required safety fencing.
The proposed project does not change the existing front elevation or landscape
features of the non-contributing school and therefore, would have no impact on
the overall character or significance of the historic district. Further, the proposed
addition requires review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
City’s Landmarks Commission to ensure the structure would not potentially
impact the character-defining features of the District.
8. The proposed use and related project features would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. The conditions
added per the Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 will provide mitigation to
ensure the existing school’s proposed expansion is compatible with the
surrounding neighbors and will not impact the public interest or the general
welfare and minimize the effect of the use on adjacent neighbors.
MINOR MODIFICATION FINDINGS
1. The approval of the minor modification is justified by site conditions, location of
existing improvements, architecture or sustainability considerations, or retention of
historic features or mature trees in that the site has unique conditions which justify
granting the minor modification. The school has been in operation for 79 years
since 1941 without negatively impacting the adjoining neighbors and residential
buildings along its east, west, and south sides. The modification allows for the
addition of two elevators along the exterior of the existing building as well as
enclosure of a roofed lunch area. The addition of the elevators within the existing
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
6
architecture poses unnecessary hardships and would require major structural and
architectural revisions.
2. The requested modification is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
area or specific plans. The requested modification is consistent with the
provisions, purpose and goals of the General Plan in that Santa Monica Schools
and educational facilities are among the City’s most important assets. Facilitating
bike access, parking and loading operations plan, transportation demand
management are included in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) goals
and policies: The addition of on-site long and short term bike parking is consistent
with Policies CE.7, CE 14.1 and CE 14.2; as well as goal CE14. Additionally, the
project is consistent with stated transit and transportation demand management
goals and policies including: Goal CE15; T 14.2, N1.7, N4, and Policy N4.1 which
incentivize alternative transportation modes and monitor the outcomes. The North
of Montana and San Vicente Boulevard Goals N8 and N8.3 are met via the
Certificate of Appropriateness project review by the Landmarks Commission as a
non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District.
3. The project as modified meets the intent and purpose of the applicable zone district
and is in substantial compliance with the district regulations. Granting the
proposed minor modification will not adversely affect orderly development in this
district in that the request for 45.29% parcel coverage primarily facilitates
pedestrian circulation, including new elevators. The two added elevators required
for disabled access total 276 SF and the parcel coverage overage is 134 SF.
4. The parcels sharing common parcel lines with the subject parcel will not be
adversely affected as a result of approval or conditional approval of the minor
modification, including but not limited to, impacts on the privacy, sunlight, or air.
The adjacent parcels will not be adversely impacted by the parcel coverage
overage of .29% or 134 square feet in that the additional square footage includes
two elevators of 276 square feet and enclosure of an 844 square foot lunch area.
The proposal will not impact the adjacent properties with regard to privacy, sunlight
and air since all these areas are located within the buildable footprint of the parcel,
are not adjacent to the property lines or encroach into required setbacks.
5. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
at the site. Granting the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of a person residing or working on the site. The
requested 0.29% additional parcel coverage will facilitate pedestrian circulation
and disabled access via new elevators, enclosure of an existing roofed outdoor
eating area to provide shade.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
7
Project Specific Conditions
1. If there are any conflicts between the conditions set forth in this Statement of
Official Action and Conditions set forth in the Statement of Official Action for
Conditional Use Permit 95-012, the conditions set forth in this Statement of Official
Action shall control.
2. The requested Conditional Use Permit Amendment is granted for:
a. An upper level play court addition above existing parking and offices located at
the rear, adjacent to Georgina Place North Alley; and
b. An addition to the existing first floor, second, and basement level of the school
totaling approximately 6,477sf.
3. The requested Minor Modification for 0.29% additional parcel coverage is granted
for a total ground floor parcel coverage of 45.29%.
4. The approved use is for a private school with an enrollment of 280 children. Only
activities directly associated with the private school shall be allowed at the site,
which includes events such as student class performances and parent meetings.
Any schoolwide event that draws more than 50 adult attendees (excluding School
administrators or faculty and immediate neighbors) to the School campus shall be
considered a “Special School Event.” Sports league games and morning flag line
(morning announcements typically held on the outdoor play field) shall not
constitute Special School Events. The School shall host no more than 18 Special
School Events per academic year. No more than 6 of these events may be held
after school hours without the Planning Director’s approval. Written requests for
after school hours 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
9.44.040. In addition, at least one week prior to the event, the applicant shall
provide public notice of the event for informational purposes to all residents within
a 300-foot radius of the property.
5. Parking and Loading Operations Plan (PLOP) shall be reviewed and approved by
the Mobility Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be
reviewed for compatibility with the protected bikeway vision along San Vicente
Boulevard and shall include a site plan and circulation features, such as the
locations where pick-up/drop-off occurs, and show path of travel between
passenger loading locations to the building entrance. The PLOP shall also address
parking procedures for Special School Events, including parking-related
information to be included on invitations. The PLOP may be amended from time
to time as appropriate with the approval of the Planning Director.
6. Valet parking shall be provided for any Special School Event expected to draw
more than 150 vehicles, or other Special School Events as required by the
Planning Director. The applicant shall provide a detailed bike and automobile valet
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
8
plan to the City Mobility Division for review and approval at least 72 hours prior to
such a Special School Event. This plan shall include a narrative detailing drop-off,
circulation, event hours, estimated number of persons attending, and off-site
vehicle staging and the plans must mitigate impacts to the adjacent public right-of-
way. These special events shall be allowed to use the existing parking for events
(32 spaces from the Georgina Place North alley) and any valet parking operations
shall be restricted so that only one side of any street may be used for parking
vehicles. Any invitations sent out for Special School Events shall include a
description of the limited availability of parking near the School, and shall
encourage walking, biking, ridesharing and use of public transportation.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the first phase of the project, the
construction plans shall include 32 bike parking spaces comprised of 11 long-term
and 21 short-term stalls, on-site shower facilities, and a location for an electrical
vehicle recharge station. The facilities shall be designed with the City standards
and approved by the Mobility Division.
8. There are currently three “zones” of fixed outdoor speakers including (1) the play
court in the inner courtyard, (2) the artificial turf field, and (3) the outdoor lunch
area. As a result of the Project, the lunch area will be enclosed. Therefore,
speakers in that area shall be removed.
9. The Applicant’s outdoor speakers shall be used primarily for emergency purposes.
The only daily use of the speaker system shall occur during the School’s brief
morning assembly at the beginning of the school day. The only speakers that may
be utilized during morning assembly are those installed at the ground floor play
court that face inward towards the court zone.
10. Speakers shall not be utilized during afternoon student pickup. Walkie talkies or
other technologies that do not contribute significantly to neighborhood noise may
be used.
11. The applicant shall conduct an acoustical analysis of the upper level playcourt after
the structure is constructed and fully operational and in active use. This analysis
should be completed and submitted to the City Planning Division within 30 days
from the start of the first school session after Certificate of Occupancy for the
playcourt construction. The test results shall be analyzed and compared with the
noise assumptions made in the report dated May 27, 2020. If the test results
exceed the conclusions of the May 27, 2020 report, the applicant shall have 60
days to propose additional mitigation recommended by the preparer of the
acoustical analysis. The applicant shall then have 60 additional days to implement
such mitigation.
12. An on-site contact person shall be designated to serve as a neighborhood liaison
to address any neighborhood concerns related to the school. Notification of the
staff liaison and applicable contact information, including telephone and email
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
9
address, shall be provided to all residents within a 300-foot radius of the subject
site prior to the commencement of the school session after Certificate of
Occupancy for the playcourt construction, and at least once per year thereafter.
13. To address the potential for ball play equipment or other objects that may fall
outside the walled containment area of the playcourt into the alley or adjacent yard
areas, a lightweight netting material with 50% minimum transparency shall be
installed around the outdoor playcourt in compliance with allowable projections per
Section 9.21.060.
14. Pursuant to SMMC Section 8.98.040 a Construction Management Plan to
coordinate, communicate, and manage the temporary effects of construction
activity on surrounding residents, and commuters shall be submitted and approved
by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit.
15. The large playfield to the west on the expanded school campus shall be
landscaped with grass or artificial turf rather than hard surface material, to absorb
sound. The artificial turf shall consist of acrylic-coated sand or other similar non-
toxic material. Crumb rubber fill shall be prohibited unless the material is
determined to be safe and effective by the manufacturer and the administrators of
Carlthorp School.
16. The applicant is required to implement the Transportation Demand Management
Plan as described in Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report, as
may be amended from time to time with review and approval by the City’s Mobility
Division.
17. The subterranean multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner described in
Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom.
18. The applicant proposes to accomplish construction phased over a five-year period.
Thus, approval of CUP 19ENT-025 is granted a five-year term. In addition,
pursuant to the 3rd revised 18th supplement to the Executive Order, permits
approved between March 13, 2020 and the expiration of the Executive Order are
extended for an additional two years.
The west and east facing walls of the playcourt shall be solid/ non-transparent.
The applicant shall consider murals, artwork or architectural details on walls
enclosing the playcourt, especially on the south facing wall. Any lighting installed
for the rooftop playcourt shall be shielded light fixtures so as not to produce
obtrusive glare onto adjacent properties. Such lighting shall be turned off when
not in use.
19. The exterior stairwell along the west elevation shall be screened with a green
wall/landscaping as allowed by applicable Building and Fire Codes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
10
Administrative
20. The Planning Commission’s approval, conditions of approval, or denial of
Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250, or Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 may be
appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator
within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission’s
determination in the manner provided in Section 9.40.070. An appeal of the
approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with
the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning
Commission determination in the manner provided in Section 9.54.070(G). Any
appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The
approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within five
years from the permit’s effective date allowing phased construction. Exercise of
rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction.
21. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.37.110(D), if the Building Official determines that
another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months prior to the date
on which the building permit for this project has received all plan check approvals
and none of the relevant exceptions specified in Sections 9.37.110(C) and (E)
apply, the Building Official shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the
date and time of day that the permit application received all plan check approvals,
and the term of this approval and other City approvals or permits necessary to
commence the project shall be automatically extended by the amount of time that
a project remains on the waiting list. However, the permit shall also expire if the
building permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of
Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC Section
8.08.060. One 1-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of
Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions shall not be granted if
development standards or the development process relevant to the project have
changed since project approval. Extension requests to a subdivision map must be
approved by the Planning Commission.
22. Applicant is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval
of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by
the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any such permits.
23. 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.
24. 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
11
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.
25. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on
site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until
a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly
when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design
Review Permit.
26. 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.
Indemnity
27. 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 this Variance concerning the Applicant's proposed project, or any
Claims brought against the City due to the acts or omissions in any 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 prohibits
the City from participating in the defense of any Claims, if both of the following
occur:
(1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs.
(2) The City defends the action in good faith.
Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the
settlement is approved by the Applicant.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
12
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.
Conformance with Approved Plans
28. This approval is for those plans dated May 12, 2020 and additional exhibits, 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.
29. 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, Architectural Review
Board, or Director of Planning.
30. 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
31. 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, conditions of approval,
and/or adopted city fee schedule.
Cultural Resources
32. The City shall not approve the demolition of any building or structure unless the
applicant has complied with all of the requirements of SMMC Chapter 9.25,
including no demolition of buildings or structures built 40 years of age or older shall
be permitted until the end of a 75-day review period by the Landmarks Commission
to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an
application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
13
a final determination is made on the application by the Landmarks Commission, or
City Council on appeal.
33. 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.
Final Design
34. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall
be subject to review and approval by the Landmarks Commission (San Vicente
Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District).
35. 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.
36. 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. The
Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. 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. Unless otherwise approved
by the Architectural Review Board, 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.
37. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side
yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay
particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.
38. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti
materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
Construction Management Plan Requirements
39. 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:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
14
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.
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.
40. 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.
Standard Conditions
41. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance
with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained.
42. For security purposes, the overheight front yard fence and landscaping as
approved in 1996 may be re-established following construction but is no longer
required to provide a clear view through the front fence.
43. 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.
44. 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
15
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 applicable noise zone.
45. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
compliance with the City’s graffiti removal program.
PUBLIC LANDSCAPE
46. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, per the specifications of the
Public Landscape Division of the Community & Cultural Services 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.
47. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit all street trees that are adjacent to or
will be impacted by the demolition or construction access shall have tree protection
zones established in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. All tree
protection zones shall remain in place until demolition and/or construction has
been completed.
48. Replace or plant new street trees in accordance with Urban Forest Master Plan
and in consultation with City Arborist.
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
49. Developer is hereby informed of the availability for free enrollment in the Savings
By Design incentive program where available through Southern California Edison.
If Developer elects to enroll in the program, enrollment shall occur prior to submittal
of plans for Architectural Review and an incentive agreement shall be executed
with Southern California Edison prior to issuance of a building permit.
50. The project shall comply with requirements in section 8.106 of the Santa Monica
Municipal code, which adopts by reference the California Green Building
Standards Code and which adds local amendments to that Code. In addition, the
project shall meet the landscape water conservation and construction and
demolition waste diversion requirements specified in Section 8.108 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD)
General Conditions
51. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following Public Works
Department (PWD) permit fees prior to issuance of a building permit:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
16
a. Water Services
b. Wastewater Capital Facility
c. Water Demand Mitigation
d. Fire Service Connection
e. Tieback Encroachment
f. Encroachment of on-site improvements into public right-of-way
g. Construction and Demolition Waste Management – If the valuation of a project
is at least $50,000 or if the total square feet of the project is equal to or greater
than 1000 square feet, then the owner or contractor is required to complete and
submit a Waste Management Plan. All demolition projects are required to
submit a Waste Management Plan. A performance deposit is collected for all
Waste Management Plans equal to 3% of the project value, not to exceed
$30,000. All demolition only permits require a $1,000 deposit or $1.00 per
square foot, whichever is the greater of the two.
Some of these fees shall be reimbursed to developer in accordance with the City’s
standard practice should Developer not proceed with development of the Project.
In order to receive a refund of the Construction and Demolition performance
deposit, the owner or contractor must provide receipts of recycling 70% of all
materials listed on the Waste Management Plan.
52. Any construction related work or use of the public right-of-way will be required to
obtain the approval of the City of Santa Monica, including but not limited to: Use
of Public Property Permits, Sewer Permits, Excavation Permits, Alley Closure
Permits, Street Closure Permits, and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.
53. Plans and specifications for all offsite improvements shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California for approval by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
54. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around any portions of the
construction site exposed to the public rights-of-way. The lot shall be kept clear of
all trash, weeds, etc.
55. Until completion of construction, a sign shall be posted on the property in a manner
consistent with the public hearing sign requirements, which shall identify the
address and phone number of the owner, developer and contractor for the
purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction
period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work.
56. 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 Building & Safety Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
17
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 Certified 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.
Water Resources
57. Connections to the sewer or storm drains require a sewer permit from the PWD -
Civil Engineering Division. Connections to storm drains owned by Los Angeles
County require a permit from the L.A. County Department of Public Works.
58. Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
potential oil and grease content are required to pretreat the wastewater before
discharging to the City storm drain or sewer system. Pretreatment will require that
a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site.
59. If the project involves dewatering, developer/contractor shall contact the LA
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain an NPDES Permit for
discharge of groundwater from construction dewatering to surface water. For more
information refer to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/ and search for
Order # R4-2003-0111.
60. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a sewer
study that shows that the City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire
development. If the study does not show to the satisfaction of the City that the
City’s sewer system can accommodate the entire development, prior to issuance
of the first building permit, the Developer shall be responsible to upgrade any
downstream deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Manager, if
calculations show that the project will cause such mains to receive greater demand
than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved by the Water
Resources Engineer.
61. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a water
study that shows that the City’s water system can accommodate the entire
development for fire flows and all potable needs. Developer shall be responsible
to upgrade any water flow/pressure deficiencies, to the satisfaction of the Water
Resources Manager, if calculations show that the project will cause such mains to
receive greater demand than can be accommodated. Improvement plans shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division. All reports and plans shall also be approved
by the Water Resources Engineer.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
18
62. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a
hydrology study of all drainage to and from the site to demonstrate adequacy of
the existing storm drain system for the entire development. Developer shall be
responsible to upgrade any system deficiencies, to the satisfaction of City
Engineer, if calculations show that the project will cause such facilities to receive
greater demand than can be accommodated. All reports and improvement plans
shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval. The study shall
be performed by a Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California.
63. Developer shall not directly connect to a public storm drain pipe or direct site
drainage to the public alley. Commercial or residential units are required to either
have an individual water meter or a master meter with sub-meters.
64. All existing sanitary sewer “house connections” to be abandoned, shall be removed
and capped at the “Y” connections.
65. The fire services and domestic services 3-inches or greater must be above ground,
on the applicant’s site, readily accessible for testing.
66. Developer is required to meet state cross-connection and potable water sanitation
guidelines. Refer to requirements and comply with the cross-connections
guidelines available at:
http://www.lapublichealth.org/eh/progs/envirp/ehcross.htm. Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, a cross-connection inspection shall be completed.
67. 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.
Urban Water Runoff Mitigation
68. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff
Mitigation Plan shall be required by the PWD pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter
7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board
approval, the applicant shall contact PWD to determine applicable requirements,
such as:
a. The site must comply with SMMC Chapter 7.10 Urban Runoff Pollution
Ordinance for the construction phase and post construction activities;
b. Non-storm water runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction
site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
c. Any sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the
same day they are tracked off-site;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
19
d. Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and
otherwise protected so that sediments are not tracked into the street or
adjoining properties;
e. No runoff from the construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; and
f. Drainage control measures shall be required depending on the extent of
grading and topography of the site.
g. Development sites that result in land disturbance of one acre or more are
required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to submit a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Effective September 2, 2011,
only individuals who have been certified by the Board as a “Qualified SWPPP
Developer” are qualified to develop and/or revise SWPPPs. A copy of the
SWPPP shall also be submitted to the PWD.
69. Prior to implementing any temporary construction dewatering or permanent
groundwater seepage pumping, a permit is required from the City Water
Resources Protection Program (WRPP). Please contact the WRPP for permit
requirements at least two weeks in advance of planned dewatering or seepage
pumping. They can be reached at (310) 458-8235.
Public Streets & Rights-of-Way
70. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, all required
offsite improvements, such as AC pavement rehabilitation, replacement of
sidewalk, curbs and gutters, installation of street trees, lighting, etc. shall be
designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and
Public Landscape Division.
71. All off-site improvements required by the Public Works Department shall be
installed. Plans and specifications for off-site improvements shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
72. Unless otherwise approved by the PWD, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and
passable during the grading and construction phase of the project.
73. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal
as a result of the project or needed improvement prior to the project, as determined
by the PWD shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the PWD. Design,
materials and workmanship shall match the adjacent elements including
architectural concrete, pavers, tree wells, art elements, special landscaping, etc.
74. Street and alley sections adjacent to the development shall be replaced as
determined by the PWD. This typically requires full reconstruction of the street or
alley in accordance with City of Santa Monica standards for the full adjacent length
of the property.
Utilities
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
20
75. Prior to submittal of plan check application, make arrangements with all affected
utility companies and indicate points of connection for all services on the site plan
drawing. Pay for undergrounding of all overhead utilities within and along the
development frontages. Existing and proposed overhead utilities need to be
relocated underground.
76. Location of Southern California Edison electrical transformer and switch
equipment/structures must be clearly shown on the development site plan and
other appropriate plans within the project limits. The SCE structures serving the
proposed development shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
Resource Recovery and Recycling
77. Development plans must show the refuse and recycling (RR) area dimensions to
demonstrate adequate and easily accessible area. If the RR area is completely
enclosed, then lighting, ventilation and floor drain connected to sewer will be
required. Section 9.21.130 of the SMMC has dimensional requirements for various
sizes and types of projects. Developments that place the RR area in subterranean
garages must also provide a bin staging area on their property for the bins to be
placed for collection.
78. Contact Resource Recovery and Recycling RRR division to obtain dimensions of
the refuse recycling enclosure.
79. For temporary excavation and shoring that includes tiebacks into the public right-
of-way, a Tieback Agreement, prepared by the City Attorney, will be required.
80. Nothing contained in these Conditions of Approval shall prevent Developer from
seeking relief pursuant to any Application for Alternative Materials and Methods of
Design and Construction or any other relief as otherwise may be permitted and
available under the Building Code, Fire Code, or any other provision of the SMMC.
Construction Management plan
81. A Construction Management Plan per SMMC 8.98.040 shall be prepared by the
applicant for approval by the following City departments prior to issuance of a
building permit: Public Works, Fire, Community Development, and Police. 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:
a. Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license
numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect;
b. Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
c. Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;
d. Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed
to be used in conjunction with construction;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
21
e. Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
f. Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under
the property of other persons;
g. Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings;
h. Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck
trips, hours of hauling and parking location;
i. Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
j. State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed;
k. Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including
measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks;
l. Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel;
m. Provide a grading and drainage plan;
n. Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of
public streets for parking;
o. List a designated on-site construction manager;
p. Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize
the reuse/recycling of construction waste;
q. Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact
materials in building construction; and
r. Provide a construction period water runoff control plan.
VOTE Minor Modification 20ENT-0066
Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Fresco, Lambert, Chair Landres, Paster, Raskin, Ries
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
22
VOTE Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250
Ayes: Fonda-Bonardi, Lambert, Chair Landres, Paster, Raskin, Ries
Nays: Fresco
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 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Shawn Landres, Chairperson 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C21F3F6-F4F3-492C-9DD9-D1075DAC628F
12/10/2020
Director of Finance and OperationsKen Parr 12/17/2020
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: PC STOA 19ENT-0250 + 20ENT-0066 (438 San Vicente Blvd.) (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for
Attachment F
Project Timeline
Carlthorp School 438 San Vicente Boulevard
• Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250;
• Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 and
• Appeal 20ENT-0275
Item Date Action
1) June 25, 2019 Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 & Development
Review Permit applications 19ENT-0251 filed
2) July 25, 2019 Application deemed complete
3) October 14, 2019 Preliminary Review by Landmark Commission
4) November 6 & 19,
2019
Applicant outreach to the public
5) December 2, 2019 Public Meeting held at Montana Avenue Branch Library
6) March 13, 2020 Development Review Permit 19ENT-0251 withdrawn as
proposed project is below square footage threshold
7) March 13, 2020 Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 filed.
An error was identified in the survey resulting in a parcel
coverage reduction, modifying the request
8) Planning
Commission
Hearing scheduled
for April 15, 2020
Hearing cancelled due to Covid-19 Pandemic
9) Planning
Commission
Hearing scheduled
for May 13, 2020
Hearing continued at the request of staff due to member
of the public’s request for more information
10) Planning
Commission
Hearing scheduled
for May 20, 2020
Hearing continued at the request of staff due to
complaint filed by member of the public regarding
Conditional Use Permit 95-012 conditions of approval
11) June 4, 2020 Complaint Cleared by Code Compliance-no action
taken
12) Planning
Commission
Hearing scheduled
for October 21,
2020
Hearing continued at the request of staff due to member
of the public request for plans under copyright
13) Planning
Commission
Hearing
November 4, 2020
Planning Commission approved 19CUP-0250 and Minor
Modification 20ENT-0275
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: carlthorp time line 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
Item Date Action
14) November 18,
2020
Appellant files timely appeal
15) March 9, 2021
potential City
Council hearing
Appellant requests more information
16) June 8th 2021
Potential City
Council hearing
Appellant requests more information
17) July 13, 2021
Potential City
Council hearing
Staff requests continuance due to scheduling conflict
18) June 18, 2021 Carlthorp 2020-2021 School year ends
19) July 13, 2021
Potential City
Council hearing
July 13th appeal date rescinded and replaced with the
appeal scheduled for July 27th 2021 by Staff. Appellant
had agreed to amend the appeal by June 13, 2021.
20) July 27, 2021
Potential City
Council hearing
Carlthorp School requests continuance due to applicant
team scheduling conflict
21) September 28,
2021
Potential City
Council hearing
Appellant requests continuation due to conflict and will
not offer possible alternative hearing date
22) October 26th, 2021
Potential City
Council hearing
Appellant request more information and will not offer
possible alternative hearing date
23) December 7, 2021
Potential City
Council Hearing
Potential date, offered by Staff along with October 26th,
2021; appellant will not commit to an appeal hearing
date
24) February 22, 2022
Potential City
Council Hearing
Staff confirms appeal hearing date in fairness to all
parties; City Council continues this item to March 15,
2022
25) March 15, 2022
Council Hearing
continued from
2.22.22
The appellant requests a continuance
26) April 12, 2022
Potential City
Council Hearing
Continued at the request of City staff
27 May 10, 2022
Potential City
Council Hearing
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: carlthorp time line 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
ATTACHMENT E
DETAILED RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT
The following provides a response in greater detail to the items listed in the
appeal and numbered to correspond with the eight complaint categories
identified in the report.
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
1. Incorrect Plan Exhibits
1A) Upper level
exceeds parcel
coverage
9.08.030 SMMC Does not comply
with Code
Staff has confirmed
that the parcel
coverage complies
with Code
2. Violations of CUP 95-012
2A) Operating
detrimental to
surrounding
properties
95CUP-012,
condition #25
Excessive light,
noise, vehicle
queueing, not
enough parking,
landscaping
Code Compliance
has investigated
and found no
violations, took no
action and closed
the complaint
2B) No further permits
should be
allowed to be
issued due to
CUP violations
95CUP-012,
condition #31
Applicant is in
violation of
current permit
and therefore no
further permits
should be issued
Consistency of
project and
operations with
CUP approval and
conditions has been
confirmed by staff
with two exceptions;
staff recommends
amendments to
CUP to remedy
issues (See 2E and
2F, below)
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Table of appeal complaints (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
2C) Existing
Landscaping
exceeds height
limits
95CUP-012,
condition #36
Hedges along
front and western
side of parcel
violate height
limits; trees along
western
perimeter are too
tall
Tree and hedge are
separately defined.
There is no height
limit for trees,
hedges consistent
with condition #58
blocking views from
residence(s) into
play field.
2D) Existing plan for
pick-up/drop-off
does not work
95CUP-012,
condition #39
Pick-up and drop
off plan is
hazardous
The existing pick-up
and drop-off plan
would be amended
with current CUP to
include a Parking
and Loading
Operations Plan
and procedures for
special events
2E) Grass surface
replaced without
approval
95-012, condition
#59
Grass play yard
surface was
replaced with
artificial turf
Grass surface was
replaced with
artificial turf;
applicant requests
amendment to the
condition as part of
proposed project
2F) Obstructed clear
view through front
fence
95-012, condition
#61
Clear view
through the front
fence is not being
maintained
Applicant requests
a condition
amendment as part
of proposed project.
If condition
amendment is not
approved, applicant
must comply with
original condition
which would require
clear view through
front fence.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Table of appeal complaints (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
2G) Periodic
compliance
reports
95-012, condition
#62
Applicant has not
submitted
required
compliance
reports
Periodic compliance
reports are/were not
required. The
condition was
satisfied prior to
issuance of a
building permit.
2H) Inconsistency of
prior assertions
by applicant
regarding student
enrollment and
number of staff
Reference to
written or verbal
correspondence;
not a condition of
approval
School exceeds
staff and student
limits
The CUP does not
limit current staff or
student populations;
School student and
staff population
limits proposed with
(current) CUP
condition
3. Non-Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
3A) Number of stories 9.08.030 SMMC Project exceeds
number of stories
and does not
comply with Code
Staff has confirmed
that the number of
stories is consistent
with Code
requirements,
proposal is in
compliance.
3B) Rear setback
incorrect
9.08.030 SMMC
D1 and D2
R2 zone
“adjoining” R1
zone
Staff has confirmed
compliance with
Code of the rear
setback. The R1
parcel is across the
alley from the
subject property
and not adjoining.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Table of appeal complaints (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
3C) Parking for
community
assembly use
Parking SMMC
9.28.060
Additional parking
is required for
addition of
multipurpose
room
Staff has confirmed
compliance; the
proposed
multipurpose room
is not a community
assembly use that
would require
additional parking
3D) Courtyard
required
Courtyard SMMC
9.08.030 (F) 4&5
Carlthorp School
is in violation of
the courtyard
development
requirements
As an existing
condition, the
courtyard is
allowed to remain;
No additions to the
courtyard are
proposed that
would require
compliance with the
current courtyard
standard
3E) Offices within
apartment
complaint Apartment being
used for school
office
Code Enforcement
has investigated
this complaint,
found no violation,
and took no action
3F) School did not
engage in
neighborhood
outreach
encouraged policy School did not
engage in proper
outreach
Both a public
meeting and
additional outreach
were conducted
4. Use of Multipurpose Room
4A) Parking
requirement for
classroom vs
multipurpose room
Parking SMMC
9.28.060
Additional parking
for the
multipurpose
room should be
required because
it will function as
a classroom
The
school/applicant
has provided a
description of the
multipurpose room
which clearly states
it will not be used
as a classroom
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Table of appeal complaints (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
5. Procedural Flaws
5A) Application
submittal
procedures
Common
Procedures
SMMC 9.37
Minor
Modification
accepted in error
Application for the
Minor Modification
was submitted
electronically; email
verified and
properly submitted.
6. Noise Impacts
6A) Noise and privacy Noise Ordinance
SMMC 4.12
Unreasonable
noise from the
school site
Mitigation measures
are proposed in
CUP conditions #8,
#9 and #11
6B) Noise is
excessive when
windows are open
95-012, condition
#49
Replace windows
of building to
west with sound
rated glass
The condition of
previous CUP was
satisfied
6C) Excessive noise 95-012, condition
#56
Limit outdoor
activity hours
Outdoor activity
limited with
proposed CUP
conditions
6D) Excessive noise 95-012, condition
#57
Disperse groups
of children
Outdoor activity
limited with
proposed CUP
conditions
7. Privacy Impacts
7A) Privacy impacts
not identified
Appeal Statement Intent to amend
appeal
As of the writing of
this staff report , no
additional
information has
been received
8. Access to Information
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Table of appeal complaints (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
Topic Source Appellant
Assertion
Staff Response
8A) Documents
withheld
95 CUP file and
current project;
Santa Monica
Municipal Code
Sections
Documents
withheld by staff
Staff has provided
digital and xerox
copies of all
available
documents; some
documents from
1995 may not exist
8B) Questions not
answered
Code Sections,
interpretations
applicability to
plan exhibits
Staff refused to
answer questions
Staff has responded
to questions during
multiple phone and
virtual meetings
with multiple staff
members; staff has
provided written
correspondence to
comprehensively
answer all
questions
8C) Premature
Planning
Commission
hearing
Applications filed
6/25/2019 (CUP)
and 3/13/2020
(Minor
Modification)
Process is unfair Multiple hearing
delays were
granted; Planning
Commission
hearing held on
November 4, 2020
8D) Premature City
Council hearing
Appeal filed
November 18,
2020
Staff did not
answer
questions,
therefore appeal
statement not
amended
Multiple hearing
delays have been
granted; requested
appellant to confirm
February 22, 2022
appeal hearing date
on November 29,
2021
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Table of appeal complaints (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-
0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 to allow a 7,280 sf expansion to Carlthorp
School addition and 9,142 sf new rooftop playcourt.
438 San Vicente Boulevard
APPLICANT: Carlthorp School/ Ken Parr
APPELLANT: Steven Salsberg
PROPERTY OWNER: Carlthorp School
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and
Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 to allow a 7,280 sf expansion of Carlthorp School adding two elevators, a
4,793 sf below grade multipurpose room, enclosing an 938 sf open lunch area and adding 250 sf of
administrative offices. The subject property is located in the R2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district.
The Conditional Use Permit is being requested as an amendment to existing Conditional Use Permit 95-
003 allowing a school use in the R2 zone. The minor modification is being requested for the proposed
expansion to increase ground floor parcel coverage by 0.29% above the R2 maximum allowable parcel
coverage of 45%. The applicant is also requesting a five-year term for the entitlements. The Planning
Commission approved the project on November 4, 2020.
This item was continued from the February 22, 2022, March 15, 2022, and April 12, 2022 City Council
hearings.
At the time of the public hearing, the City Council will also be considering compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa
Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting
but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public
hearing via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room
102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of
the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public
record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed
instructions on how to comment in person.
Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: Carlthorp School Appeal/ 20ENT-0275
VIA EMAIL: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Gina Szilak at (310)
458-2200 ext 5216, or by e-mail at regina.szilak@santamonica.gov. For disability-related
accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least
72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written
materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall
and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: City Council Public Hearing Notice 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438
is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic
Center Parking Structure (validation free).
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) 458-2275.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: City Council Public Hearing Notice 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Angie Crawford <angie@purpleskullproductions.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 13, 2022 10:25 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment on the Appeal of 20ENT-0275, Carlthorp School Expansion
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
The Carlthorp School is a menace to the neighborhood.
* It is very difficult to pull in or pull out of our parking spots if we need to be in the car during pick up or drop off time at the
school. The people picking up or dropping off children constantly block driveways or the alley behind the school. The employees of
Carlthorp that should be directing traffic also have no regard for our needs and constantly allow these parents, etc., to do as they
please.
* The "open lunch" area, I believe, is the former parking area for the teachers. Since they took away this parking, the neighborhood
is now full of cars. There is very little parking on Georgina, and I can't imagine those neighbors are pleased with this situation. At a
minimum, the school should be forced to use this space for parking again.
If the school wants more space, the powers that be should look for a new location that will meet their needs, not continually
encroach on the neighbors. I think all of us in the neighborhood would be pleased if this location were permanently closed, or at a
minimum, only used for office space. The children should be moved to a location that can support the logistics of student, parent
and teacher needs.
Thank you for your time.
Angie Crawford
416 San Vicente Blvd.
Angie Crawford
310-433-4479
purpleskullproductions.com
California insurance license 4124418
Wow! Wouldn’t it be neat to listen to Angie’s commercial voiceover demo?
Click here ‐ Angie Crawford Commercial Voiceover Demo
And Mr. Mouse would love for you to check out his band, MouseTrap!
Item 6.A 02/22/22
1 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
2
Click here ‐ "We Are MouseTrap"
Item 6.A 02/22/22
2 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Monday, February 21, 2022 9:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan;
Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis
Subject:Item 6-A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers.
Please help the residents protect the environment of our community, as well as the peace and quiet of our personal
home space.
I'm troubled to learn at this late hour before the hearing that the Community Development/Planning Department is
exempting Carlthorp School expansion from CEQA requirements.
If I had known this earlier, I could have prepared better. I could have researched and contacted some people who know
a lot about this and who could have helped and educated me and to prepare for the hearing and in my making
comments.
The expansion plans of Carlthorp School will move beyond their property line, and by way of sound and lights, invade
the peace and quiet of our homes. Carlthorp is fortifying the windows of their own classrooms. Neighbors in the older
Historic District apartment buildings, do not have this option.
Please uphold the appeal.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident on San Vicente
Item 6.A 02/22/22
3 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Douglas Brian Martin <doug@douglasbrianmartin.us>
Sent:Monday, February 21, 2022 9:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Gleam
Davis
Subject:Item 6-A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council Members, Citizens of Santa Monica, NBC, ABC, CBS, SMDP, CNN, LAT, NYT,
Before you is the issue of whether to allow a private entity run for profit – Carlthorp School – the ability to lower the
standard of living for citizens of Santa Monica and negatively impact an Historic District by engaging in a scheme to
enlarge the school in a comically tragic manner while gaining concessions from the city that will negatively impact
residents. This scheme also includes a request for Carlthorp School TO TAKE OVER PUBLIC STREETS AND CONTROL
TRAFFIC. This is nonsense and must be stopped.
Carlthorp School, represented in this issue by wealthy insiders with close connections to Santa Monica government, has
presented various departments of Santa Monica government with shoddy presentations including inaccurate plans,
incomplete audio reports, an attempt to rewrite the dictionary while defying common sense, and most troubling of all,
‘testimonials’ by children to get passage of an expansion scheme.
Carlthorp School has no defense for the flaws in the plans submitted in this scheme and instead has cruelly trundled out
schoolchildren giving testimonials as a diversion to stop critical discussion. Carlthorp School and its wealthy insiders
should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps profits to be realized balance out the shame. To them.
To be clear, I am not anti‐school. I have no gripe with Carlthorp School as it stands at this time. I do have an issue with
plans that are deceptive, including the construction of a large classroom identified as a multi‐purpose room so skirt
regulations for providing parking for the School’s expanding staff.
Carlthorp School is willing to spend millions of dollars for this flawed deceptive expansion scheme yet doesn’t want to
spend a nickel on providing parking for staff that currently clogs our streets during school hours. Parking for school staff
that is required by law that Carlthorp School was granted a variance for on the condition it would not increase staff.
Carlthorp School has increased staff in spite of agreeing not to. Carlthorp School, by its own actions, has proven IT WILL
NOT ABIDE BY AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY.
Failure to abide by these agreements alone should halt this flawed expansion plan. Yet the city has agreed to allow
Carlthorp School to continue with the scheme WITH AN EXEMPTION TO CEQA REQUIREMENTS. THIS SMELLS LIKE
FISHERMAN’S WHARF AT MIDNIGHT.
It appears the city and its planning departments are acting in the interest of a private school over the interest of the
citizens of Santa Monica. This is wrong ethically, morally, and probably legally.
City planning employees have turned a blind eye to Carlthorp School failing to operate in accordance with agreements
regarding parking and staff. This not only gives the impression of incompetence – as if planning departments don’t have
the skill or ability to critically review plans – as well as possible corruption in allowing this project to move forward. The
Item 6.A 02/22/22
4 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
3
egregious lack of attention to the large classroom in the scheme not defined as a classroom would raise a red flag –
EXCEPT IN SANTA MONICA WHEN WELL CONNECTED INSIDERS ARE INVOLVED.
This expansion scheme should be seen by what it is – a clumsy attempt to move aside community standards FOR PROFIT
at the expense of the citizens of Santa Monica as well as an Historic District. The scheme includes, among other
miserable features, high‐powered ultra bright security lighting that will result in a prison like atmosphere in the midst of
a quiet, dimly lit residential neighborhood. This is unacceptable for anybody in the neighborhood and an insult to
residents by government employees of the city paid to protect the interests of the citizens of Santa Monica, not private
entities.
OVER 70 HOUSEHOLDS SIGNED PETITIONS requesting the nonsensical scheme submitted by Carlthorp School be revised
to conform to community standards. The City planning departs and commissions IGNORED THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and
approved the plans WITH NO REVISION.
Carlthorp School has in the recent past made agreements to limit staff size and student body size. Carlthorp has not
lived up to that agreement, almost doubling its staff and increasing student body.
I am disappointed by the presented flawed deceptive expansion scheme to destroy the peace and quiet of my
neighborhood for a requested five years. One day of this scheme being put into motion is one day too much. I am very
disappointed by the planning departments and commissions that approved this monstrosity of a scheme.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ‐ please stop this project once and for all until it has been revised to meet community
standards. The public is paying attention to this issue. This is news. Do the right thing, morally, ethically, and legally and
stop this nonsense.
Thank you
Douglas Brian Martin, San Vicente Blvd, Santa Monica.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
5 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Keira Wheeler <keirawheeler12@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 21, 2022 9:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject:Student Support for the Carlthorp Master Plan
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
My name is Keira Wheeler, and I am a 4th grader at Carlthorp School. I have been at Carlthorp for almost two years now.
I love the school, have made many wonderful friends, and have learned and accomplished a lot during this short period
of time. I have been elected Student Council representative for my class multiple times, and I am excited to represent
my school and my classmates. The school, including the students and teachers, is filled with kind and courteous people
who always think of others and their community.
I was born in Santa Monica and have lived here since then. My family, including my mother and grandparents, have
been living in Santa Monica for over 45 years. I think Santa Monica is a great place to live! We are so close to the beach
where I like to bike and play volleyball, we have nice parks where I play tennis, and there are lots of pretty hiking trails
nearby.
During my years at Carlthorp, I have had many special experiences that will help me throughout my lifetime. I am proud
to be a Girl Scout with many of my classmates. As a Girl Scout, my troop and I do fun activities to help the community
around us. This year, we are selling Girl Scout cookies. We plan to donate all our proceeds to the Upward Bound House
charity in Santa Monica, supporting numerous families and individuals who do not have homes.
Although my years at Carlthorp have been wonderful, I think the school would be even better under the proposed plans
to remodel the school. As a member of the school volleyball and basketball teams, I would be very excited to have a new
rooftop court for practices and games. A larger play space would help me and my classmates stay healthy and active
throughout the day.
I have been playing piano for over five years, performing in many recitals, festivals and examinations. I also love to sing
and act in musical theater. I have been in plays including Hamilton, Grease, Frozen, Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the
Beast. A new multipurpose room would give me and my friends more space to perform and explore our creative
interests.
These changes would make Carlthorp School an even better place. I feel so grateful to be part of Carlthorp School and
the Santa Monica community. Thank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Keira Wheeler
4th Grader, Carlthorp School
Item 6.A 02/22/22
6 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Christian Granzow <cgranzow1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 14, 2022 8:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Regina Szilak
Subject:Appeal 20ENT-0275 of Planning Commission - Carlthorp School - 2/22/22
Attachments:Carlthorp.SMPlanningDiv.Letter.Appeal.2-11-22.pdf; Carlthorp.SMPlanningDiv.Letter.5-18-20.pdf;
Carlthorp.SMPlanningDiv.PastLetters.5-18-20.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Commission,
I have attached our latest letter voicing our opposition to the Santa Monica Planning Commission’s Appeal review of
Carlthorp School 438 San Vicente Blvd., Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification 19ENT‐0250, 20ENT‐0066
hearing scheduled remotely for February 22, 2022
Please find the following attachments for submission:
1. Our Letter & Comment to the Planning Commission regarding Carlthrop’s Appel request 2‐11‐22
2. Our Letter & Comment to the Planning Commission regarding Carlthorp's initial request/s 5‐18‐20.
3. Previous letters and documentation to be included with our letter, noted, and reviewed for the record.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Christian Granzow
407 Georgina Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90402
P (310) 451‐2131
E cgranzow1@gmail.com
Item 6.A 02/22/22
7 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Richard Michaelsen <richmichaelsen@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 16, 2022 11:39 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Appeal 20ENT-0275 Calthorp School Expansion
EXTERNAL
Greetings
We have lived across the street from the subject property for over a decade and oppose any expansion of the Calthorp
School.
The noise of screaming children and staff using amplification devices to direct student activities in the current, ground‐
level, outdoor play areas, is very loud and disturbing.
Creating a rooftop area will add substantially to the transmission of sound throughout the surrounding
neighborhood. This kind of expansion is not permitted in R2 Residential areas for a reason.
In addition, any expansion that allows more students to attend will create an even more difficult traffic jam situation
than already occurs daily when students are dropped off and picked up, as their parents and nannies line up in their cars
for long periods of time along the roadside on the neighboring streets.
Please do not allow this to happen.
Thank you,
Michaelsen Household
Item 6.A 02/22/22
8 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Douglas Brian Martin <doug@douglasbrianmartin.us>
Sent:Friday, February 18, 2022 3:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:TUESDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2022 - ITEM 6A - Carlthorp Expansion
Attachments:Carlthorp 70+ opposition forms 2.18.2022.zip
EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
There is much opposition to Carlthorp Expansion plans an green lighting of said plans by City Panning departments in
spite of submission by Carlthorp of shoddy plans, incomplete audio report, attempt to redefine what a classroom is,
Carlthorp history of failing to adhere to previous operational agreements with city such as parking and staff size.
This is a rip off for residents and will reflect badly on any council members who approve plans.
Greenlighting this expansion plan is an example of the City allowing a well connected insider entity to run roughshod
over community standards.
Community standards were created to protect citizens and residents from greed and avarice ‐ Carlthorp, if history is any
guide, will not only ignore standards but will greatly impact and lower the standard of living for residents. All with the
approval of the city council.
The City Council decision on this issue will be part of a public record and will be reported to news services ‐ virtual as
well as traditional. The city council will have to answer how approval can be made in spite of above mentioned issues.
Please find attached folder containing over 70 neighborhood household signatures opposed to proposed Carlthorp
Expansion Plans ignored by the Planning Commission and Planning department when they approved this very flawed
expansion scheme.
I urge council members to review these opposition documents as well as shoddy nonsense plans and stop this expansion
plan until it can be revised into a form acceptable to residents, community standards, and common sense.
Douglas Brian Martin
437C San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, Calif 90402
Item 6.A 02/22/22
9 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 19, 2022 5:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; David White
Subject:Item 6-A.. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Item # 6A Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion
of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
We are requesting that the City Council uphold the appeal of
the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit
19 ENT‐0250.
Carlthorp School wants to increase its campus by almost 15,000
SQUARE FEET. Their plan includes a 65’ x 75’ UNDERGROUND
BUNKER and a 125 foot long X 30 foot tall ELEVATED
PLAYGROUND that will reverberate playground & ball game
noises into homes on San Vicente Blvd. and Georgina Ave.
This 15,000sf expansion has been termed ‘minor’ by City Hall!
The underground bunker, identified as a multi‐purpose room,
has been classified as ‘not a classroom’ ‐ used by students
receiving instructions from teachers yet "not a classroom" How
tricky.how slick.. If defined as a classroom expansion plans
would have to provide additional parking. Which they do not.
Labeling a classroom as not a classroom is consistent with the
dishonesty of presentation in the expansion plans. City Hall has
chosen to go along with this fraudulent scheme. Again. AT THE
Item 6.A 02/22/22
10 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
2
NEIGHBOORHOOD’S EXPENSE. The same City Hall that through
poor similar nonsense decisions have destroyed the peace and
quiet of the rest of Santa Monica. The same City Hall that is
approving EVEN MORE construction to clog our streets. This is
greed and stupidity and corruption with the citizens as the
losers ‐ an attempt to skirt regulations designed to protect the
quality of our lives. We stopped this before, now we must do it
again.
After withdrawing plans due to community outrage, Carlthorp
has re‐submitted UNCHANGED PLANS with a letter from a paid
‘sound’ consultant stating they ‘believe’ the 8 foot tall wall will
block sounds from an over 10 foot tall basketball backboard.
Common sense tell us these claims are nonsense. City Hall
ignores common sense. This attempt to ignore our community
standards and ram through plans unchanged through a lame
duck City Council is corrupt and hateful.
This is wrong ‐will ruin this area for the residents and needs to
be revisited.
I oppose the current expansion plan for the Carlthorp School as
it is currently configured and request further review and
revision of the plan prior to approval. Re‐submission of the
plans unchanged since May 2020, despite community
opposition, is unprofessional, sneaky and wrong.
The Plan as drawn will have a negative effect on quality of life
in a residential neighborhood. We request revision to plan to
address issues including abatement of noise from the 125 foot
long ‐ elevated playground, lack of adequate on site parking for
school staff, and a realistic definition of what is now labeled as
a multi purpose room for what it is ‐ a classroom.
Please vote to uphold this appeal.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
11 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
3
Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Resident Since 1982
Item 6.A 02/22/22
12 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Miller Levin <miller.levin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 20, 2022 10:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject:Student support for Carlthorp School plan
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Councilmembers,
My name is Miller Levin and I am a sixth grader at Carlthorp School. I am writing in support of the
additions proposed in the school’s Master Plan.
Carlthorp is an amazing place to develop as a person, athlete and friend. I have been very fortunate to
spend my elementary years at Carlthorp, and this school has been essential to my success in life so far. The
Carlthorp community is tight-knit, where teachers, students, and staff all care about each other and lead each
other to success. As a sixth grader, one of the best ways I can give back to Carlthorp is by representing the
school and helping to explain why these proposals are critical to its future.
I have participated in several Carlthorp plays and musicals over the years, including Matilda by Roald
Dahl, The Lion King, and Willy Wonka Jr. My classmates and I have also performed at least once each year in
front of our families for key events, such as the school’s traditional Heritage Night. These were staged in our
multipurpose room, where we sometimes have physical education when it rains, and which we also use for a
music classroom. It is a basement with low ceilings, and the acoustics, seating and lighting are incredibly poor.
Carlthorp really needs an auditorium, and the school’s proposal would solve this problem.
I am also an athlete, and I have played on Carlthorp’s basketball and flag football teams since fourth
grade. Carlthorp has a relatively small campus, and there isn’t much space to play or practice outdoors. Being
able to move our bodies and be more physically active throughout the day helps children achieve more athletic
and academic success. Our outdoor playspace is crowded, and having extra room to get exercise and move
around would improve the quality of our days at school.
Our lunch tables are all outdoors, which means that when it rains or gets too hot at school, we have to
eat inside our classrooms at our desks. This can feel claustrophobic and is always a hassle, both for children
and teachers.
These proposals are an important next step for Carlthorp, and they are the result of lots of careful
planning. I would like to ask you to follow the staff recommendation and allow our plan to move ahead, so
Carlthorp’s students can benefit from a healthier, more appropriate educational environment.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Miller Levin
Item 6.A 02/22/22
13 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Archer Aguilar <archeraguilar100@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 21, 2022 1:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject:Support for Item 6-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
My name is Archer Aguilar. I am a student of Carlthorp School in fifth grade, and a member of the Student Council. I
love the Carlthorp campus and what it provides, and I loved the days of playing with my now 8th grade brother on the
field. However, I always felt as if there was something missing from the experience of Carlthorp's playground. And that
is why we are here today, asking you to approve our school’s new Master Plan.
The new Master Plan adds a whole new level of fun for the upcoming generation of students including an
auditorium connected to the Multipurpose Room, a new admissions wing above the blue lunch tables, and an additional
playspace atop the 2nd floor through the Science Lab wing of the school.
This additional space for students to use their energy would bring joy to students who might feel cramped on
the current campus playground. Even though these renovations would not be completed during my time at Carlthorp, I
want to further sweeten the experience for the next wave of Carlthorp students.
Please support our school's and students' decision to renovate the campus by voting yes to our new Master Plan.
Thank you!
Archer Aguilar
Class of 2023
Item 6.A 02/22/22
14 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Yun Lee <susan.yun@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 21, 2022 3:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject:Student support for the Carlthorp Plan
EXTERNAL
Hello, please see below an email from my son, Jason Lee, a current 4th grade student at Carlthorp School in support for
the Carlthorp plan.
Best,
Susan Lee
My name is Jason Lee. I am 10 years old and in fourth grade. I love Carlthorp School
because of the teachers, classes, and fun time with my friends. My favorite subjects in
school are math, reading, and current news events. I also love playing sports for
Carlthorp. I play football, basketball, and soccer.
The teachers at Carlthorp are so kind, encouraging, and helpful. They make it
worthwhile to spend my time at Carlthorp. My current teachers are Mr. Burwick and Ms.
Schwarts. They are both amazing teachers, and they help me so much.
Carlthorp is an amazing school. The school is special because of the Code of
Conduct, which emphasizes kindness, good citizenship, and community service. Our
students are growing to be the next leaders in the community.
Sadly, sometimes there are issues because of the limited amount of space we
have in the campus. I love playing sports, but the playground that we can play in is
sometimes too small for some of these games. I was playing four square the other day,
and I bumped into my friend because there wasn’t enough space! It would be most
helpful for you to allow us to improve our playground area.
Another reason why allowing Carlthorp to improve their campus is because the
multipurpose room is too small for the whole school. I know this because when I
performed for the Talent Show in the MPR, the room was so crowded that I couldn't
see my parents cheering me on. They were actually in the outside hallway. I got really
nervous and didn’t want to perform. My little sister is in the talent show this year. I
hope there is enough room for my parents to see her act.
It would also be so helpful if our lunch area was covered so that we could use it
even if the weather is not great. Right now, we are eating lunch in the parking
lot. Carlthorp has done a good job of trying to make it a good space, but it’s still a
parking lot.
Compared to other similar schools, our campus is dramatically smaller. It would
be very helpful to the students of Carlthorp for you to let us improve our campus so we
Item 6.A 02/22/22
15 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
2
can make better use of the space that we have. The impact to the students, larger
community, and the future would be huge. So please, please, let us improve our
campus to benefit the students and the community!
Sincerely,
Jason Lee
Item 6.A 02/22/22
16 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Audrey Lohara <audreylohara@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, February 21, 2022 8:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra;
Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis
Cc:David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject:Student Support for the Carlthorp plan (Item 6-A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Distinguished Members of the City Council,
My name is Audrey Lohara, and I am a sixth grade student at Carlthorp. I have been a Carlthorp student since 2015 and
the school has been integral to my growth and development scholastically, socially, and as a person. I have been so
grateful for the opportunity to attend Carlthorp School and hope to share with you what I feel makes Carlthorp such a
special place and what it has meant to me.
It has been a privilege to be a part of a warm and intimate school community that provides the best academics, the best
teachers, and the best activities to create a well-rounded experience. I started Kindergarten as a shy and curious child
and Carlthorp has helped me to find and use my voice confidently. Over the years, I have participated in student council, I
was one of the leads in the school’s 'Alice in Wonderland' production, I have played on the girls' volleyball and basketball
teams, I have been on the debate team and I am the editor in chief of the literary magazine. Thanks to Carlthorp, I have
gained important skills in leadership, a strong work ethic, and responsibility that will help me for the rest of my life. Without
a doubt, I can confidently say that Carlthorp has prepared me with the best foundation for future success.
I feel that the proposed enhancements to the campus would update and improve the school for years to come, especially
a genuine multipurpose room and a brand new, expanded playing field. Having another multipurpose room at Carlthorp
would allow the school to host more theatrical and musical performances and give more space to families and guests who
could attend in comfort. Also, a multipurpose room would benefit student assemblies, gatherings, and other significant
school capacities. Numerous other public and private schools in Santa Monica have multipurpose rooms or halls, so I
think that Carlthorp should have one as well.
Another play space at Carlthorp would greatly help the students and school community. A bigger play space would assist
students with pursuing their athletic interests and create plenty of room for multiple sports to be played at once. I know
from individual experience how challenging it is when students on the yard want to partake in various sports like volleyball,
basketball, and football, yet there simply isn't enough room to accommodate everyone. A bigger playspace would permit
all students to participate in their preferred game or movement. Having adequate outdoor space would also help to
prevent mishaps and accidents with less crowding. The new play space would also encourage students to get more
exercise, take needed breaks outside, and promote lifelong fitness.
As I am getting ready to graduate, I am thankful for all that Carlthorp has provided me - a strong educational foundation
and some of my happiest elementary school memories. What I want most is to see the school’s continued success for
future years. The proposed improvements to Carlthorp School will enhance a greater feeling of community spirit, provide a
more secure climate for all, and permit students to pursue their interests and thrive.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Audrey Lohara
`
Item 6.A 02/22/22
17 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
18 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
19 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
20 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
21 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
22 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
23 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
24 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
25 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
26 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
27 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
28 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
(310) 451-3669
February 19, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Elementary School Campus Facility Improvements
Owner/Applicant: Carlthorp School (our client)
Approved Applications: CUP 19ENT-0250 & Minor Mod. 20ENT-0066
Address: 424-438 San Vicente Boulevard
Appeal No. 20ENT-0275
Appellant: Steven Salsberg
Our File No. 22270.003
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Carlthorp School, a non-profit charitable
educational organization.
I am writing in support of the Staff recommendation that the City Council deny
Appeal 20ENT-0275 and adopt the Statement of Official Action (with all of its 81
conditions of approval).
Carlthorp is a longtime K-6 elementary school in Santa Monica. On November 4,
2020, the Planning Commission--on 7-0 and 6-1 votes--approved a Minor Modification
(for miniscule added parcel coverage) and CUP Amendment to authorize certain
campus facility improvements on the existing school campus. The approval allows:
innovative expansion of student outdoor play area without expanding the land
area (by adding a roof deck at the rear along the alley),
enclosing an outdoor lunch area (which will reduce lunchtime noise),
establishment of a subterranean multi-purpose room in the basement
(underground acoustics will avoid any noise in the neighborhood) specifically
kutcher@hlkklaw.com
Agenda Item 6-A
Item 6.A 02/22/22
29 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 2
designed for school performances/presentations (not for classroom
instruction1), and
needed school administration offices to be built above the newly enclosed
lunchroom.
One of the adjacent neighbors filed this appeal. The appeal hearing is a quasi-
judicial proceeding governed by Zoning Ordinance Chapters 9.41 and 9.43, as well as
Zoning Ordinance Section 9.37.130. Carlthorp is entitled to a fair hearing and a decision
based on the evidentiary record.
In voting to approve these applications, Commissioner Fonda-Bonardi
thoughtfully explained:
One of the reasons I'm approving this . . . is that this is an
attempt to do more with less. The fact that they're building
stuff underground is very expensive. The fact that they're
putting stuff up in the air; they're using a roof in a very active
way. That's part of our general ecological approach to things,
trying to do more with less. Otherwise, we need to spread
out more and more and more and more. We're beyond that
point. So, this is kind of trying to fit in as tight as we can and
mitigate the impacts. That's what this is about. Do more with
less, but mitigate the effects on everybody around it.
The approved permits will not expand student enrollment, will not add any new
classrooms, will not increase school functions, and will not increase the size of the
faculty. None of the existing buildings is being demolished--the subterranean
performance room will be excavated beneath the outdoor playfield. A minor modification
is needed for merely 135 sf of extra lot coverage in the R2 zone (i.e., 45.29% as
compared with 45%). (SMMC § 9.43.020(B)(3).)
The existing parking, classrooms, student enrollment, playfield, and building
design were approved in 1996 (DRP 95-003; CUP 95-012; Variance 95-022) when the
size of the campus was expanded onto the adjoining lot (after the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake resulted in the demolition of an apartment building that was red-tagged).
As an outgrowth of that expansion, Carlthorp School funded the installation of double-
paned windows in the Coral Gables apartment building next to the School’s new
1 There will remain an existing multi-purpose room used for classroom instruction
purposes.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
30 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 3
playfield. Those apartments continue to be protected by double-paned windows. The
appellant resides in one of those apartments.
New Roof Deck Play Court. We all are keenly aware of the benefits of outdoor
play space at schools for our youth. To help minimize sounds of school children playing
on the new roof deck, the deck will be encircled with an 8’ tall parapet wall for the
neighbors. The height of the parapet wall does not exceed the 30’ height limit for the R2
zoning district. And consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, there will be netting installed
above the parapet wall to catch stray balls.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the parapet wall’s sound attenuation, an
extremely well-qualified acoustics engineering firm (http://www.veneklasen.com/)2 has
calculated the potential acoustical impact of the outdoor roof deck to ensure that the
school use will not exceed the Noise Ordinance sound limits for residential zones.
(SMMC § 4.12.060.) A copy of Veneklasen’s acoustical report is attached to the Staff
Report.
There is no acoustic study that contradicts or challenges Veneklasen’s
professional report.
New Underground Multi-Purpose Room. Carlthorp School’s new Multipurpose
Room, as the name implies, is a room to be used for various functions that will benefit
students, faculty/staff, and parents. From September through June (the academic
school year), it will serve the following non-classroom purposes:
Musicals
Student art exhibits
Indoor play area on rainy days
Indoor climbing wall for PE
Student dismissal staging area on “rainy days”
Faculty and staff meetings
Kindergarten graduation
2 Founded in 1947, Veneklasen Associates is one of the largest acoustical
consulting firms in the United States. Their technical expertise has been developed
through the design of thousands of buildings worldwide, including for civic and
governmental agencies, courthouses and public safety, education (K-12, colleges and
universities), transportation (including airports and rail), museums and cultural centers,
hotels/resorts, studios and entertainment, residential, medical/hospitals, places of
worship, etc. They are imminently qualified in this field of expertise.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
31 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 4
Talent show
Special guest speakers for school-wide assemblies
Parent meetings
CPR training for employees
Professional development for faculty
Meeting space for small groups
After-school clubs
Assembling area for community service events
Orchestra practices
Theatrical practice and performances
The availability of school auditorium/presentation space in this new subterranean
room has become increasingly important to Carlthorp as the School’s enhanced extra-
curricular programs and educational presentations continue to evolve. Currently,
Carlthorp’s smaller existing MPR only accommodates a limited number of students at
any one time and therefore functions more like a classroom and counts as a classroom
for purposes of parking calculations. With the new Multipurpose Room, Carlthorp will
continue to host the same school performances and activities on its campus, but in
quarters better suited for such presentations. The new Multipurpose Room will not have
any impact on the quantity of either the students or faculty attending school, while
accomplishing much needed flexibility for extra-curricular scheduling across all grade-
levels.
The new Multipurpose Room will realize a more functional presentation layout,
and will not resemble a classroom. The existing multipurpose classroom used for such
presentations is not configured for viewing school plays, theatrical performances and
other similar presentations. With children as young as six years old performing in the
existing room, it is difficult for parents in the back of the room to see all of the children.
When the new Multipurpose Room is built, the school will finally have a proper setting
for conducting school performances, assemblies and multi-grade level activities.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID ITS JOB WELL
AND PROTECTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Commissioner Paster correctly explained that approving the Carlthorp
applications allows the City to impose more protections for the surrounding residential
neighborhood around this elementary school that has remained in this location for 80
years:
I hope that the neighbors appreciate that what Ken [Kutcher]
said was right, which is that you are better off having these
Item 6.A 02/22/22
32 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 5
conditions documented in this CUP. That makes them more
enforceable and holds them more accountable. And I hope
[everyone] appreciate[s] that.
Indeed, to protect the neighborhood, the Planning Commission imposed 81
conditions of approval, including:
The School’s maximum student enrollment is capped at 280 children (i.e.,
generally 40 students per grade). (Condition 4)
32 bicycle parking spaces must be provided on campus. (Condition 7)
Non-school activities are prohibited on the campus. (Condition 4)
The new underground multipurpose room is to be used as a performance
space and may not be used as simply another classroom. (Condition 17)
The 8’ tall parapet wall around the roof deck must be solid/ non-
transparent on the west and east ends to protect the privacy of the
residential neighbors. (Condition 18)
Decorative murals, artwork or architectural details should be explored with
the ARB for the parapet wall enclosing the playcourt, especially on the
south facing wall. (Condition 18)
Any lighting installed for the rooftop playcourt must be shielded so as not
to produce spillover onto adjacent properties, and such rooftop lighting
must be turned off when the play court is not in use. (Condition 18)
The School is limited to no more than 18 Special School Events, and no
more than 6 Special School Events can occur after school hours without
the Planning Director’s approval. (Condition 4)
All invitations for Special School Events at the School must encourage
walking, biking, ridesharing and use of public transportation. (Condition 6)
Valet parking (for cars and bicycles) must be provided for any Special
School Event expected to draw more than 150 vehicles (probably once or
twice a year: Grandparents Day and possibly graduation). Valet parking
must only use one side of the street. (Condition 6)
Item 6.A 02/22/22
33 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 6
A Parking and Loading Operations Plan (“PLOP”) for the School must be
submitted to the City Mobility Division for review and approval. (Condition
5)
The School’s outdoor speakers are to be used primarily for emergency
purposes, as well as the daily morning assembly. (Condition 9)
The outdoor speakers facing the Goral Gable apartment building will be
removed as a result of enclosing the lunch area. (Condition 8)
The outdoor speakers will no longer be used for afternoon student pickup;
instead, walkie talkies will be used to coordinate student departures.
(Condition 10)
Another sound study will be done as soon as the new rooftop play court is
constructed and in use. If the new sound measurements are greater than
expected, additional sound protection measures will be implemented.
(Condition 11)
The School will be required to abide by a Transportation Demand
Management Plan approved by the City. (Condition 16)
A Construction Management Plan that includes outreach to area residents
and commuters must be reviewed and approved by the City.
(Condition 14)
Without violating fire and building codes, the exterior stairwell along the
west elevation would be best if it can be screened with a green
wall/landscaping. (Condition 19)
A neighborhood liaison will be designated to address any neighborhood
concerns related to the school. The liaison’s contact information will be
distributed to residents within a 300’ radius as soon as the rooftop play
court is finished and annually thereafter. (Condition 12)
Commissioner Paster also pointed out the benefits to everyone of Condition 12 in
particular:
And I do really want to encourage that the person who is the
[School’s] new community liaison rep, that the neighbors
reach out to that person, that they express their concerns
Item 6.A 02/22/22
34 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 7
and open the lines of communication and really try to get the
things fixed that you have [any future] problems with.
Without the project approvals, these neighborhood protections will not be in place
for this existing school. We urge the City Council to affirm the Planning Commission
approval and deny the lone appeal.
OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES OF CARLTHORP SCHOOL
Carlthorp School is a longstanding educational institution in this community.
Carlthorp School is invested in instilling lifelong core values in its students. Carlthorp
School’s approach to student education is imbedded in its mission statement:
Mission Statement
Carlthorp School provides a strong academic foundation in a diverse and
nurturing school community that emphasizes respectful values,
responsible work habits, and excellence in order to prepare our students
to achieve their highest potential in education and life.
https://www.carlthorp.org/about-us/about-carlthorp
Carlthorp is also fully committed to the importance of diversity, equity and
inclusion:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion rests in every aspect of our community and
institution and is the perfect space for our students to learn how to
navigate the world beyond Carlthorp. No matter who you are, it doesn’t
happen without each member of our community. We actively seek
opportunities for our community to join us in openly sharing their authentic
self and the experiences they bring that will continue to make our school a
beautiful and diverse place where everyone belongs.
https://www.carlthorp.org/school-life/diversity-equity-and-inclusion
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS HAVE BEEN
THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED
The Planning Commission did its best to address concerns and objections raised
by public comments. Concerns that have been expressed are almost exclusively related
to noise, parking, traffic, and special events. Those concerns will be addressed by the
following:
Item 6.A 02/22/22
35 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 8
A. Noise.
Concerns were raised regarding anticipated sound of students using the outdoor
play space on the rooftop along the rear alley. Carlthorp and its architect and acoustics
consultant has taken special care to minimize the sound that would otherwise travel to
the neighboring properties. The primary protection will be encircling the rooftop play
court on all four sides by a solid, noise-blocking parapet wall of at least 8 feet in height.
This solid perimeter wall is akin to the concrete block wall along the west side of the
School’s outdoor playfield.
Additionally, the surface of the play court on the roof will be composed of noise-
attenuating material (such as a durable rubber surface), and padding will be installed
underneath the play court surface to further absorb noise and vibration. This absorption
surface is akin to the School’s artificial turf ground level playfield. These physical
attributes are being implemented to address concerns related to noise.
Also, the roof deck has been located at the rear of the property along the alley.
And given that the size of the student body will not be increasing, the addition of this
outdoor space will disperse the students across more outdoor space, thereby reducing
the concentration of their sounds of play and outdoor communication. This will be of
overall benefit to the residential neighbors, consistent with the dictates of the Planning
Commission’s 1995 conditions of approval #57:
57. The project applicant shall disperse play groups as much as
possible to disperse noise sources.
With these measures, a professional noise impact assessment conducted by the
acoustical consulting firm Veneklasen Associates concluded that:
Based on study, with such a perimeter wall, the noise levels
predicted for the rooftop play court area will not exceed the
noise limits of Santa Monica Noise Ordinance at all sensitive
receptor residential locations. In Veneklasen’s professional
opinion the incorporation of a barrier that is 8 feet tall will
ensure full compliance with the residential limits imposed by
the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance. (Veneklasen Report,
p. 7.)
Furthermore, in approving the outdoor roof deck play court, the Planning
Commission imposed Condition 11 requiring the School to obtain a second acoustical
study once the play court is completed and in use to confirm the conclusions of the
original study and provide additional noise mitigation if the conclusions turn out to be
Item 6.A 02/22/22
36 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 9
inaccurate. The additional mitigation would need to be proposed within 60 days and
implemented within 120 days of the follow-up study.
Additionally, in relation to the 1998 expansion of the School campus, Carlthorp
has already paid for the installation of noise-blocking dual pane windows at the Coral
Gables apartment building immediately to the west of the School Campus. These
windows will further help prevent student activity from the play court from disturbing
tenants of the building closest to the roof deck.
Carlthorp and the professional acoustical engineers are confident that the
perimeter parapet wall and absorbent flooring on the School’s roof deck will ensure that
student activity on the rear roof deck does not disrupt the surrounding neighborhood,
but in the event that noise issues do unexpectedly arise, Carlthorp has made a binding
commitment to promptly and thoroughly address them in compliance with Condition 11.
B. Parking.
Other concerns have focused on street parking in the area immediately
surrounding the School. It is important to keep in mind that the School is not
demolishing any of its existing buildings. Instead, it is excavating for a basement
beneath part of its outdoor playfield, it is enclosing its lunchroom and needed adding
administrative office above the enclosed lunchroom, and it is adding an outdoor deck
above its rear bank of classrooms. There is no opportunity to add more onsite parking.
As Commissioner Fonda-Bonardi noted, the school is doing its best to make productive
and efficient use of all of its campus.
One of the reasons I'm approving this . . . is that this is an
attempt to do more with less . . . That's what this is about.
Do more with less, but mitigate the effects on everybody
around it.
The School has been in this location since 1942. The Planning Commission
granted the School a parking variance in 1996. Those facts are not changing. Without
rebuilding its entire campus, the School has no ability to add additional onsite parking.
Instead, despite not being compelled to do so by the Municipal Code’s Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) requirements for developers, the School has worked with
the City’s Mobility Division to come up with an enhanced Transportation Demand
Management Plan (“TDM”) to reduce its car trips as much as possible.
The School’s new TDM plan includes numerous measures intended to reduce
the number of employees who travel to campus by car. These measures include
incentive programs that will be implemented at considerable expense to the School. The
Item 6.A 02/22/22
37 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 10
TDM plan will reduce employee car travel by requiring the school to provide the
following:
Free transit passes for School employees
A local hiring program
A parking cash-out payment for School employees who do not drive cars
A 2.0 average vehicle ridership (AVR) target for school employees
(instead of the current 1.6)
Transportation information and orientations for new employees
32 bicycle parking spaces
Lockers/shower for school employees
Emergency rides home for employees who bike to work in the event of
inclement weather
Bike repair kits
Partnership with Santa Monica SPOKE to provide an annual bike
education day for employees and students
The School’s commitment to abide by the TDM plan was formalized by Special
Condition #16 of the Planning Commission’s approval.
C. Afternoon Dismissal.
Traffic congestion during the School’s afternoon pickup has also been raised as
something that needs improvement. Although the campus improvements have nothing
to do with afternoon dismissal, the approval of the improvements provided the Planning
Commission with an opportunity to request further improvement to the afternoon pick up
procedures, and Carlthorp has agreed to do so. Most significantly, Carlthorp has agreed
to incentivize carpooling and thereby reduce the number of vehicles picking students up
at the School campus. By far the best way to incentivize carpooling is to allow parents
with carpools to be the first to pick up their students, so that is what the School will do.
Specifically, per the new TDM Plan:
To incentivize families to combine rides and trips, the School has agreed to
prioritize cars picking up multiple students riders to appeal to the convenience and
savings of time for those who do so. This carpool priority will help reduce the number of
cars lining up for pickup and further minimize neighborhood impacts. Nothing will
motivate a parent like saving them time. So, when School dismissal begins at 3:00 p.m.,
high-occupancy vehicles will be allowed first in line to pick up their students. Those will
be cars that are picking up at least 3 students. All other vehicles will need to wait.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
38 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 11
The TDM plan also includes carefully considered procedures for afternoon pickup
intended to reduce wait times and ensure that driveways and alleys are not blocked by
queued vehicles. School faculty and staff will manage the staging and flow of parent
vehicles in the neighborhood by positioning themselves at strategic locations and
serving as traffic flow monitors during daily pickup times. The monitors will be
responsible for ensuring that no one’s driveway is blocked during the pickup queuing.
And instead of using the School’s loudspeaker system to announce the names of
students whose rides are waiting, Staff will coordinate pickups using walkie talkies with
earpieces to reduce noise impacts.
Finally, all dismissal procedures and expectations will be clearly communicated
to parents. Parents who violate procedures will be disciplined.
D. Special Events.
Like any school, Carlthorp holds various special events for students and parents.
These events provide opportunities for learning, sharing cultural experiences, family
bonding, student presentations and talents, updates on curriculum, and celebration of
accomplishments and the joys of education. These include the School’s Halloween
Parade, African American History Celebration, Lunar New Yar Celebration, La Fiesta
Latina, International Day, ArtSmart Day, S.T.E.M. Day, Grandparents Day, Kindergarten
Graduation, 6th Grade Graduation, and All-School Talent Show.
The Planning Commission imposed Special Condition #4 to address these
concerns, limiting the School to a maximum of 18 special events per year with no more
than 6 of these events being held after school hours. Project Specific Condition #4 also
requires the school to provide notice of special events to its immediate neighbors.
Additionally, Project Specific Condition #6 addresses parking and traffic issues
related to special events by requiring:
Automobile valet for larger special events
The use of the School’s parking lot for special event parking
All valet parking to be restricted to one side of the street
Advance notification to attendees regarding limited parking availability to
encourage carpooling, etc.
These limitations and requirements will ensure that the School is able to hold a
reasonable number of special events, which are crucial components of student
development and school life, without undue disruption to the surrounding community.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
39 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 12
Also, the new Multipurpose Room will allow more of these activities to occur
indoors.
To further and more generally address all neighborhood concerns, the Planning
Commission also imposed Project Specific Condition #12, which requires the School to
appoint an on-site contact person who will serve as a neighborhood liaison to address
any concerns that arise in the community. Immediate neighbors of the School will
provide annual written notification of the liaison’s contact information.
APPELLANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
The Appellant alleges a litany of zoning code violations and other offenses by the
Applicant. The Appellant’s allegations are too numerous, and in many cases too
spurious to address one-by-one. As confirmed by both City Staff and the Planning
Commission, the School and its proposed improvement project will be in compliance
with the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the pertinent requirements of the prior 1996
STOA, and all other applicable regulations.
Carlthorp’s original Planning Commission hearing date was delayed for months
so that City Staff could look into the litany of zoning code violations alleged by the
appellant. As explained in the Staff Report, his allegations were referred to City’s Code
Enforcement Division, which declined to open an investigation.
The Appellant’s remaining objections were communicated to and, where
warranted, addressed by City Staff, by the Planning Commission and by Carlthorp in
good faith. As explained point by point in Staff Report Attachment E, none of the
appellant’s remaining allegations has any merit. This elementary school has been a
fixture in this neighborhood for eighty years.
CONCLUSION
Carlthorp School has been located at its current location for almost 80 years.
During this time, the School has enjoyed warm and positive relations with many of its
neighbors, and the School continues to have a strong and respectful relationship within
the community.
It has been 25 years since the School last updated its campus. The School
campus requires upgrades to enable Carlthorp to continue providing a high quality,
modern educational program to its K-6 students. These upgrades will not increase
student enrollment.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
40 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022
Page 13
The School has engaged in productive community outreach and worked diligently
to craft a project that is responsive to all legitimate concerns. Except for the minor
modification to parcel coverage, the project is fully compliant with all applicable code
requirements. Carlthorp’s planned improvements will provide: (i) enhancements that
benefit the education of its elementary students (with no increase in enrollment), and (ii)
community benefits that will mitigate neighborhood disruption and address the concerns
raised by neighbors. The appellant’s views of the School and its plans are skewed and
do not generally represent the views of much of the surrounding community.
The City Council should deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission’s
near-unanimous approval of the project. We would like to acknowledge City Staff’s
substantial work and thorough analysis of the issues on appeal.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
cc: David White
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Stephanie Reich
Regina Szilak
Joe Lawrence
Heidi von Tongeln
Ken Parr
Tarrah Beebe
F:\WPDATA\22270\Cor\CC 2022.02.19.docx
Item 6.A 02/22/22
41 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
ANGEL LAW
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Tel: (310) 314-6433
Fax: (310) 314-6434
angellaw.com
February 21, 2022
Honorable Mayor Sue Himmelrich
and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Via Email to sue.himmelrich@smgov.net; Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net; phil.brock@smgov.net;
gleam.davis@smgov.net; oscar.delatorre@smgov.net; lana.negrete@smgov.net;
christine.parra@smgov.net; council@smgov.net; Heidi.vonTongeln@santamonica.gov;
attorney@smgov.net; Jing.Yeo@smgov.net; planning@smgov.net;
Re: 02-22-2022 Santa Monica City Council Meeting (Agenda Item 6.A -- Carlthorp School Expansion
Project at 438 San Vicente Blvd.)
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
Appellant Steven Salsberg has retained Angel Law to submit this letter on behalf of himself, all similarly
situated residents of Santa Monica and all Santa Monica citizens interested in or benefitting from City
Council compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act; Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), a statute
intended “to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking. . . .” (San
Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1176, emphasis added;
internal quotation marks & citations omitted.)
On two separate and independent grounds, we request that the hearing on the Carlthorp School expansion
project be taken off calendar and re-noticed. First, the February 22, 2022 hearing has been noticed in
violation of the Brown Act. Second, staff’s recommended exemption of the project from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
violates CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) Our request
serves to enable the City of Santa Monica (City) to properly notice the appeal hearing on the Carlthorp
School expansion project and to thus proceed in the manner required by the Brown Act. It will further
Item 6.A 02/22/22
42 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 2
enable the City to proceed consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines by allowing staff to
prepare an initial CEQA study to determine whether a negative declaration, a mitigated negative
declaration, or a full-blown environmental impact report is appropriate for the development and uses
proposed. The proposed CEQA exemptions are not.
Brown Act Violation
It is of course a central and long-standing requirement of the Brown Act that the legislative body of a local
government post, at least 72 hours before a meeting, an agenda containing a brief general description of
each item of business to be transacted at the meeting. (Gov. Code § 54954.2, subd. (a)(1).) Government
Code section 54954.2, subdivision (a)(1), in pertinent part, states:
“At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its
designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to
be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. . . .
The agenda . . . shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and
on the local agency’s Internet Web site. . . .”
(See also id., subd. (a)(2).) Where the City’s elected legislative body, the City Council, is called upon to
make a determination or finding concerning CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines along with the approval of
a development permit, such as a discretionary conditional use permit (CUP), the posted agenda must
provide public notice of both the proposed determination concerning the development permit and the
proposed determination concerning CEQA. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 216
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169-1170, 1176-1179.)
Here, the agenda for the City Council regular meeting of February 22, 2022 describes the item of business
at issue (Item 6.A) as follows:
“Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for
Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd New item received 2/18/2022
“Recommended Action
“Staff recommends the City Council deny Appeal 20ENT-0275, appealing the Planning
Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-
0066 for a 7,898 square foot expansion to the Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29%
increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage, and approve the requested CUP and Minor
Modification, based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this report.”
(Bold characters in original.) There is no mention in this agenda description of the proposed grant of a
CEQA exemption for the project.1 Yet, the City Council, in the exercise of its de novo review of the
Carlthorp School expansion project, must determine both whether to grant the requested CUP and the
1 Remarkably, the notice of public hearing required by Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.37.050 for
all owners and residents of properties within a radius of 750 feet of the school site, likewise, omits any
reference to the CEQA exemption. (See staff report, attachment G.)
Item 6.A 02/22/22
43 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 3
minor modification; and whether the project is exempt from CEQA review (or, instead, requires preparation
of an initial CEQA study).2 In fact, staff’s recommended CUP findings show that the City Council will grant
the applicant a CEQA exemption should the council approve the project per staff’s recommendations. A
CUP finding set forth in the statement of official action (STOA) proposed for the City Council’s adoption
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. The proposed project
is also categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15331, Class 31 of the State [CEQA] Implementation Guidelines in that the proposed
addition to a non-contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Historic District is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017),
revised by Anne E. Grimmer, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District.”3
(Proposed CUP finding No. 7 at p. 5.) In other words, the City Council’s consideration of the CEQA
exemption is an item of business to be publicly reviewed and acted upon at the appeal hearing and
therefore had to be specifically disclosed in the posted February 22, 2022 meeting agenda.
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, offers an apt analogy. There, the
planning staff of Merced County recommended approval of a subdivision application, along with a mitigated
negative declaration (MND) under CEQA concerning the environmental impact of the subdivision project.
When the project came up for approval by the Merced County Planning Commission, the commission’s
posted meeting agenda noticed, as an item of business, the commission’s potential approval of the
subdivision application, but did not mention the MND. The court of appeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue
Center held that this manner of proceeding violated the agenda notice requirement of the Brown Act.
Notably, in the litigation challenging the project’s approval, the county of Merced argued that the agenda
notice requirement of Government Code section 54954.2 was satisfied “because the public would have
implicitly understood that CEQA documents, if any, would likely be considered at the time of the project’s
approval.” The court of appeal rejected this position. (216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1170; see id. at p. 1178 [“Even
assuming for the sake of argument that a person could have speculated from what appeared on the
agenda (i.e., the project’s approval) that the adoption of the MND might possibly be considered at the
meeting, that would not make the agenda legally adequate”; original emphasis].) The court held that “the
2 Staff correctly notes that the City Council’s review of the Planning Commission’s decision is de novo.
(Staff report at p. 2.) Indeed, the City Council has the power to “review and take action on all
determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar actions taken which were in the purview of
the original hearing body on the application or project and is not limited to only the original reason stated for
the appeal.” (Santa Monica Mun. Code, § 9.37.130 (A)(3).)
3 The proposed STOA further cites Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Class 3 categorical
exemption) as additional grounds for exempting the project from CEQA review. (Proposed STOA at p. 1.)
Item 6.A 02/22/22
44 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 4
Brown Act was violated in this case because the Commission took action on the MND when that matter
was not expressly disclosed on the meeting agenda.” (Id. at p. 1170.) So, too, here if on February 22, the
City Council approves the CEQA exemption -- whether explicitly or implicitly by granting the CUP based on
the CEQA exemption findings recommended by staff.
While in this case, the defective notice relates to a staff-recommended CEQA exemption rather than a staff-
recommended recommended MND, for purposes of the Brown Act, this is a distinction without a difference.
(See id. at p. 1178, fn. 17.) The court in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center recognized that issues related
to the local environmental effects of a project “often motivate members of the public to participate in the
process and have their voices heard.” (Id. at p. 1177.) “Of course, that is exactly what the Brown Act seeks
to facilitate.” (Ibid.) “Its purposes include ensuring that the public is adequately notified of what will be
addressed at a meeting in order to facilitate public participation and avoid secret legislation or
decisionmaking.” (Id. at pp. 1177-1178, citations omitted.)
In short, because the agenda posted last week for the City Council’s February 22, 2022 meeting fails to
make the disclosure concerning the CEQA exemption determination for the Carlthorp School expansion
project, it violates Government Code section 54954.2. Therefore, the appeal may not be heard on February
22. The matter must be re-noticed and the new notice should disclose the proposed CEQA exemption so
that all members of the public interested in CEQA review have a fair and meaningful opportunity to address
the exemption at the City Council’s de novo hearing on the project.
CEQA Violation
The recommended CEQA exemptions for Carlthorp School’s expansion project are unsubstantiated and
erroneous. Staff’s review for exempting the Carlthorp School expansion project from CEQA is cursory and
fundamentally flawed. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15061.)
First, staff’s conclusion that the environmental impacts of adding 7,259 square feet of new development to
the existing school size of 38,397 square feet, a substantial, 20.6% increase in size, and of proposing a
new rooftop playcourt, all in a residential zone, are not even potentially significant in the construction phase
or long-term, is contradicted by the evidentiary record and staff’s own conclusion that “any potentially
significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation
measures incorporated in the project.” (Proposed CUP finding No. 7, p. 5.) And that very conclusion
precludes exempting the project from CEQA. “An agency should decide whether a project is eligible for a
categorical exemption as part of its preliminary review of the project without reference to or reliance upon
any proposed mitigation measures.” (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004)
125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1106, emphasis added.)
Staff here appears to rely on what is known as the “common sense” exemption from CEQA. But this
exemption is inapplicable unless “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a [potentially] significant effect on the environment. . . .” (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15061, subd. (b)(3), emphasis added; see id., § 15382 [“ ‘Significant effect on the environment’ means a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of
historic or aesthetic significance”].)
Item 6.A 02/22/22
45 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 5
As for the recommended Class 31 categorical exemption, it is inapplicable on its face. This specific
exemption is for “projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,
preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.” (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15331, emphasis added.) The Carlthorp School expansion project is just that: a school
expansion project -- as described by staff and as proposed by the applicant; it is not a project limited to
simply maintaining, repairing, stabilizing, rehabilitating, restoring, preserving, conserving or reconstructing
historical resources. Whether the project would or wouldn’t have an adverse impact on the overall character
or significance of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District does not bear on whether the new
development and uses that are proposed fit into the narrow confines of the Class 31 exemption in the first
place, or, for that matter, into any one of the other two CEQA exemptions cited by staff.
Nor does the Carlthorp School expansion project fit into the Class 3 categorical exemption. According to
staff, this CEQA exemption “exempts minor additions to existing schools where the addition does not
increase original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms.” (Staff report at pp. 14-15.) The
Class 3 categorical exemption doesn’t even mention schools, let alone the gratuitous numerical criteria
used by staff (no increase of original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms).
The Class 3 exemption does apply to certain existing commercial buildings that do not exceed 10,000
square feet in floor area, and only if the site is zoned for commercial use. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.)
However, even if the school were a commercial use, which it is not, the existing school size is almost four
times as large as 10,000 square feet (38,397 square feet) and the school site is not zoned commercial or
for an institutional use. (This is why a CUP is required for the project.) The 46,362 square foot parcel on
which the project is located is zoned Low Density Multi-family Residential (R2). The Class 3 exemption also
benefits small residential projects, provided these projects are on land zoned residential. Evidently, reliance
on the Class 3 categorical exemption to evade CEQA review for the proposed expansion project would as
much be a prejudicial abuse of discretion under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as reliance on the
other two exemptions cited in the proposed STOA.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
Item 6.A 02/22/22
46 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.
My name is Ashley Stanbury and I teach general music at Carlthorp School. In addition to
instructing bi-weekly classes for kinder through 6th graders, I direct the Carlthorp choir,
orchestra and theater program.
I would like to comment on the proposed Master Plan, specifically, the new Multipurpose Room
that it will provide. Very briefly, Carlthorp's students need a space for performing arts events
such as grade show plays, choir and orchestra concerts, talent show, artist in residence events
and our annual theater production. These events are not only important to the growth of our
students, they continue the traditions put in place since the school's beginnings in 1939. Helping
instill confidence in our students is a key objective at Carlthorp.
The current space is woefully inadequate. It is long and narrow with a low ceiling, which is not
ideal acoustically. Members of the audience are often unable to see or hear our youngest
performers due to these limitations. This is particularly frustrating when proud parents attend
performances.
Beyond the performance issue, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the multipurpose room's
other essential function. A new multipurpose room that can accomodate our student body is
essential for school-related assemblies, special events and to allow our students a space to
have P.E. on rainy days.
I fully support the other improvements to the campus, and urge you to reject the appeal that you
are hearing tonight. Please let this project move forward. On behalf of the students, faculty and
staff at Carlthorp, thank you for allowing me the time to present to you this evening.
Sincerely,
Ashley Stanbury
Carlthorp Music Teacher
Item 6.A 02/22/22
47 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
48 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
49 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
50 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
51 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
52 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
53 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
54 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
55 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
56 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
57 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
58 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
59 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
60 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
61 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
62 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
63 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
64 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
65 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
66 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
67 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
68 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
69 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
70 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
71 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
72 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
73 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
74 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
75 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
76 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
77 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
78 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
79 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
80 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
81 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
82 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
83 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
84 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
85 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
86 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
87 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
88 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
89 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
90 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
91 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
92 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
93 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
94 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
95 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
96 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
97 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
98 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
99 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
100 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
101 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
102 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
103 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
104 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
105 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
106 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
107 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
108 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
109 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
110 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
111 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
112 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
113 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
114 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
115 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
116 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
117 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
118 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
119 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
120 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
121 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
122 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
123 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
124 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 1
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT
The City of Santa Monica Has Denied Me a Fair Process and Has Denied Me My
Due Process Rights
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has not conducted the appeal process in a fair
manner. The City and its employees (“Staff”) have misled me and acted with bias. The
City has unfairly favored the Carlthorp School (the “Applicant”) against my interests as
the Appellant.
The City did not notify me until weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks
after notifying the Applicant that that date had been set and more than 10 days after I first
began making inquiries that that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. For
these reasons, additional reasons specified herein and expressed through emails and
phone calls with the City, reasons expressed in my initial appeal statement, various
actions and inactions taken by the City, and for reasons that might be buried in
documents withheld by the City and yet undiscovered documents and events, I have been
denied a fair process and my due process rights. And, I have not been treated fairly by
the City, as compared to the Applicant in this matter.
I made clear to the City on several occasions over the past 13 months that I intended to
submit a supplement to my appeal statement (my “Supplemental Statement”) and that I
needed to be informed as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my
Supplemental Statement. And, the City gave me every indication several times over at
least the following eight months or more that it would inform me as to what would be the
deadline for my submitting my Supplemental Statement. However, the City failed to
provide me with any such deadline. The City improperly, therefore, published its Staff
Report without my having submitted my Supplemental Statement. The process has not
been fair.
The City stonewalled and sandbagged me throughout the process, usually refusing to
even respond to my numerous phone messages and emails, all the while attempting to
cram down a hearing date upon me without answering my questions regarding
fundamental zoning code questions that I have a right to have answered. Even my
attempts to reach out to the Planning Director, David Martin, did not elicit responses
from Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, or from David Martin. The only way I was
able to obtain responses from Jing since May 2021 (and later from David Martin) was for
me to contact the City Manager, which I found necessary to do several times beginning in
July 2021. Then when Jing did respond, she would not answer my questions and requests
for clarifications and confirmation of things she had told me during our telephone
conversations on 4/27/2021 and 10/19/2021. She did answer some of my questions but
she refused to answer, clarify, and confirm the most important of my questions and issues
that I addressed to her in my emails. Her “answers” were generally vague and opaque
and also absolutely not on point. And, I told her that she was refusing to answer my
Item 6.A 02/22/22
125 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 2
questions. Jing then insisted that she was not refusing to answer my questions. I
responded that she absolutely was refusing to answer my questions. On 2/1/2022, I even
simplified two or three crucial questions into yes or no questions with requests for
explanations. Her response after nine months of repeatedly asking her these questions on
2/8/2022 was that my questions were not relevant and therefore she would not answer
them – obviously admitting finally that she was and had been indeed refusing to answer
my questions all along. However, such questions were relevant, which is proven by how
she answered similar questions on the phone in April and October of 2021. (See below.)
As I responded to her in my 2/1/2022 email, she did “not [answer my] questions and I
[found] it to be outrageously disturbing that [she had] chosen to characterize [her]
“answers” as having “thoroughly answered” my questions. Her statement was clearly
disingenuous, as is the Staff Report’s Staff Response 8B, to “Questions not answered”
(see below).
I told the City (Jing, Regina Szilak (“Gina”), David Martin, David White, and others)
several times each in multiple emails over several months and on the phone that:
I still am waiting for answers and clarifications to crucial questions that are
prerequisites to additional questions that build on such issues. It is completely
unrealistic and certainly unreasonable to hold the hearing or even set a date until:
First I need answers and clarifications to my 7/26/2021 and 5/12/2021 emails;
Second, I need to then formulate and ask the follow up questions that are now and
have been pending; then Third, I’ll need Jing, the Zoning Administrator, to
answer those additional follow up questions; then Fourth (assuming there would
be no additional iterative rounds of questions), I would need time to prepare my
supplement to my appeal; and then Fifth, Staff would need time to consider my
supplement and then after that prepare the Staff Report, sufficiently in advance of
the hearing.
I made it clear to Jing and Gina, more than a year ago and dozens of times since, that I
needed my Supplemental Statement to be incorporated into the Staff Report and that I
need to know what the deadline would be for submitting my Supplemental Statement.
Such deadline, of course, could not be determined until a hearing date would be set.
Eventually, after months of being stonewalled and sandbagged regarding getting my very
relevant and crucial questions answered and having a hearing date crammed down
without allowing me to get my questions answered – questions that I had been assured by
David Martin that I have a right to have answered – I then emailed and left a voicemail
for David White again on 2/2/2022. David White up until then had given me the clear
impression that he would make sure that I would get my questions answered sufficiently
in time for me to prepare my Supplemental Statement. (Every time after I emailed, or
spoke with, David White Jing would shortly thereafter email me regarding my questions,
although much of it was vague, opaque, and off point.) Included in my 2/2/2022 email to
David White, I said:
Item 6.A 02/22/22
126 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 3
“Please intervene and require that the hearing date be postponed and please
require that (1) the Zoning Administrator properly answer, confirm, and clarify
my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications regarding the
Zoning Code and the Applicant’s proposed project; and (2) require that the
Planning Division not contemplate a hearing date until I have fully received the
answers and clarifications that I have been requesting and expect to request.”
David Martin called me that same day, February 2 – obviously in response to David
White telling him to deal with me. I again told David Martin that I needed to get my
questions answered before I could begin preparing my Supplemental Statement. David
Martin again told me that he wanted to get my questions answered. When I hadn’t heard
from Jing again, I emailed David White again on 2/6/2022 with similar requests as I had
said in my 2/2/2022 email, and I left a voicemail for him on 2/7/2022. David White
replied with an email on 2/8/2022, inviting me for a meeting with him and David Martin
and to work with his assistant to schedule the hearing. David White’s assistant told me
that the earliest a meeting could be scheduled was for 2/17/2022. Obviously, my purpose
in accepting an invitation to such a meeting was to obtain a postponement and to set an
agenda for getting my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations
answered, for which I had been requesting for more than 13 months and for which I had
been stonewalled for the past more than nine months.
I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming. David Martin had
assured me on 10/5/2021 on the phone that I had a right to have my questions answered.
I had a legal opinion from an attorney who works in this area of the law and who has
close ties with the City that I had a right to have my questions answered. All of my
emails to Jing and to Gina at least since October had been copied to David White and to
David Martin. Every time that I reached out to David White (and John Jalili before him)
complaining that I wasn’t getting my questions answered, I would get a quick response
from Jing, each time providing some response to my questions and requests for
confirmations and clarifications, but inadequate, vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the
point of my questions. I had every reason to believe that a postponement was
forthcoming.
When David White on 2/8/2022 invited me to meet with him and David Martin, he led
me to believe that he would postpone the hearing when we were to meet on 2/17/2022,
but he ultimately refused. If he wasn’t going to postpone the hearing, he should have told
me when he invited me to the meeting or at least in the ensuing nine days that he would
not postpone the hearing. David White also sandbagged me.
No one ever gave me, as had been promised many months before, a deadline for me to
submit my Supplemental Statement. The Staff Report was completed at most only a day
or two after I met with David White and David Martin when I finally learned that the
City was definitely intending to go forth with the hearing on 2/22/2022, many weeks after
informing the Applicant that that date had been set for the hearing. I was thus also denied
the ability to provide my Supplemental Statement to the City in time for Staff to
incorporate my Supplemental Statement into the Staff Report.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
127 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 4
The City has not just incidentally provided an unfair process for me, but has orchestrated
the process in an unfair manner. (See additional facts and discussion, below, relating to
my responses to Attachment E, #8A – D.)
Due to the above very unfair circumstances, I have had to focus on this statement and
organizing and submitting documents for the hearing at the last minute to protect the
record and I have thus not had time to notify and remind most of my neighbors who
would be interested in attending the hearing. Therefore, it is likely that the turn out in
favor of this appeal and against the proposed project will be substantially diminished, as
compared to if I had been treated fairly by the City. And, most or all of the Applicant’s
supporters are either students (and parents of students) or employees or consultants who
the Applicant has paid to attend the hearing and who do not even live in the
neighborhood or in Santa Monica.
Some of the few neighbors who I did speak to in passing who live within the notice
radius have told me that they did not receive any notice cards relating to this appeal.
Furthermore, this project impacts neighbors beyond the notice radius due to noise, traffic
congestion, and particularly parking. The Applicant impacts on-street parking for a
distance of multiple blocks because the Applicant has only approximately 34 parking
spaces for a faculty of 80 and the parents of 280 children, many of whom park their cars
to drop off and/or pick up their children, and for numerous events.
The Staff Report, the City Council STOA, and the City Council Report are all confusing
because they make references to exhibits and other documents that are not posted with
these reports and on the Agenda and which are not readily available on the Agenda page.
And, these reports make ambiguous references to different sets of exhibits using the same
referenced name but are referring to different exhibits. As such, the item is defective and
it is confusing. Staff also failed to post crucial pages of Plans that were sent to me but
were not disclosed to the public at large.
Staff members violated the City’s ordinances and its policies and procedures, including
violating the City of Santa Monica Code of Ethics.
I also submitted an objection to the public notice of this hearing because it didn’t specify
that the City Council is ruling on CEQA exemptions. As such, the public will not have
an opportunity to adequately question and challenge such exemptions or prepare for that.
For all of the above, and below, reasons the City should postpone the hearing and/or rule
in favor of my appeal.
The Planning Commission Hearing Process
One other thing that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning Commission
hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public presented and
spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns and began
Item 6.A 02/22/22
128 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 5
“solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly considering
that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was preventing the
Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in response to the
Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been suggested to the
in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such “solutions” would be
introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed “solutions” some of
which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for example, my
discussion (below) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point, in the section
named The City Council Report.) For one, I don’t think it was proper for the Planning
Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to concerns in a
manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was not permitted
to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with expedience on
issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa Monica
residents.
The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project
are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the
Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests
Parcel Coverage Calculations
The Parcel Coverage Calculations, as performed on Plan pages A121-B and A122-B, as
revised approximately in March 2021, are inaccurate and substantially understate the
actual parcel coverage of the proposed project. Such calculations have several errors.
One such error is that it treats the “Main Level” as depicted on Plan page A121-C as the
First Floor and the “Upper Level” as the Second Floor. (See Plan pgs. A121-B, and
A122-B.) The “Lower Level,” as depicted in Plan page A120-C, is actually the First
Floor – or First Story – and the “Main Level,” as also depicted in Plan page A121-C, is
the Second Story. The “Upper Level,” as depicted in Plan page A122-C, is actually a
non-conforming Third Story. The “Lower Level” does not meet the definition of a
basement, as defined by the SMMC. (See SMMC 9.52.020.0230.) The First Floor Parcel
Coverage Calculation is incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Storage
room, as depicted on Plan page A120-B. The Second Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation
is also incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Classroom in the southeast
corner of the building and much of the blue-shaded area, as depicted on Plan page A121-
B. (I could not find the Plan pages on the City’s Agenda page or in any documents listed
and linked on that page that are referred to in this paragraph and in this section, below.
However, such Plan pages were produced by the Applicant in a 9-page pdf set and
submitted to the City. These pages show and help show that the proposed project violates
the Zoning Code. It is not clear why Staff failed to include such important pages with the
Agenda. However, I am submitting these pages along with other materials.)
Prohibited Third Story Addition
Item 6.A 02/22/22
129 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 6
Furthermore, the Applicant proposes adding to its nonconforming Third Story, which is
strictly prohibited under the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code only permits two story
structures in the Applicant’s zone. (See SMMC 9.08.030 (Development Standards)
(limiting number of stories in the R2 District to 2 stories).)
The Applicant’s Building’s Lower Level is Not a Basement, it is the First
Story
In response to my questions, on 4/27/2021 and on 10/19/2021 on the phone, Jing, the
Zoning Administrator, unequivocally told me that everything in dark green on Plan page
A120-C is all on the same level for any and all purposes and applications and
interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. On those
calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Blue and the Medium Blue areas
on Plan page A121-C are all on one level for all purposes, applications, and
interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. On those
calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Pink area on Plan page A122-C
is all on one level for all purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code,
including for the definition of a basement.
As noted, above, the Applicant’s plans, calculations, and the proposal assumes that, what
the Applicant refers to as the “Lower Level” as a “basement,” however, in fact the
existing building does not have a “basement” as defined under the SMMC.
Basement, is defined by the SMMC as:
9.52.020.0230 Basement. The level(s) of a structure located below Average
Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in
which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented
Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above
Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.
Up to 4 wall surfaces of the level directly below Average Natural Grade,
Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade may be exposed above
Finished Grade, so long as this exposure does not exceed 40% of each of these
wall surface areas. Each wall surface area is calculated by multiplying the height
by the length of the wall. In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls
shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage,
which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the
maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or
emergency egress as required by the Building Code. A basement shall not be
considered a story.
(SMMC 9.52.020.0230.)
Analyzing the First Criterion in the Definition of a Basement
First, I’ll analyze the first sentence of Section 9.52.020.0230, which says: “The level(s) of
a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or
Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural
Item 6.A 02/22/22
130 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 7
Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet
above Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical
Grade.” The Applicant utilizes Average Natural Grade (“ANG”) in all of its plans and in
its proposal. According to the City’s Zoning Administrator and the plain text of the
ordinance, if any portion of the Lower Level projects more than 3 feet above ANG, then
the entire Lower Level is not a basement, and would therefore be the First Story.
As can be seen on Plan page A300-B/C, ANG is at 104 and ½ feet (104’-6”), and 3 feet
above ANG is at 107 and ½ feet (107’-6”) (104.5’ + 3’ = 107.5’). ANG on Plan page
A300B/C is also depicted as a horizontal broken red line. As can be seen on Plan page
A300B/C, the Lower Level projects above ANG. Plan page A120-C shows the floor of
the Lower Level at 97 and ¼ feet (97’3”), which is 7 feet below ANG. The Lower Level
projects all the way to the surface of the floor above it. (SMMC 9.52.020.2320 defines
Story as: “That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and
the upper surface of the floor next above. . . .”) Looking at Plan pages A120-C and
A121-C, it is clearly evident that the Lower Level projects 4 and ¼ feet (or 4’ 3”) above
ANG. (See the Dark Blue portion of the Main Level on Plan page A121-C, which
displays the floor of the Main Level and upper range of the Lower Level as being 1 and
¼ feet (1’ – 3”) above the Light Blue portion of the Main Level, which has a floor level
of 107 and ½ feet (107’ – 6”), which is already 3 feet above ANG (107.5’ + 1.25’ =
108.75’; also, 108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). Thus, the Kitchen, the Board Room, the
Reception Front Office, both of Classroom – 1st Grade and a lot of other space on the
Main Level, have their floor at more than 3 feet above ANG and thus, the Lower Level
space below it all projects 4 and ¼ feet above ANG, which is more than 3 feet above
ANG. Because the Zoning Code’s definition of a basement says that “no portion of the
level directly below” ANG may project “more than 3 feet above” ANG, the entire Lower
Level is not a basement and is thus the First Story. Jing confirmed this to me on the
phone in April 2021.
The Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion approximately 25 years ago also
display the same result. Those plans, Plan page A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts
large portions of the Applicant’s Lower Level as projecting all the way to 108.75’ (108
and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (See also Plan
page A-6.2 (dated May 02, 1997.)
Analyzing the Fourth Criterion in the Definition of a Basement
The Lower Level, which the Applicant claims is a basement rather than the First Story, is
not a basement also because walls of the Lower Level have visible wall surfaces that
exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The fourth sentence of SMMC Section
9.52.020.0230, defining “Basement,” says:
“In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet
above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed
to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set
forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the
Building Code.”
Item 6.A 02/22/22
131 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 8
This means that if even one visible wall surface height of a level exceeds 3 feet above
Finished Grade, then the entire level is not a basement. Several of the Applicant’s Lower
Level walls have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan
page A120-C, depicts the Lower Level. Three of the walls of the Storage room in the
southeast corner of the building all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above
Finished Grade. (See photos.) The westerly, southerly, and easterly walls of the Storage
room all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See
photos.) The wall containing the entrance to the Lower Level, which abuts the Break Out
Room and the hallway adjacent to the Break Out Room on the Lower Level also have a
visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.)
Even without the photos, it is obvious that the Storage room in the southeast corner of the
building has a visible wall surface that exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan page
A300-B/C, on the top portion of the page, “E/W Section Through Elevated Court Level
Diagram shows 3 feet of the Storage room on the Lower Level above the broken red line
– the line that delineates where ANG is – and additional wall surface below ANG down
to the surface of the parking lot. That wall of the Storage room that abuts the Existing
Parking, as depicted on Plan page A300-B/C, both the 3-foot portion of the wall above
ANG and the portion below ANG that is above the surface of the Existing Parking is a
visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The wall of the Storage
room, referred to here, is on the western side of the Storage room, even though it is
depicted on the right side of the Storage room. That is because the diagram at the top of
Plan page A300-B/C is viewed from the North.) What Plan page A300-B/C doesn’t
show is that the walls of the Storage room on the South and on the East of the room also
have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. This diagram doesn’t
show that the Finished Grade on the South side of the building where the Storage room is
located is almost exactly the same as the Finished Grade where the surface of the
Existing Parking lot abuts the Storage room. (See photos.)
While it is more difficult to see and access, much or all of the walls on the east side of the
building have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See
photos.) The eastern side of the Storage room, as displayed on Plan page A120-C, which
depicts the Lower Level, has already been shown, above, to have a visible wall surface
that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The Faculty Lounge on the northeast corner of
the Lower Level, as displayed on Plan page A120-C, has its entire eastern wall from
approximately the floor to the ceiling (approximately 8 feet) with a visible wall surface
that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The photos of the eastern wall of the Faculty
Lounge on the Lower Level, accompanying this Supplement, were taken with bushes and
a chain linked fence between the camera and the eastern wall and the surface of the
abutting Finished Grade, making it somewhat difficult to see; but, if one looks carefully,
it is obvious that the visible wall surface on the eastern wall of the Faculty Lounge has
several feet, more than six feet of visible wall surface, above Finished Grade.)
The Lower Level is clearly not a basement. A similar perspective can also be seen in the
Carlthorp School Plans from approximately 25 years ago, page P-3, dated October 22,
1997, and approved under a previous zoning code, 11/12/1997.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
132 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 9
The Lower Level also violates other aspects of the definition of a basement. (SMMC
9.52.020.0230.)
No Basement, Three Stories, Incorrect Parcel Coverage Calculations, Minor
Modification Application is Insufficient to Build Proposed Project, and Prohibited
Third Story Additions
Therefore, the Lower Level is not a basement as the Applicant asserts. (Perhaps the
City’s Planning Department failed to actually inspect the property and instead relied only
on the plans in determining that the Applicant’s proposed project satisfied the zoning
code.) Instead, the Lower Level is the First Story, the Main Level is the Second Story,
and the Upper Level is the Third Story. All parcel coverage calculations are based on the
wrong information and are incorrect and thus the public disclosures are all incorrect and
the public has not been adequately notified and the City has not adequately reviewed the
project. The actual parcel coverage exceeds the amounts being asked for in the
Applicant’s application. Additions to the Third Story are being proposed, which are
strictly prohibited by the Zoning Code. Staff should not have recommended that the
proposed project be approved and the City Council should confirm my appeal and deny
the Applicant from being granted approval.
The Proposed Multipurpose Room is a Classroom
The Zoning Code requires additional parking to be added if the proposed project adds
even a single classroom. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No.
20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).
The proposed multipurpose room, in Planning Commission Hearing (11/4/2020)
Attachment J, says that it will be used for "Orchestra practices" and "Theatrical practice"
and an "Indoor climbing wall for PE" and "CPR training for employees" and
"Professional development for faculty." These are all instructional activities involving
instructors and students. (Regarding training for employees and professional
development for faculty, such activity does involve instructing students, except that in
such activity, the employees and faculty members are the "students.") As such, by
definition, when any of these activities are taking place, the multipurpose room would be
serving as a classroom. The Applicant has repeatedly said, dating back to its initial
application in 2019, that it would be conducting such instructional classroom activities in
the proposed multipurpose room. All three of those applications, clearly state that the
Applicant intends to use the Multi-purpose room for teaching classes.
The Applicant admitted that its proposed “subterranean multi-purpose room” would be
used for teaching classes and as classroom space when it said that the proposed
expansion would be used for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which
Item 6.A 02/22/22
133 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 10
include music and performing arts classes.” (See City of Santa Monica – City Planning
Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd, for a Minor
Modification (not dated or signed), attached sheets Project Description (“Minor Mod
Project Description”), at 2.) It made such admission three times in three separate
applications over the period of almost a year, relating to this proposed project. (Please
see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg
of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization
of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose
room will serve as a classroom).
The Planning Department added Condition 17 to prevent the multipurpose room from
being used as a classroom. However, Condition 17 is unenforceable. The proposed
Multi-purpose room is subterranean and any teaching activity would be undetectable and
the City continues to refuse to enforce ongoing violations of existing CUP Conditions
and SMMC violations at the school. All the more so, the City would not likely enforce
Condition 17, which is not visible to the naked eye. Also, Condition 17 is self-
contradictory because it says that the “multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner
described in Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom.”
Attachment J contains multiple uses that are clearly classroom activities, and thus
Condition 17 is self-contradictory, and it is unenforceable even if the City’s enforcement
agencies had the will to enforce it.
Because the Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, Additional Parking Spaces Are
Required
Because the multipurpose room is a classroom, the Applicant must add parking spaces.
Because the proposed project does not call for adding parking spaces, the proposed
project does not satisfy the Zoning Code and the Appeal must be accepted and the
proposed project must be denied by the City Council.
Parking Issues
From the STOA Conditions that was passed by the Planning Commission in 11/4/2020:
Condition # 6 calls for special planning only for events that are expected to exceed 150
vehicles. That is an absurdly high number for this neighborhood. The School only has
approximately 34 parking spaces for its 80 employees. The Condition is all but
impossible to enforce.
First, the Condition doesn’t clarify if the expected number of vehicles includes employee
vehicles or only additional vehicles. Second, the school can always say that it “expected”
fewer vehicles. There is no advance mechanism to assure the neighborhood that
reasonable precautions will be made and followed.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
134 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 11
When the Applicant expanded 25 years ago, it obtained its variance on parking, based on
statements and information provided to the City, including that it intended to expand its
total faculty from 22 people (15 full time and 7 part time) to 32 people (15 full time and 7
part time), which was a comparable percentage increase to their planned enrollment
expansion of slightly less than 50% at that time. (See Letter from Arthur L. Kassan,
Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer,
dated 6/13/1995, at 1.) The Applicant in 1996 received a variance to allow for their
parking configuration, which would have been sufficient to support their “planned” staff
of 32 people. However, the Applicant’s staff swelled to 80 people after receiving their
CUP and variance in 1996. When the Applicant received its variance and its CUP in
1996, it deceived the Planning Commission and the City. When the parking analysis was
conducted, the City relied on the Applicant telling the City that it was only expanding to
32 people (including part time employees), rather than expanding the staff to 80 people.
By no means does the Applicant have sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate
its needs, and thus heavily burdens its neighbors, in the surrounding blocks and further.
The Applicant violated its commitments to the City regarding faculty size and should not
be permitted to expand further. In fact, the Applicant should be required to reduce its
faculty to the level that it committed to the City and its neighbors 25 years ago at
approximately 32 people. The granting of any expansion should require such a condition.
The Applicant now says, again, that it won't increase its faculty size. Nonsense.
Empirically, the Applicant has demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word
then; it should not be trusted to keep its word now.
The school’s deficient parking causes faculty and visitors to the school to park in the
surrounding neighborhood, taking away space from local residents.
The Applicant has argued in the past, as it did to the Planning Commission, that it
somewhat mitigates these parking concerns because it is friendly with a neighboring
landlord who leases residents to some of its faculty. Such argument should be
completely disregarded because the Applicant does not have an entitlement to use such
parking spaces and it is completely possible that in the future, no such relationship will
exist.
Noise Concerns
I cannot overstate how much of a burden that the noise that the Applicant generates is
upon its neighbors. The noise study that the Applicant presented is misleading. The
noise pollution that the Applicant generates disrupts the peace and quiet in the
neighborhood in a major way.
Some of the noise concerns are: Children screaming, whistles, P.A. systems and loud
speakers, loud noises from vehicles and people congregating in the large open parking lot
off the alley (Georgina Place), organized cheering and screaming, outdoor amplified
music and rallies. The school also uses “Walkie-Talkies” and whistles, which are
particularly grating upon the nerves. Sometimes the Applicant invites musical and other
Item 6.A 02/22/22
135 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 12
groups that bring in their own amplification system. The Applicant should be prohibited
from doing any of these.
The Applicant should also be prohibited from bringing in temporary speakers and
amplification, such as for an event. The Condition 9 language should be modified to
include prohibition of speakers anytime, not to exceed 3 minutes during morning
assembly and not at any other time, except for emergencies. Even use of amplified
speakers during morning assembly is unnecessary and invasive to the community and
should be prohibited.
The noise study that the Applicant submitted cited incorrect decibel limits from the
SMMC that were higher than the code actually indicates. The noise study and its analysis
and conclusions is flawed and should therefore be disregarded.
(See also, discussion relating to Attachment E, #6A – D.)
Traffic
Traffic caused from employees and also parents dropping off and picking up children is
excessive. Twice a day a line of cars circle the block, double-parked and blocking traffic,
creating excessive traffic for vehicles and substantial hazard for vehicles, pedestrians, and
animals.
Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to
and from school.
Sunshine, Sunlight, and Heat
Building the rooftop play court would block sunlight and direct sun from my windows,
and reduce sunlight that enters my home. The rooftop play court should not be allowed.
I rely on the sun entering my windows facing the Applicant to grow, ripen, and mature
most of the food that I eat. I have a right to that sunshine and sunlight and I need it for
my food. The sun in the morning helps to jumpstart the warming of my home,
particularly in the late winter, springtime, and the early fall. The sun in the morning also
helps to jumpstart me, to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder, from which I struggle
with. The Applicant should not be permitted to build the rooftop play court, or at least
not within approximately 40 feet of the western side of the existing building.
Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal
Statement”
Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement” (“Attachment E”), is
littered with misleading statements and ignores the actual facts and the law.
Topic 1A) Upper level exceeds parcel coverage: Staff has ignored the fact that the parcel
coverage calculations were conducted incorrectly. (See, above, The Applicant’s and
Item 6.A 02/22/22
136 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 13
Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed
the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the
Applicant Requests.)
Topic 2A) Operating detrimental to surrounding properties: Obviously Code Compliance
or anyone else failed to inspect or visit the Applicant’s site at night where it would have
seen powerful flood lights that shine into neighbor’s windows all night long. I’ve
complained to Code Enforcement and to the police numerous times regarding various
violations but they never do anything. (See photo.)
Topic 2B) No further permits should be allowed to be issued due to CUP violations: The
95CUP-012, Condition #31 says that if the Applicant “fails to comply with any
conditions of the [1996 STOA], no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of
occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” Staff admits that
there are at least two ongoing violations of conditions of the Applicant’s existing CUP
(95-CUP-012). These violations (and others) have existed since prior to this century,
without any mitigation. Staff is acting irresponsibly by recommending that the Santa
Monica City Council ignore the fact that the Applicant is a serial violator of its CUP
conditions. Condition #31 is a standard condition in virtually all of the CUPs that the
City grants, and I think is a requirement under the SMMC. The Santa Monica City
Council should abide by the City’s own policy of requiring compliance before
granting any additional entitlements to the Applicant. If Staff were truly objective –
as it should be but for which it is obviously not – Staff would not be recommending that
the Santa Monica City Council deny my appeal. (See 2E and 2F, below.)
Topic 2C) Existing Landscaping exceeds height limits: The trees on the westerly border
of the Applicant’s property are planted excessively close together and, thus, are a de facto
hedge and/or wall, and exceed height limits.
Topic 2D) Existing plan for pick-up/drop-off does not work: The neighbors should have
been directly solicited regarding this issue, before any additional entitlements are granted.
The chain of vehicles that line up around San Vicente Blvd, onto 4th Street, and onto and
way up Georgina Avenue for pick-up and drop-off creates a serious safety hazard for the
community and causes serious traffic interference for the neighborhood. Drivers of these
vehicles commonly violate the Motor Vehicle Code and block intersections to both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This issue is a very serious matter due to the dangerous
and hazardous conditions imposed by the Applicant and because life is so precious. This
neighborhood is a very quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood – except for the
Carlthorp School.
Topic 2E) Grass surface replaced without approval: In Attachment G (to the 11/4/2020
Planning Commission hearing), the Annotated 1996 STOA, the Applicant admitted that it
defied Condition #59 of its existing CUP, essentially disrespecting the City and its
neighbors by unilaterally tearing out its grass – that it is required to have and maintain –
and replacing it with artificial turf that, instead of emitting fresh oxygen as grass does,
emits harmful noxious fumes that adversely affect the health of its neighbors and caused
Item 6.A 02/22/22
137 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 14
my dear sweet mother to suffer and contributed to her demise. The Applicant apparently
misled the Planning Commission and the public again, here, by rationalizing and not
disclosing the real reason the Applicant replaced the required grass with artificial turf: so
that the Applicant could produce noisy outdoor activity all day long instead of only on a
limited basis. The Applicant has admitted that it is – and has been for many years – in
violation of this condition of the 1996 STOA; Condition #31 prohibits the Applicant
from receiving any additional entitlements “until such violation has been fully
remedied,” which it has not (with respect to this Condition #59 and other Conditions);
and therefore, the Planning Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s
proposals. Artificial turf also prevents rainwater from seeping into the soil and down into
the water table. (See 2B, above.)
Topic 2F) Obstructed clear view through front fence:
The Applicant is, and has obviously been openly defying its CUP for a number of years
on a continuing basis, not in compliance with this Condition. This Condition requires
that the front yard fence and landscaping shall be “installed and maintained so as not to
obstruct a clear view through the fence.” It is plainly obvious to anyone passing by the
Applicant’s parcel in the front on San Vicente Boulevard that the view through the fence
is completely obstructed. Photos taken 21 months ago depict that obstructed view.
(Please see photos attached to my 5/20/2020 comment letter that were taken on
5/19/2020.) The view today is still obstructed. I have photos taken on the day of the
November 4, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, and on 2/20/2022, which prove that
the view is completely obstructed. The Applicant is also in open defiance of SMMC
Section 9.08.030.F.4., which requires that Applicant’s courtyard “shall be visible and
accessible from the sidewalk.” Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Santa
Monica City Council should not approve the Applicant’s application because the
Applicant was not in compliance with its existing CUP. (See 2B, above.)
2H) Inconsistency of prior assertions by applicant regarding student enrollment and
number of staff: Staff misunderstands my assertions. I am saying that the Applicant
made representations to the City and to the public that it would only increase its
employee staff from 22 full and part time employees to 34 full and part time employees
and that the City and the public relied on such representations when the process occurred
in granting the Applicant its current CUP. The City should require that the Applicant
reduce its staff level to approximately the level that it represented to the City and to the
public when it was granted its current CUP. If any entitlements are granted to the
Applicant, such entitlements should be conditioned upon limiting Applicant’s staff to
approximately 34 people. And, certainly any language in any conditions should not
prevent the public from asserting these issues in the future. In other words, any
entitlements and conditions should not say or imply that the Applicant may have a staff
level as high as any specified number above approximately 34 people.
3A) Number of stories: Staff overlooks the fact that the Lower Level of the building does
not meet the code requirements to be a basement and is therefore a three-story building.
(See section, above, named The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of
Item 6.A 02/22/22
138 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 15
the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code,
Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.)
3E) Offices within apartment: This conversion occurred for several years earlier this
century and through much of the last decade. (I did not say that the conversion was still
ongoing. They closed those offices probably in preparation for their current application.)
I referred to that conversion to illustrate that the Applicant has disrespected and flouted
the Planning Commission and the laws of the City and to suggest that the Applicant is
cavalier regarding respecting City ordinances, its CUP conditions, and its neighbors.
3F) School did not engage in neighborhood outreach: There was a public meeting, which
I went to, but the meeting was very brief, substantially shorter than had been announced.
I had various questions that I raised after the meeting but still within the scheduled time.
Before I had an opportunity to ask all of my questions, several other members from the
public that had remained and I were all asked to leave. I, not the Applicant, reached out
by calling Tim Kusserow a few months later to discuss the project, but that was like
speaking with a block wall. A few neighbors and I later arranged a conference call with
Mr. Kusserow (or possibly someone else at the school), but that experience was also
fruitless. Mr. Kusserow left the call after a short while and I was not permitted to even
speak during the call. I later reached out to the Applicant’s law firm, who responded by
having Melissa Sweeney contact me. But she had no authority to consider actual public
concerns. She told me that she would get back to me but she didn’t, even after I
subsequently tried to reach her. I am not aware of any other so-called outreach. The only
public outreach was a perfunctory effort to present minimal information to the public. It
was not true public outreach because there was zero receptivity by the Applicant
regarding any and all public input. The Applicant was completely dismissive of any
public input. It is disingenuous to describe the Applicant’s contact with the public as
actual “outreach.”
4A) Parking requirement for classroom vs multipurpose room: The Staff here has it
backwards. The Applicant has provided a description of the multipurpose room, which
clearly states that it WILL be used as a classroom. (See section named The
Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, above; and see, Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for
Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom). ) And,
Condition #17, which purportedly is intended to deal with this issue is self-contradictory
and unenforceable. (See id.)
6A) Noise and privacy: The mitigation measures that are proposed are inadequate and in
some respects aggravate the problem. (See above, Noise Concerns.)
6B) Noise is excessive when windows are open: This is an example how Staff is only
concerned with whether the Applicant is in compliance with the “letter” of the existing
CUP and its conditions, as opposed to the spirit of not imposing upon its neighbors and
Item 6.A 02/22/22
139 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 16
the community; or if it can artificially justify the bending or actual breaching of the
existing CUP and its conditions. Here, double-paned windows were proposed, when the
existing CUP was created, for some of the Applicant’s neighbors, to mitigate the
outrageous noise created by the Applicant. However, such measure is completely
ineffective during warm and hot days when it is necessary for such neighbors to open
windows for air circulation. That amounts to more than half of the school year (plus
summer school). I’ve been raising this issue throughout the process these past two years,
but the Applicant, Staff, and the Planning Commission have ignored this issue. The City
Council should not grant any additional entitlements until the Applicant and Staff
actually and sincerely reach out to its neighbors and solve this issue. For more than 20
years this has been a major problem. I have complained numerous times to the Applicant
and to law enforcement and nothing has ever been done to mitigate this extremely
imposing problem. Children at random suddenly scream with high-pitched voices as
loud as they can. Adults suddenly blow whistles, lead organized and synchronized
cheering, and use walkie-talkies that grate the ears and nerves. The P.A. system suddenly
is utilized. Without advance notice, suddenly an event occurs with amplified music,
singing, talking, yelling and cheering. All of them randomly and suddenly yell at the top
of their lungs. All of this causes enormous stress on the nerves, prevents concentration,
and prevents speaking on the phone. And, for the size of the space and the proximity to
its neighbors in this otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood, the Applicant very
unreasonably imposes itself upon its neighbors and the Planning Department and the City
has made unfair rationalizations on behalf of the Applicant.
6C) Excessive noise: This is another example how the existing CUP conditions were not
well planned. The existing Condition #56, which requires staggering of playtime, is part
of the problem. It would be better to have all playtime occur all at once and get it over
with, rather than have it be loud throughout almost the entire day, as is the case now.
That way, on warm and hot days, windows could at least be open part of the day, rather
than forcing neighbors to swelter and suffocate the entire day. And, this could occur on a
set schedule so that neighbors could have control over their day, rather than the school
controlling the neighbors’ days. The City should reverse this condition to require the
Applicant to have all playtime coordinated during shorter portions of the day on a set
schedule.
6D) Excessive noise: The existing Condition #57 requires playgroups to be dispersed.
However, the opposite is occurring during loud organized cheering. Also, I don’t see
how the noise could be much worse so probably the Applicant is not adhering to this
condition in other ways.
7A) Privacy impacts: See my fourth bullet point under The City Council Report, relating
to page 8 of that report. Also, as I’ve said before in another earlier submission: Faculty,
parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from
school.
8A) Documents withheld: I still have not received all of the documents that I have
requested from the City pertaining to this appeal
Item 6.A 02/22/22
140 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 17
8B) Questions not answered:
Staff asserts in its Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions
during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members.” Such
statement is grossly misleading. Since I filed the appeal, there were three – and not more
than three – phone calls since I filed the appeal when I presented substantive questions.
The first phone call was on 4/14/2021 with Jing Yeo. Most of that call dealt with my
asking a threshold question that had to be asked before I could move to the actual
questions that I needed to ask. However, Jing was stuck on giving me an answer that
defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics. (She was
stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in such
structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding
infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of
geometry, math, and physics because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated
another way, in zero dimensional space.) We ran out of time for that call so I asked her
to think about it and we’d pick that up on the next call, which we planned for 4/27/2021.
Almost as soon as we began speaking on 4/27/2021, Jing had already come around to my
way of thinking.
There was some important progress that I made in asking my questions during those two
calls in April and one important question (or group of very similar questions) that was
answered on 10/19/2021, which covered only about five minutes of that call in October.
(Some of the detail of those answers has been explained above.)
But almost everything else about the call on 10/19/2021 was a waste of time, whereby
Jing outright refused to answer my questions. There was a trail of thought that I was
taking Jing down using diagrams from the Plan pages, in which I was leading her to
questions that I was trying to ask and she was finally being receptive. However, David
Martin had set that call up with him, Stephanie Reich, and Gina also on the call. I need
and needed specific questions answered regarding the zoning code and Jing is the Zoning
Administrator, who has the responsibility to explain and clarify the zoning code. My
questions were directed at Jing and not Stephanie. However, as I explained to David
Martin in my email of 10/29/2021:
“However, my questions are of the nature, which are for the Zoning
Administrator, particularly because some of my questions are complicated, and
about complicated issues and definitions.… Jing is the Zoning Administrator –
not Stephanie. . . . [I]t is her responsibility to make these determinations, and
yours I guess as the Director. Multiple times Stephanie disrupted the flow of my
questions and descriptions, interrupting because she had difficulty following
along, as she indicated. [And, e]ach time Stephanie interrupted, it was just as I
was about to get [to where I needed Jing to go in her mind and with the diagrams
for me to ask my questions].”
Thus almost all of the 10/29/2021 conference call was a waste of time and I still hadn’t
gotten to ask my questions.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
141 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 18
Staff’s Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during
multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members” is grossly misleading.
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written
correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly
FALSE. Staff has stonewalled me and refused to answer my questions, while
simultaneously attempting to cram down a hearing down upon me. I began requesting
that the Zoning Administrator, Jing Yeo, answer my questions more than 13 months ago
in early January 2020. She was very busy for a couple of months and then I had an injury
that delayed a couple weeks. In April 2021, Jing and I got off to a good start in phone
calls on 4/14/2021 and 4/27/2021, whereby we resolved to continue the process by email.
On 5/12/2021, I sent her an email with various questions and requests for confirmations
of what she had told me during April on the phone. She told me that I would receive
answers within or shortly after a couple weeks. I followed up with approximately a
dozen emails and phone calls when she was not forthcoming. Jing went completely dark
on me, failing to respond in any way whatsoever. After that, the only times Jing
contacted me was by email and then only after I would explain the circumstances to the
City Manager (first John Jalili and then David White) and that I wasn’t getting my
questions answered. My first contact with the City Manager, John Jalili, was in early
July 2021, and Jing followed up with an email addressing some of my questions. But her
answers were vague and opaque and mostly not on point and incomplete. For more than
the following seven months, I would promptly reply to her emails regarding my
questions, asking her to actually answer my questions. But she would not respond to my
email replies, unless and until I contacted the City Manager again, and then and only then
would she reply to my emails. I also attempted to reach out to David Martin, the Director
of the Planning Department, with numerous emails and phone calls, attempting to get him
to motivate Jing to properly answer my emails. The only times David Martin got back to
me was shortly after I contacted the City Manager. Additional detail is explained, above,
in the section discussing the unfair process. (The email strings with Jing Yeo and David
Martin, since 5/12/2021, are being included along with this Supplement.)
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written
correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly
FALSE.
8C) Premature Planning Commission hearing: “Multiple hearing delays were granted”
implies that such delays were granted due to my causing that to be necessary. All delays
relating to the Planning Commission hearing were due to the City choosing on its own to
delay the hearing date or because the City had failed to follow through on commitments
to provide me with information, answers to questions, and documents. Almost all of the
delay occurred due to the City’s own choosing for its own reasons. The two delays
relating to the City not following through on commitments to me was only one week in
May 2020 and approximately two weeks in October 2020, and I still had not received all
of the documents that I had asked for when the hearing was held on 11/4/2020.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
142 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 19
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8D in Attachment E, “Multiple hearing delays have
been granted” is very misleading. Any and all delays in bringing this matter before the
City Council is due to delays caused by the City, except for an approximately two week
delay that I needed due to an injury that I suffered in late March 2021. All other delays in
this process were due to Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, being too busy to answer
my Zoning Code questions during the winter of 2021, and then since 5/12/2021, her
refusing to respond to me and her answering my questions and requests for clarifications
and confirmations of oral statements in a vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point
manner and also her refusing to answer my questions. (See detailed discussion in
response to 8B and in discussions above relating to the unfairness of the process and
attached email strings with Jing Yeo, David Martin, Regina Szilak, and David White.)
8D) Requested appellant to confirm February 22, 2022 appeal hearing date on November
29, 2021: The City here makes a false and misleading statement. The City notified me
weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant
that the hearing date had been set for that date. The City’s email on 11/29/2021 did not
ask me to confirm the 2/22/2022 date for the hearing; it only mentioned 2/22/2022 as a
potential hearing date. I responded on 12/8/2021, rejecting such date by indicating that
setting a hearing date at that time was “premature and grossly unfair until I have had the
opportunity to have my questions and requests for clarifications properly addressed and
fully vetted.” I was not notified that the City wanted to proceed with 2/22/2022 until
2/1/2022, which was weeks after the City had notified the Applicant that that was a set
date and more than 10 days after I first started requesting that the City confirm or deny
whether that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. (See submitted email strings
with Regina Szilak, Jing Yeo, David Martin, and David White.) And, I didn’t really
know that 2/22/2022 would be the hearing date until 2/17/2022. (See email strings with
David White, and particularly my email to David White, dated 2/18/2022.) The City
deceived me and misled me and failed to properly notify me as to the hearing date and
gave substantial deference to the Applicant against my interests as the Appellant, and the
City has done that throughout this process.
The City Council Report
The City Council Report states in the context of “the impact of loading/unloading and
parking on the surrounding neighborhood[, that] [n]o new parking impacts are associated
with the current proposal.” (City Council Report, at 7.) That is an absurd finding. The
Applicant has said that it intends to hold music and dance performances in the proposed
multipurpose room. The multipurpose room will at times serve as an auditorium/theater
with a substantial capacity. And the addition of the proposed multipurpose room and the
proposed rooftop play court will add substantial space for events that are more intense
than are currently held. The Applicant will be able to host larger crowds of visitors,
which would require larger numbers of staff to monitor the events. At large events, the
Applicant might choose to even hire temporary workers for the event, particularly if valet
parking is permitted, which is a very bad idea. The school already commonly hires (or
invites) musical bands and other performing arts, and various other services when it
Item 6.A 02/22/22
143 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 20
conducts events. The school will likely hire catering services. All those people have to
park somewhere if they drive there. All of these people will impact parking needs that
will impact the community and the surrounding neighborhood. There are many other
examples that would impact the neighborhood.
The City Council Report describes conditions to “provide concrete direction and
guidance to further … dialogue” with the neighborhood. (City Council Report, at 8.)
Those conditions are joke:
A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have
reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and
with numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses.
I’ve complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing
ever gets solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and
have no authority that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests.
Netting surrounding the upper-level play court would be ugly, as would the 30+
high wall surrounding the play court, and it would exceed the height limit in the
zoning code.
As discussed, above, the Conditions (Condition 17) is self-contradictory and
unenforceable and would not ensure that the multipurpose room would not be
used as a classroom.
The landscape screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy
concerns. That “solution” is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent
residential building across from that area of the school and would fail to protect
the privacy of such residents. It would only serve to protect the privacy of the
school but would do the opposite for those residents. Landscape screens are
opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is up close. Such
screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major) that are
completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their
opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or
anywhere close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on
the east side of the adjacent residential building. And, people inside those
residences would not even be able to detect that someone is peeping into their
windows, thus creating the constant concern and anxiety that someone (or even a
hidden camera) could be watching at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive
disruption to the privacy of the people in the adjacent building. The solution is
very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be built. Short of that, don’t
allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short of that, require the
stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the outside side of
the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.
The Applicant should absolutely not be permitted to have valet service. It would
create enormous stress on the neighborhood and only compound the parking and
traffic impact on the neighborhood.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
144 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 21
The City Council Report when in reviewing my Appeal Statement fails to consider issues
brought forth here in this statement and additional issues that I still wish to formulate and
present because:
The City refused to answer my zoning code questions after having committed to me that
it would answer such questions sufficiently in time for me to provide additional follow up
questions that build on such zoning code questions, and sufficiently in advance of
scheduling a hearing date. (See above.)
The City also failed to fulfill my information requests, and in a timely manner.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
145 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
146 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
147 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
148 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Savis Zarrabian <savisesq@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Regina Szilak; Phil Brock
Subject:Appeal 20ENT-0275 (Permit 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066) - 438 San Vicente Blvd.
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Clerk and the Santa Monica City Council
Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to
Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but
for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors and parents parking their
vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.
As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents
to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking
facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.
Throughout the greater Los Angeles and Santa Monica area, street parking is restricted by permit near schools. One
need not look further than the streets adjacent to Santa Monica High School, Santa Monica College and countless other
area schools. However, the streets near and around Carlthorp are open to the public, rendering them available for
Carlthorp’s business use. This is highly inappropriate as it is.
Simply said, the streets are already congested and now overcrowded due to Carlthorp’s expansion over the last few
years. Carlthorp staff, parents and visitors have had a substantively adverse impact on the quality of life for area
residents, who, like us, continually weigh their options when considering a short trip out of fear that there will be no
parking available upon their return.
Any further expansion of Carlthorp will only compound this existing problem. Therefore, we strongly oppose the current
Conditional Use Permit until the school can provide its own private parking for staff, visitors and parents as needed
without over burdening the limited street parking that is available to the area residents.
Thank you.
Ebby & Savis Bakhtiar
Item 6.A 02/22/22
149 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
150 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
151 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
152 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
153 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
154 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
155 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
156 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
157 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
158 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
159 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
160 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
161 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
162 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
163 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
164 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
165 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
166 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
167 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
168 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
169 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
170 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
171 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
172 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
173 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
174 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
175 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
176 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
177 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
178 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
179 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"4' - 0"3' - 8"BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
CLASSROOM -
BREAK OUT ROOM
CLASSROOM -
SPANISH
EXISTING CLASSROOM/
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
CLASSROOM -
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
RESTROOMS
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"HVO5' - 0"EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-B
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-B
BASEMENT FLOOR
PLAN - PARCEL
COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* BASEMENT AREAS SHOWN DO NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION.
FLOORING ABOVE THESE BASEMENT
AREAS ARE ALL 3 FEET OR LESS
ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
180 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
NEW BIKE RACKS
10' - 0"139' - 11"35' - 11"1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING
PARKING CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM PORCH
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATORCLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
EXISTING OPENING AT
END OF UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR TO REMAIN
OPENING IN NEW
WALL AT END OF
EXISTING
UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR
OPEN/UNENCLOSED
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 843 SF
TOTAL NEW MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY):
FIRST FLOOR (MAIN LEVEL):
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 18,536 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =20,998 SF
NEW = 2,462 SF
NEW MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
NOTE: THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY ARE
TREATED AS THE UPPER LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
CALCULATION OF PARCEL COVERAGE PER THE
DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SEE FLOOR LEVEL DIAGRAMS FOR MORE INFO.
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 1,231 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:02 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-B
FIRST (MAIN)
FLOOR PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
181 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/CSEE FIRST FLOOR/
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-B
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
OVERHANG OF ROOFTOP
PLAY COURT ABOVE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
SEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B
THIS PORTION OF STAIR
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
OPENING AT END
OF EXISTING
UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR, SEE
FIRST FLOOR/MAIN
LEVEL PLAN
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,531 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 840 SF
SECOND FLOOR (UPPER LEVEL):
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 16,985 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 16,985 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =18,516 SF
NEW = 1,531 SF
90% OF MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE
ALLOWED BASED ON MINOR
MODIFICATION INCREASE TO 45.29% OF
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,516 SF
( < 90 % OF MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE)
20,863.13 SF
x .45
46,362.50 SFMAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE
ALLOWED BY CODE:
18,898.2 SF
x .90
20,998 SF
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 401 SF
MAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE ALLOWED BY
MINOR MODIFICATION (45.29%)
20,998 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:40:02 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-B
SECOND (UPPER)
FLOOR PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
182 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
NEW ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
EXISTING ROOF
PL
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW
OFFICES
BELOW
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:06 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-B
ROOF PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE
TO THE LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
183 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
NEW ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAY COURT
EXISTING PARKING
EXISTING
CLASSROOMS 8' - 0"30' - 0"PLAY COURT
STORAGE
INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
CLASSROOM
MAIN LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL 3' - 0"NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND BUILDING
ENVELOPE 7' - 6"7' - 0"9' - 6"5' - 6"3' - 0"5' - 3"(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Basement Floor Lower
+89' -8"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
NEW ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
EXISTING
PARKING
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADDITION
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
BEYOND
NEW ENCLOSURE OF
EXISTING LUNCH SEATING 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"2' - 6"3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 3"7' - 7"EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUILDING
30' - 0"UPPER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LIBRARY
UPPER LEVEL
CLASSROOM
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM
PORCH
NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE
(THIS PORTION OF
CLASSROOM PORCH
IS ON MAIN/FIRST
LEVEL)
(THIS PORTION
OF CLASSROOM
PORCH IS ON
UPPER/SECOND
LEVEL)
CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)&(G)OPEN 8' - 0"INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE 5' - 3"SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:39:07 PM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A300-B/C
SECTION DIAGRAMS
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1
E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT LEVEL
DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"2
N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &
ELEVATED COURT - LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
SMMC 9.52.020.0180 Attic. The area less than 7 feet in height, located above the ceiling
of the top story and below the roof that is not usable as habitable or commercial space and is
not accessible via a permanent access structure. An attic shall not be considered a story.
Item 6.A 02/22/22
184 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+97'-3"
PL
+89'-8"
+89'-8"
LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
BREAK OUT
ROOM
SPANISH
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS & SHOWERS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
5' - 0"5' - 0"
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
LOWER LEVEL (+97' -3")
+0' -0"
-7' -7"
-5' -7"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-C
BASEMENT FLOOR
LEVEL DIAGRAM
(LOWER LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
185 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
MAIN LEVEL
+0' -0"
MAIN LEVEL (+107' -6")
+0' -0"
+1' -3"
-6' -0"CLASSROOM
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING PARKING
CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
CLASSROOM PORCH
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:38:02 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-C
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL
DIAGRAM (MAIN
LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
186 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
UPPER LEVEL (+119' -6")
+0' -0"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/CSEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-C
-9' -6"
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATORSEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-C
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:05 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-C
SECOND FLOOR
LEVEL DIAGRAM
(UPPER LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
187 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
EXISTING ROOF
NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW
OFFICES
BELOW
PL
ROOFTOP PLAY COURT
126' -6"
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:08 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-C
ROOF PLAN LEVEL
DIAGRAM
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
Item 6.A 02/22/22
188 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
189 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
190 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
191 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
192 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
193 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
194 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
195 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
196 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
197 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
198 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
199 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
200 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
201 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
202 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
203 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
204 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
205 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
206 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Item 6.A 02/22/22
207 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
208 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
209 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
210 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
211 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
212 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
213 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
214 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
215 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
216 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
217 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
218 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
219 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
220 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
221 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
222 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
223 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
224 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
225 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
226 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
227 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
228 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
229 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
230 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
231 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
232 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
233 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
234 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
235 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
236 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
237 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
238 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
239 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
240 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
241 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
242 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
243 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
244 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
245 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
246 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
247 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
248 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
249 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
250 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
251 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
252 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
253 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
254 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
255 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
256 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
257 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
258 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
259 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
260 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
261 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
262 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
263 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
264 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
265 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
266 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
267 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning
Item 6.A 02/22/22
268 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission
Item 6.A 02/22/22
269 of 269 Item 6.A 02/22/22
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Written Comments (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 1 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: ADD-TO: Supplement to Appellant's Appeal Statement Received 2/22/22 Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,531 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 840 SF
SECOND FLOOR (UPPER LEVEL):
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 16,985 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 16,985 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =18,516 SF
NEW = 1,531 SF
90% OF MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE
ALLOWED BASED ON MINOR
MODIFICATION INCREASE TO 45.29% OF
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,516 SF
( < 90 % OF MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE)
20,863.13 SF
x .45
46,362.50 SFMAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE
ALLOWED BY CODE:
18,898.2 SF
x .90
20,998 SF
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 401 SF
MAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE ALLOWED BY
MINOR MODIFICATION (45.29%)
20,998 SF
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 843 SF
TOTAL NEW MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY):
FIRST FLOOR (MAIN LEVEL):
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 18,536 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =20,998 SF
NEW = 2,462 SF
NEW MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
NOTE: THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY ARE
TREATED AS THE UPPER LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
CALCULATION OF PARCEL COVERAGE PER THE
DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SEE FLOOR LEVEL DIAGRAMS FOR MORE INFO.
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 1,231 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
PROJECT NAME:
ADDRESS:
OWNER:
CONTACT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZONING:
EXISTING USE:
PROPOSED USE:
EXISTING ENROLLMENT:
PROPOSED ENROLLMENT:
EXISTING HOURS OF
OPERATION:
PROPOSED HOURS OF
OPERATION:
EXISTING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED HEIGHT:
EXISTING # OF
CLASSROOMS:
PROPOSED # OF
CLASSROOMS:
PROJECT INFORMATION
CARLTHORP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SUPPORT
SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
438 SAN VICENTE BLVD.
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
CARLTHORP SCHOOL
NOLA-RAE CRONAN, HEAD OF SCHOOL
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM TO BE ADDED BELOW
GRADE. AN ELEVATED PLAYCOURT TO BE ADDED
ABOVE EXISTING SECOND-FLOOR CLASSROOMS
ALONG REAR ALLEY. NEW SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION OFFICES TO BE BUILT ALONG
INTERIOR COURTYARD ABOVE EXISTING LUNCH
SEATING AREA TO BE ENCLOSED. NO ADDITIONAL
CLASSROOMS, ENROLLMENT CAPACITY OR
FACULTY.
R2 / SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD COURTYARD
APARTMENTS HISTORIC DISTRICT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (K-6), GROUP E
NO CHANGE
40 STUDENTS PER GRADE, TYP.
NO CHANGE
8:00am - 3:00pm
NO CHANGE
30' ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE
NO CHANGE
22
NO CHANGE
32 SPACES (+2 ACCESSIBLE STALLS)
TANDEM SPACES APPROVED PER VAR95-022
NO CHANGE
21 SHORT TERM (1.5 / 20 STUDENTS)
11 LONG TERM (0.5 / CLASSROOM)
TOTAL: 32 SPACES
BIKE RACK AT FRONT ENTRY (12 SPACES)
BIKE RACK AT REAR PARKING (8 SPACES)
TOTAL: 20 SPACES
11 ADD'L SHORT TERM BIKE SPACES AT ENTRY
11 LONG TERM BIKE LOCKERS
TOTAL: 22 SPACES
FRONT YARD: 20'
SIDE YARD: 8' MIN (10' AVERAGE)
REAR YARD: 15' (TO CENTERLINE OF ALLEY)
FRONT YARD: 21'-1"
SIDE YARD: 16'-2" (WEST)
5'-8" (EAST)
REAR YARD: 16'-4" (TO CENTERLINE OF ALLEY)
FRONT YARD: NO CHANGE
SIDE YARD: 10'-2" (WEST)
NO CHANGE (EAST)
REAR YARD: 15'-0" (TO CENTERLINE OF ALLEY)
FLOOD ZONE X
185.69, 183.77, 190.36, 188.55
748.37 / 4 = 187.09 ANG
ON-SITE URBAN RUNOFF
DETENTION/PERCOLATION SYSTEM TO BE ADDED
AS REQUIRED PER CODE.
EXISTING PARKING:
PROPOSED PARKING:
REQUIRED BIKE PARKING:
EXISTING BIKE PARKING:
PROPOSED BIKE PARKING:
REQUIRED SETBACKS:
EXISTING SETBACKS:
PROPOSED SETBACKS:
FLOOD ZONE:
AVERAGE NATURAL
GRADE::
STORMWATER FILTRATION:
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW SET (BASED
ON PLANNING
COMMISSION
APPROVAL)
2/8/22 12:58:01 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A000
COVER
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS**Application to Amend Existing CUP for Existing Elementary School
CARLTHORP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCEFOR PURPOSES OF CEQA EXEMPTION
BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
GROUND/2ND FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
2ND FLOOR/ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED
GROUND/2ND FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED
2ND FLOOR/ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED
ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED
BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR PLAN - DEMO
GROUND/2ND FLOOR PLAN - DEMO
2ND FLOOR/ROOF PLAN - DEMO
ROOF PLAN - DEMO
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
wat e r
line
handicap
parking
handicap parking
1 8 8
186
184
1
8
4
184
186
191
192
1 9 0
190
185
1 9 0
234.00
tpp
227.62
HP
227.68
HP
227.61
HP
234.68
HP
234.10
HP
234.52
HP
226.73
ARM
227.78
HP222.21
TPP
209.33
UT211.02
UT
207.80
UT
228.43
HP
228.46
HP
228.69
HP
203.64
UT
208.62
UT
203.78
UT
207.42
UT209.35
UT
231.87
HP228.47
HP
231.59
TPP
207.24
UT
208.12
UT203.95
UT
231.81
HP213.69
HP219.80
HP
228.40
HP228.26
HP
213.76
HP
231.86
HP
219.75
HP 213.62
HP
221.34
HP221.54
HP
221.52
HP
225.22
HP225.31
HP
8" vcp sanitary sewer on centerline 10.00'N 42° 37' 24" E
213.07'
N 42° 06' 00" E
213.11' 10.00'N 47° 52' 56" W293.55'N 42° 37' 24" E
1342.43'
213.07' 218.55'N 47° 53' 43" W291.60' 216.60'CL
PROPOSED ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
PROPOSED
ADDITION
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PROPOSED STAIR WITH
LANDSCAPED SCREENING
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
SAN VICENTE BLVD
GEORGINA PL
FUTURE SOLAR
PANELS
PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"15' - 0"
TRASH &
RECYCLING9' - 0"5' - 0"18' - 0"11' - 4"8' - 1"**ALLEY UTILITY LINES TO BE RELOCATED
UNDERGROUND
HEDGE
HEIGHT
20'
8' TALL
HEDGE
TREE PROTECTION ZONE
(10' FROM DRIPLINE)
1 0 ' - 0 "21' - 1"213' - 0"216' - 4"10' - 2"
OF ALLEY
PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
(11 ADDITIONAL SPACES)
5' - 8"'
CL
EXISTING BIKE RACKS
12 SPACES
TO CL OF ALLEY15' - 0" MINSHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW SET (BASED
ON PLANNING
COMMISSION
APPROVAL)
2/8/22 12:58:03 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A001
PLOT PLAN
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1PLOT PLAN N
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
4/23/20 3:49:19 PM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A001
SITE SURVEY
200421 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSN
05.12.2004.20.22
SW CORNER:
183.77' (SURVEY)
101.15' (PERMIT DOCS)
SE CORNER:
185.81(SURVEY)
103.19' (PERMIT DOCS)
NE CORNER:
190.36'(SURVEY)
107.74' (PERMIT DOCS)
NW CORNER:
188.55' (SURVEY)
105.93' (PERMIT DOCS)
ANG PER SURVEY
(BASED ON SMMC AT TIME OF PREVIOUS
PERMITS)
(188.55' + 190.36' + 185.81' + 183.77') / 4 =
187.12'
ANG PER SURVEY
(BASED ON CURRENT SMMC)
(189.34' + 191.92' + 185.97' + 184.02') / 4 =
187.81’
ANG PER PERMIT DOCS
104.5'
DIFFERENCE FACTOR = 82.62'
NE CORNER:
191.92'(SURVEY)
109.3' (PERMIT DOCS)
NW CORNER:
189.34' (SURVEY)
106.72' (PERMIT DOCS)
SW CORNER:
184.02'(SURVEY)
101.4' (PERMIT DOCS)
SE CORNER:
185.97'(SURVEY)
103.35' (PERMIT DOCS)
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:49 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A002
SITE CONTEXT
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSCARLTHORP
05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
PARKING - 32 STALLS
STORAGE
BREAK OUT ROOM
SPANISH
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
1
17
2
18
3
19
4
20
5
21
6
22
7
23
8
24
9
25
10
26
11
27
12
28
13
29
14
30
15
31
16
32
(ASSIGNED TANDEM PARKING
TO FACULTY/STAFF)
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
READING
ROOM
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
BIKE STORAGE - 8 SPACES
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:50 AM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A100
LOWER LEVEL
FLOOR -EXISTING
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING N
05.12.2004.20.22
EXISTING
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
DN
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -4TH GRADE CLASSROOM -4TH GRADE CLASSROOM -3RD GRADE CLASSROOM -3RD GRADE CLASSROOM -2ND GRADE CLASSROOM -2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
EXISTING ARTIFICIAL
TURF PLAYFIELD
6' - 0"7' - 2"5' - 8"
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
FLAGPOLE
OUTDOOR LUNCH AREA
EXISTING BASKETBALL
COURT
EXISTING
KINDERGARTEN
PLAYCOURTHEDGEPL
GATE ENTRANCE
HEDGE
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
16' - 2"21' - 1"CL OF ALLEY16' - 4"SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:50 AM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A101
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
- EXISTING
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVEL PLAN - EXISTING N
05.12.2004.20.22
EXISTING
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
LIBRARY
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
ART ROOM
READING ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADEOFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
PL
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:51 AM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A102
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN - EXISTING
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVEL PLAN - EXISTING N
05.12.2004.20.22
EXISTING
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
PL
ROOFTOP MECH EQUIP
ROOFTOP MECH EQUIP
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:52 AM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A103
ROOF PLAN -
EXISTING
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
N
05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
+97'-3"
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
+97'-3"
+101'-6"
FOOTPRINT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION ABOVE
PL
1
17
2
18
3
19
4
20
5
21
6
22
7
EVCS
23
8
EVCS
24
9
25
10
26
11
27
12
28
13 14
30
15
31
16
32
+89'-8"
+89'-8"4' - 0"3' - 8"LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"PROPOSED
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
26' - 8"22' - 10"26' - 8"26' - 8"26' - 8"26' - 8"
PARKING - 32 STALLS
STORAGE
BREAK OUT ROOM
SPANISH
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
(ASSIGNED TANDEM PARKING
TO FACULTY/STAFF)
STORAGE
FACILITIES OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
8' - 1"
(E) BIKE STORAGE
65' - 6"75' - 11"22' - 9"130' - 3"
EXISTING READING ROOM TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS & SHOWERS
PROPOSED STAIR
AND PARTITION
CORRIDOR
5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"TYPPROVIDE 5' x 5' HVO TRIANGLE
CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS ABOVE 24" IN HEIGHT PER SMMC
9.21.180
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
(ELECTRIC
VEHICLE
CHARGING STATION)
INDICATES NEW CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
4/23/20 3:49:19 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120
LOWER LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN -
PROPOSED
200421 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED NHVOHVOHVO05.12.2004.20.22
PROPOSED
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
UPUPDNDNDN UP63' - 0"NEW ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING LUNCH SEATING AND/OR ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
OUTLINE OF ELEVATED
COURT ABOVE
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PL
ARTIFICIAL TURF PLAYFIELD
5' - 8"21' - 1"PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
(E) SHORT TERM BIKE STORAGE
12 SPACES
GATE ENTRANCE
FLAGPOLE
HEDGE
HEDGESCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
26' - 8"26' - 8"21' - 4"26' - 8"26' - 8"22' - 10"26' - 8"15' - 0"CL OF ALLEY16' - 4"16' - 2"
10' - 2"
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM
BIKE STORAGE
12 SPACES
11 (N) LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE LOCKERS
(DERO 300 SERIES OR EQUAL)
(VISIBLE FROM EMPLOYEE WORK AREA PER SMMC 9.28.140(F))2' - 6"BETWEEN SPACES
24" TYP
INDICATES NEW CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
5/12/20 6:44:32 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121
MAIN LEVEL PLAN -
PROPOSED
05.12.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVEL PLAN - PROPOSED
N
STAIR WITHLANDSCAPEDSCREEN
DN
04.20.22
PROPOSED
CLASSROOM FLOOR TOBE DEMOLISHED AND
REBUILT AT +105' - 8" WITHRAMP FOR ACCESS
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
DN
1A300
63' - 0"133' - 5"
A200
1
13' - 0"
1A301
PROPOSED ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
UPPER LEVEL
+119'-6"
+119'-6"
+126'-6"
A200
2
A201
1
A201
2
A200
3
2
A301 13' - 0" 13' - 0"13' - 0" 11' - 3"
PROPOSEDADMIN
OFFICES
PL
LIBRARY
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
ART ROOM
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
5' - 0"74' - 0"6' - 8"
NEW CONSTUCTION
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:53 AM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN - PROPOSED
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVEL PLAN - PROPOSED N
05.12.20
STAIR WITHLANDSCAPEDSCREEN
11' - 5"32' - 3"61' - 9"+119'-6"
PROPOSED
ADMIN
OFFICES
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
O
O
O
DN
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
TRELLISED
WALKWAY
17' - 2"13' - 3"32' - 3"
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
04.20.22
PROPOSED
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
1A300
2
A300
A200
1
1A301
A200
2
A201
1
A201
2
A200
3
2A301
138' - 5"68' - 5"PROPOSED ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
EXISTING ROOF
PL
FUTURE SOLAR PANELS
NEW CONSTUCTION
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:25:54 AM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123
ROOF PLAN -
PROPOSED
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED
N
05.12.20
STAIR WITHLANDSCAPEDSCREEN
PROPOSEDELEVATOR
TRELLISED
WALKWAY BELOW
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
04.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) Main Level
+107' -6"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"
PROPOSED
OPEN-AIR COURT (BEHIND)
PROPOSED
STAIR
3' - 0" 12' - 0" 7' - 0" 3' - 10" 3' - 9"
EXISTING STRUCTURE BEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
OPEN
TOBEYOND
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR BEYOND
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) Main Level
+107' -6"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"
PROPOSED
OPEN-AIR COURT
(BEHIND)
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR BEYOND
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PROPOSED
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES
PROPOSED ENCLOSURE
OF LUNCH AREA 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"12' - 0"3' - 0"OPEN
TO BEYOND
EXISTING
ROOF BEYOND
ADJACENT BUILDING BEYONDEXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED
STAIR
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) Main Level
+107' -6"(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"12' - 0"3' - 0"PROPOSED
OPEN-AIR COURT (BEHIND)
PROPOSED
STAIR
EXISTING STRUCTURE
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
OPEN
TO
BEYOND
OPEN
TO
BEYOND27' - 6"27' - 6"PROPOSED
ELEVATOR BEYOND
NEW CONSTUCTION
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:00 AM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A200
ELEVATIONS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"3NORTH ELEVATION - FROM SAN VICENTE
05.12.20
PROPOSED OPEN-AIR PLAY COURT
BEHIND
PROPOSEDELEVATOR
BEYOND
PROPOSEDSTAIREXTERIOR PLASTER WITH TEXTURED
FINISH OR MURAL
WITH LANDSCAPED SCREEN
WITH LANDSCAPED SCREEN
WITH LANDSCAPED SCREENWITH LANDSCAPED SCREEN
WITH LANDSCAPED SCREEN
04.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) Main Level
+107' -6"
(E) A.N.G.+104' -6"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"
PROPOSED OPEN-AIR
COURT (BEHIND)
PROPOSED
STAIR
PROPOSED ELEVATOR
3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"12' - 0"3' - 0"OPEN
TO BEYOND
OPEN
TO BEYOND
OPEN
TO
BEYOND
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) Main Level
+107' -6"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"12' - 0"3' - 0"EXISTING STRUCTUREPROPOSED ELEVATED COURT
NEW CONSTUCTION
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:03 AM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A201
ELEVATIONS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION - FROM COURTYARD
1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION
05.12.20
WITH LANDSCAPED SCREEN
04.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
T ectonic Cop yright 2007T ectonic Cop yright 2007
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) Lower Level Floor
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Main Level Upper
+110' -0"
Lower Level Base
+89' -8"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
2A300
16' - 4"(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"
PROPOSED
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
PROPOSED
ELEVATED COURT
(OPEN TO SKY)
PROPOSED STAIR
EXISTING DANCE
CLASSROOM 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"2' - 6"7' - 7"10' - 3"EXISTING BUILDING BEYOND 30' - 0"EXISTING BUILDING BEYOND
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR BEYOND
(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) Lower Level Floor
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Lower Level Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) Main Level Upper
+110' -0"
1
A300
Lower Level Base
+89' -8"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
PROPOSED ELEVATED OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT
1
A301
(E) Top of Court
+126' -6"
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
EXISTINGPARKING
PROPOSED
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE
ADDITION
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR BEYOND
PROPOSED ENCLOSURE OF
EXISTING LUNCH SEATING
2
A301
3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"2' - 6"3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 3"7' - 7"EXISTING
STRUCTURE
EXISTING BUILDING
30' - 0"3' - 9"NEW CONSTUCTION
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:05 AM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A300
SECTIONS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1E/W SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
1/8" = 1'-0"2
N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &
ELEVATED COURT 05.12.20
WITH LANDSCAPED SCREEN
04.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
12' - 0"PROPOSED
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADDITION
PROPOSEDDINING AREA 8' - 6"(E) Upper Level
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) Main Level
+107' -6"
(E) Lower Level Floor
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) Main Level Upper+110' -0"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
2
A300
(E) Top of Court+126' -6"
PROPOSED
ELEVATED COURT
EXISTING PARKING
EXISTING CLASSROOMS 8' - 0"NEW CONSTUCTION
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:06 AM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A301
SECTIONS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1SECTION THROUGH ADMIN ADDITION
1/8" = 1'-0"2E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT
EXTERIOR PLASTER
METAL CHANNEL & SCREEN,
POWDER COATED
PLEXIGLAS PANEL
STRUCTURAL WALL
1/8" = 1'-0"1SECTION THROUGH ADMIN ADDITION
3" = 1'-0"
PLAY COURT OPENING DETAIL 5
05.12.20
PROPOSED
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADDITION
TRELLISED
WALKWAY
MOUNTED TO TOP ORSIDE OF WALL
04.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
+97'-3"
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
+101'-6"
PL
PARKING - 32 STALLS
STORAGE
BREAK OUT ROOM
SPANISH
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
(ASSIGNED TANDEM PARKING
TO FACULTY/STAFF)
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
READING ROOM
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
BIKE STORAGE - 8 SPACES
DEMOLISHED
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:08 AM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402D100
LOWER LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN -
DEMO
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - DEMO N
05.12.2004.20.22
DEMO
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
DN
DN
DN
UPUPDNDNDN UPPL
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
GATE ENTRANCE
FLAGPOLE
HEDGE
HEDGESCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
DEMOLISHED
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/25/19 2:21:17 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402D101
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
- DEMO
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1MAIN LEVEL PLAN - DEMO N
05.12.2004.20.22
DEMO
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
63' - 0"133' - 5"
UPPER LEVEL
+119'-6"39' - 0"12' - 11"10' - 5"PL
LIBRARY
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
ART ROOM
READING ROOM
CLASSROOM -5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -5TH GRADEOFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
DEMOLISHED
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:09 AM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402D102
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN - DEMO
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVEL PLAN - DEMO
N
05.12.2004.20.22
DEMO
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
PL
DEMOLISHED
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:10 AM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402D103
ROOF PLAN - DEMO
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN - DEMO
N
05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:06 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.01
RENDERINGS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSAERIAL VIEW - EXISTING + NEW CONSTRUCTION
05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:06 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.02
RENDERINGS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSVIEW FROM CENTRAL COURTYARD - EXISTING + NEW CONSTRUCTION
05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:06 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.03
RENDERINGS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSITE PLAN - EXISTING + NEW CONSTRUCTION
05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:06 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.04
SITE PHOTOS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSCOURTYARD VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST
COURTYARD VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST
COURTYARD VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST
COURTYARD VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST TOWARD SAN VICENTE 05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:07 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.05
SITE PHOTOS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSEAST SIDE OF SITE
EAST SIDE OF SITE
SOUTH SIDE OF SITE - GEORGINA PL N ACCESS TO PARKING
SOUTH SIDE OF SITE - GEORGINA PL N, ACCESS TO PARKING 05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:07 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.06
SITE PHOTOS
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSWEST SIDE OF SITE
VIEW FROM SAN VICENTE 05.12.2004.20.22
102.67'
(Adjacent grade,
low point)
Existing floor at 107.5' to be
removed
New Floor at 105.67'
ANG
104.5'3' - 0"5' - 8"Less than
40% of wall
surface is
exposed
Extents of wall
below grade
Basement Storage Diagram at Alley (South) Elevation
103.25'
(Adjacent grade,
low point)AN
G
10
4
.
5
'
Extents of wall
below grade
Existing floor at 107.5' to be
removed
New Floor at 105.67'2' - 5"Less than
40% of wall
surface is
exposed
Basement Storage Diagram at East Elevation
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
1625 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
9/11/19 11:26:07 AM CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402AP.07
PRECEDENT
IMAGERY
06.20.19 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS05.12.2004.20.22
6.A.j
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Carlthorp School Planning Commission plan set 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
Consultants in Acoustics | Noise | Vibration | AV | IT
1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel: 310.450.1733 • fax: 310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com
May 27, 2020
KFA, LLP
3573 Hayden Avenue
Century City, California 90232
Attention: Wade Killefer
Subject: Carlthorp Support Space Improvements
Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
Dear Wade:
Veneklasen Associates (Veneklasen) has completed a noise impact assessment of the Support Space Improvements
proposed for Carlthorp School located in Santa Monica, California. The purpose of this evaluation was to model
potential noise impacts on adjacent residential uses as a result of activity that will occur on the proposed rooftop
playground and determine if modifications are needed to reduce noise levels to City Municipal Code Noise Limits. This
report sets forth the results of our findings.
History and Project Manager
Founded in 1947, Veneklasen Associates is one of the largest acoustical consulting firms in the United States. Our
services encompass architectural acoustics, audio-visual (AV), information technology (IT), environmental noise and
vibration mitigation. As a sole source for building sound quality and data management, our technical and professional
standards have been developed through the design of literally thousands of buildings worldwide:
• Civic & Government Agencies • Hotels, Resorts & Casinos
• Courthouses & Public Safety • Studios & Entertainment Facilities
• Education - College & University + K-12 • Condominiums & Apartments
• Commercial Buildings & Corporate Interiors • Concert Halls & Performing Arts Complexes
• Transportation, including Airports & Rail • Medical Centers & Hospitals
• Museums & Cultural Centers • Places of Worship
Our staff is carefully balanced, consisting of professionals with degrees in acoustics, physics, engineering, and
architecture. With approximately 60 employees we are large enough to have a wealth of expertise to be shared, and
small enough to ensure that each project is directed by a principal or senior associate. We are unique in that we own
and maintain a comprehensive complement of scientific measurement and analysis tools including sound level meters,
noise monitors, logging devices, field computers, vibration measurement equipment and data analytic software.
Finally, Veneklasen Associates is a State of California (DGS) Certified Small Business and a qualified SBE within GSA
guidelines.
John LoVerde is known throughout the country for his work as an acoustical consultant as well as his leadership in testing,
research, and reporting methodology, particularly in the fields of building and environmental acoustics. John has lent his
expertise to the design of educational buildings, multifamily residential developments, performance venues, hotels and
resorts, office campuses and hospitals. He has served as Project Manager for many notable projects and is often called
upon to provide expert testimony. On average, John manages the design and construction of approximately 200 projects
per year.
After obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona (1989), John went on to earn a Master’s Degree in Acoustics from the University of California, Los Angeles. At
UCLA he worked on the link between acoustical energy and listener reaction to sound within auditoria. Since his
consultant career began at Veneklasen Associates in 1989, John has published over 100 technical papers. He teaches and
lectures internationally, presenting at the last fourteen meetings of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA). In November
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise; VA Project No.3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 2 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
2009 he was appointed to ASA’s Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, and in 2013 John was further recognized
in the field as a full Member of the ASA. In June of 2018, John became a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America with
citing the following: “For contribution to quantification and understanding of building response to sound and impact.”
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to assess the potential acoustical impact of the support space changes proposed to
the Carlthorp campus, a private non-profit K-6 school that has been operating in this multifamily
neighborhood since 1941. Veneklasen’s scope of work included (A) measuring the exterior noise levels
currently occurring at the site, (B) calculating future conditions assuming the proposed outdoor
improvements and (C) developing method(s), if any, required to reduce the future exterior sound levels to
comport with the applicable Municipal Code requirements for residential districts of the City of Santa Monica.
The Support Space Improvements proposed for Carlthorp campus include the following: relocating the
playset and court areas of the current outdoor playground to a new roof above classrooms at the rear of the
property, expanding the ground level Playturf area, enclosing the plastic blue-tented unenclosed lunch area
(while constructing new administrative offices above), and expanding the subterranean multi-purpose room
under a portion of the Playturf along San Vicente Boulevard. Of these, the play court area on the roof has the
potential to disturb adjacent residential neighbors due to noise from outdoor exercises, school events and
playtime by the supervised elementary students (Grades K-6) who will be using it from 8 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday through Friday.
Figure 1: Campus Views Current (left) and Future (right)
The school campus is surrounded by residential buildings to the east (3-story condominium), west (2-story
apartment building), and south (single family homes along the north side of Georgina Avenue across the 20’-
wide alley (Georgina Place) behind the school). The city considers residential uses as noise sensitive
receptors. The campus fronts on the 130’ wide San Vicente Boulevard and center median to the north.
2.0 NOISE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.12.060 states that the allowable noise level in Noise Zone I is 60 dBA
for a 15-minute period during the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM Monday through Friday, unless the ambient noise
conditions are higher. There is a 5-dBA penalty for noises consisting of speech or music, which would apply
here to the elementary play court. For a maximum event, or instantaneous noise, the noise limit increases by
20 dBA above the specified threshold.
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 3 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
Therefore, the noise limit for playground noise impacting residential neighbors is 55 dBA for continuous noise
and 75 dBA for instantaneous sounds. For this playground, the sound generated is expected to be a
combination of verbal communication and balls bouncing off of surfaces. The school also has an outdoor
speaker system. Two speakers face one another in the school’s interior courtyard; those speakers are used
for a brief morning greeting from the school administrator on school days before classes begin. The
remainder of the exterior speakers will be used only in the event of emergencies and are not relevant to this
study.
3.0 ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS
Veneklasen measured existing outdoor playground conditions, the ambient conditions, and the PA system.
On November 6, 2019, Veneklasen measured existing playground conditions at the outdoor play areas for a
continuous period of 40 minutes, which included lunch hour with outdoor playtime, encompassing two
playgroups, 5th and 3rd grades followed by 6th and 4th grades. The continuous 15-minutes average for the
entire playground was 76 dBA, with loudest events of 90-94 dBA measured directly with no barriers or other
attenuation measures.
The noise level on the turf playfield is lower due to the open environment, foliage, and soft artificial turf
groundcover, on average 72 dBA and 86-90 dBA events. Any acoustical difference in the surface, between a
prior natural grass field and the current artificial turf would be negligible and generally not acoustically
detectable. A minimum detectable change for exterior noise is 3 dBA and the difference between these two
surfaces would be less than 3 dBA.
On November 1, 2019, Veneklasen measured the ambient conditions in the alley behind the school, which
represents the closest property lines to the roof-playground area, was 44 dBA for a 15-minute period during
lunchtime. Traffic noise in the alley/Georgina Place is limited, as it only serves parking spaces on the backside
of the school and single and multi-family residential buildings. Since the ambient sound measured is currently
below the exterior noise level allowed for residential districts of 60 dBA; the reduced 55 dBA threshold for
school-related activities remains the criteria per the City Municipal Code.
On May 4, 2020, Veneklasen measured the PA system on the grounds of the school, using a news podcast
broadcast over the system. The current system consists of three sets of two small wall-mounted
loudspeakers. One set faces west over the current playground and is rarely used (Existing Field Zone), one set
is on either side of the current lunch area and will be removed with the enclosure of the lunchroom (Existing
Tables Zone), and the third set is on either side of the current basketball court (Existing Court Zone); the
latter two are used for morning announcements only, with all in attendance on the court. Figure 2 displays
these sound zones. Each set can be activated independently. All three were active during testing.
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 4 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
Figure 2: Sound Zones
The Tables and Court Zones ranged from 50 – 70 dBA on the court during the podcast, depending on the
newscaster inflections and distance from the loudspeaker; the levels were communicated to be at a typical
volume. The average noise level was 60 dBA and the loudest events were 72 dBA measured directly with no
barriers or other attenuation measures.
At the time of the morning announcements, the students are not at play, so the sound level is not elevated
above 55 dBA and 75 dBA, which is within the limits of the Municipal Code.
Figure 3: Rooftop Playground Speakers
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 5 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
4.0 ENCLOSURE AND SURFACE ANALYSIS
Upper Area
The proposed rooftop play court area will have a continuous 8 foot high perimeter enclosure for safety.
When a plexiglass panel is modeled, not an open fence, it will act as a barrier for noise in addition to its safety
function. Based on computer modelling, this barrier, combined with distance from the play court to the
nearest residential uses, will provide suitable noise reduction to the nearby receivers including noise from the
surface. Our analysis indicates absorptive panels are not required to ensure that the noise limits established by
the Municipal Code for residential zones are not exceeded.
Our quantitative analysis is depicted below in Figure 4 along with the proposed plexiglass detail show in
Figure 5. Sound level prediction detail is presented in Table 1: calibrated for distance from noise source and
difference in elevation. Elevations match the elevations on the drawings provided by KFA Architects as closely
as possible.
Figure 4: Analysis Process
Receiver 3 (condo
3rd floor) @ 133 ft
elevation, distance
from source 45 ft
Source Area @ 126 ft elevation Receiver 2
(apartment 2nd
floor) @ 123 ft
elevation, distance
from source 30 ft
Receiver 1 (standing person) @ 106 ft
elevation, distance from source 40 ft
Barrier around Play Court
Source Area @ 103 ft elevation
Receiver 4
(apartment 2nd
floor) @ 123 ft
elevation, distance
from source 20 ft
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 6 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
Figure 5: Proposed Plexiglass Detail
Table 1: Upper Enclosure Analysis (Typical Activity)
Receiver Barrier Height/Elevation Calculated Level,
dBA
Code Limit,
dBA Compliance?
1
8 ft / 132 ft
34 avg / 51 max
55 avg / 75 max
Yes / Yes
2 40 avg / 57 max Yes / Yes
3 44 avg / 61 max Yes / Yes
With the barrier as shown and including 2 layers of plexiglass, all calculated average and maximum noise
levels from activities on the proposed rooftop play court would be well within the noise limits of the
Municipal Code under typical activity.
Field Area
For the field, the surrounding conditions remain. In 2000, the surface of the playfield was changed from
natural grass to artificial turf, which does not produce a calculable noise effect at the property line.
Therefore, the field conditions did not alter the noise at the property line. The calculation to the property line
is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Field Analysis
Receiver Calculated Level,
dBA
Code Limit,
dBA Compliance?
4 (typical activity) 54 avg / 71 max 55 avg / 75 max Yes / Yes
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Veneklasen Associates
KFA, LLP; Santa Monica, CA
Carlthorp Property Line Noise
Veneklasen Project No. 3055-046
May 27, 2020; Page 7 of 7
www.veneklasen.com
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis, a minimum solid parapet barrier as shown in Figure 4 of 8 feet around the perimeter of
the rooftop play court area is recommended; Veneklasen understands that such a parapet wall is currently
planned. The parapet wall can be any solid material 2 pounds per square foot (such as stucco or wood). The
proposed detail shown in Figure 5 for intermittent transparency is acoustically acceptable as long as there are
2 layers of plexiglass installed; any openings for water drainage are recommended to flow interior to the
campus. The plexiglass panel will be approved in the submittal process.
Based on our analysis, absorptive panels such as https://kineticsnoise.com/knp/perforated-metal-panels.html
could be incorporated into the design of the play court walls, but are not required to remain below the noise
limits established by the Municipal Code for residential districts such as this location.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Veneklasen analyzed the potential noise impact of the proposed play areas on adjacent sensitive receptors.
Analysis included noise from children’s activity and use of loudspeaker (PA) system. The Santa Monica Noise
Ordinance was used to assess impact and calculate compliance. Veneklasen measured the existing ambient
noise level, the sound level with the presence of children playing outdoors during typical recess and PA
system use. This recess activity and PA system use constitutes comparable conditions to the proposed play
areas, except that the rooftop location is elevated which establishes greater distance from most of the
sensitive receptors. This collected data was then used to construct a computer model assessing the noise
level of the proposed play areas at the sensitive receptors on the east, west and south. The field areas comply
with the Code requirements, while the rooftop play court should be compliant if surrounded with the 8 foot
high barrier of intermittent transparent plexiglass panel having two layers with detailing shown in Figure 5.
Based on study, with such a perimeter wall, the noise levels predicted for the rooftop play court area will not
exceed the noise limits of Santa Monica Noise Ordinance at all sensitive receptor residential locations. In
Veneklasen’s professional opinion the incorporation of a described barrier that is 8 feet tall will ensure full
compliance with the residential limits imposed by the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance.
Please feel free to contact us with any follow up questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
John LoVerde, FASA
Principal
6.A.k
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Veneklasen Noise Impact Assessment 05.27.2020 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
From:riverfred1@gmail.com
To:Regina Szilak
Subject:Carlthorp School
Date:Sunday, February 27, 2022 9:35:35 AM
EXTERNAL
In regards to the recent notice of expansion, when will the parking garage be restored for parking if
ever? The residents were not notified of the change as it appears to be used for parties. I assume the
employees park on nearby streets.
Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
Riverfred1@gmail.com
6.A.l
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
From:Vernice Hankins
To:Regina Szilak
Subject:FW: Carlthorp School Appeal 20ENT-0275
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 3:16:05 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Paige Segal <paige_segal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp School Appeal 20ENT-0275
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I oppose the expansion of the Carlthorp School. This causes a lot of disruption in the lives of the fellows who live
here. I live directly across the street from Carlthorp, 425 San Vicente Blvd. For some, the noise alone is a huge
issue. For me, it’s the parking. The expansion of the school, means a bigger staff, and less space to fit all our cars. I
live with my husband and my child. Circling the block several times to find a spot near my house is a huge issue.
Please spot this plan for moving forward.
Thank you for your time,
Paige Segal
819.970.1487
6.A.l
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
From:Vernice Hankins
To:Regina Szilak
Subject:FW: Carlthorp School Appeal
Date:Friday, March 4, 2022 10:48:33 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Brecht <jdbrecht@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp School Appeal
EXTERNAL
City Council,
I am writing to urge you to uphold the appeal against Carlthorp School’s expansion. As a ten year resident of San
Vicente Blvd., I can attest to the fact that the quality of life in our neighborhood is significantly lower when the
school is in session. Given their existing impact on the neighborhood, the idea that the school would expand further
is ludicrous. It is troubling to me that city staff would recommend this expansion.
Specific issues which will impact your constituents in this neighborhood:
- A multipurpose room which will be used for events will bring more traffic, less parking, and more noise.
- A rooftop basketball court will exacerbate the school’s existing noise pollution. They are installing double pane
windows on their school to mitigate the noise they experience in classrooms.
- Years of commercial construction will take place in the middle of an R1 Zone
The school already presents numerous issues which should be curtailed:
- The school has 30 parking spots and 80 staff. Staff of the school take spots away from residents, forcing us to park
far away from our homes.
- The school produces constant noise throughout the day. It can be heard in every room of my home. It is difficult to
work from home. It is difficult to have peace in my home. Please come to San Vicente during a school day and hear
it for yourselves.
- Student pick-up and drop-off cause dangerous traffic situations and even greater parking issues.
This school has a history of bad-faith expansions. They should not be able to expand further.
This school reduces your constituents’ quality of life. Their impact on the Historic San Vicente district should be
investigated by the city.
Thank You,
Jeff Brecht
415 San Vicente Blvd
6.A.l
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
From:Vernice Hankins
To:Regina Szilak
Subject:FW: Carlthorp School Expansion & Rooftop Playcourt.
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:08:07 PM
From: Jim Robertson <j3rbrts@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp School Expansion & Rooftop Playcourt.
EXTERNAL
My name is Jim Robertson and I live next door to the school in unit #306. I oppose expansion of the
school in this quiet residential area and in particular oppose the proposed rooftop playcourt.
Almost every day I go to my rooftop community patio for prayer, quiet meditation, and relaxation. A
ROOFTOP PLAYCOURT would be very disturbing and a huge overreach.
Thank you for hearing my comment and request,
Jim
Email: jimrobertson@aboriginalskills.com
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
6.A.l
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Public Correspondence February 22 - March 8 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
From: Jim Robertson <j3rbrts@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp School addition (Carlthorp School Appeal).
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
This is Jim Robertson, resident of 446 San Vicente Bl, Unit #306, Santa Monica (directly next door to
carlthorp school).
I am opposed to the expansion that Carlthorp School proposes (gymnasium on roof, etc.)
We already have excessive noise from the school yard and I'm amazed that they still use speaker
amplification for some of their outdoor events in such a small area. I find it quite intrusive.
Placing a gymnasium on the roof would certainly magnify this noise and greatly intrude upon the peace,
quiet, comfort, and enjoyment of our homes. In other words our homes would become a less healthy
place to live.
Thank you for listening to me.
Respectfully.
Jim
Email: jimrobertson@aboriginalskills.com
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
From: Jim Robertson <j3rbrts@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp school expansion.
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
This is Jim Robertson again resident of 446 San Vicente Bl. Here's a little addition to my prior
comment.
My parents were the very first tenants of 446 San Vicente (directly next door to Carlthorp School). They
moved here in 1961 and lived here until the day they died. I visited them often. Approximately 1985 my
mother asked me to move in with her because she needed assistance and I stayed with her until the day
she died in 2001and continue to live here.
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
I've been living here in this same unit for thirty seven years and I think it's good for you to know that I'm
quite familiar with the unwelcome noise levels coming from Carlthorp school, and am opposed to this
expansion plan that would surely increase the disturbing noise (due to basketball court on roof, etc.).
Thank you for listening,
Jim
Email: jimrobertson@aboriginalskills.com
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
From: riverfred1@gmail.com <riverfred1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 Carlthorp School-438 San Vicente Blvd.
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
In regards to the above appeal please advise who approved and what authority, without a resident
hearing, the blocking off of the existing alley entrance entire parking area for other than parking
purposes. It is not that I object however this appears to be a violation of the parking requirement for the
school.
Has another area been designated by the city and will accommodate all the employee parking?
Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
502 San Vicente Blvd.
Riverfred1@gmail.com
From: Jim Robertson <j3rbrts@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
EXTERNAL
This is Jim Robertson, age 82, long time resident (almost forty years) of 446 San Vicente Bl., Unit #306,
submitting another comment regarding the Carlthorp School expansion plans.
Please understand that although maintaining a peaceful, quiet, harmonious, healthy place to live for
myself and my neighbors is a high priority for me, this does not mean that the welfare of the children
isn't also a very high priority for me. After all, this is why for over 20 years I've been volunteering for
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
State Parks, National Parks, and other parks, taking groups of school children of all ages into our mother
nature (almost every week), teaching the kids ancient aboriginal, indigenous, ancestral skills.
Of course I care deeply about all children, but this does not mean that they need a gym with a
basketball court on the roof of the school that is so very close to its neighbors. The noise would be too
much. A gym underneath the ground floor would be a much more reasonable option.
Thank you for listening.
Jim
Email: jimrobertson@aboriginalskills.com
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395-0943
-----Original Message-----
From: s saez <saez100@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp expansion objection
EXTERNAL
Hello I am an owner of a condo on 502 San Vicente Blvd and I object to the expansion of the school
They already have traffic lined up daily with cars that disturbs the neighborhood and now they want to
expand. They have been in noncompliance with a parking lot classrooms setup that is very noisy
Scott Saez.
From: janeices@verizon.net <janeices@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:26 PM
To: Regina Szilak <Regina.Szilak@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Kristin
McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>
Cc: corinnelson@me.com; venkec@aol.com; littleitaly22@gmail.com; john.nockleby@lls.edu;
revshayna@roadrunner.com; elishayna@earthlink.net; franksalcedo@me.com; janeices@verizon.net;
sandysavett@aol.com; tony@thebeverlyhillsestates.com
Subject: Appeal of Carlthorp Expansion--20ENT-0275
EXTERNAL
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Janeice Schwartz
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105
Santa Monica, California 90402
Dear Council Members,
My name is Janeice Schwartz and I have had the good fortune of living at 446 San Vicente Blvd. #105,
since March of 1996.
When I purchased my unit, I had a beautiful panoramic view from my balcony on the first floor of an
undeveloped grassy, green field. I was told that the school was planning to make this area a soccer
field. Unfortunately, that is not what came to pass. Classrooms were constructed where I was told the
soccer field was to be located. I accepted this. I was working at the time as an elementary school
teacher, and actually did not have the time to object. As time progressed, very tall trees were planted on
the property line. Since I live on the first floor, the trees blocked the sunlight I receive in my front room
area. Then, the school placed a storage area beneath my master bedroom window. These school
improvements have not enhanced the aesthetic appeal of my home.
I am sure the school is not aware of the resulting negative impact their improvements have generated
for their residential neighbors. We have tried to be good neighbors, but this new proposed expansion will
effect our quality of life for five summers and further add to the noise we endure every school day. It will
make it difficult to get to and from our underground garage, as the alley will be filled with workers and
their equipment. It is already difficult with sanitation trucks and contractors working in different buildings.
One of my greatest fears is the resulting rodent problem that will inevitably occur when the digging begins
for the proposed multipurpose room. The rats can easily climb on the gigantic trees and gain access to
our balconies.
If the expansion were to occur, our daily lives would be further affected by the school. Our building's
residents are primarily retired or still working from home, as a residual effect of the pandemic. The noise
during the school day is very overwhelming at certain times of the day. I can't imagine what the level of
noise will be with an addition of an open-air basketball court! If this expansion results in an increase in
enrollment in future years, traffic will be even a greater issue than it is at the present time. Our open area
sunroof would be out of commission for five summers, during the construction.
As I mentioned before, the population of our building is primarily older, many with health concerns. I
myself have asthma and the dust and pollutants from the proposed project will be detrimental to my
health. I do not have central-air in my unit, so I must have open windows during the summer months.
Other residents also do not have central-air. The noise pollution from the project will be a significant
deterrent to our enjoyment of our homes, during this project. That could lead to major stress and
negatively impact us physically, emotionally and mentally.
Also, a long term consequence of this proposed expansion will most likely result in lower property
values for our units. This would be very sad for twenty-two units!
Please approve this appeal AN DO NOT approve this expansion.
I definitely support the appeal.
Janeice Schwartz
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105, Santa Monica, California 90402
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
From: riverfred1@gmail.com <riverfred1@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 8:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp School
EXTERNAL
Kindly see the attached petition. We do not need 5 years of construction noise, dust, alley/parking
congestion, etc. If built a basketball court on the rooftop will be especially noisy for the neighbors.
Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
502 San Vicente Blvd.
From: Eli Lester <outlook_7763F74171462DB3@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 12:15 PM
To: Regina.Szilak@santamoncia.gov; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Kristin
McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>
Cc: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Carlthorp School Appeal 20ENT-0275
EXTERNAL
Frank and Jean Lester March 27, 2022 446 San Vicente
Blvd., Unit 201
Santa Monica, California 90402
To the esteemed members of the Santa Monica City Council;
We are sending you this letter (in the body of the email and attached as a pdf) in advance of the meeting
on 4/12/2022, in which the Carlthorp School planned expansion will be discussed. We oppose this
project as proposed, and we wish to support the Appeal 20ENT-0275 properly, following the correct
procedures and protocols. To that end, we are also separately sending a copy to the City Clerk Please
verify receipt of our letter. Thank you.
Frank and Jean Lester
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
446 San Vicente Blvd. Unit 201,
Santa Monica, CA 90402
To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room102, Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Appeal 20ENT-0275
As resident homeowners who have lived within 10 feet of the Carlthorp School for 27 years, we have
reasonable and serious concerns about the proposed expansion of the school. Our issues are based on
the actual history of how we have been impacted by previous Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expansion
requests, which after approval, resulted in violations of the conditions included in the CUP.
I am 80 years old and my wife is 85. In the past we have been quiet and cooperative with previous
expanded use requests without knowing how the actual uses would get modified over time by the
school. We are concerned about our wellbeing, our health, and the comfortable use of our home
without constant disturbance. We are sure that founders of the Carlthorp School never meant to cause
the disruption of peace and harmony in our neighborhood, but at this point, our peace and the quiet
enjoyment of our home is at the mercy of Carlthorp School and the City of Santa Monica. This time, the
expansion is way too much and much to our detriment.
That which we have personally observed is as follows;
1 Gradually increasing congestion and interrupted traffic flow at, and around the school. Reduced
unfettered access to public streets, public alley ways and private driveways on residential
streets. Impeding the safe transition of northbound public traffic attempting to turn right onto
San Vicente Blvd.
2 Trees planted at the property line which were not to exceed 16 feet in height, have grown way
beyond that and now block out the sun to residents adjacent to the trees.
3 Gradually increasing noise levels from the school as enrollments increased over time
In addition to the practical experiences of previous expansion work right outside my windows, and
seeing first-hand how usage has changed, we have reviewed hundreds of pages of the history of how
the school has received approvals for certain conditional expansion exceptions to the zoning laws in
this residential area, only to expand beyond those conditions. After examining this latest requesting for
yet further conditional expansion, I see no mechanisms for preventing or remedying excessive expanded
use, if once again they go beyond initially granted use exceptions. How will it be different this time?
This is no ‘minor’ modification. Creating a huge elevated playground within a few feet of residential
units is unquestionably bad judgement and without consideration for the neighbors quiet enjoyment of
their homes, and will certainly interfere with anyone who works from home or is a writer.
1 While no “technical” increases in the number of “classrooms” are contained in this application,
the eventual use of the newly created space and structural modifications for instructional and
learning purposes, with minor adjustments, could easily accommodate an increase in
enrollment at a future time. By not using the term “classroom”, the request avoids the need for
providing additional parking as well as other required conditional use issues.
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2 The construction process, not withstanding, both the general and periodic noise levels created
by adding second story recreational space only a few feet from our building, is outrageous.
There are no guarantee, even with an audio analysis, that the future sound levels, depending on
actual use, will not be disturbing to neighbors to the east, the west, and the south of the school.
3 During the protracted construction time, we and our neighbors will be subjected to;
a. Continual exposure to dust, debris and pollutants
b. Repeated excess noise, especially “down wind” of the project
c. Disrupted access to and from our parking garage through the alley
d. Restricted use of our rooftop lounge areas during work being done
e. Inability to safely open windows in the summertime for ventilation
f. Older owners are very concerned about their health and wellbeing.
g. This project, as planned, could potentially cause mental, physical and spiritual damages.
h. Great distress and discomfort to residents near the school.
Some of the fallout of having the expanded school right next to us is;
1 A long term negative impact of the market value of our homes
2 Permanently reduced enjoyment and quiet use of our home
3 Continued and perhaps increased disruptive traffic congestion
4 Anything but harmonious operations
Major question;
If not to eventually increase enrollment, then why spend so much time and money to embark on such a
huge three to five year development project in spite of the overt objections of so many residents close
to the school?
We are not in favor of this project going forward, and we support the Appeal 100%
FRANK LESTER 3/27/2022
JEAN LESTER 3/27/2022
446 SAN VICENTE BLVD., UNIT 201, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90402
From: Jennifer Kramer <jenkramer1@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Regina Szilak <Regina.Szilak@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Appeal 20ENT-0275 Carlthorp
EXTERNAL
Hi Regina,
I see this bounced back when I sent it to you so not sure if you got it.
Thank you!
Jennifer Kramer
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jennifer Kramer <jenkramer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:46 AM
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 Carlthorp
To: Regina.Szilak@santamoncia.gov <Regina.Szilak@santamoncia.gov>,
councilmtgitems@santamonicagov.com <councilmtgitems@santamonicagov.com>,
gleam.davis@smgov.net <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, phil.brock@smgov.net
<phil.brock@smgov.net>, christine.parra@smgov.net <christine.parra@smgov.net>,
lana.negrete@smgov.net <lana.negrete@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net
<sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>, kristin.mccowan@smgov.net <kristin.mccowan@smgov.net>,
oscar.delatorre@smgov.net <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>
Jennifer Kramer April 8, 2022
446 San Vicente Blvd Unit 104
Santa Monica CA 90402
To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Appeal 20ENT-0275
I have lived next door to Carlthorp Elementary School for the past 12 years and I am
against the proposed expansion of the school. I am 48 years old and also own a brick
and mortar business on Broadway in Santa Monica. That I own a business AND a condo
here in Santa Monica leads me to be extremely invested in and involved with my
community.
I’m concerned that my (and my neighbors') well being and overall enjoyment of life here
in the Santa Monica area is being constantly challenged due to the disruptions going on
next door at Carlthorp. What was once a pride point (how lucky am I to live next to such
a quality high-end, exquisite and established education center?!) is now turning into a
deflating and overwhelming feeling of unfortunate circumstances.
There is constant traffic and congestion in and around the school on the corner of 4th
and San Vicente every morning and every afternoon when school lets out. This traffic
and congestion loops way around the corner on the block of Georgina, sometimes all the
way down to 7th Street. It’s a mess and I see all of us who live here struggling to access
our once peaceful and smooth public city streets. Cars are honking, people are upset,
and there is no way to pass along the narrow and quaint 4th street. This congestion is
gradually getting worse, as enrollment increases.
If the new proposed open-air roof with basketball court and gym classes happen, this
will:
• Devalue my home
• Increase congestion and flow of traffic on our beautiful quaint streets
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
• Elevated amounts of excess outdoor noise, bouncing basketballs, etc
• Construction will up to 5 years of peaceful summers away (dust, debris, noise,
pollutants, trucks, privacy of our roof deck, etc)
I am in favor of making a community stronger and better. While adding additional parking
and tripling the playground of the school next door will be great for the school, I wonder if
you might put more thought into what happens to the COMMUNITY around it should that
happen. Had the proposition been to move the school to a new location (if they truly
needed more space), or keep the enrollment where it is to sustain a cohesive and
harmonious operation within itself and the community is resides in, or *at a minimum* (I
feel I’m stating the obvious but needs to be mentioned): why would they decide to only
do construction in the summer if not to avoid having themselves inconvenienced with the
noise, pollutants, traffic, etc and yet all those living around the school, THE
COMMUNITY, is at the mercy? That doesn’t feel amicable or peaceful.
The proposed development next door at Carlthorp will directly impact my enjoyment of
living in my home and I am NOT in favor of this project being approved. I support the
appeal.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Kramer
--
JENNIFER KRAMER
CLINICAL DIRECTOR
EXTERNAL
Janeice Schwartz
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105
Santa Monica, California 90402
Dear Council Members,
My name is Janeice Schwartz and I have had the good fortune of living at 446 San Vicente Blvd. #105,
since March of 1996.
When I purchased my unit, I had a beautiful panoramic view from my balcony on the first floor of an
undeveloped grassy, green field. I was told that the school was planning to make this area a soccer
field. Unfortunately, that is not what came to pass. Classrooms were constructed where I was told the
soccer field was to be located. I accepted this. I was working at the time as an elementary school
teacher, and actually did not have the time to object. As time progressed, very tall trees were planted on
the property line. Since I live on the first floor, the trees blocked the sunlight I receive in my front room
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
area. Then, the school placed a storage area beneath my master bedroom window. These school
improvements have not enhanced the aesthetic appeal of my home.
I am sure the school is not aware of the resulting negative impact their improvements have generated
for their residential neighbors. We have tried to be good neighbors, but this new proposed expansion will
effect our quality of life for five summers and further add to the noise we endure every school day. It will
make it difficult to get to and from our underground garage, as the alley will be filled with workers and
their equipment. It is already difficult with sanitation trucks and contractors working in different buildings.
One of my greatest fears is the resulting rodent problem that will inevitably occur when the digging begins
for the proposed multipurpose room. The rats can easily climb on the gigantic trees and gain access to
our balconies.
If the expansion were to occur, our daily lives would be further affected by the school. Our building's
residents are primarily retired or still working from home, as a residual effect of the pandemic. The noise
during the school day is very overwhelming at certain times of the day. I can't imagine what the level of
noise will be with an addition of an open-air basketball court! If this expansion results in an increase in
enrollment in future years, traffic will be even a greater issue than it is at the present time. Our open area
sunroof would be out of commission for five summers, during the construction.
As I mentioned before, the population of our building is primarily older, many with health concerns. I
myself have asthma and the dust and pollutants from the proposed project will be detrimental to my
health. I do not have central-air in my unit, so I must have open windows during the summer months.
Other residents also do not have central-air. The noise pollution from the project will be a significant
deterrent to our enjoyment of our homes, during this project. That could lead to major stress and
negatively impact us physically, emotionally and mentally.
Also, a long term consequence of this proposed expansion will most likely result in lower property
values for our units. This would be very sad for twenty-two units!
Please approve this appeal AN DO NOT approve this expansion.
I definitely support the appeal.
Janeice Schwartz
From: Corin Nelson <corinnelson@me.com>
Subject: Appeal 20ENT-0275 in advance of 4/12/22 mtg re: Carlthorp planned expansion
Date: April 3, 2022 at 4:03:45 PM PDT
To: Regina.Szilak@santamoncia.gov, councilmtgitems@santamonicagov.com, gleam.davis@smgov.net,
phil.brock@smgov.net, christine.parra@smgov.net, lana.negrete@smgov.net,
sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, kristin.mccowan@smgov.net, oscar.delatorre@smgov.net
Cc: Frank Salcedo <franksalcedo@me.com>, Frank Lester <Elishayna@roadrunner.com>, Tony
Barsocchini <tony@thebeverlyhillsestates.com>, Carmen Piccini <Littleitaly22@gmail.com>, Danielle
Litak <danielle.davies.litak@gmail.com>, John Nockleby <John.Nockleby@lls.edu>, Tammy Starr
<tamstarr@rogers.com>, Sandy Savett <SandySavett@aol.com>, Venke Blyberg <Venkec@aol.com>,
Janeice Schwartz <janeices@verizon.net>, Corin Nelson <corinnelson@me.com>, mary ling
<mling88@gmail.com>, Jennifer Kramer <jenkramer1@gmail.com>
Good Afternoon to our esteemed members of the Santa Moncia City Council-
I’m sending you this letter (in the body of the email and attached as a pdf) in advance of the meeting on
4/12/22 in which the Carlthorp School planned expansion will be discussed. I oppose the project of
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
course though I wish to do so properly, following the correct procedures and protocols. So, please just
let me know if this is ok or I should send my letter elsewhere? Also can you let us know what time the
mtg is on 4/12? We have been told 5:30 and 6:30 by different people
Thanks so very much-
Corin Nelson
446 San Vicente Blvd. Unit 304,
Santa Monica, CA 90402
To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room102, Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Appeal 20ENT-0275
April 3, 2022
My name is Corin Nelson. As a resident homeowner who has lived within 10 feet of the
Carlthorp School for 15 years, I have reasonable and serious concerns about the proposed
expansion of the school. I bought this condo at 446 San Vicente largely because of the peace
and quiet of the neighborhood community which was to be welcome respite from my daily work
in television. However, my only objection to living here through the years has been the
increasing noise coming from the school, the traffic issues because of it and, also the rats that
found their way to our condo from the school when it was tented a few years ago. I certainly
never would have bought a condo next to a school that had plans to grow vertically with an
open-air roof with basketball games, gym classes which will also likely be the site of school
parties for the kids and parents – that will devalue my home and take 3-5 years of my peaceful
summers away from me with massive construction for expansion going on.
I can’t imagine why should the City Council approve a plan that so drastically
undermines the quality of life of people in the neighborhood?
As a neighbor of the school, I have been already impacted by previous Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) expansion requests, which after approval, resulted in violations of the conditions included
in the CUP. I’m sure that founders of the Carlthorp School never meant to cause the disruption
of peace and harmony in my neighborhood, but at this point, my peace and the quiet enjoyment
of my home has been left up to Carlthorp School and the City of Santa Monica.
Here are just a few of my concerns with this project:
• Noise, dirt, demolition, building, trucks, construction for 3 - 5 years? That’s
insane. Just because they don’t want to inconvenience the school during the school
year so they’ll just do it in the summer? They think that 5 summers of us having to
live next to a huge construction site is ok? No it is not ok. The dust, debris, noise,
pollutants, trucks, privacy of our roof deck, west façade and windows destroyed –
unbearable. This project will impact me and my neighbors mentally, physically and
spiritually. There is nothing harmonious about the way the school or its desire
to grow has been harmonious. They did not even attempt any community outreach
to see what their neighbors’ concerns were about the project and try to offer
solutions or compromises. It is not ok.
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
• There has already been gradually increasing congestion and interrupted traffic
flow at, and around the school. This will only get much worse with the project
at hand. Reduced unfettered access to public streets, public alley ways and private
driveways on residential streets. Plus, the trucks and disruption will affect the safety
of northbound public traffic attempting to turn right onto San Vicente Blvd. As it is, no
one can park on this street or even pull up to our building easily during school hours
– it was not that way when I moved in here.
• Trees planted at the property line between our condo and Carlthorp which were not to
exceed 16 feet in height, have grown way beyond that and now block out the sun to
residents adjacent to the trees.
• There has already been increasing noise levels from the school as enrollments
have increased over time and with this expansion it will be unbearable. What
was the number of students enrolled 5 years ago? What is it today? What do they
project it will be in 5 years when they finish construction?
• The new project suggests an unregulated and excessive expansion of use. The
school does not seemingly currently abide by any rules or consideration of what is
appropriate usage of their grounds. It’s like the school dominates this end of San
Vicente and we all just live with it.
• The value of our homes will decrease greatly. At 446 SV, I currently own a little
condo by the beach but with this expansion, it’s more like I will own an apartment in
the center of town. What could have been described as a “peaceful beach
community condo” becomes “a busy, bustling, active, noisy condo conveniently
located next to one of the wealthiest schools around” – with open-air basketballs
games, 2 flights up and 25 feet from our windows. It's comical when I read that
previous sentence back to myself because it is so absurd! To be clear – this project
will have a long-term negative impact of the market value of my home.
• If you see the letter I have attached from Dorothy Menzies (who was the Head of The
School until recently)she promised in 1986 “…the enrollment of Carlthorp school
will not increase… and due to the size of the playground, there will be
positively no increase in the future.” So now they’re tripling the playground and
one would assume then that they plan to have many more students (hence their
need for the proposed underground parking garage). At what point does the school
realize that their ambitions for the school have outgrown the spot they are in. Instead
of expanding vertically and adding a new floor beneath and a new floor on the
top of the existing building, why don’t they consider moving the school
entirely?.
I am 100% not in favor of this project being approved, and I support the Appeal
Corin Nelson
446 SAN VICENTE BLVD., UNIT 304, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90402
446 San Vicente Blvd., Unit 105, Santa Monica, California 90402
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Distinguished Members of the City Council,
My name is Audrey Lohara, and I am a sixth grade student at Carlthorp. I have been a Carlthorp student
since 2015 and the school has been integral to my growth and development scholastically, socially, and
as a person. I have been so grateful for the opportunity to attend Carlthorp School and hope to share with
you what I feel makes Carlthorp such a special place and what it has meant to me.
It has been a privilege to be a part of a warm and intimate school community that provides the best
academics, the best teachers, and the best activities to create a well-rounded experience. I started
Kindergarten as a shy and curious child and Carlthorp has helped me to find and use my voice
confidently. Over the years, I have participated in student council, I was one of the leads in the school’s
'Alice in Wonderland' production, I have played on the girls' volleyball and basketball teams, I have been
on the debate team and I am the editor in chief of the literary magazine. Thanks to Carlthorp, I have
gained important skills in leadership, a strong work ethic, and responsibility that will help me for the rest of
my life. Without a doubt, I can confidently say that Carlthorp has prepared me with the best foundation for
future success.
I feel that the proposed enhancements to the campus would update and improve the school for years to
come, especially a genuine multipurpose room and a brand new, expanded playing field. Having another
multipurpose room at Carlthorp would allow the school to host more theatrical and musical performances
and give more space to families and guests who could attend in comfort. Also, a multipurpose room
would benefit student assemblies, gatherings, and other significant school capacities. Numerous other
public and private schools in Santa Monica have multipurpose rooms or halls, so I think that Carlthorp
should have one as well.
Another play space at Carlthorp would greatly help the students and school community. A bigger play
space would assist students with pursuing their athletic interests and create plenty of room for multiple
sports to be played at once. I know from individual experience how challenging it is when students on the
yard want to partake in various sports like volleyball, basketball, and football, yet there simply isn't enough
room to accommodate everyone. A bigger playspace would permit all students to participate in their
preferred game or movement. Having adequate outdoor space would also help to prevent mishaps and
accidents with less crowding. The new play space would also encourage students to get more exercise,
take needed breaks outside, and promote lifelong fitness.
As I am getting ready to graduate, I am thankful for all that Carlthorp has provided me - a strong
educational foundation and some of my happiest elementary school memories. What I want most is to
see the school’s continued success for future years. The proposed improvements to Carlthorp School will
enhance a greater feeling of community spirit, provide a more secure climate for all, and permit students
to pursue their interests and thrive.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Audrey Lohara
`
My name is Jason Lee. I am 10 years old and in fourth grade. I love
Carlthorp School because of the teachers, classes, and fun time with my
friends. My favorite subjects in school are math, reading, and current news
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
events. I also love playing sports for Carlthorp. I play football, basketball,
and soccer.
The teachers at Carlthorp are so kind, encouraging, and helpful. They
make it worthwhile to spend my time at Carlthorp. My current teachers are
Mr. Burwick and Ms. Schwarts. They are both amazing teachers, and they
help me so much.
Carlthorp is an amazing school. The school is special because of the
Code of Conduct, which emphasizes kindness, good citizenship, and
community service. Our students are growing to be the next leaders in the
community.
Sadly, sometimes there are issues because of the limited amount of
space we have in the campus. I love playing sports, but the playground that
we can play in is sometimes too small for some of these games. I was
playing four square the other day, and I bumped into my friend because
there wasn’t enough space! It would be most helpful for you to allow us to
improve our playground area.
Another reason why allowing Carlthorp to improve their campus is because
the multipurpose room is too small for the whole school. I know this
because when I performed for the Talent Show in the MPR, the room was
so crowded that I couldn't see my parents cheering me on. They were
actually in the outside hallway. I got really nervous and didn’t want to
perform. My little sister is in the talent show this year. I hope there is
enough room for my parents to see her act.
It would also be so helpful if our lunch area was covered so that we
could use it even if the weather is not great. Right now, we are eating
lunch in the parking lot. Carlthorp has done a good job of trying to make it
a good space, but it’s still a parking lot.
Compared to other similar schools, our campus is dramatically
smaller. It would be very helpful to the students of Carlthorp for you to let
us improve our campus so we can make better use of the space that we
have. The impact to the students, larger community, and the future would
be huge. So please, please, let us improve our campus to benefit the
students and the community!
Sincerely,
Jason Lee
6.A.m
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: comments post Feburary 2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
PROPOSED ROOFTOP CHILDREN'S
PLAY COURT (OPEN AIR) +126'-6"
GEORGINA PL
TRASH &
RECYCLING
10' - 2"
CENTER LINE OF ALLEY
R1 DISTRICT
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEREAR YARDSETBACKWIDTH OF ALLEY20' - 0"15' - 0" MIN25' - 0" MINBUILDING LINE TO R1 DISTRICTR2 DISTRICTR2 DISTRICTSHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
6/8/20 1:05:18 PM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402EX 03
SITE PLAN ALLEY
SETBACKS
05.18.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1SITE PLAN
ZONING PLAN
NTS 2
6.A.n
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Carlthorp School play court 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
6236 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
2537 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
4728 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
8608 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
770 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
6925 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
5/12/2020 4:50:58 PM
1/16" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402EX 01
EXISTING LOWER
LEVEL & MAIN
LEVEL AREA PLAN
05.12.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/16" = 1'-0"2(E) GROUND/SECOND FLOOR AREA PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"1(E) BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR AREA PLAN
EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR AREA
Level AREA (SF)
(E) LOWER LEVEL 16303
(E) MAIN LEVEL 13501
(E) UPPER LEVEL 8593
GRAND TOTAL 38397
EXISTING FLOOR
AREA PLANS
6.A.o
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
8593 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
5/12/2020 4:50:59 PM
1/16" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402EX 02
EXISTING UPPER
LEVEL AREA PLAN
05.12.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/16" = 1'-0"1(E) SECOND FLOOR/ROOF AREA PLAN
EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR AREA
Level AREA (SF)
(E) LOWER LEVEL 16303
(E) MAIN LEVEL 13501
(E) UPPER LEVEL 8593
GRAND TOTAL 38397
EXISTING FLOOR
AREA PLANS
6.A.o
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
UPPER BASEMENT FLOOR
+101'-6"
FOOTPRINT OF NEW
CONSTRUCTION ABOVE
PL
1
17
2
18
3
19
4
20
5
21
6
22
7
23
8
24
9
25
10
26
11
27
12
28
13 14
30
15
31
16
32
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"4' - 0"3' - 8"BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
PARKING - 32 STALLS
STORAGE
CLASSROOM -
BREAK OUT ROOM
CLASSROOM -
SPANISH
EXISTING CLASSROOM/
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
CLASSROOM -
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
(ASSIGNED TANDEM PARKING
TO FACULTY/STAFF)
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
8' - 1"
BIKE STORAGE - 8 SPACES
HVO5' - 0"65' - 6"75' - 11"22' - 9"118' - 11"
EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOM/SHOWERS
PROPOSED STAIR
AND PARTITION
CORRIDOR
19
20
21
2211' - 3"NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
** FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA EXEMPTION
GROUND FLOOR:
ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 936 SF
NEW GROUND FLOOR CORRIDOR = 706 SF
TOTAL NEW GROUND FLOOR AREA = 1,642 SF
SECOND FLOOR:
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES = 845 SF
TOTAL NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:
( < 25% OF EXISTING FLOOR AREA)
EXISTING # OF CLASSROOMS = 22
PROPOSED # OF CLASSROOMS = NO CHANGE
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 38,397 SF
13,501 SF
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS:
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS:
GROUND/SECOND FLOOR:
** COVERED PARKING INCLUDED IN
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
TOTAL NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA =
18.95% OF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA
7,280 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR: 16,303 SF **
SECOND FLOOR: 8,593 SF
BASEMENT:
NEW SECOND MULTI - PURPOSE ROOM = 3,819 SF
NEW BASEMENT CORRIDOR = 974 SF
TOTAL NEW BASEMENT FLOOR AREA = 4,793 SF
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:38:58 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-FA
BASEMENT/GROUND
FLOOR PLAN -
FLOOR AREA
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1
BASEMENT & GROUND FLOOR PLAN - FLOOR AREA
DIAGRAM N
6.A.o
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
DN
DN
DN
DN
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING AND/OR
ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
OUTLINE OF ELEVATED
COURT ABOVE
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
PL
ARTIFICIAL TURF
PLAYFIELD 21' - 1"PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
GATE ENTRANCE
FLAGPOLE
HEDGE
HEDGECLASSROOM -
SCIENCE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
1
2 3
4
5
6
78910111213
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR
NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
** FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA EXEMPTION
GROUND FLOOR:
ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 936 SF
NEW GROUND FLOOR CORRIDOR = 706 SF
TOTAL NEW GROUND FLOOR AREA = 1,642 SF
SECOND FLOOR:
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES = 845 SF
TOTAL NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:
( < 25% OF EXISTING FLOOR AREA)
EXISTING # OF CLASSROOMS = 22
PROPOSED # OF CLASSROOMS = NO CHANGE
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 38,397 SF
13,501 SF
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS:
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS:
GROUND/SECOND FLOOR:
** COVERED PARKING INCLUDED IN
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
TOTAL NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA =
18.95% OF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA
7,280 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR: 16,303 SF **
SECOND FLOOR: 8,593 SF
BASEMENT:
NEW SECOND MULTI - PURPOSE ROOM = 3,819 SF
NEW BASEMENT CORRIDOR = 974 SF
TOTAL NEW BASEMENT FLOOR AREA = 4,793 SF
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:38:58 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-FA
GROUND/SECOND
FLOOR PLAN -
FLOOR AREA
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"1GROUND & 2ND FLOOR PLAN - FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM
N
6.A.o
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
DN
NEW ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
SECOND FLOOR
+119'-6"
+119'-6"
+126'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
NEW
ELEVATOR
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICE OFFICE
CLASSROOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
14
15
16
17
18
LUNCH
AREA
PORCH
TRELLIS
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
** FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA EXEMPTION
GROUND FLOOR:
ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 936 SF
NEW GROUND FLOOR CORRIDOR = 706 SF
TOTAL NEW GROUND FLOOR AREA = 1,642 SF
SECOND FLOOR:
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES = 845 SF
TOTAL NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:
( < 25% OF EXISTING FLOOR AREA)
EXISTING # OF CLASSROOMS = 22
PROPOSED # OF CLASSROOMS = NO CHANGE
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 38,397 SF
13,501 SF
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS:
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS:
GROUND/SECOND FLOOR:
** COVERED PARKING INCLUDED IN
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
TOTAL NEW PROPOSED FLOOR AREA =
18.95% OF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA
7,280 SF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA
BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR: 16,303 SF **
SECOND FLOOR: 8,593 SF
BASEMENT:
NEW SECOND MULTI - PURPOSE ROOM = 3,819 SF
NEW BASEMENT CORRIDOR = 974 SF
TOTAL NEW BASEMENT FLOOR AREA = 4,793 SF
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:38:59 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-FA
2ND FLOOR/ROOF
PLAN -FLOOR
AREA
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS3/32" = 1'-0"12ND FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN - FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM
N
6.A.o
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Carlthorp School FLOOR AREA 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"3' - 8"BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
CLASSROOM -
BREAK OUT ROOM
CLASSROOM -
SPANISH
EXISTING CLASSROOM/
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
CLASSROOM -
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
RESTROOMS
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"HVO5' - 0"EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:47 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-B
BASEMENT PLAN -
PARCEL
COVERAGE
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* BASEMENT AREAS DO NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION. COLORED
AREAS ARE COUNTED ON GROUND
FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
THIS AREA COUNTS TOWARDS FIRST
FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UP DNDNDNUPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
AND/OR
ADDITIONAL
OFFICE SPACE
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
HANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING
PARKING CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
READING
P.E. OFFICE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
RESTROOMS
FACULTY
LOUNGE
EXISTING
MULTI-
PURPOSE
ROOM
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 936 SF
TOTAL NEW GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF
EXISTING GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE:
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY:
GROUND FLOOR:
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 18,536 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =20,998 SF
NEW = 2,462 SF
NEW GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE:
TOTAL GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(EXISTING + NEW)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
AREA UNDER PLAY COURT = 1,138 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
TOTAL ALLOWABLE (BY CODE)
GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE:
20,863.13 SF
(45% OF PARCEL AREA)
TOTAL PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED
ON MINOR MODIFICATION INCREASE:
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:49 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-B
GROUND FLOOR
PLAN -PARCEL
COVERAGE
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS6.A.p
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
OVERHANG OF ROOFTOP
PLAY COURT ABOVE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B
THIS PORTION OF STAIR
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)LUNCH AREA PORCH TRELLIS EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (E)THIS PORTION OF
CORRIDOR WALL IS OPEN
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
(LOWERED
FLOOR IN
THIS AREA)
DNUP
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,260 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 250 SF
SECOND FLOOR:
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 17,631 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 17,631 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =18,891 SF
NEW = 1,260 SF
AREA UNDER PLAY COURT = 720 SF
TOTAL ALLOWABLE (BY CODE)
GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE:
20,863.13 SF
(45% OF PARCEL AREA)
18,898 SF
(90% OF GROUND
FLOOR PARCEL AREA)
TOTAL PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR
PARCEL COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED
ON MINOR MODIFICATION INCREASE:
20,998 SF
(49.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
TOTAL PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PARCEL
COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED ON
MINOR MODIFICATION INCREASE:
18,895 SF
( < 90% OF GROUND
FLOOR PARCEL AREA)
TOTAL 2ND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE
(EXISTING + NEW):
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:53 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-B
SECOND FLOOR
PLAN -PARCEL
COVERAGE
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSTHIS AREA COUNTS TOWARDS FIRST
FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
NEW ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
EXISTING ROOF
PL
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW STAIR
BELOW
LUNCH AREA
PORCH
TRELLIS
BELOW
THIS AREA IS
EXISTING NON-
CONFORMING
THIRD FLOOR
PARCEL
COVERAGE
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:54 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-B
3RD FLOOR/ROOF
PLAN -PARCEL
COVERAGE
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
PROPOSED ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAY COURT
EXISTING PARKING
EXISTING
CLASSROOMS 8' - 0"30' - 0"3
A300-B/C
STORAGE
INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
CLASSROOM
GROUND FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
BASEMENT
2
A300-B/C
1' - 2"NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND BUILDING
ENVELOPE 7' - 6"7' - 0"9' - 6"5' - 6"3' - 0"5' - 3" .101.32'
103.72''
A122
1
A122
1
A121
1
A121
1
A120
1
A120
1
A123
1
A123
1
7' - 8"FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED
NEW FLOOR AT +105' - 8" 1' - 11"NEW STAIR EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Basement Floor Lower
+89' -8"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
1
A300-B/C
PROPOSED ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
EXISTING PARKING
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
LUNCH AREA PORCH
TRELLIS
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
BEYOND
NEW ENCLOSURE OF
EXISTING LUNCH SEATING
AND/OR ADDITIONAL OFFICE
SPACE 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"5' - 6"3' - 0"EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
30' - 0"SECOND FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
LIBRARY
SECOND FLOOR
CLASSROOM
GROUND FLOOR
BASEMENT
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM
PORCH
NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE
EXISTING PORTION OF CLASSROOM
PORCH EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
NEW PORTION OF CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
PER SMMC 9.04.100 (F)8' - 0"INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE 5' - 3"INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
107.81'
101.74'
A123
1
A123
1
A122
1
A122
1
A121
1
A121
1
A120
1
A120
1
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
1
A300-B/C
PROPOSED ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT
INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
109.11'
102.67'
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
EXISTING STORAGE 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"2' - 6"3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 3"GROUND FLOOR
BASEMENT 30' - 0"EXISTING
CLASSROOMS
SECOND FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
BASEMENT
SECOND FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
THIRD FLOOR
FACULTY LOUNGE
EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE
8' - 0"5' - 3"A123
1
A123
1
A122
1
A122
1
A121
1
A121
1
A120
1
A120
1
FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED
NEW FLOOR AT +105' - 8" 7' - 8"1' - 8"1' - 2"SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:56 PM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A300-B/C
SECTION
DIAGRAMS
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"2
N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &
ELEVATED COURT DIAGRAM
SMMC 9.52.020.0180 Attic. The area less
than 7 feet in height, located above the ceiling of
the top story and below the roof that is not
usable as habitable or commercial space and is
not accessible via a permanent access structure.
An attic shall not be considered a story.
1/8" = 1'-0"3
N/S SECTION THROUGH STORAGE AND FACULTY
LOUNGE DIAGRAM
DIAGONAL HATCH
INDICATES AREA
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+97'-3"
PL
+89'-8"
+89'-8"
LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
BREAK OUT
ROOM
SPANISH
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
BASEMENT
(+97' -3")
0' -0"
-7' -7"
-5' -7"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
GROUND FLOOR
(+97' -3")
BASEMENT
(+97' -3")
BASEMENT
(+97' -3")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+101' -6")
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:48 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-C
BASEMENT
DIAGRAM
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UP DNDNDNUPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
(NOTE THERE IS
NO FLOOR BELOW
THIS AREA)
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
GROUND FLOOR
(+107' -6")
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
CLASSROOM PORCH
SECOND FLOOR
(+108' -9")GROUND FLOOR(+108' -9")GROUND FLOOR
(+107' -6")
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
GROUND FLOOR
(+107' -6")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+97' -3")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+101' -6")
STORAGE
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:51 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-C
FIRST FLOOR
DIAGRAM
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES AREA
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
LUNCH
AREA
PORCH
TRELLIS
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
SECOND FLOOR
(+119' -6")
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
THIRD FLOOR
(+119' -6")
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
SECOND FLOOR
(+119' -6")
SECOND FLOOR
(+110 -0)
SECOND
FLOOR
(+107' -6")
GROUND
FLOOR
(+105' -8")
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:53 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-C
SECOND FLOOR
DIAGRAM
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES AREA
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.
GROUND FLOOR
(+107' -6")
CLASSROOM PORCH
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
3
A300-B/C
EXISTING ROOF
NEW STAIR
BELOW
PL
ROOFTOP PLAY COURT
NOT A FLOOR
126' -6"
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
LUNCH
AREA
PORCH
TRELLIS
BELOW
SHEET
NUMBER:
SHEET
TITLE:
DATE
:
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
:
4/20/2022 2:21:55 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-C
ROOF PLAN
DIAGRAM
04.20.22 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES AREA
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS.
6.A.p
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
ANGEL LAW
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Tel: (310) 314-6433
Fax: (310) 314-6434
angellaw.com
February 21, 2022
Honorable Mayor Sue Himmelrich
and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Via Email to sue.himmelrich@smgov.net; Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net; phil.brock@smgov.net;
gleam.davis@smgov.net; oscar.delatorre@smgov.net; lana.negrete@smgov.net;
christine.parra@smgov.net; council@smgov.net; Heidi.vonTongeln@santamonica.gov;
attorney@smgov.net; Jing.Yeo@smgov.net; planning@smgov.net;
Re: 02-22-2022 Santa Monica City Council Meeting (Agenda Item 6.A -- Carlthorp School Expansion
Project at 438 San Vicente Blvd.)
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
Appellant Steven Salsberg has retained Angel Law to submit this letter on behalf of himself, all similarly
situated residents of Santa Monica and all Santa Monica citizens interested in or benefitting from City
Council compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act; Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.), a statute
intended “to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking. . . .” (San
Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1176, emphasis added;
internal quotation marks & citations omitted.)
On two separate and independent grounds, we request that the hearing on the Carlthorp School expansion
project be taken off calendar and re-noticed. First, the February 22, 2022 hearing has been noticed in
violation of the Brown Act. Second, staff’s recommended exemption of the project from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
violates CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) Our request
serves to enable the City of Santa Monica (City) to properly notice the appeal hearing on the Carlthorp
School expansion project and to thus proceed in the manner required by the Brown Act. It will further
6.A.q
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: 2022-02-21 angellaw comment ltr (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 2
enable the City to proceed consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines by allowing staff to
prepare an initial CEQA study to determine whether a negative declaration, a mitigated negative
declaration, or a full-blown environmental impact report is appropriate for the development and uses
proposed. The proposed CEQA exemptions are not.
Brown Act Violation
It is of course a central and long-standing requirement of the Brown Act that the legislative body of a local
government post, at least 72 hours before a meeting, an agenda containing a brief general description of
each item of business to be transacted at the meeting. (Gov. Code § 54954.2, subd. (a)(1).) Government
Code section 54954.2, subdivision (a)(1), in pertinent part, states:
“At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its
designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to
be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. . . .
The agenda . . . shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and
on the local agency’s Internet Web site. . . .”
(See also id., subd. (a)(2).) Where the City’s elected legislative body, the City Council, is called upon to
make a determination or finding concerning CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines along with the approval of
a development permit, such as a discretionary conditional use permit (CUP), the posted agenda must
provide public notice of both the proposed determination concerning the development permit and the
proposed determination concerning CEQA. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 216
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169-1170, 1176-1179.)
Here, the agenda for the City Council regular meeting of February 22, 2022 describes the item of business
at issue (Item 6.A) as follows:
“Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for
Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd New item received 2/18/2022
“Recommended Action
“Staff recommends the City Council deny Appeal 20ENT-0275, appealing the Planning
Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-
0066 for a 7,898 square foot expansion to the Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29%
increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage, and approve the requested CUP and Minor
Modification, based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this report.”
(Bold characters in original.) There is no mention in this agenda description of the proposed grant of a
CEQA exemption for the project.1 Yet, the City Council, in the exercise of its de novo review of the
Carlthorp School expansion project, must determine both whether to grant the requested CUP and the
1 Remarkably, the notice of public hearing required by Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.37.050 for
all owners and residents of properties within a radius of 750 feet of the school site, likewise, omits any
reference to the CEQA exemption. (See staff report, attachment G.)
6.A.q
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: 2022-02-21 angellaw comment ltr (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 3
minor modification; and whether the project is exempt from CEQA review (or, instead, requires preparation
of an initial CEQA study).2 In fact, staff’s recommended CUP findings show that the City Council will grant
the applicant a CEQA exemption should the council approve the project per staff’s recommendations. A
CUP finding set forth in the statement of official action (STOA) proposed for the City Council’s adoption
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. The proposed project
is also categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15331, Class 31 of the State [CEQA] Implementation Guidelines in that the proposed
addition to a non-contributor in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Historic District is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017),
revised by Anne E. Grimmer, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District.”3
(Proposed CUP finding No. 7 at p. 5.) In other words, the City Council’s consideration of the CEQA
exemption is an item of business to be publicly reviewed and acted upon at the appeal hearing and
therefore had to be specifically disclosed in the posted February 22, 2022 meeting agenda.
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, offers an apt analogy. There, the
planning staff of Merced County recommended approval of a subdivision application, along with a mitigated
negative declaration (MND) under CEQA concerning the environmental impact of the subdivision project.
When the project came up for approval by the Merced County Planning Commission, the commission’s
posted meeting agenda noticed, as an item of business, the commission’s potential approval of the
subdivision application, but did not mention the MND. The court of appeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue
Center held that this manner of proceeding violated the agenda notice requirement of the Brown Act.
Notably, in the litigation challenging the project’s approval, the county of Merced argued that the agenda
notice requirement of Government Code section 54954.2 was satisfied “because the public would have
implicitly understood that CEQA documents, if any, would likely be considered at the time of the project’s
approval.” The court of appeal rejected this position. (216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1170; see id. at p. 1178 [“Even
assuming for the sake of argument that a person could have speculated from what appeared on the
agenda (i.e., the project’s approval) that the adoption of the MND might possibly be considered at the
meeting, that would not make the agenda legally adequate”; original emphasis].) The court held that “the
2 Staff correctly notes that the City Council’s review of the Planning Commission’s decision is de novo.
(Staff report at p. 2.) Indeed, the City Council has the power to “review and take action on all
determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar actions taken which were in the purview of
the original hearing body on the application or project and is not limited to only the original reason stated for
the appeal.” (Santa Monica Mun. Code, § 9.37.130 (A)(3).)
3 The proposed STOA further cites Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Class 3 categorical
exemption) as additional grounds for exempting the project from CEQA review. (Proposed STOA at p. 1.)
6.A.q
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: 2022-02-21 angellaw comment ltr (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 4
Brown Act was violated in this case because the Commission took action on the MND when that matter
was not expressly disclosed on the meeting agenda.” (Id. at p. 1170.) So, too, here if on February 22, the
City Council approves the CEQA exemption -- whether explicitly or implicitly by granting the CUP based on
the CEQA exemption findings recommended by staff.
While in this case, the defective notice relates to a staff-recommended CEQA exemption rather than a staff-
recommended recommended MND, for purposes of the Brown Act, this is a distinction without a difference.
(See id. at p. 1178, fn. 17.) The court in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center recognized that issues related
to the local environmental effects of a project “often motivate members of the public to participate in the
process and have their voices heard.” (Id. at p. 1177.) “Of course, that is exactly what the Brown Act seeks
to facilitate.” (Ibid.) “Its purposes include ensuring that the public is adequately notified of what will be
addressed at a meeting in order to facilitate public participation and avoid secret legislation or
decisionmaking.” (Id. at pp. 1177-1178, citations omitted.)
In short, because the agenda posted last week for the City Council’s February 22, 2022 meeting fails to
make the disclosure concerning the CEQA exemption determination for the Carlthorp School expansion
project, it violates Government Code section 54954.2. Therefore, the appeal may not be heard on February
22. The matter must be re-noticed and the new notice should disclose the proposed CEQA exemption so
that all members of the public interested in CEQA review have a fair and meaningful opportunity to address
the exemption at the City Council’s de novo hearing on the project.
CEQA Violation
The recommended CEQA exemptions for Carlthorp School’s expansion project are unsubstantiated and
erroneous. Staff’s review for exempting the Carlthorp School expansion project from CEQA is cursory and
fundamentally flawed. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15061.)
First, staff’s conclusion that the environmental impacts of adding 7,259 square feet of new development to
the existing school size of 38,397 square feet, a substantial, 20.6% increase in size, and of proposing a
new rooftop playcourt, all in a residential zone, are not even potentially significant in the construction phase
or long-term, is contradicted by the evidentiary record and staff’s own conclusion that “any potentially
significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation
measures incorporated in the project.” (Proposed CUP finding No. 7, p. 5.) And that very conclusion
precludes exempting the project from CEQA. “An agency should decide whether a project is eligible for a
categorical exemption as part of its preliminary review of the project without reference to or reliance upon
any proposed mitigation measures.” (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004)
125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1106, emphasis added.)
Staff here appears to rely on what is known as the “common sense” exemption from CEQA. But this
exemption is inapplicable unless “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a [potentially] significant effect on the environment. . . .” (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15061, subd. (b)(3), emphasis added; see id., § 15382 [“ ‘Significant effect on the environment’ means a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of
historic or aesthetic significance”].)
6.A.q
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: 2022-02-21 angellaw comment ltr (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
February 21, 2022
Page 5
As for the recommended Class 31 categorical exemption, it is inapplicable on its face. This specific
exemption is for “projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,
preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.” (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15331, emphasis added.) The Carlthorp School expansion project is just that: a school
expansion project -- as described by staff and as proposed by the applicant; it is not a project limited to
simply maintaining, repairing, stabilizing, rehabilitating, restoring, preserving, conserving or reconstructing
historical resources. Whether the project would or wouldn’t have an adverse impact on the overall character
or significance of the San Vicente Courtyard Historic District does not bear on whether the new
development and uses that are proposed fit into the narrow confines of the Class 31 exemption in the first
place, or, for that matter, into any one of the other two CEQA exemptions cited by staff.
Nor does the Carlthorp School expansion project fit into the Class 3 categorical exemption. According to
staff, this CEQA exemption “exempts minor additions to existing schools where the addition does not
increase original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms.” (Staff report at pp. 14-15.) The
Class 3 categorical exemption doesn’t even mention schools, let alone the gratuitous numerical criteria
used by staff (no increase of original student capacity by more than 25% or 10 classrooms).
The Class 3 exemption does apply to certain existing commercial buildings that do not exceed 10,000
square feet in floor area, and only if the site is zoned for commercial use. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.)
However, even if the school were a commercial use, which it is not, the existing school size is almost four
times as large as 10,000 square feet (38,397 square feet) and the school site is not zoned commercial or
for an institutional use. (This is why a CUP is required for the project.) The 46,362 square foot parcel on
which the project is located is zoned Low Density Multi-family Residential (R2). The Class 3 exemption also
benefits small residential projects, provided these projects are on land zoned residential. Evidently, reliance
on the Class 3 categorical exemption to evade CEQA review for the proposed expansion project would as
much be a prejudicial abuse of discretion under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as reliance on the
other two exemptions cited in the proposed STOA.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
6.A.q
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: 2022-02-21 angellaw comment ltr (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
Application No.:
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION
Applications must be submitted at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall. City Hall is located at 1685 Main Street, Santa
Monica, CA 90401. If you have any questions completing this application you may call City Planning at (310) 458-8341.GENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT ADDRESS:____________
DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Attach additional sheets as necessary to fully describe the
proposed project)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT (Note: All correspondences will be sent to the contact person)
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Email:
CONTACT PERSON (if different)
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Email:
Relation to Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Email:
I hereby certify that I am the owner of the subject property and that I have reviewed the subject application and
authorize the applicant or applicant’s representative (contact person) to make decisions that may affect my
property as it pertains to this application.
Property Owner’s Name (PRINT) Property Owner’s Signature / Date
This part to be completed by City staff
Application No.: Amount Paid: $
Received By: Check No.:
Date Submitted:
EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS.
FOR FURTHER DETAILS SEE ATTACHED.
MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 0.06% GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE.
TIM KUSSEROW, HEAD OF SCHOOL / KEN PARR, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
310-451-1332 tkusserow@carlthorp.org
KENNETH KUTCHER
1250 SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
(310) 451-3669 kutcher@hlkklaw.com
ATTORNEY AT LAW
CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
310-451-1332 tkusserow@carlthorp.org
TIM KUSSEROW
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
//ss//
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
Discretionary Permit Application Page 3 DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSPLANNING ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED (check all that apply):
Conditional Use Permit Minor Use Permit Major Modification
Development Review Permit Development Agreement Variance
Waiver
NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION
PLANNING APPLICATION – SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Demolition Permit 5HYLHZ5HTXLUHG (For Structures 40 Years or Older)
A demolition permit is required for demolition of any building or structure on the property
(primary or accessory structure.) The Landmarks Commission must review demolition permit
applications for structures that are 40 years or older. The Landmarks Commission may
exercise its authority to nominate the property for Landmark Designation, and/or designate the
property (structure and or parcel) as a Landmark, Landmark Parcel, or Structure of Merit in
accordance with and based on findings established in Chapters 9.56 and 9.58 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
My property contains a structure (or structures) 40 years old or older and the proposed
development of this property will require a demolition permit.
My application for a demolition permit has been reviewed by the Santa MonicaLandmarks
Commission and the 75-day review period has expired.
$SSOLFDWLRQZLOOQRWEHDFFHSWHGXQWLOWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWLVFRPSOHWH
Application Form
One original and 6 copies of application form. All the information requested on
the application must be provided.
Application Fees
The payment of an application fee is required. Please see current list of fees in Room 111
of City Hall. A check payable to the City of Santa Monica or credit card will be
required at the time of submittal of all planning permit applications to the Permit
Coordinator.
Rent Control Status Form
Certification by the Rent Control Administration of the Rent Control status of the property is
required. Applications submitted without this form will not be processed by the City
Planning Division. Forms are available in the Rent Control offices, Room 202 in City Hall.
Other Project-Related Applications
If applicable, copies of any application materials for other required planning
permits. Information on required planning permits and application materials is available
at the City Planning Division public counter, Room 111 of City Hall.
✔
COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 2, 2019 AT THE MONTANA AVENUE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
✔
✔
✔
✔
Amendment of
N/A
(Previously on file)
(Previously on file)
✔Minor Modification
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
APPLICANT: CARLTHORP SCHOOL
ADDRESS: 438 SAN VICENTE BLVD.
Carlthorp School | Project Description | Discretionary Permit Application
Summary
The proposed project involves the construction of new educational support space at the existing Carlthorp
School (“Carlthorp” or the “School”) campus located at 424-438 San Vicente Boulevard. Part of that space
(5,575 SF) will be located below ground under the existing outdoor play field; the existing lunch seating
area (844 SF) in the center of the campus with be enclosed, and a second-story addition (840 SF) above
the lunch seating will be constructed for school administrative offices. An elevated outdoor sports and
recreation space will be established next to the rear alley, and the Kindergarten play area will be refreshed
with new playground equipment.
The proposed project will not expand existing enrollment (remaining approximately 280 students), number
of staff (remaining approximately 80) or number of K-6 classrooms (remaining two per grade-level plus
various specialty classrooms) at the School, but instead would provide modest improvements, including a new
subterranean multi-purpose room, elevated outdoor recreational space, additional administrative space,
and an enclosed lunch seating area in order to optimize the operation of the School. The proposed project
triggers a total floor area increase of 7,259 SF. The project will also include modest improvements to an at-
grade recreational space at the eastern portion of the campus, although neither these improvements nor the
elevated outdoor recreational space constitutes additional floor area.
This project will expand the footprint of the existing school campus by only 1,310 SF through the enclosure
of the existing exterior cafeteria seating area and two new elevators and an exterior stair on the second
floor. This added parcel coverage requires a Minor Modification under the Zoning Code. All other aspects
of the School campus will remain functionally the same. An amendment to the School’s existing Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 95-012) is required to permit the expansion of a school in the R2 District. No changes are
proposed to the tuck-under parking area accessed from the alley, and no project features will exceed the
Zoning Code’s height limits. Although the School is located in a designated Historic District, the School itself
is not a “contributing building.” The Landmarks Commission raised no concerns regarding project at the
October 14, 2019 preliminary review hearing.
Background
Carlthorp was established in 1939 and is the oldest independent school in Santa Monica. The school has
remained in its present location since 1941 and has coexisted compatibly with its surrounding residential
neighborhood since then.
Carlthorp is a kindergarten through 6th grade (“K-6”) elementary school, and its campus site has grown only
modestly over time since its establishment. The most substantial expansion involved acquiring and demolishing
the neighboring vacant apartment building which became structurally dangerous and red-tagged after the
1994 Northridge Earthquake. That lot was then converted to outdoor physical education and pupil play
space as part of a CUP approved in 1996 for expansion of the school site. When the School merged with
that adjoining lot, Carlthorp also renovated its classroom facilities to better support its elementary education
needs and repair earthquake damage. The current application requests an amendment to that CUP 95-012
for improved educational support space, as described below.
Throughout its history, Carlthorp’s basic educational philosophy has remained largely the same: focusing on
the child as a whole, helping each student to grow academically, socially, and ethically. Carlthorp provides
a strong academic foundation in a diverse and nurturing school community that emphasizes respectful values,
responsible work habits, and excellence in order to prepare its students to achieve their highest potential in
education and life. Carlthorp continues to enjoy a reputation for academic excellence that is demonstrated
by the high acceptance rate of its graduates to the secondary school of their first choice.
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
Carlthorp CUP Description | 2
Carlthorp is an inclusive community; there is not one “type” of Carlthorp student, just as there is not one
“type” of Carlthorp family. Today, the School reflects Santa Monica’s multifaceted community, embracing
diversity and inclusivity in all its forms. These values are reflected in the School’s campus, particularly
including the central courtyard where students of all ages and faculty meet every morning. The design of
the campus is intentionally inward looking, creating a sense of safety and community for all students to
express themselves, while also limiting impacts to surrounding residents.
The School adheres to a City-approved system for student pick up and drop off along its San Vicente
Boulevard frontage that prevents congestion, queuing problems, double parking and residential street
intrusion, which will be continued. None of these aspects of the School are anticipated to change with the
proposed project.
The Project
One of Carlthorp’s most cherished aspects is its modest scale and intimacy. However, because it has been
over 20 years since its last major renovation, the School requires modest upgrades to various support
facilities in order to continue to offer a high-quality, 21st Century educational program to its K-6 students.
One of the primary objectives of the proposed project is to achieve campus improvements that are sensitive
to, and compatible with, the surrounding neighbors and environment, as was done during the post-1994
expansion. Given the limited scale and location of proposed above-ground construction, which will be
located at the rear of the campus, only modest visual changes, if any, are anticipated from San Vicente
Boulevard.
The project will include four components that would collectively enhance the School’s support spaces, only
one of which would expand the School’s lot coverage:
1. The enclosure of 844 SF of existing outdoor lunch seating to allow for its utilization in all weather
conditions; an equal-sized second-floor addition above the lunch seating would provide additional
administrative space; two elevators, external to the existing building, are also anticipated to allow
for campus-wide accessibility.
2. Construction of a 4240 SF subterranean multi-purpose room (and associated 1335 SF basement
corridor) which will be built under a portion of the existing play field and will not be visible from
the street or neighboring properties at completion. This space will be used only for School-related
performances and other K-6 educational activities, which include music and performing arts classes
for K-6 students.
3. An elevated outdoor sports and recreational space (9218 SF), which will be located adjacent to the
alley at the rear of the campus away from San Vicente Boulevard, above a single-story (including
basement) wing of the campus. This unroofed recreational space would be enclosed by perimeter
walls (no taller than existing second story components of the campus) to contain noise and fitted with
netting to contain sports equipment.
4. Improvements to an existing outdoor play area adjacent to and accessible from two Kindergarten
classrooms at the east end of the campus.
These improvements will be constructed in multiple phases during the School’s summer breaks during the
months of May, June, July and August, 2021-2023. As a result, the applicant is seeking a multi-year term
for exercising the CUP to ensure that the improvements can be constructed in phases preceded by
fundraising. This phasing is required to allow for the expansion of the School’s support spaces without
disrupting school operations during the school year or displacing students. It is anticipated that this phasing
will also limit construction impacts on neighboring residents. Initial phases of construction will involve structural
preparation; excavation and foundation work; subsequent phases will involve above- and below-ground
construction on each of the four project components noted above. These activities will occur in parallel with
modest and routine aesthetic and functional improvements to the interior of the School facilities.
At completion of the project, the period of time during the day when the existing play field and other
exterior spaces are utilized will be reduced. This benefit is due to the enclosure of exterior cafeteria seating,
and the addition of the elevated recreational space, which will allow for simultaneous physical educational
classes that currently must be scheduled early in the morning or late in the afternoon.
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
Carlthorp CUP Description | 3
The School hired a premier acoustics and noise consultant (Veneklasen) to evaluate the potential for impacts
of the rooftop play court on adjacent residents. We are pleased to report that this scientific noise study has
confirmed that the sound created by using the rooftop play court will be well within the decibel limits of the
Santa Monica noise ordinance for residential zones, so there will be no adverse impacts on adjacent
residents.
Credit: Veneklasen Associates
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"4' - 0"3' - 8"BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
CLASSROOM -
BREAK OUT ROOM
CLASSROOM -
SPANISH
EXISTING CLASSROOM/
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
CLASSROOM -
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
RESTROOMS
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"HVO5' - 0"EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-B
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-B
BASEMENT FLOOR
PLAN - PARCEL
COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* BASEMENT AREAS SHOWN DO NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION.
FLOORING ABOVE THESE BASEMENT
AREAS ARE ALL 3 FEET OR LESS
ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
NEW BIKE RACKS
10' - 0"139' - 11"35' - 11"1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING
PARKING CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM PORCH
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATORCLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
EXISTING OPENING AT
END OF UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR TO REMAIN
OPENING IN NEW
WALL AT END OF
EXISTING
UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR
OPEN/UNENCLOSED
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 843 SF
TOTAL NEW MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY):
FIRST FLOOR (MAIN LEVEL):
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 18,536 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =20,998 SF
NEW = 2,462 SF
NEW MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
NOTE: THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY ARE
TREATED AS THE UPPER LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
CALCULATION OF PARCEL COVERAGE PER THE
DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SEE FLOOR LEVEL DIAGRAMS FOR MORE INFO.
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 1,231 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:02 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-B
FIRST (MAIN)
FLOOR PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/CSEE FIRST FLOOR/
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-B
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
OVERHANG OF ROOFTOP
PLAY COURT ABOVE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
SEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B
THIS PORTION OF STAIR
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
OPENING AT END
OF EXISTING
UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR, SEE
FIRST FLOOR/MAIN
LEVEL PLAN
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,531 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 840 SF
SECOND FLOOR (UPPER LEVEL):
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 16,985 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 16,985 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =18,516 SF
NEW = 1,531 SF
90% OF MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE
ALLOWED BASED ON MINOR
MODIFICATION INCREASE TO 45.29% OF
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,516 SF
( < 90 % OF MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE)
20,863.13 SF
x .45
46,362.50 SFMAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE
ALLOWED BY CODE:
18,898.2 SF
x .90
20,998 SF
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 401 SF
MAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE ALLOWED BY
MINOR MODIFICATION (45.29%)
20,998 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:40:02 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-B
SECOND (UPPER)
FLOOR PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
NEW ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
EXISTING ROOF
PL
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW
OFFICES
BELOW
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:06 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-B
ROOF PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE
TO THE LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
NEW ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAY COURT
EXISTING PARKING
EXISTING
CLASSROOMS 8' - 0"30' - 0"PLAY COURT
STORAGE
INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
CLASSROOM
MAIN LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL 3' - 0"NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND BUILDING
ENVELOPE 7' - 6"7' - 0"9' - 6"5' - 6"3' - 0"5' - 3"(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Basement Floor Lower
+89' -8"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
NEW ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
EXISTING
PARKING
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADDITION
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
BEYOND
NEW ENCLOSURE OF
EXISTING LUNCH SEATING 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"2' - 6"3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 3"7' - 7"EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUILDING
30' - 0"UPPER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LIBRARY
UPPER LEVEL
CLASSROOM
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM
PORCH
NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE
(THIS PORTION OF
CLASSROOM PORCH
IS ON MAIN/FIRST
LEVEL)
(THIS PORTION
OF CLASSROOM
PORCH IS ON
UPPER/SECOND
LEVEL)
CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)&(G)OPEN 8' - 0"INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE 5' - 3"SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:39:07 PM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A300-B/C
SECTION DIAGRAMS
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1
E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT LEVEL
DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"2
N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &
ELEVATED COURT - LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
SMMC 9.52.020.0180 Attic. The area less than 7 feet in height, located above the ceiling
of the top story and below the roof that is not usable as habitable or commercial space and is
not accessible via a permanent access structure. An attic shall not be considered a story.
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+97'-3"
PL
+89'-8"
+89'-8"
LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
BREAK OUT
ROOM
SPANISH
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS & SHOWERS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
5' - 0"5' - 0"
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
LOWER LEVEL (+97' -3")
+0' -0"
-7' -7"
-5' -7"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-C
BASEMENT FLOOR
LEVEL DIAGRAM
(LOWER LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
MAIN LEVEL
+0' -0"
MAIN LEVEL (+107' -6")
+0' -0"
+1' -3"
-6' -0"CLASSROOM
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING PARKING
CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
CLASSROOM PORCH
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:38:02 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-C
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL
DIAGRAM (MAIN
LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
UPPER LEVEL (+119' -6")
+0' -0"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/CSEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-C
-9' -6"
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATORSEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-C
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:05 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-C
SECOND FLOOR
LEVEL DIAGRAM
(UPPER LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
EXISTING ROOF
NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW
OFFICES
BELOW
PL
ROOFTOP PLAY COURT
126' -6"
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:08 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-C
ROOF PLAN LEVEL
DIAGRAM
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.r
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 1 - Applicant Applications and Amended Application (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.s
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 2 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 1
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT
The City of Santa Monica Has Denied Me a Fair Process and Has Denied Me My
Due Process Rights
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has not conducted the appeal process in a fair
manner. The City and its employees (“Staff”) have misled me and acted with bias. The
City has unfairly favored the Carlthorp School (the “Applicant”) against my interests as
the Appellant.
The City did not notify me until weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks
after notifying the Applicant that that date had been set and more than 10 days after I first
began making inquiries that that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. For
these reasons, additional reasons specified herein and expressed through emails and
phone calls with the City, reasons expressed in my initial appeal statement, various
actions and inactions taken by the City, and for reasons that might be buried in
documents withheld by the City and yet undiscovered documents and events, I have been
denied a fair process and my due process rights. And, I have not been treated fairly by
the City, as compared to the Applicant in this matter.
I made clear to the City on several occasions over the past 13 months that I intended to
submit a supplement to my appeal statement (my “Supplemental Statement”) and that I
needed to be informed as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my
Supplemental Statement. And, the City gave me every indication several times over at
least the following eight months or more that it would inform me as to what would be the
deadline for my submitting my Supplemental Statement. However, the City failed to
provide me with any such deadline. The City improperly, therefore, published its Staff
Report without my having submitted my Supplemental Statement. The process has not
been fair.
The City stonewalled and sandbagged me throughout the process, usually refusing to
even respond to my numerous phone messages and emails, all the while attempting to
cram down a hearing date upon me without answering my questions regarding
fundamental zoning code questions that I have a right to have answered. Even my
attempts to reach out to the Planning Director, David Martin, did not elicit responses
from Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, or from David Martin. The only way I was
able to obtain responses from Jing since May 2021 (and later from David Martin) was for
me to contact the City Manager, which I found necessary to do several times beginning in
July 2021. Then when Jing did respond, she would not answer my questions and requests
for clarifications and confirmation of things she had told me during our telephone
conversations on 4/27/2021 and 10/19/2021. She did answer some of my questions but
she refused to answer, clarify, and confirm the most important of my questions and issues
that I addressed to her in my emails. Her “answers” were generally vague and opaque
and also absolutely not on point. And, I told her that she was refusing to answer my
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 2
questions. Jing then insisted that she was not refusing to answer my questions. I
responded that she absolutely was refusing to answer my questions. On 2/1/2022, I even
simplified two or three crucial questions into yes or no questions with requests for
explanations. Her response after nine months of repeatedly asking her these questions on
2/8/2022 was that my questions were not relevant and therefore she would not answer
them – obviously admitting finally that she was and had been indeed refusing to answer
my questions all along. However, such questions were relevant, which is proven by how
she answered similar questions on the phone in April and October of 2021. (See below.)
As I responded to her in my 2/1/2022 email, she did “not [answer my] questions and I
[found] it to be outrageously disturbing that [she had] chosen to characterize [her]
“answers” as having “thoroughly answered” my questions. Her statement was clearly
disingenuous, as is the Staff Report’s Staff Response 8B, to “Questions not answered”
(see below).
I told the City (Jing, Regina Szilak (“Gina”), David Martin, David White, and others)
several times each in multiple emails over several months and on the phone that:
I still am waiting for answers and clarifications to crucial questions that are
prerequisites to additional questions that build on such issues. It is completely
unrealistic and certainly unreasonable to hold the hearing or even set a date until:
First I need answers and clarifications to my 7/26/2021 and 5/12/2021 emails;
Second, I need to then formulate and ask the follow up questions that are now and
have been pending; then Third, I’ll need Jing, the Zoning Administrator, to
answer those additional follow up questions; then Fourth (assuming there would
be no additional iterative rounds of questions), I would need time to prepare my
supplement to my appeal; and then Fifth, Staff would need time to consider my
supplement and then after that prepare the Staff Report, sufficiently in advance of
the hearing.
I made it clear to Jing and Gina, more than a year ago and dozens of times since, that I
needed my Supplemental Statement to be incorporated into the Staff Report and that I
need to know what the deadline would be for submitting my Supplemental Statement.
Such deadline, of course, could not be determined until a hearing date would be set.
Eventually, after months of being stonewalled and sandbagged regarding getting my very
relevant and crucial questions answered and having a hearing date crammed down
without allowing me to get my questions answered – questions that I had been assured by
David Martin that I have a right to have answered – I then emailed and left a voicemail
for David White again on 2/2/2022. David White up until then had given me the clear
impression that he would make sure that I would get my questions answered sufficiently
in time for me to prepare my Supplemental Statement. (Every time after I emailed, or
spoke with, David White Jing would shortly thereafter email me regarding my questions,
although much of it was vague, opaque, and off point.) Included in my 2/2/2022 email to
David White, I said:
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 3
“Please intervene and require that the hearing date be postponed and please
require that (1) the Zoning Administrator properly answer, confirm, and clarify
my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications regarding the
Zoning Code and the Applicant’s proposed project; and (2) require that the
Planning Division not contemplate a hearing date until I have fully received the
answers and clarifications that I have been requesting and expect to request.”
David Martin called me that same day, February 2 – obviously in response to David
White telling him to deal with me. I again told David Martin that I needed to get my
questions answered before I could begin preparing my Supplemental Statement. David
Martin again told me that he wanted to get my questions answered. When I hadn’t heard
from Jing again, I emailed David White again on 2/6/2022 with similar requests as I had
said in my 2/2/2022 email, and I left a voicemail for him on 2/7/2022. David White
replied with an email on 2/8/2022, inviting me for a meeting with him and David Martin
and to work with his assistant to schedule the hearing. David White’s assistant told me
that the earliest a meeting could be scheduled was for 2/17/2022. Obviously, my purpose
in accepting an invitation to such a meeting was to obtain a postponement and to set an
agenda for getting my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations
answered, for which I had been requesting for more than 13 months and for which I had
been stonewalled for the past more than nine months.
I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming. David Martin had
assured me on 10/5/2021 on the phone that I had a right to have my questions answered.
I had a legal opinion from an attorney who works in this area of the law and who has
close ties with the City that I had a right to have my questions answered. All of my
emails to Jing and to Gina at least since October had been copied to David White and to
David Martin. Every time that I reached out to David White (and John Jalili before him)
complaining that I wasn’t getting my questions answered, I would get a quick response
from Jing, each time providing some response to my questions and requests for
confirmations and clarifications, but inadequate, vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the
point of my questions. I had every reason to believe that a postponement was
forthcoming.
When David White on 2/8/2022 invited me to meet with him and David Martin, he led
me to believe that he would postpone the hearing when we were to meet on 2/17/2022,
but he ultimately refused. If he wasn’t going to postpone the hearing, he should have told
me when he invited me to the meeting or at least in the ensuing nine days that he would
not postpone the hearing. David White also sandbagged me.
No one ever gave me, as had been promised many months before, a deadline for me to
submit my Supplemental Statement. The Staff Report was completed at most only a day
or two after I met with David White and David Martin when I finally learned that the
City was definitely intending to go forth with the hearing on 2/22/2022, many weeks after
informing the Applicant that that date had been set for the hearing. I was thus also denied
the ability to provide my Supplemental Statement to the City in time for Staff to
incorporate my Supplemental Statement into the Staff Report.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 4
The City has not just incidentally provided an unfair process for me, but has orchestrated
the process in an unfair manner. (See additional facts and discussion, below, relating to
my responses to Attachment E, #8A – D.)
Due to the above very unfair circumstances, I have had to focus on this statement and
organizing and submitting documents for the hearing at the last minute to protect the
record and I have thus not had time to notify and remind most of my neighbors who
would be interested in attending the hearing. Therefore, it is likely that the turn out in
favor of this appeal and against the proposed project will be substantially diminished, as
compared to if I had been treated fairly by the City. And, most or all of the Applicant’s
supporters are either students (and parents of students) or employees or consultants who
the Applicant has paid to attend the hearing and who do not even live in the
neighborhood or in Santa Monica.
Some of the few neighbors who I did speak to in passing who live within the notice
radius have told me that they did not receive any notice cards relating to this appeal.
Furthermore, this project impacts neighbors beyond the notice radius due to noise, traffic
congestion, and particularly parking. The Applicant impacts on-street parking for a
distance of multiple blocks because the Applicant has only approximately 34 parking
spaces for a faculty of 80 and the parents of 280 children, many of whom park their cars
to drop off and/or pick up their children, and for numerous events.
The Staff Report, the City Council STOA, and the City Council Report are all confusing
because they make references to exhibits and other documents that are not posted with
these reports and on the Agenda and which are not readily available on the Agenda page.
And, these reports make ambiguous references to different sets of exhibits using the same
referenced name but are referring to different exhibits. As such, the item is defective and
it is confusing. Staff also failed to post crucial pages of Plans that were sent to me but
were not disclosed to the public at large.
Staff members violated the City’s ordinances and its policies and procedures, including
violating the City of Santa Monica Code of Ethics.
I also submitted an objection to the public notice of this hearing because it didn’t specify
that the City Council is ruling on CEQA exemptions. As such, the public will not have
an opportunity to adequately question and challenge such exemptions or prepare for that.
For all of the above, and below, reasons the City should postpone the hearing and/or rule
in favor of my appeal.
The Planning Commission Hearing Process
One other thing that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning Commission
hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public presented and
spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns and began
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 5
“solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly considering
that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was preventing the
Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in response to the
Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been suggested to the
in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such “solutions” would be
introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed “solutions” some of
which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for example, my
discussion (below) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point, in the section
named The City Council Report.) For one, I don’t think it was proper for the Planning
Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to concerns in a
manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was not permitted
to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with expedience on
issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa Monica
residents.
The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project
are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the
Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests
Parcel Coverage Calculations
The Parcel Coverage Calculations, as performed on Plan pages A121-B and A122-B, as
revised approximately in March 2021, are inaccurate and substantially understate the
actual parcel coverage of the proposed project. Such calculations have several errors.
One such error is that it treats the “Main Level” as depicted on Plan page A121-C as the
First Floor and the “Upper Level” as the Second Floor. (See Plan pgs. A121-B, and
A122-B.) The “Lower Level,” as depicted in Plan page A120-C, is actually the First
Floor – or First Story – and the “Main Level,” as also depicted in Plan page A121-C, is
the Second Story. The “Upper Level,” as depicted in Plan page A122-C, is actually a
non-conforming Third Story. The “Lower Level” does not meet the definition of a
basement, as defined by the SMMC. (See SMMC 9.52.020.0230.) The First Floor Parcel
Coverage Calculation is incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Storage
room, as depicted on Plan page A120-B. The Second Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation
is also incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Classroom in the southeast
corner of the building and much of the blue-shaded area, as depicted on Plan page A121-
B. (I could not find the Plan pages on the City’s Agenda page or in any documents listed
and linked on that page that are referred to in this paragraph and in this section, below.
However, such Plan pages were produced by the Applicant in a 9-page pdf set and
submitted to the City. These pages show and help show that the proposed project violates
the Zoning Code. It is not clear why Staff failed to include such important pages with the
Agenda. However, I am submitting these pages along with other materials.)
Prohibited Third Story Addition
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 6
Furthermore, the Applicant proposes adding to its nonconforming Third Story, which is
strictly prohibited under the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code only permits two story
structures in the Applicant’s zone. (See SMMC 9.08.030 (Development Standards)
(limiting number of stories in the R2 District to 2 stories).)
The Applicant’s Building’s Lower Level is Not a Basement, it is the First
Story
In response to my questions, on 4/27/2021 and on 10/19/2021 on the phone, Jing, the
Zoning Administrator, unequivocally told me that everything in dark green on Plan page
A120-C is all on the same level for any and all purposes and applications and
interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. On those
calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Blue and the Medium Blue areas
on Plan page A121-C are all on one level for all purposes, applications, and
interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. On those
calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the Dark Pink area on Plan page A122-C
is all on one level for all purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code,
including for the definition of a basement.
As noted, above, the Applicant’s plans, calculations, and the proposal assumes that, what
the Applicant refers to as the “Lower Level” as a “basement,” however, in fact the
existing building does not have a “basement” as defined under the SMMC.
Basement, is defined by the SMMC as:
9.52.020.0230 Basement. The level(s) of a structure located below Average
Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in
which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented
Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above
Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.
Up to 4 wall surfaces of the level directly below Average Natural Grade,
Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade may be exposed above
Finished Grade, so long as this exposure does not exceed 40% of each of these
wall surface areas. Each wall surface area is calculated by multiplying the height
by the length of the wall. In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls
shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage,
which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the
maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or
emergency egress as required by the Building Code. A basement shall not be
considered a story.
(SMMC 9.52.020.0230.)
Analyzing the First Criterion in the Definition of a Basement
First, I’ll analyze the first sentence of Section 9.52.020.0230, which says: “The level(s) of
a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or
Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 7
Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet
above Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical
Grade.” The Applicant utilizes Average Natural Grade (“ANG”) in all of its plans and in
its proposal. According to the City’s Zoning Administrator and the plain text of the
ordinance, if any portion of the Lower Level projects more than 3 feet above ANG, then
the entire Lower Level is not a basement, and would therefore be the First Story.
As can be seen on Plan page A300-B/C, ANG is at 104 and ½ feet (104’-6”), and 3 feet
above ANG is at 107 and ½ feet (107’-6”) (104.5’ + 3’ = 107.5’). ANG on Plan page
A300B/C is also depicted as a horizontal broken red line. As can be seen on Plan page
A300B/C, the Lower Level projects above ANG. Plan page A120-C shows the floor of
the Lower Level at 97 and ¼ feet (97’3”), which is 7 feet below ANG. The Lower Level
projects all the way to the surface of the floor above it. (SMMC 9.52.020.2320 defines
Story as: “That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and
the upper surface of the floor next above. . . .”) Looking at Plan pages A120-C and
A121-C, it is clearly evident that the Lower Level projects 4 and ¼ feet (or 4’ 3”) above
ANG. (See the Dark Blue portion of the Main Level on Plan page A121-C, which
displays the floor of the Main Level and upper range of the Lower Level as being 1 and
¼ feet (1’ – 3”) above the Light Blue portion of the Main Level, which has a floor level
of 107 and ½ feet (107’ – 6”), which is already 3 feet above ANG (107.5’ + 1.25’ =
108.75’; also, 108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). Thus, the Kitchen, the Board Room, the
Reception Front Office, both of Classroom – 1st Grade and a lot of other space on the
Main Level, have their floor at more than 3 feet above ANG and thus, the Lower Level
space below it all projects 4 and ¼ feet above ANG, which is more than 3 feet above
ANG. Because the Zoning Code’s definition of a basement says that “no portion of the
level directly below” ANG may project “more than 3 feet above” ANG, the entire Lower
Level is not a basement and is thus the First Story. Jing confirmed this to me on the
phone in April 2021.
The Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion approximately 25 years ago also
display the same result. Those plans, Plan page A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts
large portions of the Applicant’s Lower Level as projecting all the way to 108.75’ (108
and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (See also Plan
page A-6.2 (dated May 02, 1997.)
Analyzing the Fourth Criterion in the Definition of a Basement
The Lower Level, which the Applicant claims is a basement rather than the First Story, is
not a basement also because walls of the Lower Level have visible wall surfaces that
exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The fourth sentence of SMMC Section
9.52.020.0230, defining “Basement,” says:
“In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet
above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed
to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set
forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the
Building Code.”
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 8
This means that if even one visible wall surface height of a level exceeds 3 feet above
Finished Grade, then the entire level is not a basement. Several of the Applicant’s Lower
Level walls have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan
page A120-C, depicts the Lower Level. Three of the walls of the Storage room in the
southeast corner of the building all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above
Finished Grade. (See photos.) The westerly, southerly, and easterly walls of the Storage
room all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See
photos.) The wall containing the entrance to the Lower Level, which abuts the Break Out
Room and the hallway adjacent to the Break Out Room on the Lower Level also have a
visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.)
Even without the photos, it is obvious that the Storage room in the southeast corner of the
building has a visible wall surface that exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan page
A300-B/C, on the top portion of the page, “E/W Section Through Elevated Court Level
Diagram shows 3 feet of the Storage room on the Lower Level above the broken red line
– the line that delineates where ANG is – and additional wall surface below ANG down
to the surface of the parking lot. That wall of the Storage room that abuts the Existing
Parking, as depicted on Plan page A300-B/C, both the 3-foot portion of the wall above
ANG and the portion below ANG that is above the surface of the Existing Parking is a
visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The wall of the Storage
room, referred to here, is on the western side of the Storage room, even though it is
depicted on the right side of the Storage room. That is because the diagram at the top of
Plan page A300-B/C is viewed from the North.) What Plan page A300-B/C doesn’t
show is that the walls of the Storage room on the South and on the East of the room also
have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. This diagram doesn’t
show that the Finished Grade on the South side of the building where the Storage room is
located is almost exactly the same as the Finished Grade where the surface of the
Existing Parking lot abuts the Storage room. (See photos.)
While it is more difficult to see and access, much or all of the walls on the east side of the
building have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See
photos.) The eastern side of the Storage room, as displayed on Plan page A120-C, which
depicts the Lower Level, has already been shown, above, to have a visible wall surface
that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The Faculty Lounge on the northeast corner of
the Lower Level, as displayed on Plan page A120-C, has its entire eastern wall from
approximately the floor to the ceiling (approximately 8 feet) with a visible wall surface
that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (The photos of the eastern wall of the Faculty
Lounge on the Lower Level, accompanying this Supplement, were taken with bushes and
a chain linked fence between the camera and the eastern wall and the surface of the
abutting Finished Grade, making it somewhat difficult to see; but, if one looks carefully,
it is obvious that the visible wall surface on the eastern wall of the Faculty Lounge has
several feet, more than six feet of visible wall surface, above Finished Grade.)
The Lower Level is clearly not a basement. A similar perspective can also be seen in the
Carlthorp School Plans from approximately 25 years ago, page P-3, dated October 22,
1997, and approved under a previous zoning code, 11/12/1997.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 9
The Lower Level also violates other aspects of the definition of a basement. (SMMC
9.52.020.0230.)
No Basement, Three Stories, Incorrect Parcel Coverage Calculations, Minor
Modification Application is Insufficient to Build Proposed Project, and Prohibited
Third Story Additions
Therefore, the Lower Level is not a basement as the Applicant asserts. (Perhaps the
City’s Planning Department failed to actually inspect the property and instead relied only
on the plans in determining that the Applicant’s proposed project satisfied the zoning
code.) Instead, the Lower Level is the First Story, the Main Level is the Second Story,
and the Upper Level is the Third Story. All parcel coverage calculations are based on the
wrong information and are incorrect and thus the public disclosures are all incorrect and
the public has not been adequately notified and the City has not adequately reviewed the
project. The actual parcel coverage exceeds the amounts being asked for in the
Applicant’s application. Additions to the Third Story are being proposed, which are
strictly prohibited by the Zoning Code. Staff should not have recommended that the
proposed project be approved and the City Council should confirm my appeal and deny
the Applicant from being granted approval.
The Proposed Multipurpose Room is a Classroom
The Zoning Code requires additional parking to be added if the proposed project adds
even a single classroom. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No.
20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).
The proposed multipurpose room, in Planning Commission Hearing (11/4/2020)
Attachment J, says that it will be used for "Orchestra practices" and "Theatrical practice"
and an "Indoor climbing wall for PE" and "CPR training for employees" and
"Professional development for faculty." These are all instructional activities involving
instructors and students. (Regarding training for employees and professional
development for faculty, such activity does involve instructing students, except that in
such activity, the employees and faculty members are the "students.") As such, by
definition, when any of these activities are taking place, the multipurpose room would be
serving as a classroom. The Applicant has repeatedly said, dating back to its initial
application in 2019, that it would be conducting such instructional classroom activities in
the proposed multipurpose room. All three of those applications, clearly state that the
Applicant intends to use the Multi-purpose room for teaching classes.
The Applicant admitted that its proposed “subterranean multi-purpose room” would be
used for teaching classes and as classroom space when it said that the proposed
expansion would be used for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 10
include music and performing arts classes.” (See City of Santa Monica – City Planning
Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd, for a Minor
Modification (not dated or signed), attached sheets Project Description (“Minor Mod
Project Description”), at 2.) It made such admission three times in three separate
applications over the period of almost a year, relating to this proposed project. (Please
see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg
of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP); 20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San
Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled, The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization
of the Additional Classroom Space) (describing in more detail how the multipurpose
room will serve as a classroom).
The Planning Department added Condition 17 to prevent the multipurpose room from
being used as a classroom. However, Condition 17 is unenforceable. The proposed
Multi-purpose room is subterranean and any teaching activity would be undetectable and
the City continues to refuse to enforce ongoing violations of existing CUP Conditions
and SMMC violations at the school. All the more so, the City would not likely enforce
Condition 17, which is not visible to the naked eye. Also, Condition 17 is self-
contradictory because it says that the “multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner
described in Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom.”
Attachment J contains multiple uses that are clearly classroom activities, and thus
Condition 17 is self-contradictory, and it is unenforceable even if the City’s enforcement
agencies had the will to enforce it.
Because the Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, Additional Parking Spaces Are
Required
Because the multipurpose room is a classroom, the Applicant must add parking spaces.
Because the proposed project does not call for adding parking spaces, the proposed
project does not satisfy the Zoning Code and the Appeal must be accepted and the
proposed project must be denied by the City Council.
Parking Issues
From the STOA Conditions that was passed by the Planning Commission in 11/4/2020:
Condition # 6 calls for special planning only for events that are expected to exceed 150
vehicles. That is an absurdly high number for this neighborhood. The School only has
approximately 34 parking spaces for its 80 employees. The Condition is all but
impossible to enforce.
First, the Condition doesn’t clarify if the expected number of vehicles includes employee
vehicles or only additional vehicles. Second, the school can always say that it “expected”
fewer vehicles. There is no advance mechanism to assure the neighborhood that
reasonable precautions will be made and followed.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 11
When the Applicant expanded 25 years ago, it obtained its variance on parking, based on
statements and information provided to the City, including that it intended to expand its
total faculty from 22 people (15 full time and 7 part time) to 32 people (15 full time and 7
part time), which was a comparable percentage increase to their planned enrollment
expansion of slightly less than 50% at that time. (See Letter from Arthur L. Kassan,
Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer,
dated 6/13/1995, at 1.) The Applicant in 1996 received a variance to allow for their
parking configuration, which would have been sufficient to support their “planned” staff
of 32 people. However, the Applicant’s staff swelled to 80 people after receiving their
CUP and variance in 1996. When the Applicant received its variance and its CUP in
1996, it deceived the Planning Commission and the City. When the parking analysis was
conducted, the City relied on the Applicant telling the City that it was only expanding to
32 people (including part time employees), rather than expanding the staff to 80 people.
By no means does the Applicant have sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate
its needs, and thus heavily burdens its neighbors, in the surrounding blocks and further.
The Applicant violated its commitments to the City regarding faculty size and should not
be permitted to expand further. In fact, the Applicant should be required to reduce its
faculty to the level that it committed to the City and its neighbors 25 years ago at
approximately 32 people. The granting of any expansion should require such a condition.
The Applicant now says, again, that it won't increase its faculty size. Nonsense.
Empirically, the Applicant has demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word
then; it should not be trusted to keep its word now.
The school’s deficient parking causes faculty and visitors to the school to park in the
surrounding neighborhood, taking away space from local residents.
The Applicant has argued in the past, as it did to the Planning Commission, that it
somewhat mitigates these parking concerns because it is friendly with a neighboring
landlord who leases residents to some of its faculty. Such argument should be
completely disregarded because the Applicant does not have an entitlement to use such
parking spaces and it is completely possible that in the future, no such relationship will
exist.
Noise Concerns
I cannot overstate how much of a burden that the noise that the Applicant generates is
upon its neighbors. The noise study that the Applicant presented is misleading. The
noise pollution that the Applicant generates disrupts the peace and quiet in the
neighborhood in a major way.
Some of the noise concerns are: Children screaming, whistles, P.A. systems and loud
speakers, loud noises from vehicles and people congregating in the large open parking lot
off the alley (Georgina Place), organized cheering and screaming, outdoor amplified
music and rallies. The school also uses “Walkie-Talkies” and whistles, which are
particularly grating upon the nerves. Sometimes the Applicant invites musical and other
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 12
groups that bring in their own amplification system. The Applicant should be prohibited
from doing any of these.
The Applicant should also be prohibited from bringing in temporary speakers and
amplification, such as for an event. The Condition 9 language should be modified to
include prohibition of speakers anytime, not to exceed 3 minutes during morning
assembly and not at any other time, except for emergencies. Even use of amplified
speakers during morning assembly is unnecessary and invasive to the community and
should be prohibited.
The noise study that the Applicant submitted cited incorrect decibel limits from the
SMMC that were higher than the code actually indicates. The noise study and its analysis
and conclusions is flawed and should therefore be disregarded.
(See also, discussion relating to Attachment E, #6A – D.)
Traffic
Traffic caused from employees and also parents dropping off and picking up children is
excessive. Twice a day a line of cars circle the block, double-parked and blocking traffic,
creating excessive traffic for vehicles and substantial hazard for vehicles, pedestrians, and
animals.
Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to
and from school.
Sunshine, Sunlight, and Heat
Building the rooftop play court would block sunlight and direct sun from my windows,
and reduce sunlight that enters my home. The rooftop play court should not be allowed.
I rely on the sun entering my windows facing the Applicant to grow, ripen, and mature
most of the food that I eat. I have a right to that sunshine and sunlight and I need it for
my food. The sun in the morning helps to jumpstart the warming of my home,
particularly in the late winter, springtime, and the early fall. The sun in the morning also
helps to jumpstart me, to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder, from which I struggle
with. The Applicant should not be permitted to build the rooftop play court, or at least
not within approximately 40 feet of the western side of the existing building.
Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal
Statement”
Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement” (“Attachment E”), is
littered with misleading statements and ignores the actual facts and the law.
Topic 1A) Upper level exceeds parcel coverage: Staff has ignored the fact that the parcel
coverage calculations were conducted incorrectly. (See, above, The Applicant’s and
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 13
Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed
the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the
Applicant Requests.)
Topic 2A) Operating detrimental to surrounding properties: Obviously Code Compliance
or anyone else failed to inspect or visit the Applicant’s site at night where it would have
seen powerful flood lights that shine into neighbor’s windows all night long. I’ve
complained to Code Enforcement and to the police numerous times regarding various
violations but they never do anything. (See photo.)
Topic 2B) No further permits should be allowed to be issued due to CUP violations: The
95CUP-012, Condition #31 says that if the Applicant “fails to comply with any
conditions of the [1996 STOA], no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of
occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” Staff admits that
there are at least two ongoing violations of conditions of the Applicant’s existing CUP
(95-CUP-012). These violations (and others) have existed since prior to this century,
without any mitigation. Staff is acting irresponsibly by recommending that the Santa
Monica City Council ignore the fact that the Applicant is a serial violator of its CUP
conditions. Condition #31 is a standard condition in virtually all of the CUPs that the
City grants, and I think is a requirement under the SMMC. The Santa Monica City
Council should abide by the City’s own policy of requiring compliance before
granting any additional entitlements to the Applicant. If Staff were truly objective –
as it should be but for which it is obviously not – Staff would not be recommending that
the Santa Monica City Council deny my appeal. (See 2E and 2F, below.)
Topic 2C) Existing Landscaping exceeds height limits: The trees on the westerly border
of the Applicant’s property are planted excessively close together and, thus, are a de facto
hedge and/or wall, and exceed height limits.
Topic 2D) Existing plan for pick-up/drop-off does not work: The neighbors should have
been directly solicited regarding this issue, before any additional entitlements are granted.
The chain of vehicles that line up around San Vicente Blvd, onto 4th Street, and onto and
way up Georgina Avenue for pick-up and drop-off creates a serious safety hazard for the
community and causes serious traffic interference for the neighborhood. Drivers of these
vehicles commonly violate the Motor Vehicle Code and block intersections to both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This issue is a very serious matter due to the dangerous
and hazardous conditions imposed by the Applicant and because life is so precious. This
neighborhood is a very quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood – except for the
Carlthorp School.
Topic 2E) Grass surface replaced without approval: In Attachment G (to the 11/4/2020
Planning Commission hearing), the Annotated 1996 STOA, the Applicant admitted that it
defied Condition #59 of its existing CUP, essentially disrespecting the City and its
neighbors by unilaterally tearing out its grass – that it is required to have and maintain –
and replacing it with artificial turf that, instead of emitting fresh oxygen as grass does,
emits harmful noxious fumes that adversely affect the health of its neighbors and caused
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 14
my dear sweet mother to suffer and contributed to her demise. The Applicant apparently
misled the Planning Commission and the public again, here, by rationalizing and not
disclosing the real reason the Applicant replaced the required grass with artificial turf: so
that the Applicant could produce noisy outdoor activity all day long instead of only on a
limited basis. The Applicant has admitted that it is – and has been for many years – in
violation of this condition of the 1996 STOA; Condition #31 prohibits the Applicant
from receiving any additional entitlements “until such violation has been fully
remedied,” which it has not (with respect to this Condition #59 and other Conditions);
and therefore, the Planning Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s
proposals. Artificial turf also prevents rainwater from seeping into the soil and down into
the water table. (See 2B, above.)
Topic 2F) Obstructed clear view through front fence:
The Applicant is, and has obviously been openly defying its CUP for a number of years
on a continuing basis, not in compliance with this Condition. This Condition requires
that the front yard fence and landscaping shall be “installed and maintained so as not to
obstruct a clear view through the fence.” It is plainly obvious to anyone passing by the
Applicant’s parcel in the front on San Vicente Boulevard that the view through the fence
is completely obstructed. Photos taken 21 months ago depict that obstructed view.
(Please see photos attached to my 5/20/2020 comment letter that were taken on
5/19/2020.) The view today is still obstructed. I have photos taken on the day of the
November 4, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, and on 2/20/2022, which prove that
the view is completely obstructed. The Applicant is also in open defiance of SMMC
Section 9.08.030.F.4., which requires that Applicant’s courtyard “shall be visible and
accessible from the sidewalk.” Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Santa
Monica City Council should not approve the Applicant’s application because the
Applicant was not in compliance with its existing CUP. (See 2B, above.)
2H) Inconsistency of prior assertions by applicant regarding student enrollment and
number of staff: Staff misunderstands my assertions. I am saying that the Applicant
made representations to the City and to the public that it would only increase its
employee staff from 22 full and part time employees to 34 full and part time employees
and that the City and the public relied on such representations when the process occurred
in granting the Applicant its current CUP. The City should require that the Applicant
reduce its staff level to approximately the level that it represented to the City and to the
public when it was granted its current CUP. If any entitlements are granted to the
Applicant, such entitlements should be conditioned upon limiting Applicant’s staff to
approximately 34 people. And, certainly any language in any conditions should not
prevent the public from asserting these issues in the future. In other words, any
entitlements and conditions should not say or imply that the Applicant may have a staff
level as high as any specified number above approximately 34 people.
3A) Number of stories: Staff overlooks the fact that the Lower Level of the building does
not meet the code requirements to be a basement and is therefore a three-story building.
(See section, above, named The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 15
the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code,
Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.)
3E) Offices within apartment: This conversion occurred for several years earlier this
century and through much of the last decade. (I did not say that the conversion was still
ongoing. They closed those offices probably in preparation for their current application.)
I referred to that conversion to illustrate that the Applicant has disrespected and flouted
the Planning Commission and the laws of the City and to suggest that the Applicant is
cavalier regarding respecting City ordinances, its CUP conditions, and its neighbors.
3F) School did not engage in neighborhood outreach: There was a public meeting, which
I went to, but the meeting was very brief, substantially shorter than had been announced.
I had various questions that I raised after the meeting but still within the scheduled time.
Before I had an opportunity to ask all of my questions, several other members from the
public that had remained and I were all asked to leave. I, not the Applicant, reached out
by calling Tim Kusserow a few months later to discuss the project, but that was like
speaking with a block wall. A few neighbors and I later arranged a conference call with
Mr. Kusserow (or possibly someone else at the school), but that experience was also
fruitless. Mr. Kusserow left the call after a short while and I was not permitted to even
speak during the call. I later reached out to the Applicant’s law firm, who responded by
having Melissa Sweeney contact me. But she had no authority to consider actual public
concerns. She told me that she would get back to me but she didn’t, even after I
subsequently tried to reach her. I am not aware of any other so-called outreach. The only
public outreach was a perfunctory effort to present minimal information to the public. It
was not true public outreach because there was zero receptivity by the Applicant
regarding any and all public input. The Applicant was completely dismissive of any
public input. It is disingenuous to describe the Applicant’s contact with the public as
actual “outreach.”
4A) Parking requirement for classroom vs multipurpose room: The Staff here has it
backwards. The Applicant has provided a description of the multipurpose room, which
clearly states that it WILL be used as a classroom. (See section named The
Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, above; and see, Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for
Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom). ) And,
Condition #17, which purportedly is intended to deal with this issue is self-contradictory
and unenforceable. (See id.)
6A) Noise and privacy: The mitigation measures that are proposed are inadequate and in
some respects aggravate the problem. (See above, Noise Concerns.)
6B) Noise is excessive when windows are open: This is an example how Staff is only
concerned with whether the Applicant is in compliance with the “letter” of the existing
CUP and its conditions, as opposed to the spirit of not imposing upon its neighbors and
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 16
the community; or if it can artificially justify the bending or actual breaching of the
existing CUP and its conditions. Here, double-paned windows were proposed, when the
existing CUP was created, for some of the Applicant’s neighbors, to mitigate the
outrageous noise created by the Applicant. However, such measure is completely
ineffective during warm and hot days when it is necessary for such neighbors to open
windows for air circulation. That amounts to more than half of the school year (plus
summer school). I’ve been raising this issue throughout the process these past two years,
but the Applicant, Staff, and the Planning Commission have ignored this issue. The City
Council should not grant any additional entitlements until the Applicant and Staff
actually and sincerely reach out to its neighbors and solve this issue. For more than 20
years this has been a major problem. I have complained numerous times to the Applicant
and to law enforcement and nothing has ever been done to mitigate this extremely
imposing problem. Children at random suddenly scream with high-pitched voices as
loud as they can. Adults suddenly blow whistles, lead organized and synchronized
cheering, and use walkie-talkies that grate the ears and nerves. The P.A. system suddenly
is utilized. Without advance notice, suddenly an event occurs with amplified music,
singing, talking, yelling and cheering. All of them randomly and suddenly yell at the top
of their lungs. All of this causes enormous stress on the nerves, prevents concentration,
and prevents speaking on the phone. And, for the size of the space and the proximity to
its neighbors in this otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood, the Applicant very
unreasonably imposes itself upon its neighbors and the Planning Department and the City
has made unfair rationalizations on behalf of the Applicant.
6C) Excessive noise: This is another example how the existing CUP conditions were not
well planned. The existing Condition #56, which requires staggering of playtime, is part
of the problem. It would be better to have all playtime occur all at once and get it over
with, rather than have it be loud throughout almost the entire day, as is the case now.
That way, on warm and hot days, windows could at least be open part of the day, rather
than forcing neighbors to swelter and suffocate the entire day. And, this could occur on a
set schedule so that neighbors could have control over their day, rather than the school
controlling the neighbors’ days. The City should reverse this condition to require the
Applicant to have all playtime coordinated during shorter portions of the day on a set
schedule.
6D) Excessive noise: The existing Condition #57 requires playgroups to be dispersed.
However, the opposite is occurring during loud organized cheering. Also, I don’t see
how the noise could be much worse so probably the Applicant is not adhering to this
condition in other ways.
7A) Privacy impacts: See my fourth bullet point under The City Council Report, relating
to page 8 of that report. Also, as I’ve said before in another earlier submission: Faculty,
parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from
school.
8A) Documents withheld: I still have not received all of the documents that I have
requested from the City pertaining to this appeal
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 17
8B) Questions not answered:
Staff asserts in its Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions
during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members.” Such
statement is grossly misleading. Since I filed the appeal, there were three – and not more
than three – phone calls since I filed the appeal when I presented substantive questions.
The first phone call was on 4/14/2021 with Jing Yeo. Most of that call dealt with my
asking a threshold question that had to be asked before I could move to the actual
questions that I needed to ask. However, Jing was stuck on giving me an answer that
defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics. (She was
stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in such
structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding
infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of
geometry, math, and physics because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated
another way, in zero dimensional space.) We ran out of time for that call so I asked her
to think about it and we’d pick that up on the next call, which we planned for 4/27/2021.
Almost as soon as we began speaking on 4/27/2021, Jing had already come around to my
way of thinking.
There was some important progress that I made in asking my questions during those two
calls in April and one important question (or group of very similar questions) that was
answered on 10/19/2021, which covered only about five minutes of that call in October.
(Some of the detail of those answers has been explained above.)
But almost everything else about the call on 10/19/2021 was a waste of time, whereby
Jing outright refused to answer my questions. There was a trail of thought that I was
taking Jing down using diagrams from the Plan pages, in which I was leading her to
questions that I was trying to ask and she was finally being receptive. However, David
Martin had set that call up with him, Stephanie Reich, and Gina also on the call. I need
and needed specific questions answered regarding the zoning code and Jing is the Zoning
Administrator, who has the responsibility to explain and clarify the zoning code. My
questions were directed at Jing and not Stephanie. However, as I explained to David
Martin in my email of 10/29/2021:
“However, my questions are of the nature, which are for the Zoning
Administrator, particularly because some of my questions are complicated, and
about complicated issues and definitions.… Jing is the Zoning Administrator –
not Stephanie. . . . [I]t is her responsibility to make these determinations, and
yours I guess as the Director. Multiple times Stephanie disrupted the flow of my
questions and descriptions, interrupting because she had difficulty following
along, as she indicated. [And, e]ach time Stephanie interrupted, it was just as I
was about to get [to where I needed Jing to go in her mind and with the diagrams
for me to ask my questions].”
Thus almost all of the 10/29/2021 conference call was a waste of time and I still hadn’t
gotten to ask my questions.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 18
Staff’s Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during
multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members” is grossly misleading.
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written
correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly
FALSE. Staff has stonewalled me and refused to answer my questions, while
simultaneously attempting to cram down a hearing down upon me. I began requesting
that the Zoning Administrator, Jing Yeo, answer my questions more than 13 months ago
in early January 2020. She was very busy for a couple of months and then I had an injury
that delayed a couple weeks. In April 2021, Jing and I got off to a good start in phone
calls on 4/14/2021 and 4/27/2021, whereby we resolved to continue the process by email.
On 5/12/2021, I sent her an email with various questions and requests for confirmations
of what she had told me during April on the phone. She told me that I would receive
answers within or shortly after a couple weeks. I followed up with approximately a
dozen emails and phone calls when she was not forthcoming. Jing went completely dark
on me, failing to respond in any way whatsoever. After that, the only times Jing
contacted me was by email and then only after I would explain the circumstances to the
City Manager (first John Jalili and then David White) and that I wasn’t getting my
questions answered. My first contact with the City Manager, John Jalili, was in early
July 2021, and Jing followed up with an email addressing some of my questions. But her
answers were vague and opaque and mostly not on point and incomplete. For more than
the following seven months, I would promptly reply to her emails regarding my
questions, asking her to actually answer my questions. But she would not respond to my
email replies, unless and until I contacted the City Manager again, and then and only then
would she reply to my emails. I also attempted to reach out to David Martin, the Director
of the Planning Department, with numerous emails and phone calls, attempting to get him
to motivate Jing to properly answer my emails. The only times David Martin got back to
me was shortly after I contacted the City Manager. Additional detail is explained, above,
in the section discussing the unfair process. (The email strings with Jing Yeo and David
Martin, since 5/12/2021, are being included along with this Supplement.)
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written
correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly
FALSE.
8C) Premature Planning Commission hearing: “Multiple hearing delays were granted”
implies that such delays were granted due to my causing that to be necessary. All delays
relating to the Planning Commission hearing were due to the City choosing on its own to
delay the hearing date or because the City had failed to follow through on commitments
to provide me with information, answers to questions, and documents. Almost all of the
delay occurred due to the City’s own choosing for its own reasons. The two delays
relating to the City not following through on commitments to me was only one week in
May 2020 and approximately two weeks in October 2020, and I still had not received all
of the documents that I had asked for when the hearing was held on 11/4/2020.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 19
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8D in Attachment E, “Multiple hearing delays have
been granted” is very misleading. Any and all delays in bringing this matter before the
City Council is due to delays caused by the City, except for an approximately two week
delay that I needed due to an injury that I suffered in late March 2021. All other delays in
this process were due to Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, being too busy to answer
my Zoning Code questions during the winter of 2021, and then since 5/12/2021, her
refusing to respond to me and her answering my questions and requests for clarifications
and confirmations of oral statements in a vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point
manner and also her refusing to answer my questions. (See detailed discussion in
response to 8B and in discussions above relating to the unfairness of the process and
attached email strings with Jing Yeo, David Martin, Regina Szilak, and David White.)
8D) Requested appellant to confirm February 22, 2022 appeal hearing date on November
29, 2021: The City here makes a false and misleading statement. The City notified me
weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant
that the hearing date had been set for that date. The City’s email on 11/29/2021 did not
ask me to confirm the 2/22/2022 date for the hearing; it only mentioned 2/22/2022 as a
potential hearing date. I responded on 12/8/2021, rejecting such date by indicating that
setting a hearing date at that time was “premature and grossly unfair until I have had the
opportunity to have my questions and requests for clarifications properly addressed and
fully vetted.” I was not notified that the City wanted to proceed with 2/22/2022 until
2/1/2022, which was weeks after the City had notified the Applicant that that was a set
date and more than 10 days after I first started requesting that the City confirm or deny
whether that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. (See submitted email strings
with Regina Szilak, Jing Yeo, David Martin, and David White.) And, I didn’t really
know that 2/22/2022 would be the hearing date until 2/17/2022. (See email strings with
David White, and particularly my email to David White, dated 2/18/2022.) The City
deceived me and misled me and failed to properly notify me as to the hearing date and
gave substantial deference to the Applicant against my interests as the Appellant, and the
City has done that throughout this process.
The City Council Report
The City Council Report states in the context of “the impact of loading/unloading and
parking on the surrounding neighborhood[, that] [n]o new parking impacts are associated
with the current proposal.” (City Council Report, at 7.) That is an absurd finding. The
Applicant has said that it intends to hold music and dance performances in the proposed
multipurpose room. The multipurpose room will at times serve as an auditorium/theater
with a substantial capacity. And the addition of the proposed multipurpose room and the
proposed rooftop play court will add substantial space for events that are more intense
than are currently held. The Applicant will be able to host larger crowds of visitors,
which would require larger numbers of staff to monitor the events. At large events, the
Applicant might choose to even hire temporary workers for the event, particularly if valet
parking is permitted, which is a very bad idea. The school already commonly hires (or
invites) musical bands and other performing arts, and various other services when it
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 20
conducts events. The school will likely hire catering services. All those people have to
park somewhere if they drive there. All of these people will impact parking needs that
will impact the community and the surrounding neighborhood. There are many other
examples that would impact the neighborhood.
The City Council Report describes conditions to “provide concrete direction and
guidance to further … dialogue” with the neighborhood. (City Council Report, at 8.)
Those conditions are joke:
A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have
reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and
with numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses.
I’ve complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing
ever gets solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and
have no authority that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests.
Netting surrounding the upper-level play court would be ugly, as would the 30+
high wall surrounding the play court, and it would exceed the height limit in the
zoning code.
As discussed, above, the Conditions (Condition 17) is self-contradictory and
unenforceable and would not ensure that the multipurpose room would not be
used as a classroom.
The landscape screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy
concerns. That “solution” is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent
residential building across from that area of the school and would fail to protect
the privacy of such residents. It would only serve to protect the privacy of the
school but would do the opposite for those residents. Landscape screens are
opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is up close. Such
screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major) that are
completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their
opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or
anywhere close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on
the east side of the adjacent residential building. And, people inside those
residences would not even be able to detect that someone is peeping into their
windows, thus creating the constant concern and anxiety that someone (or even a
hidden camera) could be watching at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive
disruption to the privacy of the people in the adjacent building. The solution is
very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be built. Short of that, don’t
allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short of that, require the
stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the outside side of
the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.
The Applicant should absolutely not be permitted to have valet service. It would
create enormous stress on the neighborhood and only compound the parking and
traffic impact on the neighborhood.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT February 22, 2022
Page 21
The City Council Report when in reviewing my Appeal Statement fails to consider issues
brought forth here in this statement and additional issues that I still wish to formulate and
present because:
The City refused to answer my zoning code questions after having committed to me that
it would answer such questions sufficiently in time for me to provide additional follow up
questions that build on such zoning code questions, and sufficiently in advance of
scheduling a hearing date. (See above.)
The City also failed to fulfill my information requests, and in a timely manner.
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.t
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 3 - Statement of Steven Salsberg Appellant 2-22-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
6.A.u
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: ADD-TO_Appellant Supplemental Materials Part 4 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 1
`
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
To the Members of the Santa Monica City Council: PLEASE CONTINUE THIS
HEARING TO A LATER DATE. THE APPLICANT MADE SUBSTANTIAL AND
MATERIAL CHANGES TO ITS PLANS WHICH I RECEIVED LESS THAN ONE
WEEK PRIOR TO MY DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THIS DOCUMENT AND LESS
THAN TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS HEARING. I THUS DID NOT HAVE
SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT OR TO PREPARE FOR THE
HEARING OR TO CONSULT WITH EXPERTS. HOLDING THE HEARING ON
5/10/2022 WOULD FURTHER DENY ME A FAIR PROCESS. THE CITY
UNFAIRLY COORDINATED WITH THE APPLICANT IN NUMEROUS OTHER
WAYS, TO GAME THE PROCESS TO MY DISADVANTAGE AND TO DENY ME
OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
(This document is incomplete and not adequately edited and trimmed down because the
City refused to allow me to have a reasonable amount of time to review the materially
modified Plans, twice in one month, and sandbagged me on the scheduling.)
If any of the Applicant’s Employees Make Public Comments at the Hearing, That
Time Should be Taken Away From the Applicant’s 10 Minutes of Presentation Time
During the Hearing, Otherwise the Hearing Process Will Not Be Fair
The Format of This Hearing is Denying Many of my Neighbors, Who Support My
Appeal, From Attending and Providing Oral Comment
Many of my neighbors and allies who ardently oppose the Applicant’s Project and who
support my appeal have told me that they will not attend because of COVID fears. Many
of them are mature and/or have other COVID related vulnerabilities. They are all long-
term residents with deep roots in the neighborhood and in Santa Monica and they are all
voters and many of them are very active politically. Please postpone this hearing and
make arrangements so that they can participate in the hearing remotely.
The City of Santa Monica Has Denied Me a Fair Process and Has Denied Me My
Due Process Rights
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has not conducted the appeal process in a fair
manner. The City and its employees (“Staff”) have misled me and acted with bias. The
City has unfairly favored the Carlthorp School (the “Applicant”) against my (and my
neighbors’) interests as the Appellant.
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 2
(1) For the second time in one month the City allowed the Applicant to substantially
and materially alter its plans very shortly before the hearing date scheduled for
5/10/2022, causing me to be unprepared to adequately analyze and address all of
the changes in the updated plans and also have time to sufficiently prepare and
provide my Supplemental Appeal Statement and adequately prepare for the
5/10/2022 hearing, despite my numerous requests to postpone the hearing or to
hold the Applicant to its original plans. Staff is and has been clearly unfairly
biased in favor of the Applicant and against me (and my neighbors).
(2) The City allowed the Applicant to substantially alter its plans very shortly before
the hearing date scheduled for 4/12/2022, causing me to be unprepared to
adequately analyze and address all of the changes in the updated plans and also
have time to sufficiently prepare and provide my Supplemental Appeal Statement
and adequately prepare for the 4/12/2022 hearing, despite my numerous requests
to postpone the hearing or to hold the Applicant to its original plans. Staff is and
has been clearly unfairly biased in favor of the Applicant and against me (and my
neighbors).
(3) The City did not notify me until weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date
and weeks after notifying the Applicant that that date had been set and more than
10 days after I first began making inquiries to David Martin and Jing Yeo that that
date had been set based on rumors I had heard.
(4) The City committed to me before and after I filed the appeal to allow me to
provide a Supplemental Appeal Statement that would be included in the record
and which would be fully considered by Staff in their Staff Report and that Staff
would provide me with a deadline for submitting my Supplemental Appeal
Statement. Staff developed its Staff Report before giving me any such deadline to
submit my Supplemental Appeal Statement prior to the 2/22/2022 hearing date.
Staff told me that it had refused to update its Staff Report. Nonetheless, I
submitted my second Appellant statement, Statement of Steven Salsberg,
Appellant, February 22, 2022, along with other supporting documents. But the
only documents that were posted as coming from me as the Appellant that were
placed on the City Council’s Agenda webpage were some photos and everything
else was treated as mere public comment. The photos that I submitted had no
context. Thus, I was denied the opportunity to provide a Supplemental Statement
that would be treated as having come from the Appellant and that would be
reviewed in the Staff Report.
(5) After the 2/22/2022 hearing was continued, David Martin agreed on 3/9/2022 to
update the Staff Report relating to my Supplemental Appeal Statement but then
later reneged and the City had continued to refuse to update its Staff Report
despite my numerous pleas for such update of the Staff Report based on my
Supplemental Appeal Statement. David Martin and other Staff unequivocally told
me that the Staff Report would not be updated. Only after the Applicant
substantially altered its plans at the last minute on 4/1/2022 and again on
4/26/2022 did Staff decide to update its Staff Report, but only based on the new
plans that the Applicant generated. However, the City still continued to tell me
that it would not update the Staff Report based on my Supplemental Statement,
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 3
for which I have been diligently conducting substantial research and analysis for
more than a year. However, the City Council Report that was posted to the
Agenda on or about 5/5/2022, does update issues relating to my original
Appellant Statement, dated 11/18/2020, by claiming that I never submitted any
additional statement or facts as I had referred to in my 11/18/2020 Appellant
Statement, despite the fact that I submitted such documents on 2/22/2022 and
related facts and arguments in numerous emails to Staff. The City Council Report
didn’t just fail to address such items and issues, the City Council Report actually
claimed that no such follow up documentation or statements were made. For
example, regarding the privacy concerns that I raised in my original Appeal
Statement (11/18/2020), the City Council Report says that “[a]s of the writing of
this staff report, no additional information has been received.” (See The City
Council Report, at 16 – 17.) That is simply a bald-faced falsehood. This subject
was addressed in my second Appellate Statement on 2/22/2022 and in a series of
emails that I sent to the Planning Department. And, because David Martin and
other Staff insisted that Staff would not update the Staff Report and because Jing
Yeo had extended my time to submit additional materials, I had not yet submitted
this statement and other supporting materials, despite the fact that that issue and
most everything else had already been drafted.
(6) For a year, there has been an outrageous pattern of the Planning Department
refusing to cooperate and answer my questions and then suddenly springing a
high-pressure deadline upon me and/or holding a sword of Damocles over my
head by multiple times attempting to cram down an appeal date while refusing to
answer my questions about the Zoning Code.
For these reasons, additional reasons specified herein and expressed through emails and
phone calls with the City, reasons expressed in my initial appeal statement, various
actions and inactions taken by the City, and for reasons that might be buried in
documents withheld by the City and yet undiscovered documents and events, I have been
denied a fair process and my due process rights. And, I have not been treated fairly by
the City, as compared to the Applicant in this matter.
I made clear to the City on several occasions since before I filed this appeal that I
intended to submit a supplement to my appeal statement (my “Supplemental Statement”)
and that I needed to be informed as to what would be the deadline for my submitting my
Supplemental Statement. And, the City gave me every indication several times over
many months that it would inform me as to what would be the deadline for my submitting
my Supplemental Statement. However, the City failed to provide me with any such
deadline before the 2/22/2022 hearing date. The City improperly, therefore, published its
Staff Report without my having submitted my Supplemental Statement. The process has
not been fair.
The City stonewalled and sandbagged me throughout the process, usually refusing to
even respond to my numerous phone messages and emails, all the while attempting to
cram down a hearing date upon me without answering my questions regarding
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 4
fundamental zoning code questions that I have a right to have answered. David Martin
told me last year that I had a right to have my Zoning Code questions answered and
assured me that I would, indeed, have my questions answered. However, even my
attempts to reach out to the Planning Director, David Martin, did not elicit responses
from Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, or from David Martin. The only way I was
able to obtain responses from Jing since May 2021 (and later from David Martin) was for
me to contact the City Manager, which I found necessary to do several times beginning in
July 2021. Then when Jing did respond, she would not answer some of my most crucial
questions and requests for clarifications and confirmation of things she had told me
during our telephone conversations on 4/27/2021 and 10/19/2021. She did answer some
of my questions but she refused to answer, clarify, and confirm the most important of my
questions and issues that I addressed to her in my emails. Her “answers” were generally
vague and opaque and also absolutely not on point. (See email strings on the City
Council’s Agenda web page.) And, I told her that she was refusing to answer my
questions. Jing then insisted that she was not refusing to answer my questions. I
responded that she absolutely was refusing to answer my questions. After more than
eight months of “pulling teeth,” on 2/1/2022, I even simplified two or three crucial
questions into yes or no questions with requests for explanations. Her response after nine
months of repeatedly asking her these questions on 2/8/2022 was that my questions were
not relevant and therefore she would not answer them – obviously admitting finally that
she was and had been indeed refusing to answer my questions all along. However, such
questions were relevant, which is proven by how she answered similar questions on the
phone in April and October of 2021 and then later on 3/22/2022. (See below.) As I
responded to her in my 2/1/2022 email, she did “not [answer my] questions and I [found]
it to be outrageously disturbing that [she had] chosen to characterize [her] “answers” as
having “thoroughly answered” my questions. Her statement was clearly disingenuous, as
is the Staff Report’s Staff Response 8B, to “Questions not answered” (see Third Appeal
Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant – Substantive Issues).
I told the City (Jing, Regina Szilak (“Gina”), David Martin, David White, and others)
several times each in multiple emails over several months and on the phone that:
I still am waiting for answers and clarifications to crucial questions that are
prerequisites to additional questions that build on such issues. It is completely
unrealistic and certainly unreasonable to hold the hearing or even set a date until:
First I need answers and clarifications to my 7/26/2021 and 5/12/2021 emails;
Second, I need to then formulate and ask the follow up questions that are now and
have been pending; then Third, I’ll need Jing, the Zoning Administrator, to
answer those additional follow up questions; then Fourth (assuming there would
be no additional iterative rounds of questions), I would need time to prepare my
supplement to my appeal; and then Fifth, Staff would need time to consider my
supplement and then after that prepare the Staff Report, sufficiently in advance of
the hearing.
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 5
I made it clear to Jing and Gina, prior to my even filing the appeal and dozens of times
since, that I needed my Supplemental Statement to be incorporated into the Staff Report
and that I need to know what the deadline would be for submitting my Supplemental
Statement. Such deadline, of course, could not be determined until a hearing date would
be set.
Eventually, after more than seven months of being stonewalled and sandbagged regarding
getting my very relevant and crucial questions answered and having a hearing date
crammed down without allowing me to get my questions answered – questions that I had
been assured by David Martin that I have a right to have answered – I then emailed and
left a voicemail for David White again on 2/2/2022. David White up until then had given
me the clear impression that he would make sure that I would get my questions answered
sufficiently in time for me to prepare my Supplemental Statement. (Every time after I
emailed or spoke with David White, Jing would shortly thereafter email me regarding my
questions, although much of it was vague, opaque, and off point.) Included in my
2/2/2022 email to David White, I said:
“Please intervene and require that the hearing date be postponed and please
require that (1) the Zoning Administrator properly answer, confirm, and clarify
my questions and requests for confirmations and clarifications regarding the
Zoning Code and the Applicant’s proposed project; and (2) require that the
Planning Division not contemplate a hearing date until I have fully received the
answers and clarifications that I have been requesting and expect to request.”
David Martin called me that same day, February 2 – obviously in response to David
White telling him to deal with me. I again told David Martin that I needed to get my
questions answered before I could begin preparing my Supplemental Statement. David
Martin again told me that he wanted to get my questions answered. When I hadn’t heard
from Jing again, I emailed David White again on 2/6/2022 with similar requests as I had
said in my 2/2/2022 email, and I left a voicemail for him on 2/7/2022. David White
replied with an email on 2/8/2022, inviting me for a meeting with him and David Martin
and to work with his assistant to schedule the hearing. David White’s assistant told me
that the earliest a meeting could be scheduled was for 2/17/2022. Obviously, my purpose
in accepting an invitation to such a meeting was to obtain a postponement and to set an
agenda for getting my questions and requests for clarifications and confirmations
answered, for which I had been requesting for more than 13 months (at that point) and for
which I had been stonewalled for the past more than nine months (at that point).
I had every reason to believe that a postponement was forthcoming. David Martin had
assured me on 10/5/2021 on the phone that I had a right to have my questions answered.
I had a legal opinion from an attorney who works in this area of the law and who has
close ties with the City that I had a right to have my questions answered. All of my
emails to Jing and to Gina at least since October had been copied to David White and to
David Martin. Every time that I reached out to David White (and John Jalili before him)
complaining that I wasn’t getting my questions answered, I would get a quick response
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 6
from Jing, each time providing some response to my questions and requests for
confirmations and clarifications, but inadequate, vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the
point of my questions. I had every reason to believe that a postponement was
forthcoming.
When David White on 2/8/2022 invited me to meet with him and David Martin, he led
me to believe that he would postpone the hearing when we were to meet on 2/17/2022,
but he ultimately refused. If he wasn’t going to postpone the hearing, he should have told
me when he invited me to the meeting or at least in the ensuing nine days that he would
not postpone the hearing. David White also sandbagged me regarding the 2/22/2022
hearing.
No one ever gave me, as had been promised many months before, a deadline for me to
submit my Supplemental Statement. The Staff Report was completed at most only a day
or two after I met with David White and David Martin when I finally learned that the
City was definitely intending to go forth with the hearing on 2/22/2022, many weeks after
informing the Applicant that that date had been set for the hearing. I was thus also denied
the ability to provide my Supplemental Statement to the City in time for Staff to
incorporate my Supplemental Statement into the Staff Report, despite Staff’s prior
commitments to me.
After the 2/22/2022 hearing was continued, I pressed on. After the hearing was
continued, David Martin agreed to update the Staff Report but then later reneged and the
City has continued to refuse to update its Staff Report despite my numerous pleas for
such update of the Staff Report based on my Supplemental Appeal Statement. But David
Martin, the Director of Planning, did agree to another phone call with him and Jing to
resolve remaining questions, which occurred on 3/22/2022. While not all of my very
important questions were resolved, certain crucial questions were resolved. Those were
questions that Jing had stonewalled me on and refused to answer, despite my dozens of
attempts during the past year to get answered. Jing earlier had even asserted that such
questions were not relevant. Jing had also several times since July 2021 provided direct
“answers” to such questions by saying that she had examined the plans and determined
that the plans comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Such response was, of course, not at
all answers to my questions.
Finally, after an exhausting year of being stonewalled, during my 3/22/2022 call with
David Martin and with Jing, I had enough of my questions answered so that I was thus
able to explain how the Applicant’s plans failed to satisfy the Zoning Code. Essentially,
Jing then admitted to me during that call that, indeed, the Applicant’s plans violated the
Zoning Code. This was after more than a year of effort and ten months of being
stonewalled. Essentially, after the Planning Department had failed to properly and
adequately review the Applicant’s plans and apply the law to such plans, all the while
stonewalling me and interfering with me and with my attempts to bring some justice to
the process, which led to my performing the Planning Departments work and obligations.
(This pattern of the Planning Department failing to adequately review the Applicant’s
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 7
plans and failing to properly apply the law to such plans had been occurring for more
than two years. There were other clear and material failings by the Planning Department
regarding applying the Zoning Code to the Applicant’s plans that I began showing them
since prior to the original Planning Commission hearing date during and prior to May
2020.)
But the City was not done being unfair to me.
The City allowed the Applicant to substantially alter its plans very shortly before the
hearing date scheduled for 4/12/2022, causing me to be unprepared to adequately review,
analyze, and address all of the changes in the updated plans and also have time to
sufficiently prepare and provide my Supplemental Appeal Statement and adequately
prepare for the 4/12/2022 hearing date, despite my numerous requests to postpone the
hearing or to hold the Applicant to its original plans. Staff is and has been clearly
unfairly biased in favor of the Applicant and against me (and my neighbors).
On Friday afternoon of 4/1/2022 I became aware of the Plans with significant
modifications. Most of the remaining portion of that day was lost with my scrambling to
negotiate with David Martin, David White, and Staff to negotiate for more time and
information. Prior to that date my deadline was Monday 4/4/2022 to submit this
document but regarding 80 to 90% of that weekend I had prior commitments (scheduled
more than a year ago) for which I could not cancel, beginning that Friday evening.
Only after the Applicant substantially altered its plans at the last minute on 4/1/2022 did
Staff agree to update its Staff Report, but it ultimately only updated to deal with the
Applicant’s last minute change in the Plans.
The City has not just incidentally provided an unfair process for me, but has orchestrated
the process in an unfair manner. (See additional facts and discussion, in Third Appeal
Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant – Substantive Issues, relating to my responses to
Attachment E, #8A – D.)
Due to the above very unfair circumstances, I have had to focus on this statement and
organizing and submitting documents for the hearing at the last minute to protect the
record and I have thus not had time to notify and remind most of my neighbors who
would be interested in attending the hearing. Therefore, it is likely that the turn out in
favor of this appeal and against the proposed project will be substantially diminished, as
compared to if I had been treated fairly by the City. And, most or all of the Applicant’s
supporters are either students (and parents of students) or employees or consultants who
the Applicant has paid to attend the hearing and who do not even live in the
neighborhood or in Santa Monica.
Some of the few neighbors who I did speak to in passing who live within the notice
radius have told me that they did not receive notice cards relating to this appeal.
Furthermore, this project impacts neighbors beyond the notice radius due to noise, traffic
congestion, and particularly parking. The Applicant impacts on-street parking for a
distance of multiple blocks because the Applicant has only approximately 34 parking
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
PROCEDURAL ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 8
spaces for a faculty of 80 and the parents of 280 children, many of whom park their cars
to drop off and/or pick up their children, and for numerous large events.
The Staff Report, the City Council STOA, and the City Council Report are all confusing
because they make references to exhibits and other documents that are not posted with
these reports and on the Agenda and which are not readily available on the Agenda page.
And, these reports make ambiguous references to different sets of exhibits using the same
referenced name but are referring to different exhibits. As such, the item is defective and
it is confusing. Staff also failed to post crucial pages of Plans that were sent to me but
were not disclosed to the public at large.
Staff members violated the City’s ordinances and its policies and procedures, including
violating the City of Santa Monica Code of Ethics.
For all of the above, and below, reasons the City should postpone the hearing and/or rule
in favor of my appeal.
The Planning Commission Hearing Process
Amongst other things that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning
Commission hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public
presented and spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns
and began “solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly
considering that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was
preventing the Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in
response to the Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been
suggested in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such
“solutions” would be introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed
“solutions” some of which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for
example, my discussion (Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg, Appellant –
Substantive Issues)) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point, in the
section named The City Council Report.)1 For one, I don’t think it was proper for the
Planning Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to concerns
in a manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was not
permitted to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with
expedience on issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa
Monica residents.
1 References to the Staff Report, relate to the Staff Report, as published for the 2/22/2022 City Council
hearing.
6.A.v
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Procedural Issues 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 1 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
To the Members of the Santa Monica City Council: PLEASE CONTINUE THIS
HEARING TO A LATER DATE. THE APPLICANT MADE SUBSTANTIAL AND
MATERIAL CHANGES TO ITS PLANS WHICH I RECEIVED LESS THAN ONE
WEEK PRIOR TO MY INITIAL DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THIS DOCUMENT AND
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, WHICH THEY DID TWICE
IN LESS THAN A MONTH. I THUS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO
PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT OR TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING OR TO
CONSULT WITH EXPERTS. HOLDING THE HEARING ON 5/10/2022 WOULD
FURTHER DENY ME A FAIR PROCESS. THE CITY UNFAIRLY COORDINATED
WITH THE APPLICANT IN NUMEROUS OTHER WAYS, TO GAME THE
PROCESS TO MY DISADVANTAGE AND TO DENY ME OF MY DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS.
(This document is incomplete and not adequately edited and trimmed down because the
City refused to allow me to have a reasonable amount of time to review the materially
modified Plans, twice in one month, and sandbagged me on the scheduling.)
If any of the Applicant’s Employees Make Public Comments at the Hearing, That
Time Should be Taken Away From the Applicant’s 10 Minutes of Presentation Time
During the Hearing, Otherwise the Hearing Process Will Not Be Fair
The Format of This Hearing is Denying Many of my Neighbors, Who Support My
Appeal, From Attending and Providing Oral Comment
Many of my neighbors and allies who ardently oppose the Applicant’s Project and who
support my appeal have told me that they will not attend because of COVID fears. Many
of them are mature and/or have other COVID related vulnerabilities. They are all long-
term residents with deep roots in the neighborhood and in Santa Monica and they are all
voters and many of them are very active politically. Please postpone this hearing and
make arrangements so that they can participate in the hearing remotely.
The Planning Commission Hearing Process
Amongst other things that I found to be very frustrating regarding the Planning
Commission hearing process was that after the Staff, the Applicant, and the public
presented and spoke, the Planning Commission then addressed some issues and concerns
and began “solving problems” while simultaneously shutting out the public, particularly
considering that utilizing virtual hearings in the manner that it did, the City was
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 2 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
preventing the Planning Commissioners from even feeling the mood of the public in
response to the Commissioners’ proposals. Some of these “solutions” had not yet been
suggested in any public filings and the public had not had any notice that such
“solutions” would be introduced. Planning Commissioners proposed but mostly imposed
“solutions” some of which would cause more problems than they would solve. (See, for
example, my discussion (below) regarding landscape screening in my fourth bullet point,
in the section named The City Council Report.)1 For one, I don’t think it was proper for
the Planning Commission to have proposed and voted on alternative “solutions” to
concerns in a manner that had not been first vetted by the public and that the public was
not permitted to provide any input whatsoever. I ask that the City Council not act with
expedience on issues that might seem minor but that are very crucial in the lives of Santa
Monica residents.
Housekeeping Issues
I incorporate by reference the CEQA arguments and everything else in the letter from
Frank Angel, dated 2/22/2022.
I also incorporate by reference all communications, including emails, between anyone
and the City regarding the Applicant’s proposal, including communications within the
City, and including regarding my appeal.
I. THE PROPOSED MULTIPURPOSE ROOM IS A CLASSROOM, AND
THUS THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE NO
ADDITIONAL PARKING IS PROPOSED
The Proposed Multipurpose Room is a Classroom
The Zoning Code requires additional parking to be added if the proposed project adds
even a single classroom. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No.
20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).
The proposed multipurpose room, in Planning Commission Hearing (11/4/2020)
Attachment J, says that it will be used for "Orchestra practices" and "Theatrical practice"
and an "Indoor climbing wall for PE" and "CPR training for employees" and
"Professional development for faculty." These are all instructional activities involving
1 References to the Staff Report, relate to the Staff Report, as published for the 2/22/2022 City Council
hearing.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 3 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
instructors and students. (Regarding training for employees and professional
development for faculty, such activities do involve instructing students, except that
regarding these activities, the employees and faculty members are the "students.") As
such, by definition, when any of these activities are taking place, the multipurpose room
would be serving as a classroom.
The Applicant has repeatedly said, dating back to its initial application in 2019, that it
would be conducting such instructional classroom activities in the proposed multipurpose
room. All three of those applications (one of them is actually an amended application),
clearly state that the Applicant intends to use the Multi-purpose room for teaching
classes. (See on the City Council Agenda web page [1] “19ENT-0250 (438 SVB –
CUP),” [2] “20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd. Maj. mod,” and [3] “amended
modification Pages from Discretionary Permit App 2020.03.26” (displaying two of the
respective applications in full, only the first 5 pages of the amended modification
application); see attached, at the end of this statement, the first three pages (four pages for
the amended application) of all three of those respective application documents where
I’ve marked on the 3rd page (4th page for the amended application) of each respective
documents (on “Page 2” for all three respective documents) which says that the multi-
purpose room “will be used only for School-related performances and other K-6
educational activities, which included music and performing arts classes.”) Obviously,
the Applicant intends, and always intended, for teachers to be instructing students in the
proposed Multipurpose Room.
The Applicant admitted that its proposed “subterranean multi-purpose room” would be
used for teaching classes and as classroom space when it said that the proposed
expansion would be used for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which
include music and performing arts classes.” (See City of Santa Monica – City Planning
Division, Discretionary Permit Application, for 438 San Vicente Blvd, for a Minor
Modification (not dated or signed), attached sheets Project Description (“Minor Mod
Project Description”), at 2, which is partially attached to this document.) It made such
admission three times in three separate applications over the period of almost a year,
relating to this proposed project. (Please see Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for Case No.
20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom).
In May 2020, I pointed out to Jing Yeo, Planning Manager at the Santa Monica Planning
Department, that the Applicant specified in its applications that it intended to use the
multipurpose room for “performances and other K-6 educational activities, which include
music and performing arts classes,” and therefore the Applicant’s proposed project
violates the Zoning Code because the Applicant does not propose adding any classrooms.
Jing Yeo told me that she immediately notified the Applicant about my assertions. The
Applicant and the Planning Department evidently collaborated to develop a scheme to
avoid the zoning code requirement that the Applicant is required to add parking spaces
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 4 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
because it is proposing to add classroom space. The Applicant is required to add parking
if it adds even a single classroom, which this proposal does.
Within approximately a week after I pointed out to Jing Yeo that the Applicant intended
to use the proposed multipurpose room as a classroom, the Applicant produced a
statement denying that it intended to use the multipurpose room as a classroom, despite
having already admitted multiple times that it intended to use the multipurpose room as a
classroom. That statement evolved into Attachment J, which the Applicant ultimately
presented to the Planning Commission for the 11/4/2020 Planning Commission hearing.
Attachment J absurdly asserts that the multipurpose room will not be used as a classroom,
despite mentioning several activities in which it is clearly obvious that students will be
given educational instruction. And, the Planning Department disgracefully accepts such
obviously false assertion.
The Planning Department added Condition 17 to purportedly prevent the multipurpose
room from being used as a classroom. However, Condition 17 is self-contradictory
because it says that the “multi-purpose room shall be used in the manner described in
Attachment J of the staff report and shall not be used as a classroom,” except that
Attachment J contains multiple uses that are clearly classroom activities, and thus
Condition 17 is self-contradictory.
And, Condition 17 is unenforceable. The proposed Multi-purpose room is subterranean
and any teaching activity would be undetectable and the City continues to refuse to
enforce ongoing violations of existing CUP Conditions and SMMC violations at the
school. (For many years I have filed multiple complaints against the Applicant but Code
Enforcement and the police have never done anything. All the more so, the City would
not likely enforce Condition 17, because any violations would not be visible to the naked
eye.)
Thus, allowing the Applicant to build the multipurpose room will add classroom space
without requiring the requisite increase in parking spaces that the Applicant already lacks
compared to the amount of parking that it needs. (See section, below, Parking Issues,
describing how the Applicant is already deficient in the amount of parking that it needs
and how the Applicant deceived the City and the neighborhood regarding its need for
parking when it expanded approximately 25 years ago.) The Planning Department has
bent over backwards to allow the Applicant to defy the Zoning Code with its absurd
embrace of Attachment J and creation of the self-contradictory Condition 17 that is
unenforceable even if the City’s enforcement agencies had the will to enforce it.
Because the Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, Additional Parking Spaces Are
Required
Because the multipurpose room is a classroom, the Applicant must add parking spaces.
Because the proposed project does not call for adding parking spaces, the proposed
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 5 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
project does not satisfy the Zoning Code and the Appeal must be accepted and the
proposed project must be denied by the City Council.
II. THE APPLICANT’S and STAFF’S PARCEL COVERAGE
CALCULATIONS of the PROPOSED PROJECT ARE INCORRECT and
EXCEED the ALLOWABLE LIMIT UNDER the CODE, INCLUDINNG WITH
THE MINOR MODIFICATION THAT the APPLICANT REQUESTS
The first part of this section refers to a 9-page set of Plan pages that were put forth by the
Applicant in 2020 – 2021, but was very recently altered to become rather misleading and
confusing. Both sets of documents are incorrect for both similar and the same reasons,
but the 2021 set is much easier to explain because (1) the 2021 version displays the three
Levels of the existing building in the north and east wings with clear color coding Dark
Green for the Lower Level, Dark Blue and Medium Blue for the Main Level, and Dark
Pink for the Upper Level, whereas, (2) the Current May 2022 version re-labels the Levels
and incorrectly mixes up the Levels onto separate Floors. Essentially, both versions
incorrectly pretends that two people of the same height could be standing next to each
other on the same level looking squarely into each other’s eyes, but be on different floors.
Parcel Coverage Calculations
Crucial to determining Parcel Coverage is the determination as to whether, and to what
extent, the building might have a Basement because the Zoning Code excludes
Basements from being included in the Parcel Coverage calculation and because if there is
a Basement in the building, that would determine which area of the building is a First
Floor (or Story), a Second Floor, or a non-conforming existing Third Floor or an illegal
Third Floor proposed addition.
On the City Council’s online Agenda page for 5/10/2022, under my appeal item for the
Carlthorp School’s excessive expansion proposal, is Item number “p.” which is named
Carlthorp School PARCEL COVERAGE AND FLOOR DIAGRAMS 5.10.22 (“Parcel
Coverage – May 2022” or “PC 5-2022”), which is a 9-page set of Plan pages. Parcel
Coverage – May 2022 is incorrect, misleading, and confusing. The Applicant’s building
has essentially three wings in the shape of a horseshoe with squared-off edges,
comprising of north, east and south wings. The north and east wings (including the
southeast corner of the building) have essentially three levels: the Lower Level, the Main
Level, and the Upper Level. These three levels are displayed much more clearly in an
earlier version of the 9-page Parcel Coverage and Floor Diagrams, which is attached to
this Supplemental Statement (the “Parcel Coverage 2021” or “PC2021”).
Pages 6, 7, and 8 of PC2021, which are Plan Pages A120-C, A121-C, and A122-C,
respectively displays the Lower Level in Dark Green, the Main Level in both Dark Blue
and Medium Blue, and the Upper Level in Dark Pink. The PC 5-2022 version also on the
6th, 7th, and 8th, pages, also display Plan Pages A120-C, A121-C, and A122-C,
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 6 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
respectively. The PC 5-2022 version mixes up the separate levels, on those same
corresponding pages, to distinguish between floors (or stories), according to an extremely
flawed interpretation of the Zoning Code that defies geometric logic and fundamental
rules of geometry, math, and physics and the English language. This flawed
interpretation of the Zoning Code also deviates from a clear set of rules, as specified in
the Zoning Code, and provides opportunities for the Planning Department to create
discretion in determining building size, when no such discretion is actually warranted or
necessary. A year ago, I explained to the Zoning Administrator Jing Yeo the flaws in
such interpretation. Jing admitted to me that I was correct more than once over the past
year on the phone, although she was generally vague, ambiguous, and evasive regarding
the issue in emails.
Essentially, both versions of the Plans, PC 5-2022 and PC2021, incorrectly pretend that
two people of the same height could be standing next to each other on the same level
looking squarely into each other’s eyes, but be on different floors.
The Applicant’s Building’s Lower Level is Not a Basement, it is the First
Story
In response to my questions, on 4/27/2021, on 10/19/2021, and on 3/22/2022 on the
phone, Jing, the Zoning Administrator, unequivocally told me that everything in Dark
Green on Plan page A120-C is all on the same level for any and all purposes and
applications and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a
basement. (See PC2021.) On those calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the
Dark Blue and the Medium Blue areas on Plan page A121-C are all on one level for all
purposes, applications, and interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition
of a basement. (See id.) On those calls Jing also unequivocally told me that all of the
Dark Pink area on Plan page A122-C is all on one level for all purposes, applications, and
interpretations of the zoning code, including for the definition of a basement. (See id.)
As noted, above, the Applicant’s plans, calculations, and the proposal assumes that, what
the Applicant referred to as the “Lower Level” as a “basement,” (see id), however, in fact
the existing building does not have a “basement” as defined under the SMMC.
Basement, is defined by the SMMC as:
9.52.020.0230 Basement. The level(s) of a structure located below Average
Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in
which no portion of the level directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented
Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above
Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.
Up to 4 wall surfaces of the level directly below Average Natural Grade,
Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade may be exposed above
Finished Grade, so long as this exposure does not exceed 40% of each of these
wall surface areas. Each wall surface area is calculated by multiplying the height
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 7 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
by the length of the wall. In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls
shall not exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage,
which must be designed to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the
maximum size requirements set forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or
emergency egress as required by the Building Code. A basement shall not be
considered a story.
(SMMC 9.52.020.0230.)
Despite Jing being the Zoning Administrator, her understanding of the definition of a
Basement defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics.
(She was stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in
such structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the
corresponding infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and
fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics, and English, because a level cannot
exist in a single point, or stated another way, in zero dimensional space.) On the phone
on 4/14/2021, I explained to her that it is impossible to reconcile the language of the
definition of a basement in the Zoning Code with her understanding. When we spoke
again on 4/27/2021, she admitted to me that I was correct. As described above and
below, she admitted to me again on the phone on 10/19/2021and on 3/22/2022 that the
entire Dark Green area on Plan Page A120-C, (see PC2021), were all on one “level” for
all interpretations of the code and for purposes of applying the Zoning Code to the
Proposed Plans. However, Jing reneged on her accepting what I propound as the logical
and clear meaning of SMMC 9.52.020.0230.
Essentially, the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation and application of SMMC Section
9.52.020.0230 (defining Basement) pretends that two people of the same height could be
standing next to each other on the same level looking squarely into each other’s eyes, but
be on different floors. To comprehend why Jing’s interpretation is nonsensical and
incorrect, it is useful to analyze the first sentence of SMMC 9.52.020.0230.
Analyzing the First Criterion in the Definition of a Basement
The first sentence of Section 9.52.020.0230 says:
“The level(s) of a structure located below Average Natural Grade, Segmented
Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade, in which no portion of the level
directly below Average Natural Grade, Segmented Average Natural Grade, or
Theoretical Grade projects more than 3 feet above Average Natural Grade,
Segmented Average Natural Grade, or Theoretical Grade.”
The Applicant utilizes Average Natural Grade (“ANG”) in all of its plans and in its
proposed project, which means that the Applicant can only use ANG and not switch back
and forth between ANG and Segmented ANG and Theoretical Grade. In other words,
only ANG can be applied in analyzing the Applicant’s proposed project. According to
the City’s Zoning Administrator (before she reneged on her unequivocal statements) and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 8 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
the plain text of the ordinance, if any portion of the Lower Level projects more than 3
feet above ANG, then the entire Lower Level is not a basement, and would therefore be
the First Story.
However, Jing is now back to being stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure –
despite the plain language of Section 9.52.020.0230 saying that a basement is “[t]he
level(s) of a structure located below [ANG where] no portion of the level directly below
[ANG] projects more than 3 feet above ANG” – is based on a single point in such
structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding
infinite points in a structure. (Emphasis added.) Such notion defies the plain language
of Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining Basement) and defies geometric logic and
fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics and English because a level cannot
exist in a single point, or stated another way, in zero dimensional space.
And whether the Planning Department has discretion or has used such a warped
interpretation of the Zoning Code in the past, it does not have the discretion to deviate so
far from logic and the plain and explicit language of the ordinance.
As can be seen on Plan page A300-B/C, (see either or both PC 5-2022 and PC2021),
ANG is at 104 and ½ feet (104’-6”), and 3 feet above ANG is at 107 and ½ feet (107’-6”)
(104.5’ + 3’ = 107.5’). ANG on Plan page A300B/C is also depicted as a horizontal
broken red line. As can be seen on Plan page A300B/C, the Lower Level projects above
ANG. Plan page A120-C, (see PC2021), shows the floor of the Lower Level at 97 and ¼
feet (97’3”), which is 7 feet below ANG. The Lower Level projects all the way to the
surface of the floor above it. (SMMC 9.52.020.2320 defines Story as: “That portion of a
building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the
floor next above. . . .”) Looking at Plan pages A120-C and A121-C, (see PC2021), it is
clearly evident that the Lower Level projects 4 and ¼ feet (or 4’ 3”) above ANG. (See
the Dark Blue portion of the Main Level on Plan page A121-C, which displays the floor
of the Main Level and upper range of the Lower Level as being 1 and ¼ feet (1’ – 3”)
above the Light Blue portion of the Main Level, which has a floor level of 107 and ½ feet
(107’ – 6”), which is already 3 feet above ANG (107.5’ + 1.25’ = 108.75’; also, 108.75’ –
104.5’ = 4.25’). (See PC2021.) Thus, the Kitchen, the Board Room, the Reception Front
Office, both of Classroom – 1st Grade and a lot of other space on the Main Level, have
their floor at more than 3 feet above ANG and thus, the Lower Level space below it all
projects 4 and ¼ feet above ANG, which is more than 3 feet above ANG. Because the
Zoning Code’s definition of a basement says that “no portion of the level directly
below” ANG may project “more than 3 feet above” ANG, the entire Lower Level is not a
basement and is thus the First Story. (SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230, emphasis added.)
Jing confirmed this to me on the phone in April 2021.
The Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion approximately 25 years ago also
display the same result. Those plans, Plan page A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts
large portions of the Applicant’s Lower Level as projecting all the way to 108.75’ (108
and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (See also Plan
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 9 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
page A-6.2 (dated May 02, 1997.) (I requested that the plans from approximately 25
years ago, depicting the existing building, be included in the exhibits, however, the
Planning Department refused my request.)
Nothing about the above analysis has changed from the 2021 version of the Plans to the
Current May 2022 version. Since, as the SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining
“Basement”) says, “[t]he level(s) of a structure located below [ANG], in which no
portion of the level directly below [ANG] projects more than 3 feet above [ANG],” but
because some “portion” (actually a large portion) of the Lower Level “projects more than
3 feet above [ANG]” the entire Lower Level is not a Basement and therefore is the First
Floor (or First Story).
After more than a year of effort regarding the definition of a Basement, and nine months
of being stonewalled by Jing, which eventually led to my 3/22/2022 call with David
Martin and with Jing when I explained how the Applicant’s plans failed to satisfy the
Zoning Code, Jing admitted to me during that call that, indeed, the Applicant’s plans
violated the Zoning Code. Jing then told the Applicant that the Plans that were to go
before the City Council did not meet the Zoning Code, as I had explained to Jing. The
Applicant then submitted modified plans, which I received on 4/1/2022, only a few days
before this document was due and putting me under enormous pressure. After the
Planning Department approved those new plans, having purportedly reviewed them, the
following week during conference calls with David Martin and Gina, I explained how
those modified plans were also illegal.
The City postponed the 4/12/2022 hearing date and eventually scheduled the hearing for
5/10/2022, despite misleading me into thinking that the hearing would not occur until at
least July 2022. The Applicant again submitted substantially modified Plans to the City,
which I received a few days before the end of April 2022.
The new modified Plans that exist today still fail to properly follow the Zoning Code.
The new modified Plans still denies the existence of actual “Levels” in applying the
definition of a Basement, even though the term and concept of a “Level” is fundamental
to the definition of a Basement. (See SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230.)
As a result of the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the definition of a
Basement, the Parcel Coverage calculations were, and still are, incorrect.
The Effect of the City Misinterpreting and Misapplying the Definition of a
Basement
The Parcel Coverage Calculations, as performed on Plan pages A121-B and A122-B,
both in the Parcel Coverage – May 2022 (PC 5-2022) and the Parcel Coverage 2021
versions (PC2021), are and were inaccurate and substantially understate the actual parcel
coverage of the proposed project. Such calculations have several errors. One such error
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 10 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
is that it treats the “Main Level” as depicted on Plan page A121-C, (see PC2021), as the
First Floor and the “Upper Level” as the Second Floor. (See Plan pgs. A121-B, and
A122-B, both PC 5-2022 and PC202, for the Parcel Coverage totals.) The “Lower
Level,” as depicted in Plan page A120-C, is actually the First Floor – or First Story – and
the “Main Level,” as also depicted in Plan page A121-C, is the Second Story. (See
PC2021.) The “Upper Level,” as depicted in Plan page A122-C, is actually a non-
conforming Third Story. (See id.) The “Lower Level” does not meet the definition of a
basement, as defined by the SMMC. (See SMMC 9.52.020.0230.) The First Floor Parcel
Coverage Calculation is incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Storage
room in the southeast corner of the building, as depicted on Plan page A120-B, (both in
the PC 5-2022 and PC2021 versions). The Second Floor Parcel Coverage Calculation is
also incorrect and inaccurately excludes, for example, the Classroom in the southeast
corner of the building and much of the blue-shaded area, as depicted on Plan page A121-
B. (See PC2021.)
The Parcel Coverage – May 2022 diagrams are still based on the Zoning Administrator’s
warped interpretation of the definition of a Basement. These diagrams staggers portions
of the building onto what appears to be different levels on Plan Pages A120-C, A121-C,
and A122-C, excluding certain portions of the Lower Level from being counted in the
First Floor Parcel Coverage calculation and excluding certain portions of the Main Level
from being counted in the Second Floor Parcel Coverage calculation. Thus, the
Applicant has understated the Parcel Coverage results and the proposed project is illegal.
The correct approach to determining Parcel Coverage is to treat the entire Lower Level
(as shown in PC2021) as the First Floor because, according to the correct and plain
reading of SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230 (defining Basement), none of that Lower Level
is a Basement because some “portion of [that level] projects more than 3 feet above”
ANG.
Prohibited Third Story Addition
Furthermore, the Applicant proposes adding to its nonconforming Third Story, which is
strictly prohibited under the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code only permits two story
structures in the Applicant’s zone. (See SMMC 9.08.030 (Development Standards)
(limiting number of stories in the R2 District to 2 stories).)
For example, the Applicant unlawfully proposes elevator(s) that are on the Third Story.
Analyzing the Fourth Criterion in the Definition of a Basement
The Lower Level, which the Applicant claims is a basement rather than the First Story, is
not a basement also because walls of the Lower Level have visible wall surfaces that
exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. The fourth sentence of SMMC Section
9.52.020.0230, defining “Basement,” says:
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 11 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
“In addition, the visible wall surface height of these walls shall not exceed 3 feet
above Finished Grade, except for an entrance to a garage, which must be designed
to the minimum feasible width and not exceed the maximum size requirements set
forth in Chapter 9.28, or for any light well or emergency egress as required by the
Building Code.”
This means that if even one visible wall surface height of a level exceeds 3 feet above
Finished Grade, then the entire level is not a basement. Several of the Applicant’s Lower
Level walls have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan
page A120-C, depicts the Lower Level. Three of the walls of the Storage room in the
southeast corner of the building all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above
Finished Grade. (See photos.) The westerly, southerly, and easterly walls of the Storage
room all have visible wall surfaces that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See
photos.) The wall containing the entrance to the Lower Level, which abuts the Break Out
Room and the hallway adjacent to the Break Out Room on the Lower Level also appears
to have a visible wall surface that exceed 3 feet above Finished Grade. (See photos.)
Even without the photos, it is obvious that the Storage room in the southeast corner of the
building has a visible wall surface height that exceeds 3 feet above Finished Grade. Plan
page A300-B/C, on the top portion of the page, “E/W Section Through Elevated Court
Level Diagram shows 3 feet of the Storage room on the Lower Level above Finished
Grade. That wall of the Storage room that abuts the Existing Parking, as depicted on Plan
page A300-B/C, together the portion of the wall above ANG and the portion below ANG
that is above the surface of the Existing Parking is a visible wall surface that exceed 3
feet above Finished Grade. (The wall of the Storage room, referred to here, is on the
western side of the Storage room, even though it is depicted on the right side of the
Storage room. That is because the diagram at the top of Plan page A300-B/C is viewed
from the North.) What Plan page A300-B/C doesn’t show is that the walls of the Storage
room on the South and on the East of the room also have visible wall surfaces that exceed
3 feet above Finished Grade. This diagram doesn’t show that the Finished Grade on the
South side of the building where the Storage room is located is almost exactly the same
as the Finished Grade where the surface of the Existing Parking lot abuts the Storage
room. (See photos.)
The Lower Level is clearly not a basement. A similar perspective can also somewhat be
seen in the Carlthorp School Plans from approximately 25 years ago, page P-3, dated
October 22, 1997, and approved under a previous zoning code, 11/12/1997.
The Lower Level also violates other aspects of the definition of a basement. (SMMC
9.52.020.0230.)
No Basement, Three Stories, Incorrect Parcel Coverage Calculations, Minor
Modification Application is Insufficient to Build Proposed Project, and Prohibited
Third Story Additions
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 12 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
Therefore, the Lower Level is not a basement as the Applicant asserts. (Perhaps the
City’s Planning Department failed to actually inspect the property and instead relied only
on the plans in determining that the Applicant’s proposed project satisfied the zoning
code.) Instead, the Lower Level is the First Story, the Main Level is the Second Story,
and the Upper Level is the Third Story. All parcel coverage calculations are based on the
wrong information and are incorrect and thus the public disclosures are all incorrect and
the public has not been adequately notified and the City has not adequately reviewed the
project. The actual parcel coverage exceeds the amounts being asked for in the
Applicant’s application. Additions to the Third Story are being proposed, which are
strictly prohibited by the Zoning Code. Staff should not have recommended that the
proposed project be approved and the City Council should confirm my appeal and deny
the Applicant from being granted approval.
The Area on the Main Level that is Designated as Porch in the North Wing
and Immediately South of the Stair Landing That is Located Next to the 6th Grade
Classroom Was Incorrectly Excluded from the Parcel Coverage Calculation, Even
Applying the Zoning Administrator’s Illogical Interpretation of Basement, in
SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230
The Area on the Main Level that is designated as part of the Porch in the North Wing and
immediately south of the stair landing, and the stair landing, that is located next to the 6th
Grade Classroom is part of an area that is above a portion of the Lower Level that
projects more than three feet above ANG. Therefore, this area is not on the First Floor
but is on the Second Floor, even applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical
interpretation of the Zoning Code definition of a Basement. (See SMMC Section
9.52.020.0230.) Plan Page A121-C, in the PC2021 set of Plans, shows that that area has
a floor that is 1.25 feet higher than the rest of the Porch. Such area has a floor that is at
108.75 feet, which is 4.25 feet higher than ANG, indicating that the Lower Level in that
area is not a Basement. (See SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230.)
This fact can also be seen in the Applicant’s plans that were used in their expansion
approximately 25 years ago, which also display the same result. Those plans, Plan page
A-5.2.1 (dated May 02, 1997) depicts the stair landing on top at the higher level,
indicating that the floor area beneath in the Lower Level as projecting all the way to
108.75’ (108 and ¾ feet), which is 4.25 feet above ANG (108.75’ – 104.5’ = 4.25’). (As
mentioned above, I requested that the plans from approximately 25 years ago, depicting
the existing building, be included in the exhibits, however, the Planning Department
refused my request.) In fact, this set of Plans show an area larger than the stair landing as
being on the Second Floor (even applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical
interpretation of the Zoning Code definition of a Basement).
Referring now to the PC 5-2022 set of Plans, that stair landing area and the area
immediately south, is incorrectly excluded from being counted as part of the Second
Floor, (see PC 5-2022, at A121-C), and the area immediately beneath those two areas is
not Basement space but is part of the First Floor, (see PC 5-2022, at A120-C), even
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 13 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the Zoning Code
definition of a Basement. And, the area immediately beneath the area that is immediately
south of that stair landing should have been included in the First Floor Parcel Coverage
calculation, but it was not. (See PC 5-2022, at A121-B.) Thus, the First Floor Parcel
Coverage calculation is incorrectly understated. These Plans are thus not legal, even
applying the Zoning Administrator’s illogical interpretation of the Zoning Code’s
definition of a Basement. (See SMMC Section 9.52.020.0230.)
Verification of the Parcel Coverage Calculations
A few times over the past two years, I requested to receive plans that more accurately and
completely portrayed the dimensions of the existing building and of the proposed
building. None of the Plans that I received were complete regarding the dimensions of
the building or of the proposed building. More recently, I told the Planning Department a
few times that I wanted it to verify the Parcel Coverage calculations. And, recently and
also not so recently, I told the Planning Department that I also wanted to verify the Parcel
Coverage calculations. Definitely not until the afternoon of 5/9/2022 – the day before the
hearing – did I receive a copy of the Plans that might have sufficient information to verify
the Parcel Coverage calculations. I did not receive such plans sufficiently in advance to
conduct that verification and I received such plans so late that I do not have sufficient
time to confirm whether such Plans have the requisite dimensional information to
conduct a verification of the Parcel Coverage calculations. The Planning Department has
told me that it never verified the Parcel Coverage calculations. Considering that the
Applicant has submitted many sets of Plans contending that such Plans are legal, that
turned out were not to be legal and were filled with mistakes relating to excessive Parcel
Coverage, the Planning Department should have agreed to my requests to verify the
Parcel Coverage calculations, but they refused. Furthermore, I object to the City Council
accepting such unverified Plans and granting any entitlements on such unverified Plans.
At least I should be given an opportunity to verify such Plans. This is another example of
me being sandbagged.
III. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES
Parking Issues
From the STOA Conditions that was passed by the Planning Commission in 11/4/2020:
Condition # 6 calls for special planning only for events that are expected to exceed 150
vehicles. That is an absurdly high number for this neighborhood. The School only has
approximately 34 parking spaces for its 80 employees. The Condition is all but
impossible to enforce.
First, the Condition doesn’t clarify if the expected number of vehicles includes employee
vehicles or only additional vehicles. Second, the school can always say that it “expected”
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 14 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
fewer vehicles. There is no advance mechanism to assure the neighborhood that
reasonable precautions will be made and followed.
When the Applicant expanded 25 years ago, it obtained its variance on parking, based on
statements and information provided to the City, including that it intended to expand its
total faculty from 22 people (15 full time and 7 part time) to 32 people (15 full time and 7
part time), which was a comparable percentage increase to their planned enrollment
expansion of slightly less than 50% at that time. (See Letter from Arthur L. Kassan,
Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer,
dated 6/13/1995, at 1.) The Applicant in 1996 received a variance to allow for their
parking configuration, which would have been sufficient to support their “planned” staff
of 32 people. However, the Applicant’s staff swelled to 80 people after receiving their
CUP and variance in 1996. When the Applicant received its variance and its CUP in
1996, it deceived the Planning Commission and the City. When the parking analysis was
conducted, the City relied on the Applicant telling the City that it was only expanding to
32 people (including part time employees), rather than expanding the staff to 80 people.
By no means does the Applicant have sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate
its needs, and thus heavily burdens its neighbors, in the surrounding blocks and further.
The Applicant violated its commitments to the City regarding faculty size and should not
be permitted to expand further. In fact, the Applicant should be required to reduce its
faculty to the level that it committed to the City and its neighbors 25 years ago at
approximately 32 people. The granting of any expansion should require such a condition.
The Applicant now says, again, that it won't increase its faculty size. Nonsense.
Empirically, the Applicant has demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word
then; it should not be trusted to keep its word now. And, this expansion is substantial and
will likely result in a much larger operation requiring more staff.
The school’s deficient parking causes faculty and visitors to the school to park in the
surrounding neighborhood, taking away space from local residents.
The Applicant has argued in the past, as it did to the Planning Commission, that it
somewhat mitigates these parking concerns because it is friendly with a neighboring
landlord who leases residents to some of its faculty. Such argument should be
completely disregarded because the Applicant does not have an entitlement to use such
parking spaces and it is completely possible that in the future, no such relationship will
exist.
Noise Concerns
I cannot overstate how much of a burden that the noise that the Applicant generates is
upon its neighbors. The noise study that the Applicant presented is misleading. The
noise pollution that the Applicant generates disrupts the peace and quiet in the
neighborhood in a major way.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 15 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
Some of the noise concerns are: Children screaming, whistles, P.A. systems and loud
speakers, loud noises from vehicles and people congregating in the large open parking lot
off the alley (Georgina Place), organized cheering and screaming, outdoor amplified
music and rallies. The school also uses “Walkie-Talkies” and whistles, which are
particularly grating upon the nerves. Sometimes the Applicant invites musical and other
groups that bring in their own amplification system. The Applicant should be prohibited
from doing any of these.
The Applicant should also be prohibited from bringing in temporary speakers and
amplification, such as for an event. The Condition 9 language should be modified to
include prohibition of speakers anytime, not to exceed 3 minutes during morning
assembly and not at any other time, except for emergencies. Even use of amplified
speakers during morning assembly is unnecessary and invasive to the community and
should be prohibited.
The noise study that the Applicant submitted cited incorrect decibel limits from the
SMMC that were higher than the code actually indicates. The noise study and its analysis
and conclusions are flawed and should therefore be disregarded.
Regarding any activities involving music, events (including sports), amplification,
percussion, etc, the neighbors should be notified in advance. The neighbors should be
notified in advance regarding all outdoor activities so that the neighbors can plan their
schedules. Few things are more disruptive as to working, on a conference call –
particularly in this era of work-from-home – concentrating, hosting guests, or sleeping
when suddenly loud noise disrupts such activity. Particularly on warm and hot days it is
necessary to have the windows open. The Applicant should be obligated to set a schedule
of specified outdoor activities with described clear and comprehensive details that the
neighbors are aware of well in advance.
(See also, discussion relating to Attachment E, #6A – D.)
Privacy
The Applicant’s plans indicate that an open staircase will be built on the western side of
the south-side building wing. Either the staircase should not be permitted at all on the
west side of the play court or it should be fully enclosed without any windows, except
possibly opaque skylights. An open staircase would be a source of loud noise from
racing children pounding up and down the stairs and loud yelling, screaming, and talking
at random times only approximately 15 feet from neighboring residences. Also, the
frequent presence of children and adults upon the staircase would be extremely invasive
of the privacy of the residents in the adjacent building to the west. Nothing would
prevent people upon the stairwell from stopping and gazing into the windows of the
adjacent building, substantially devastating the privacy, comfort, and peace of mind of
residents in the adjacent building. The staircase should not be permitted. But if it is, the
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 16 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
staircase on the western side of the south-side building wing should be prohibited from
being used except for emergency exit purposes.
To address the privacy concerns regarding this outdoor staircase, the City imposed a
requirement that a landscape screen be used on the staircase. However, the landscape
screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy concerns. That “solution”
is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent residential building across from that
area of the school and would fail to protect the privacy of such residents. It would only
serve to protect the privacy of the school but would do the opposite for those residents.
Landscape screens are opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is
up close. Such screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major)
that are completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their
opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or anywhere
close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on the east side of the
adjacent residential building. And, people inside those residences would not even be able
to detect that someone is peeping into their windows, thus creating the constant concern
and anxiety that someone (or even a hidden fixed or handheld camera) could be watching
at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive disruption to the privacy of the people in the
adjacent building. The solution is very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be
built. Short of that, don’t allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short
of that, require the stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the
outside side of the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.
Windows should not be permitted on the west side of the playfield facing towards the
building to the west. Such windows would be highly invasive of residents’ privacy.
Traffic
Traffic caused from employees and also parents dropping off and picking up children is
excessive. Twice a day a line of cars circle the block, double-parked and blocking traffic,
creating excessive traffic for vehicles and substantial hazard for vehicles, pedestrians, and
animals.
Faculty, parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to
and from school.
Sunshine, Sunlight, and Heat
Building the rooftop play court would block sunlight and direct sun from my windows,
and reduce sunlight that enters my home. The rooftop play court should not be allowed.
I rely on the sun entering my windows facing the Applicant to grow, ripen, and mature
most of the food that I eat. I have a right to that sunshine and sunlight and I need it for
my food. The sun in the morning helps to jumpstart the warming of my home,
particularly in the late winter, springtime, and the early fall. The sun in the morning also
helps to jumpstart me, to ward off Seasonal Affective Disorder, from which I struggle
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 17 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
with. The Applicant should not be permitted to build the rooftop play court, or at least
not within approximately 40 feet of the western side of the existing building.
Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal
Statement”
(This section was prepared in anticipation of the 2/22/2022 hearing date, based on the
Staff Report as it stood at that time, and has primarily not been updated.)
Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed Response to Appeal Statement” (“Attachment E”), is
littered with misleading statements and ignores the actual facts and the law.
Topic 1A) Upper level exceeds parcel coverage: Staff has ignored the fact that the parcel
coverage calculations were conducted incorrectly. (See, above, The Applicant’s and
Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed
the Allowable Limit Under the Code, Including With the Minor Modification that the
Applicant Requests.)
Topic 2A) Operating detrimental to surrounding properties: Obviously Code Compliance
or anyone else failed to inspect or visit the Applicant’s site at night where it would have
seen powerful flood lights that shine into neighbor’s windows all night long. I’ve
complained to Code Enforcement and to the police numerous times regarding various
violations but they never do anything. (See photo.)
Topic 2B) No further permits should be allowed to be issued due to CUP violations: The
95CUP-012, Condition #31 says that if the Applicant “fails to comply with any
conditions of the [1996 STOA], no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of
occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” Staff admits that
there are at least two ongoing violations of conditions of the Applicant’s existing CUP
(95-CUP-012). These violations (and others) have existed since prior to this century,
without any mitigation. Staff is acting irresponsibly by recommending that the Santa
Monica City Council ignore the fact that the Applicant is a serial violator of its CUP
conditions. Condition #31 is a standard condition in virtually all of the CUPs that the
City grants, and I think is a requirement under the SMMC. The Santa Monica City
Council should abide by the City’s own policy of requiring compliance before
granting any additional entitlements to the Applicant. If Staff were truly objective –
as it should be but for which it is obviously not – Staff would not be recommending that
the Santa Monica City Council deny my appeal. (See 2E and 2F, below.)
Topic 2C) Existing Landscaping exceeds height limits: The trees on the westerly border
of the Applicant’s property are planted excessively close together and, thus, are a de facto
hedge and/or wall, and exceed height limits.
Topic 2D) Existing plan for pick-up/drop-off does not work: The neighbors should have
been directly solicited regarding this issue, before any additional entitlements are granted.
The chain of vehicles that line up around San Vicente Blvd, onto 4th Street, and onto and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 18 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
way up Georgina Avenue for pick-up and drop-off creates a serious safety hazard for the
community and causes serious traffic interference for the neighborhood. Drivers of these
vehicles commonly violate the Motor Vehicle Code and block intersections to both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This issue is a very serious matter due to the dangerous
and hazardous conditions imposed by the Applicant and because life is so precious. This
neighborhood is a very quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood – except for the
Carlthorp School.
Topic 2E) Grass surface replaced without approval: In Attachment G (to the 11/4/2020
Planning Commission hearing), the Annotated 1996 STOA, the Applicant admitted that it
defied Condition #59 of its existing CUP, essentially disrespecting the City and its
neighbors by unilaterally tearing out its grass – that it is required to have and maintain –
and replacing it with artificial turf that, instead of emitting fresh oxygen as grass does,
emits harmful noxious fumes that adversely affect the health of its neighbors and caused
my dear sweet mother to suffer and contributed to her demise. The Applicant apparently
misled the Planning Commission and the public again, here, by rationalizing and not
disclosing the real reason the Applicant replaced the required grass with artificial turf: so
that the Applicant could produce noisy outdoor activity all day long instead of only on a
limited basis. The Applicant has admitted that it is – and has been for many years – in
violation of this condition of the 1996 STOA; Condition #31 prohibits the Applicant
from receiving any additional entitlements “until such violation has been fully
remedied,” which it has not (with respect to this Condition #59 and other Conditions);
and therefore, the Planning Commission should not have approved the Applicant’s
proposals. Artificial turf also prevents rainwater from seeping into the soil and down into
the water table. (See 2B, above.)
Topic 2F) Obstructed clear view through front fence:
The Applicant is, and has obviously been openly defying its CUP for a number of years
on a continuing basis, not in compliance with this Condition. This Condition requires
that the front yard fence and landscaping shall be “installed and maintained so as not to
obstruct a clear view through the fence.” It is plainly obvious to anyone passing by the
Applicant’s parcel in the front on San Vicente Boulevard that the view through the fence
is completely obstructed. Photos taken 21 months ago depict that obstructed view.
(Please see photos attached to my 5/20/2020 comment letter that were taken on
5/19/2020.) The view today is still obstructed. I have photos taken on the day of the
November 4, 2020 Planning Commission hearing, and on 2/20/2022, which prove that
the view is completely obstructed. The Applicant is also in open defiance of SMMC
Section 9.08.030.F.4., which requires that Applicant’s courtyard “shall be visible and
accessible from the sidewalk.” Pursuant to the 1996 STOA, Condition #31, the Santa
Monica City Council should not approve the Applicant’s application because the
Applicant was not in compliance with its existing CUP. (See 2B, above.)
2H) Inconsistency of prior assertions by applicant regarding student enrollment and
number of staff: Staff misunderstands my assertions. I am saying that the Applicant
made representations to the City and to the public that it would only increase its
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 19 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
employee staff from 22 full and part time employees to 34 full and part time employees
and that the City and the public relied on such representations when the process occurred
in granting the Applicant its current CUP. The City should require that the Applicant
reduce its staff level to approximately the level that it represented to the City and to the
public when it was granted its current CUP. If any entitlements are granted to the
Applicant, such entitlements should be conditioned upon limiting Applicant’s staff to
approximately 34 people. And, certainly any language in any conditions should not
prevent the public from asserting these issues in the future. In other words, any
entitlements and conditions should not say or imply that the Applicant may have a staff
level as high as any specified number above approximately 34 people.
3A) Number of stories: Staff overlooks the fact that the Lower Level of the building does
not meet the code requirements to be a basement and is therefore a three-story building.
(See section, above, named The Applicant’s and Staff’s Parcel Coverage Calculations of
the Proposed Project are Incorrect and Exceed the Allowable Limit Under the Code,
Including With the Minor Modification that the Applicant Requests.)
3E) Offices within apartment: This conversion occurred for several years earlier this
century and through much of the last decade. (I did not say that the conversion was still
ongoing. They closed those offices probably in preparation for their current application.)
I referred to that conversion to illustrate that the Applicant has disrespected and flouted
the Planning Commission and the laws of the City and to suggest that the Applicant is
cavalier regarding respecting City ordinances, its CUP conditions, and its neighbors.
3F) School did not engage in neighborhood outreach: There was a public meeting, which
I went to, but the meeting was very brief, substantially shorter than had been announced.
I had various questions that I raised after the meeting but still within the scheduled time.
Before I had an opportunity to ask all of my questions, several other members from the
public that had remained and I were all asked to leave. I, not the Applicant, reached out
by calling Tim Kusserow a few months later to discuss the project, but that was like
speaking with a block wall. A few neighbors and I later arranged a conference call with
Mr. Kusserow (or possibly someone else at the school), but that experience was also
fruitless. Mr. Kusserow left the call after a short while and I was not permitted to even
speak during the call. I later reached out to the Applicant’s law firm, who responded by
having Melissa Sweeney contact me. But she had no authority to consider actual public
concerns. She told me that she would get back to me but she didn’t, even after I
subsequently tried to reach her. I am not aware of any other so-called outreach. The only
public outreach was a perfunctory effort to present minimal information to the public. It
was not true public outreach because there was zero receptivity by the Applicant
regarding any and all public input. The Applicant was completely dismissive of any
public input. It is disingenuous to describe the Applicant’s contact with the public as
actual “outreach.”
4A) Parking requirement for classroom vs multipurpose room: The Staff here has it
backwards. The Applicant has provided a description of the multipurpose room, which
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 20 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
clearly states that it WILL be used as a classroom. (See section named The
Multipurpose Room is a Classroom, above; and see, Appeal Form: Attached Sheets for
Case No. 20ENT-0275, Appeal by Steven Salsberg of Case Number 19ENT-0250 (CUP);
20ENT0066 (Minor Modification), at 438 San Vicente Boulevard, at 5 –7 (section titled,
The Applicant’s Cover-up and Rationalization of the Additional Classroom Space)
(describing in more detail how the multipurpose room will serve as a classroom). ) And,
Condition #17, which purportedly is intended to deal with this issue is self-contradictory
and unenforceable. (See id.)
6A) Noise and privacy: The mitigation measures that are proposed are inadequate and in
some respects aggravate the problem. (See above, Noise Concerns.)
6B) Noise is excessive when windows are open: This is an example how Staff is only
concerned with whether the Applicant is in compliance with the “letter” of the existing
CUP and its conditions, as opposed to the spirit of not imposing upon its neighbors and
the community; or if it can artificially justify the bending or actual breaching of the
existing CUP and its conditions. Here, double-paned windows were proposed, when the
existing CUP was created, for some of the Applicant’s neighbors, to mitigate the
outrageous noise created by the Applicant. However, such measure is completely
ineffective during warm and hot days (and when cooking and also in bathrooms because
the bathrooms do not have alternate ventilation) when it is necessary for such neighbors
to open windows for air circulation. That amounts to more than half of the school year
(plus summer school). I’ve been raising this issue throughout the process these past two
years, but the Applicant, Staff, and the Planning Commission have ignored this issue.
The City Council should not grant any additional entitlements until the Applicant and
Staff actually and sincerely reach out to its neighbors and solve this issue. For more than
20 years this has been a major problem. I have complained numerous times to the
Applicant and to law enforcement and nothing has ever been done to mitigate this
extremely imposing problem. Children at random suddenly scream with high-pitched
voices as loud as they can. Adults suddenly blow whistles, lead organized and
synchronized cheering, and use walkie-talkies that grate the ears and nerves. The P.A.
system suddenly is utilized. Without advance notice, suddenly an event occurs with
amplified music, singing, talking, yelling and cheering. All of them randomly and
suddenly yell at the top of their lungs. All of this causes enormous stress on the nerves,
prevents concentration, and prevents speaking on the phone. And, for the size of the
space and the proximity to its neighbors in this otherwise quiet and peaceful
neighborhood, the Applicant very unreasonably imposes itself upon its neighbors and the
Planning Department and the City has made unfair rationalizations on behalf of the
Applicant.
6C) Excessive noise: This is another example how the existing CUP conditions were not
well planned. The existing Condition #56, which requires staggering of playtime, is part
of the problem. It would be better to have all playtime occur all at once and get it over
with, rather than have it be loud throughout almost the entire day, as is the case now.
That way, on warm and hot days, windows could at least be open part of the day, rather
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 21 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
than forcing neighbors to swelter and suffocate the entire day. And, this could occur on a
set schedule so that neighbors could have control over their day, rather than the school
controlling the neighbors’ days. The City should reverse this condition to require the
Applicant to have all playtime coordinated during shorter portions of the day on a set
schedule.
The City Council Report suggests that designating “a neighborhood liaison to facilitate
communication between the school and its neighbors” as a condition will solve the noise
problem. A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have
reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and with
numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses. I’ve
complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing ever gets
solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and have no authority
that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests. Before anything is
approved, strict limits must be imposed upon the school that incorporates neighbors’
needs. Relying on the Applicant’s half-baked commitments didn’t work 25 years ago
when it committed to increase its staff only from 22 to 32 full and part timers (and now
they have a Staff of 80), (see 6/13/1995 letter from the Applicant’s consultant Arthur
Kassan to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki, the Santa Monica City Parking &Traffic Engineer), or
35 years ago when the Applicant assured neighbors that it would not increase its
enrollment or faculty, (see 9/25/1986 letter from the principal of the Applicant, Dorothy
Menzies, to Dr. Granzow, of 407 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90402.
6D) Excessive noise: The existing Condition #57 requires playgroups to be dispersed.
However, the opposite is occurring during loud organized cheering. Also, I don’t see
how the noise could be much worse so probably the Applicant is not adhering to this
condition in other ways.
7A) Privacy impacts: See my fourth bullet point under The City Council Report, relating
to page 8 of that report. Also, as I’ve said before in another earlier submission: Faculty,
parents, and children commonly trespass neighboring properties on their way to and from
school.
8A) Documents withheld: I still have not received all of the documents that I have
requested from the City pertaining to this appeal
8B) Questions not answered:
Staff asserts in its Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions
during multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members.” Such
statement is grossly misleading. Since I filed the appeal, there were three – and not more
than three – phone calls since I filed the appeal when I presented substantive questions.
The first phone call was on 4/14/2021 with Jing Yeo. Most of that call dealt with my
asking a threshold question that had to be asked before I could move to the actual
questions that I needed to ask. However, Jing was stuck on giving me an answer that
defied geometric logic and fundamental rules of geometry, math, and physics. (She was
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 22 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
stuck on the notion that a “level” of a structure was based on a single point in such
structure and that there were infinite numbers of “levels” related to the corresponding
infinite points in a structure. Such notion defies geometric logic and fundamental rules of
geometry, math, and physics because a level cannot exist in a single point, or stated
another way, in zero dimensional space.) We ran out of time for that call so I asked her
to think about it and we’d pick that up on the next call, which we planned for 4/27/2021.
Almost as soon as we began speaking on 4/27/2021, Jing had already come around to my
way of thinking.
There was some important progress that I made in asking my questions during those two
calls in April and one important question (or group of very similar questions) that was
answered on 10/19/2021, which covered only about five minutes of that call in October.
(Some of the detail of those answers has been explained above.)
But almost everything else about the call on 10/19/2021 was a waste of time, whereby
Jing outright refused to answer my questions. There was a trail of thought that I was
taking Jing down using diagrams from the Plan pages, in which I was leading her to
questions that I was trying to ask and she was finally being receptive. However, David
Martin had set that call up with him, Stephanie Reich, and Gina also on the call. I need
and needed specific questions answered regarding the zoning code and Jing is the Zoning
Administrator, who has the responsibility to explain and clarify the zoning code. My
questions were directed at Jing and not Stephanie. However, as I explained to David
Martin in my email of 10/29/2021:
“However, my questions are of the nature, which are for the Zoning
Administrator, particularly because some of my questions are complicated, and
about complicated issues and definitions.… Jing is the Zoning Administrator –
not Stephanie. . . . [I]t is her responsibility to make these determinations, and
yours I guess as the Director. Multiple times Stephanie disrupted the flow of my
questions and descriptions, interrupting because she had difficulty following
along, as she indicated. [And, e]ach time Stephanie interrupted, it was just as I
was about to get [to where I needed Jing to go in her mind and with the diagrams
for me to ask my questions].”
Thus almost all of the 10/29/2021 conference call was a waste of time and I still hadn’t
gotten to ask my questions.
Staff’s Response to 8B in Attachment E that “Staff has responded to questions during
multiple phone and virtual meetings with multiple staff members” is grossly misleading.
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written
correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly
FALSE. Staff has stonewalled me and refused to answer my questions, while
simultaneously attempting to cram down a hearing down upon me. I began requesting
that the Zoning Administrator, Jing Yeo, answer my questions more than 13 months ago
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 23 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
in early January 2020. She was very busy for a couple of months and then I had an injury
that delayed a couple weeks. In April 2021, Jing and I got off to a good start in phone
calls on 4/14/2021 and 4/27/2021, whereby we resolved to continue the process by email.
On 5/12/2021, I sent her an email with various questions and requests for confirmations
of what she had told me during April on the phone. She told me that I would receive
answers within or shortly after a couple weeks. I followed up with approximately a
dozen emails and phone calls when she was not forthcoming. Jing went completely dark
on me, failing to respond in any way whatsoever. After that, the only times Jing
contacted me was by email and then only after I would explain the circumstances to the
City Manager (first John Jalili and then David White) and that I wasn’t getting my
questions answered. My first contact with the City Manager, John Jalili, was in early
July 2021, and Jing followed up with an email addressing some of my questions. But her
answers were vague and opaque and mostly not on point and incomplete. For more than
the following seven months, I would promptly reply to her emails regarding my
questions, asking her to actually answer my questions. But she would not respond to my
email replies, unless and until I contacted the City Manager again, and then and only then
would she reply to my emails. I also attempted to reach out to David Martin, the Director
of the Planning Department, with numerous emails and phone calls, attempting to get him
to motivate Jing to properly answer my emails. The only times David Martin got back to
me was shortly after I contacted the City Manager. Additional detail is explained, above,
in the section discussing the unfair process. (The email strings with Jing Yeo and David
Martin, since 5/12/2021, are being included along with this Supplement.)
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8B in Attachment E, “staff has provided written
correspondence to comprehensively answer all questions” is absolutely and brazenly
FALSE.
8C) Premature Planning Commission hearing: “Multiple hearing delays were granted”
implies that such delays were granted due to my causing that to be necessary. All delays
relating to the Planning Commission hearing were due to the City choosing on its own to
delay the hearing date or because the City had failed to follow through on commitments
to provide me with information, answers to questions, and documents. Almost all of the
delay occurred due to the City’s own choosing for its own reasons. The two delays
relating to the City not following through on commitments to me was only one week in
May 2020 and approximately two weeks in October 2020, and I still had not received all
of the documents that I had asked for when the hearing was held on 11/4/2020.
Staff’s assertion, in its Response to 8D in Attachment E, “Multiple hearing delays have
been granted” is very misleading. Any and all delays in bringing this matter before the
City Council is due to delays caused by the City, except for an approximately two week
delay that I needed due to an injury that I suffered in late March 2021. All other delays in
this process were due to Jing Yeo, the Zoning Administrator, being too busy to answer
my Zoning Code questions during the winter of 2021, and then since 5/12/2021, her
refusing to respond to me and her answering my questions and requests for clarifications
and confirmations of oral statements in a vague, opaque, unspecific, and off the point
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 24 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
manner and also her refusing to answer my questions. (See detailed discussion in
response to 8B and in discussions above relating to the unfairness of the process and
attached email strings with Jing Yeo, David Martin, Regina Szilak, and David White.)
8D) Requested appellant to confirm February 22, 2022 appeal hearing date on November
29, 2021: The City here makes a false and misleading statement. The City notified me
weeks after setting the 2/22/2022 hearing date and weeks after notifying the Applicant
that the hearing date had been set for that date. The City’s email on 11/29/2021 did not
ask me to confirm the 2/22/2022 date for the hearing; it only mentioned 2/22/2022 as a
potential hearing date. I responded on 12/8/2021, rejecting such date by indicating that
setting a hearing date at that time was “premature and grossly unfair until I have had the
opportunity to have my questions and requests for clarifications properly addressed and
fully vetted.” I was not notified that the City wanted to proceed with 2/22/2022 until
2/1/2022, which was weeks after the City had notified the Applicant that that was a set
date and more than 10 days after I first started requesting that the City confirm or deny
whether that date had been set based on rumors I had heard. (See submitted email strings
with Regina Szilak, Jing Yeo, David Martin, and David White.) And, I didn’t really
know that 2/22/2022 would be the hearing date until 2/17/2022. (See email strings with
David White, and particularly my email to David White, dated 2/18/2022.) The City
deceived me and misled me and failed to properly notify me as to the hearing date and
gave substantial deference to the Applicant against my interests as the Appellant, and the
City has done that throughout this process.
The City Council Report
The City Council Report states in the context of “the impact of loading/unloading and
parking on the surrounding neighborhood[, that] [n]o new parking impacts are associated
with the current proposal.” (City Council Report, at 7.) That is an absurd finding. The
Applicant has said that it intends to hold music and dance performances in the proposed
multipurpose room. The multipurpose room will at times serve as an auditorium/theater
with a substantial capacity. And the addition of the proposed multipurpose room and the
proposed rooftop play court will add substantial space for events that are more intense
than are currently held. The Applicant will be able to host larger crowds of visitors,
which would require larger numbers of staff to monitor the events. At large events, the
Applicant might choose to even hire temporary workers for the event, particularly if valet
parking is permitted, which is a very bad idea. The school already commonly hires (or
invites) musical bands and other performing arts, and various other services when it
conducts events. The school will likely hire catering services. All those people have to
park somewhere if they drive there. All of these people will impact parking needs that
will impact the community and the surrounding neighborhood. There are many other
examples that would impact the neighborhood.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 25 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
The City Council Report describes conditions to “provide concrete direction and
guidance to further … dialogue” with the neighborhood. (City Council Report, at 8.)
Those conditions are joke:
A school appointed liaison would not accomplish anything. For decades I have
reached out to head administrators at the school and asked them to limit noise and
with numerous other problems. They never do anything and only offer excuses.
I’ve complained many times to the police and to Code Enforcement and nothing
ever gets solved. A school appointed liaison would work for the Applicant and
have no authority that the neighborhood could rely on to represent our interests.
Netting surrounding the upper-level play court would be ugly, as would the 30+
high wall surrounding the play court, and it would exceed the height limit in the
zoning code.
As discussed, above, the Conditions (Condition 17) is self-contradictory and
unenforceable and would not ensure that the multipurpose room would not be
used as a classroom.
The landscape screen does not solve privacy concerns; it aggravates privacy
concerns. That “solution” is outrageously horrible for residents in the adjacent
residential building across from that area of the school and would fail to protect
the privacy of such residents. It would only serve to protect the privacy of the
school but would do the opposite for those residents. Landscape screens are
opaque from a distance but are semi-transparent when someone is up close. Such
screens tend to have openings and develop tears (both minor and major) that are
completely transparent, and they tend to degrade over time, thus reducing their
opacity. Therefore, anyone at the school going up and down the stairwell or
anywhere close to the screen could peer and stare into the opposing windows on
the east side of the adjacent residential building. And, people inside those
residences would not even be able to detect that someone is peeping into their
windows, thus creating the constant concern and anxiety that someone (or even a
hidden camera) could be watching at any time. Such “solution” is an invasive
disruption to the privacy of the people in the adjacent building. The solution is
very simple: Don’t allow the rooftop play court to be built. Short of that, don’t
allow the stairwell on the western perimeter to be built. Short of that, require the
stairwell to be fully enclosed with walls, or at least a wall on the outside side of
the stairwell that is at least 7 feet high.
The Applicant should absolutely not be permitted to have valet service. It would
create enormous stress on the neighborhood and only compound the parking and
traffic impact on the neighborhood.
The City Council Report when in reviewing my Appeal Statement fails to consider issues
brought forth here in this statement and additional issues that I still wish to formulate and
present because:
The City refused to answer my zoning code questions after having committed to me that
it would answer such questions sufficiently in time for me to provide additional follow up
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Appeal 20ENT-0275 of 19ENT-0250 and 20ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd.
THIRD APPEAL STATEMENT OF STEVEN SALSBERG, APPELLANT –
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES May 9, 2022
Page 26 (See the end of this document for Exhibits.)
questions that build on such zoning code questions, and sufficiently in advance of
scheduling a hearing date. (See above.)
The City also failed to fulfill my information requests, and in a timely manner.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
LIST of ATTACHED EXHIBITS
Exhibits Relating to the Multipurpose Room:
[1] The first 3 pages of “19ENT-0250 (438 SVB – CUP)” (CUP Application), with the
third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence.
[2] The first 3 pages of “29ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd. Maj. mod” (Application),
with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence.
[3] The first 4 pages of amended modification Pages from “amended modification Pages
from Discretionary Permit App 2020.03.26,” with the third page is marked, pointing to
the relevant sentence.
Exhibits Relating to Parcel Coverage:
[4] The 9-page Parcel Coverage and Floor Diagrams set, prior to the Current set of Plans
(named “Parcel Coverage 2021” and “PC2021”), which contains a packet of 9 Plan Pages
from an earlier (2021) version of the proposed project.
Exhibits Relating to Neighborhood Issues
[5] Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki,
City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995.
Exhibits Relating to Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed
Response to Appeal Statement”
[6] Letter, dated 9/25/1986, from the principal of the Applicant, Dorothy Menzies, to Dr.
Granzow, of 407 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90402.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Exhibits Relating to the Multipurpose Room:
[1] The first 3 pages of “19ENT-0250 (438 SVB – CUP)” (CUP Application), with the
third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence.
[2] The first 3 pages of “29ENT-0066 438 San Vicente Blvd. Maj. mod” (Application),
with the third page is marked, pointing to the relevant sentence.
[3] The first 4 pages of amended modification Pages from “amended modification Pages
from Discretionary Permit App 2020.03.26,” with the third page is marked, pointing to
the relevant sentence.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Application No.:
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION
Applications must be submitted at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall. City Hall is located at 1685 Main Street, Santa
Monica, CA 90401. If you have any questions completing this application you may call City Planning at (310) 458-8341.GENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT ADDRESS:____________
DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Attach additional sheets as necessary to fully describe the
proposed project)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT (Note: All correspondences will be sent to the contact person)
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Email:
CONTACT PERSON (if different)
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Email:
Relation to Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Email:
I hereby certify that I am the owner of the subject property and that I have reviewed the subject application and
authorize the applicant or applicant’s representative (contact person) to make decisions that may affect my
property as it pertains to this application.
Property Owner’s Name (PRINT) Property Owner’s Signature / Date
This part to be completed by City staff
Application No.: Amount Paid: $
Received By: Check No.:
Date Submitted:
EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS.
FOR FURTHER DETAILS SEE ATTACHED.
MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 0.06% GROUND FLOOR PARCEL COVERAGE.
TIM KUSSEROW, HEAD OF SCHOOL / KEN PARR, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
310-451-1332 tkusserow@carlthorp.org
KENNETH KUTCHER
1250 SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
(310) 451-3669 kutcher@hlkklaw.com
ATTORNEY AT LAW
CARLTHORP SCHOOL
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
310-451-1332 tkusserow@carlthorp.org
TIM KUSSEROW
438 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
//ss//
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Discretionary Permit Application Page 3 DISCRETIONARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSPLANNING ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED (check all that apply):
Conditional Use Permit Minor Use Permit Major Modification
Development Review Permit Development Agreement Variance
Waiver
NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION
PLANNING APPLICATION – SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Demolition Permit 5HYLHZ5HTXLUHG (For Structures 40 Years or Older)
A demolition permit is required for demolition of any building or structure on the property
(primary or accessory structure.) The Landmarks Commission must review demolition permit
applications for structures that are 40 years or older. The Landmarks Commission may
exercise its authority to nominate the property for Landmark Designation, and/or designate the
property (structure and or parcel) as a Landmark, Landmark Parcel, or Structure of Merit in
accordance with and based on findings established in Chapters 9.56 and 9.58 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
My property contains a structure (or structures) 40 years old or older and the proposed
development of this property will require a demolition permit.
My application for a demolition permit has been reviewed by the Santa MonicaLandmarks
Commission and the 75-day review period has expired.
$SSOLFDWLRQZLOOQRWEHDFFHSWHGXQWLOWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWLVFRPSOHWH
Application Form
One original and 6 copies of application form. All the information requested on
the application must be provided.
Application Fees
The payment of an application fee is required. Please see current list of fees in Room 111
of City Hall. A check payable to the City of Santa Monica or credit card will be
required at the time of submittal of all planning permit applications to the Permit
Coordinator.
Rent Control Status Form
Certification by the Rent Control Administration of the Rent Control status of the property is
required. Applications submitted without this form will not be processed by the City
Planning Division. Forms are available in the Rent Control offices, Room 202 in City Hall.
Other Project-Related Applications
If applicable, copies of any application materials for other required planning
permits. Information on required planning permits and application materials is available
at the City Planning Division public counter, Room 111 of City Hall.
✔
COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 2, 2019 AT THE MONTANA AVENUE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
✔
✔
✔
✔
Amendment of
N/A
(Previously on file)
(Previously on file)
✔Minor Modification
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
APPLICANT: CARLTHORP SCHOOL
ADDRESS: 438 SAN VICENTE BLVD.
Carlthorp School | Project Description | Discretionary Permit Application
Summary
The proposed project involves the construction of new educational support space at the existing Carlthorp
School (“Carlthorp” or the “School”) campus located at 424-438 San Vicente Boulevard. Part of that space
(5,575 SF) will be located below ground under the existing outdoor play field; the existing lunch seating
area (844 SF) in the center of the campus with be enclosed, and a second-story addition (840 SF) above
the lunch seating will be constructed for school administrative offices. An elevated outdoor sports and
recreation space will be established next to the rear alley, and the Kindergarten play area will be refreshed
with new playground equipment.
The proposed project will not expand existing enrollment (remaining approximately 280 students), number
of staff (remaining approximately 80) or number of K-6 classrooms (remaining two per grade-level plus
various specialty classrooms) at the School, but instead would provide modest improvements, including a new
subterranean multi-purpose room, elevated outdoor recreational space, additional administrative space,
and an enclosed lunch seating area in order to optimize the operation of the School. The proposed project
triggers a total floor area increase of 7,259 SF. The project will also include modest improvements to an at-
grade recreational space at the eastern portion of the campus, although neither these improvements nor the
elevated outdoor recreational space constitutes additional floor area.
This project will expand the footprint of the existing school campus by only 1,310 SF through the enclosure
of the existing exterior cafeteria seating area and two new elevators and an exterior stair on the second
floor. This added parcel coverage requires a Minor Modification under the Zoning Code. All other aspects
of the School campus will remain functionally the same. An amendment to the School’s existing Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 95-012) is required to permit the expansion of a school in the R2 District. No changes are
proposed to the tuck-under parking area accessed from the alley, and no project features will exceed the
Zoning Code’s height limits. Although the School is located in a designated Historic District, the School itself
is not a “contributing building.” The Landmarks Commission raised no concerns regarding project at the
October 14, 2019 preliminary review hearing.
Background
Carlthorp was established in 1939 and is the oldest independent school in Santa Monica. The school has
remained in its present location since 1941 and has coexisted compatibly with its surrounding residential
neighborhood since then.
Carlthorp is a kindergarten through 6th grade (“K-6”) elementary school, and its campus site has grown only
modestly over time since its establishment. The most substantial expansion involved acquiring and demolishing
the neighboring vacant apartment building which became structurally dangerous and red-tagged after the
1994 Northridge Earthquake. That lot was then converted to outdoor physical education and pupil play
space as part of a CUP approved in 1996 for expansion of the school site. When the School merged with
that adjoining lot, Carlthorp also renovated its classroom facilities to better support its elementary education
needs and repair earthquake damage. The current application requests an amendment to that CUP 95-012
for improved educational support space, as described below.
Throughout its history, Carlthorp’s basic educational philosophy has remained largely the same: focusing on
the child as a whole, helping each student to grow academically, socially, and ethically. Carlthorp provides
a strong academic foundation in a diverse and nurturing school community that emphasizes respectful values,
responsible work habits, and excellence in order to prepare its students to achieve their highest potential in
education and life. Carlthorp continues to enjoy a reputation for academic excellence that is demonstrated
by the high acceptance rate of its graduates to the secondary school of their first choice.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
Exhibits Relating to Parcel Coverage:
[4] The 9-page Parcel Coverage and Floor Diagrams set, prior to the Current set of Plans
(named “Parcel Coverage 2021” and “PC2021”), which contains a packet of 9 Plan Pages
from an earlier (2021) version of the proposed project.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
PL
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR
+89'-8"4' - 0"3' - 8"BASEMENT LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
CLASSROOM -
BREAK OUT ROOM
CLASSROOM -
SPANISH
EXISTING CLASSROOM/
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
CLASSROOM -
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
RESTROOMS
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"HVO5' - 0"EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-B
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-B
BASEMENT FLOOR
PLAN - PARCEL
COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* BASEMENT AREAS SHOWN DO NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARCEL
COVERAGE CALCULATION.
FLOORING ABOVE THESE BASEMENT
AREAS ARE ALL 3 FEET OR LESS
ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
NEW BIKE RACKS
10' - 0"139' - 11"35' - 11"1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING
PARKING CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM PORCH
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATORCLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
EXISTING OPENING AT
END OF UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR TO REMAIN
OPENING IN NEW
WALL AT END OF
EXISTING
UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR
OPEN/UNENCLOSED
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
NEW ENCLOSED LUNCH SEATING = 843 SF
TOTAL NEW MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 2,462 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 278 SF
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA FROM SURVEY):
FIRST FLOOR (MAIN LEVEL):
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 18,536 SF
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 18,536 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =20,998 SF
NEW = 2,462 SF
NEW MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
TOTAL MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,536 SF
(39.98 % OF PARCEL AREA)
46,362.50 SF
2,462 SF
(5.31 % OF PARCEL AREA)
20,998 SF
(45.29 % OF PARCEL AREA)
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
NOTE: THE CLASSROOMS ALONG THE REAR ALLEY ARE
TREATED AS THE UPPER LEVEL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
CALCULATION OF PARCEL COVERAGE PER THE
DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SEE FLOOR LEVEL DIAGRAMS FOR MORE INFO.
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 1,231 SF
NEW STAIR = 110 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:02 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-B
FIRST (MAIN)
FLOOR PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/CSEE FIRST FLOOR/
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-B
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
OVERHANG OF ROOFTOP
PLAY COURT ABOVE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM PORCH EXCLUDED
FROM PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
SEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-B
THIS PORTION OF STAIR
EXCLUDED FROM PARCEL
COVERAGE PER SMMC 9.04.100 (G)
OPENING AT END
OF EXISTING
UNENCLOSED
CORRIDOR, SEE
FIRST FLOOR/MAIN
LEVEL PLAN
FOR PURPOSES OF CODE COMPLIANCE
PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE = 1,531 SF
NEW ELEVATORS = 290 SF
NEW ADMIN OFFICES = 840 SF
SECOND FLOOR (UPPER LEVEL):
NEW PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING PARCEL COVERAGE: 16,985 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE:
EXISTING = 16,985 SF
TOTAL (EXISTING + NEW) =18,516 SF
NEW = 1,531 SF
90% OF MAIN LEVEL PARCEL COVERAGE
ALLOWED BASED ON MINOR
MODIFICATION INCREASE TO 45.29% OF
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE:
(NEW + EXISTING)
18,516 SF
( < 90 % OF MAIN LEVEL
PARCEL COVERAGE)
20,863.13 SF
x .45
46,362.50 SFMAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE
ALLOWED BY CODE:
18,898.2 SF
x .90
20,998 SF
AREA UNDER STRUCTURE = 401 SF
MAIN LEVEL PARCEL
COVERAGE ALLOWED BY
MINOR MODIFICATION (45.29%)
20,998 SF
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:40:02 PM
As indicatedCARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-B
SECOND (UPPER)
FLOOR PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
NEW ROOFTOP
CHILDREN'S PLAY COURT
(OPEN AIR)
+126'-6"
EXISTING ROOF
PL
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW
OFFICES
BELOW
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:06 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-B
ROOF PLAN -
PARCEL COVERAGE
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS* THIS FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE
TO THE LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION.
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
NEW ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAY COURT
EXISTING PARKING
EXISTING
CLASSROOMS 8' - 0"30' - 0"PLAY COURT
STORAGE
INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE
CLASSROOM
MAIN LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL 3' - 0"NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND BUILDING
ENVELOPE 7' - 6"7' - 0"9' - 6"5' - 6"3' - 0"5' - 3"(E) UPPER LEVEL
+119' -6"
(E) Top of Roof
+134' -0"
(E) MAIN LEVEL
+107' -6"
(E) LOWER LEVEL
+97' -3"
(E) A.N.G.
+104' -6"
(E) Basement Floor
Upper
+101' -6"
(E) First Floor Upper
+110' -0"
Basement Floor Lower
+89' -8"
(E) Roof
+130' -3 1/2"
Top of Court
+126' -6"
NEW ELEVATED
OPEN AIR PLAYCOURT
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
EXISTING
PARKING
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADDITION
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
BEYOND
NEW ENCLOSURE OF
EXISTING LUNCH SEATING 3' - 9"3' - 10"7' - 0"9' - 6"2' - 6"3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 3"7' - 7"EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUILDING
30' - 0"UPPER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
LIBRARY
UPPER LEVEL
CLASSROOM
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
CLASSROOM
PORCH
CLASSROOM
PORCH
NEW CLASSROOM
CEILING AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE
(THIS PORTION OF
CLASSROOM PORCH
IS ON MAIN/FIRST
LEVEL)
(THIS PORTION
OF CLASSROOM
PORCH IS ON
UPPER/SECOND
LEVEL)
CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)
CLASSROOM PORCH
EXCLUDED FROM
PARCEL COVERAGE PER
SMMC 9.04.100 (F)&(G)OPEN 8' - 0"INTERSTITIAL/ATTIC SPACE -
NOT OCCUPIABLE 5' - 3"SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/30/20 12:39:07 PM
1/8" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A300-B/C
SECTION DIAGRAMS
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS1/8" = 1'-0"1
E/W SECTION THROUGH ELEVATED COURT LEVEL
DIAGRAM
1/8" = 1'-0"2
N/S SECTION THROUGH MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM &
ELEVATED COURT - LOT COVERAGE
SEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
SMMC 9.52.020.0180 Attic. The area less than 7 feet in height, located above the ceiling
of the top story and below the roof that is not usable as habitable or commercial space and is
not accessible via a permanent access structure. An attic shall not be considered a story.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+97'-3"
PL
+89'-8"
+89'-8"
LOWER LEVEL (ABOVE)
+97'-3"
STAGE
+91'-8"
NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RM
NEW
ELEVATOR
TIERED SEATING
STORAGE
BREAK OUT
ROOM
SPANISH
EXISTING
MULTI-PURPOSE RM
MATH
READING
P.E. OFFICE
PL
STORAGE
FACILITIES
OFFICE
MAIN POWER
SHUT OFF
ELEV
ROOM SERVER
ROOM
STOR
STOR
FACULTY
LOUNGE
STOR
+91'-8"
EXISTING READING ROOM
TO BE CONVERTED TO
RESTROOMS & SHOWERS
NEW STAIR AND
PARTITION
CORRIDOR
5' - 0"5' - 0"
8 (N) STAFF LOCKERS
LOWER LEVEL (+97' -3")
+0' -0"
-7' -7"
-5' -7"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
SEE FIRST FLOOR / MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON SHEET A121-C
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
BASEMENT FLOOR
+97'-3"
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:34:59 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A120-C
BASEMENT FLOOR
LEVEL DIAGRAM
(LOWER LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
UPUPDNDNDN UPNEW ENCLOSURE
OF EXISTING
LUNCH SEATING
OUTLINE OF MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BELOW GRADE
PLANTERHANDICAPPED PARKINGHANDICAPPED PARKING
BIKE RACK
HEDGECLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
6TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
CLASSROOM -
1ST GRADE
RECEPTION/
FRONT OFFICE
BOARDROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM -
KINDERGARTEN
CL OF ALLEY
PROPOSED BIKE RACKS
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
MAIN LEVEL
+0' -0"
MAIN LEVEL (+107' -6")
+0' -0"
+1' -3"
-6' -0"CLASSROOM
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
EXISTING PARKING
CLASSROOM PORCH
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
CLASSROOM PORCH
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:38:02 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A121-C
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL
DIAGRAM (MAIN
LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
+119'-6"
NEW
ADMIN
OFFICES
PL
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM -
COMPUTER LAB
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE
CLASSROOOM -
ART ROOM
CLASSROOM -
READING
ROOM
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
5TH GRADE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
NEW STAIR
UPPER LEVEL (+119' -6")
+0' -0"
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/CSEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
ON SHEET A121-C
-9' -6"
SCIENCE CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
4TH GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
3RD GRADE
CLASSROOM -
2ND GRADE
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATORSEE FIRST FLOOR /
MAIN LEVEL PLAN ON
SHEET A121-C
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:05 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A122-C
SECOND FLOOR
LEVEL DIAGRAM
(UPPER LEVEL)
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
1
A300-B/C
1
A300-B/C
EXISTING ROOF
NEW STAIR
BELOW
NEW
OFFICES
BELOW
PL
ROOFTOP PLAY COURT
126' -6"
2
A300-B/C
2
A300-B/C
NEW
ELEVATOR
NEW
ELEVATOR
SHEET
SHEET
DATE
3573 HAYDEN AVENUE
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
310.399.7975
KFALOSANGELES.COM
SCALE
11/18/20 5:35:08 PM
3/32" = 1'-0"CARLTHORP SCHOOL438 SAN VICENTE BLVDSANTA MONICA, CA 90402A123-C
ROOF PLAN LEVEL
DIAGRAM
11.16.20 SUPPORT SPACE IMPROVEMENTSSEE SECTION DRAWING A300-B/C FOR
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEVELS
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins))
Exhibits Relating to Neighborhood Issues
[5] Letter from Arthur L. Kassan, Consulting Traffic Engineer, to Ronald K. Fuchiwaki,
City Parking & Traffic Engineer, dated 6/13/1995.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP
Exhibits Relating to Appellant’s Response to Staff’s Attachment E, “Detailed
Response to Appeal Statement”
[6] Letter, dated 9/25/1986, from the principal of the Applicant, Dorothy Menzies, to Dr.
Granzow, of 407 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90402.
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
6.A.w
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: ADD-TO_Third Appeal Statement of Steven Salsberg - Substantive Issues - 5-9-2022 (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gardner, Rory <rgardner@pacificurbaninvestors.com>
Sent:Monday, May 2, 2022 1:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Regina Szilak
Subject:438 San Vicente Blvd, Carlthorp School Continued Expansion and Adverse Impact on Environment
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
Regarding the Tuesday May 10th hearing for the 438 San Vicente Blvd continued expansion of the Carlthorp School, as a
homeowner on 4th Street I am completely opposed to this. The School’s continued growth and expansion has occurred
with no consideration for the extra traffic, monopoly on local parking, and increased trash from the daily foot traffic that
staff, parents, and students leave behind. The proposed expansion is just another effort to increase enrollment to justify
higher compensation (noted below from their 2019 tax filing) for school executives at the expense of the quality of life
for local residents.
Also included below is the balance sheet detail pursuant to the last publicly available “non‐profit” tax return filing (tax
year 2019). With stated net assets in excess of $35M the school can certainly either:
1) Find a location that has appropriate parking so they do not continue to adversely impact a residential
neighborhood.
2) Establish off site parking with a shuttle service to ensure staff and parents do not dominate local parking,
adversely impacting the residents of the community in which the school resides.
3) Fund a local sanitation crew to ensure the residents around the few blocks that surround the school do not
continue to bear the adverse impact of a growing and careless customer base.
Total Revenue $11,352,256
Total Functional Expenses $10,825,640
Net income $526,616
Notable sources of revenue
Percent of total
revenue
Contributions $1,723,61415.2%
Program services $8,524,18775.1%
Investment income $847,4667.5%
Bond proceeds $0 Royalties $0 Rental property income $0 Net fundraising $248,8432.2%
Sales of assets $0 Net inventory sales $0 Other revenue $8,1460.1%
Notable expenses
Percent of total
expenses
Executive compensation $887,7988.2%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2
Total Revenue $11,352,256
Total Functional Expenses $10,825,640
Net income $526,616
Other salaries and wages $5,680,62852.5%
Other
Total Assets $42,705,873
Total Liabilities $7,699,885
Net Assets $35,005,988
Key Employees and Officers Compensation
TIMOTHY KUSSEROW (HEAD OF SCHOOL) $497,942
KENNETH PARR (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE) $252,900
LYNN WAGMEISTER (DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS) $179,833
STEVE SPRINGER (PRINCIPAL) $165,555
ROBERT MORIARITY (DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY) $135,833
MAUREEN POLLACK (DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNICATIONS) $131,461
RONALD BURWICK (FOURTH GRADE INSTRUCTOR) $112,245
Rory Gardner
President
Pacific Urban Investors
11999 San Vicente Boulevard
Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Office 310.474.0514 ext 201
(Cell) 949.439.0557
rgardner@pacificurbaninvestors.com
www.pacificurbaninvestors.com
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Arnold Seid <aseid@ortechnologies.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 8, 2022 5:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Thorpe School
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I have reviewed the descriptions of the proposed plans for construction at the Carl Thorpe School.
I feel that the plans would result in too much increase in noise and traffic at the school. As we all understand the school
is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The height increase and the increased noise will make the environment
very difficult for the neighbors.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Arnold Seid
427 16th Street
Santa Monica. 90402
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Regina Szilak
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 6:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:438 San Vicente Blvd. Carlthorp school
From: Michelle Greco <mjgreco20@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I live on San Vicente Blvd in between 4th and 7th street on the north side of the street. Nearly everyday my neighbors
and I deal with excessive traffic and parking nightmares due to Carlthorp. It's so bad that I coordinate my day around the
pick up carpool time at the end of their school day. I can't even begin to imagine the added nightmare if their projects
are approved. The construction for a possible 5 year completion date would be incredibly unfair to residents living on
San Vicente Blvd between 4th and 7th street. Please deny this request and put the people first!!
Thank you!
Michelle
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:riverfred1@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 10:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A - Carlthorp School Expansion Vote NO
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The expansion plan as configured will negatively impact the neighborhood. Please do not support this flawed expansion
plan, stop the added noise, dirt, traffic congestion and burden to street parking sought by the Carlthorp School, enough
is enough.
A very concerned neighbor,
Fred alexander
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2
Vernice Hankins
From:phillis dudick <phdphillis@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 10:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:phillis dudick
Subject:ITEM 6-A APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CARLTHROP SCHOOL EXPANSION
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Sue Himmelrich and Councilmembers:
After much consideration, I fully support this appeal. While understanding the school's desire to expand, it is extremely
important to consider the impact of this expansion upon residents, including renters, condo and homeowners. This is by
no means a minor expansion for this quiet, peaceful residential neighborhood on San Vicente Boulevard.
In fact, many of us believe reality is telling us that Carlthorp School has already reached its maximum growth for this
parcel of land and should be encouraged to develop an additional site off campus to house some of their programs and
activities.
Is it fair to residents to endure five to seven years of summer construction five days a week? Is it fair to residents to be
bombarded with the noise factor of a rooftop athletic field five days a week during the school year, regardless of
statements to the contrary?
The projected underground community room will undoubtedly serve as an auditorium for theatre and musical
presentations as well as a special event space, no longer necessitating holding such programs off grounds. Of course,
these activities will bring numerous cars to the area, where parking for residents is already a major concern.
It is my hope that Council will consider peace and tranquility for residents and the inevitable negative impact of traffic
and the taking of parking spaces on our neighborhood streets needed by residents in an already overburdened
situation.
Thank for your attention to the urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Paula Kayton <pekayton@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 9:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
I support the appeal for the Santa Monica City Council NOT TO APPROVE the expansion of the Carlthorp School.
The expansion, if permitted, would impact the safety of the students and others in the area. I live a few blocks away and
think if the council members ever went to the area around 4th and San Vicente when school was letting out and saw the
traffic and the cars lined up they would not approve the expansion to make this situation worse. In addition, the noise
from the children using the rooftop expansion would lower the quality of life for people living nearby.
Why was additional parking not required on the school grounds if the expansion was approved? Currently there is a
shortage of parking on the street.
Please APPROVE THIS APPEAL AND DO NOT PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF THE CARLTHORP SCHOOL.
Thank you.
Paula Kayton
722 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
pekayton@gmail.com
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Jennifer Kramer <jenkramer1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 8:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
I had sent the below email a few weeks ago but just received an email with this updated contact so sending
another one to ensure it goes to the correct place.
Thank you.
Best,
Jennifer Kramer
--------
Jennifer Kramer April 8, 2022
446 San Vicente Blvd Unit 104
Santa Monica CA 90402
To: City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal
1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Appeal 20ENT-0275
I have lived next door to Carlthorp Elementary School for the past 12 years and I am against the
proposed expansion of the school. I am 48 years old and also own a brick and mortar business on
Broadway in Santa Monica. That I own a business AND a condo here in Santa Monica leads me to be
extremely invested in and involved with my community.
I’m concerned that my (and my neighbors') well being and overall enjoyment of life here in the Santa
Monica area is being constantly challenged due to the disruptions going on next door at Carlthorp.
What was once a pride point (how lucky am I to live next to such a quality high-end, exquisite and
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
5
established education center?!) is now turning into a deflating and overwhelming feeling of unfortunate
circumstances.
There is constant traffic and congestion in and around the school on the corner of 4th and San Vicente
every morning and every afternoon when school lets out. This traffic and congestion loops way around
the corner on the block of Georgina, sometimes all the way down to 7th Street. It’s a mess and I see all
of us who live here struggling to access our once peaceful and smooth public city streets. Cars are
honking, people are upset, and there is no way to pass along the narrow and quaint 4th street. This
congestion is gradually getting worse, as enrollment increases.
If the new proposed open-air roof with basketball court and gym classes happen, this will:
Devalue my home
Increase congestion and flow of traffic on our beautiful quaint streets
Elevated amounts of excess outdoor noise, bouncing basketballs, etc
Construction will up to 5 years of peaceful summers away (dust, debris, noise, pollutants,
trucks, privacy of our roof deck, etc)
I am in favor of making a community stronger and better. While adding additional parking and tripling
the playground of the school next door will be great for the school, I wonder if you might put more
thought into what happens to the COMMUNITY around it should that happen. Had the proposition been
to move the school to a new location (if they truly needed more space), or keep the enrollment where it
is to sustain a cohesive and harmonious operation within itself and the community is resides in, or *at a
minimum* (I feel I’m stating the obvious but needs to be mentioned): why would they decide to only do
construction in the summer if not to avoid having themselves inconvenienced with the noise, pollutants,
traffic, etc and yet all those living around the school, THE COMMUNITY, is at the mercy? That doesn’t
feel amicable or peaceful.
The proposed development next door at Carlthorp will directly impact my enjoyment of living in my
home and I am NOT in favor of this project being approved. I support the appeal.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Kramer
‐‐
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
6
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
JENNIFER KRAMER
CLINICAL DIRECTOR
extraction ninja
www.correctiveskincarela.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lisa Cherry <lchrry@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 12:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Carlthorp School Expansion
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I live a block away from Carlthorp School and it already causes a traffic nightmare on 4th St and Georgina going onto San
Vicente Blvd every weekday. The expand the school would be a disaster and nightmare for our neighhood in many
ways!! A huge disaster that I am willing to fight it ever taking place. And I am not alone All my neighbors feel the same. I
encourage you to vote NO on this matter if you care about Santa Monica and it’s residents.
Sincerely,
Lisa Cherry
310‐663‐9279
lchrry@yahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Sara Johnson <slj2ae@virginia.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 11:05 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Item 6.A - Carlthorp School Expansion Vote NO
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The expansion plan as configured will negatively impact the neighborhood. Please do not support this flawed expansion
plan, stop the added noise, dirt, traffic congestion and burden to street parking sought by the Carlthorp School, enough
is enough.
A very concerned neighbor,
Sara Johnson, San Vicente Santa Monica Resident
‐‐
Sara L. Johnson
(301) 247‐0408
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Darlene Lancer, LMFT <info@darlenelancer.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 10:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Carl Thorpe improvement hearing
EXTERNAL
I am a neighbor of the school. Currently it disrupts traffic on San Vicente Bl. and 4th street and limits public parking
severely. Any additional office space and limitation of their current parking garage will only add to the current
problems that the school is causing. They appear to have closed their parking for office space, which further limits
parking to residents. This is not supposed to be zoned for offices, but that is what they are trying to do, and there
isn't sufficient street parking as it is currently.
Thank you,
Darlene Lancer
350 San Vicente Bl.
Santa Monica, 90402
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Douglas Brian Martin <doug@douglasbrianmartin.us>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 12:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I live across the street from the Carlthorp School and have put up with the increasing noise and congestion for some
time. What used to be only on school days during school hours now invades the nights and weekends as well. Carlthorp
School student drop off and pick up clog our streets. Lack of parking for staff clogs our neighborhood parking.
Continuous noisy playground activities have had a negative impact of life on San Vicente Boulevard ‐ peace and quiet are
a thing of the past due to Carlthorp School.
Carlthorp School Expansion Plan will make residents endure years of construction noise and filth as well as even more
noise with an elevated playground that will disrupt even further whatever peace and quiet remain in the neighborhood.
Carlthorp School claims there will be no increase in noise while at the same time explaining they will soundproof their
own windows. This nonsense is ignored by the City Staff as they recommend this project over the complaints of
hundreds of residents in the neighborhood.
As our elected officials voted in office to protect the interests of the residents of Santa Monica you should do just that,
protect the residents, not merely the desires of a private run for profit school seeking even more profits at the expense
of the residents with plans, explanations, and arguments even a moron would be able to determine are fanciful and
insulting.
If Carlthorp School can spend millions of dollars on construction for a skyscraper playground and a giant underground
classroom it can afford to revise its Expansion Plan to provide parking for its staff and realistic noise abatement for those
living nearby.
All requests for revision of the existing plans have been ignored by the school and approved by the City Staff. The City
staff is supposed to act in the best interests of the residents of Santa Monica yet appears to be advocating for the
expansion of the school at the expense of community standards and the residents. This is wrong.
Please uphold the appeal and stop this Carlthorp School Expansion Plan as it exists until it is revised to reasonably
protect the residents from noise, filth, and congestion.
Thank you
Douglas Brian Martin
437 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica CA 90402
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Richard Michaelsen <richmichaelsen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 12:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Dear SM Counclimembers
We reside directly across the street at 435 San Vicente Blvd.
Our household is AGAINST the expansion plans at Calthorp School and we SUPPORT THE APPEAL.
We are lifelong Santa Monica residents and active SM business owners for the last 20 years.
Please help preserve our quality of life which has already diminished significantly over the last decade with out of
control expansion, vagrancy & crime.
Thank you
Richard Michaelsen
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
John Nockleby & Lucie White
446 San Vicente Blvd. #207
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit proposed by Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Blvd, Appeal 20ENT-0275
To the Honorable Santa Monica City Council:
We reside at 446 San Vicente Blvd. #207, Santa Monica. We write in support of the Appeal of
the grant of the Conditional Use Permit requested by Carlthorp School, and respectfully ask the
Council to deny the permit.
Our objections to Carlthorp’s development proposals can be summarized as follows :
1.The proposed open air basketball court imposes harms on residents 30 feet away that
cannot be mitigated despite a facially defective “noise mitigation” study of the current
playfield that ignores real-world noise generated by pounding basketballs on an open-
air rooftop basketball court.
2.The proposed 5 year timeframe that enables Carlthorp to hold its neighbors hostage for
five summers while it raises money from wealthy benefactors depreciates property
values through 5 summers of construction dust and noise and greatly impacts the
quality of life of the neighborhood.
Who we are. We have resided at 446 San Vicente Boulevard for over 25 years. My wife and I
live and work 10 feet from school property and 30 feet away from its building and the proposed
top floor open-air basketball court. We directly face the East Side of the School and from our
second-floor condo look directly onto what is proposed to be the hard surface of the open-air
rooftop basketball court filled with 40 excited youngsters pounding basketballs that the
School proposes to build atop its current 2 story structure. This proposed arena is so close that
it would pose no difficulty for us to toss a basketball from our unit onto the floor of the
proposed court. We’re terrified that the noise emanating from this rooftop basketball court
30 feet from our ears will drive us from our home.
My wife and I are lawyers, law professors and scholars, ages 68 and 72. During the academic
year, I teach at Loyola Marymount University, where my focus is constitutional law, civil rights,
torts and social justice. Most of our professional work time is at our home (this is regardless of
Covid). We research and write, and have daily online live interactions with lawyers, judges, and,
in my spouse’s case, scholars around the world. I hold a live online course that I have taught for
over a decade from my dining room table. Our home is our workspace. I also regularly work in
my home “office” -- our second floor exterior deck-- located 30 feet from the proposed open-air
basketball court. During most of the year, we leave our windows and sliding glass doors open to
our deck to receive the welcoming breeze. We do not have air conditioning, and indeed live in
Santa Monica to avoid it.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Our Westside-facing condo unit directly faces the eastern edge of the School. Our deck
overlooks the outdoor ground space between our building and the school, from which we can
regularly hear teachers and students conduct classes as their voices are clear and penetrating.
The proposed open air, rooftop basketball court filled with 40 youngsters pounding balls will
severely disrupt the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood, and is completely
inconsistent with the Historic Recognition of our neighborhood.
The proposed rooftop open air basketball court configuration allows for dozens of 6th grade
students to practice their basketball bouncing skills on a hard surface, their basketball-hurling
skills against rigid backboards 8 feet in the air, or their soccer kicking skills against the hard
sides of the structure, between 8:00am and 5:30pm, while several coaches holler or blast
whistles at any moment. While both my wife and I support education at all levels, and have
invariably supported public school bond issues, it is ridiculous for a wealthy private school
catering to clientele who don’t have to deal with such disruptions to be permitted to impose
such uproar on their neighbors. Carlthorp brings to our neighborhood hundreds of students
from wealthy areas, and we are unaware of a single student, parent, nanny, or school employee
who will personally be adversely affected by the proposed development.
Carlthorp’s proposed disruption is especially true in a building such as ours, located in an
Historic District, where an open air, rooftop basketball court comprising 9,000 s/f, nearly 3
times the size of our building’s footprint, is completely inconsistent with architectural
standards of our neighborhood. We embrace how the Historic District designation insists that
architectural changes to the character of the neighborhood be consistent with that designation.
Nothing in an open air rooftop basketball court comes within the area code of Historic
Designation.
Moreover, over half the residents in our building at 446 San Vicente Blvd are retired and
dependent on the peace and solitude of a quiet residential community. Why should older folks
and writers who need peace and quiet and have lived in the building for decades be put to
further disruption and stress on their daily lives?
The alleged “mitigation” study did not include real-world evidence pertaining to the proposed
open-air rooftop basketball court
The Council have been presented with a so-called “mitigation study” (“Study”) that allegedly
considered the potential noise factors that would be experienced by neighbors by the
operation of an open-air, hard surface, rooftop basketball court a mere jump shot from our
building. The Study authors, employed by Carlthorp to make recordings at a time when
Carlthorp could control the noise level, make clear what their sound instruments were set to
learn: they “monitored the current playfield for a continuous period of 40 minutes, which
included lunch hour.”
Putting aside the obvious inference that the School took pains to quiet noise over the lunch
hour when the sound recording instruments were deployed, the reality is that the supposed
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
“sound study” of the current playground has no relevance to the sounds emanating from a
rooftop, open air basketball court with 40 excited youngsters pounding basketballs on a hard
surface.
The truth is, the Study’s purported simulation of conditions did not utilize a single actual, real-
world factor, factors that will greatly exacerbate and broadcast the noise emanating from this
new structure. Indeed, from the rooftop, the proposed hard surface court will amplify pounding
balls, yelling coaches and screeching whistles throughout the entire neighborhood. Here’s what
the Study failed to address:
Even though the Study looked at the current play field which employs the deadening
effects of artificial turf at a time when students were not using it, the study did not
examine the noise level of 40 basketballs pounding against a hard surface, which will be
characteristic of the proposed rooftop open-air basketball court.
In looking at the current play field, the Study demonstrated that noise emanating even
from sedate lunch hour activities under conditions controlled by the School occasionally
exceeded the City’s noise limitations. This is so even with the sound-proofing provided
by artificial turf during 40 minutes of a “lunch hour” when many students were eating.
The Study did not examine noise levels in the current playfield during actual playtime
with coaches yelling and blowing whistles, and students hollering.
The Study did not measure the sounds emanating from a hard surface basketball court
by 40 excited 6th graders battering basketballs against backboards, kicking balls against
the side walls, from an open-air rooftop court 60 feet in the air.
The Study failed to consider whether a hard surface surrounded by 8 foot walls, would
amplify and concentrate rather than deaden, the noise from pounding balls. The Study
here failed to address whether pounding basketballs on a solid surface surrounded by
solid walls would amplify the raucous noise throughout the neighborhood.
Instead of examining the real world noise level of 40 excited youngers pounding basketballs and
hitting the side walls of the proposed open air rooftop court, while several coaches were yelling
and blowing whistles, the Study inputted irrelevant details (the quiet-time lunchtime data from
the artificial turf under the School’s supervision) and drew conclusions unsupported by real-
world experience.
Moreover, the parameters of the “black box” computer simulation utilized in the “sound study”
have never been identified. What this means is that even if the appropriate variables had been
inputted into the “computer simulation,” the actual factors that controlled the outcome
cannot be examined by others.
In short, the so-called “mitigation study” does not include any relevant variables (screaming
kids pounding basketballs on a hard surface open air rooftop court while coaches yell and blow
whistles), and therefore cannot justify any conclusion that the plastic barriers will actually
reduce as opposed to broadcasting sounds throughout our community, disturbing the peace
and tranquility of our neighborhood and historic district.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
The 5 year development proposal considers only Carlthorp’s convenience and threatens our
community for the next 5 years.
Carlthorp seeks 5 years to complete its project, utilizing the summer months so as not to
inconvenience its school year activities. However, this means that during the hottest months of
the year when residents would ordinarily keep windows and patio doors open, the
neighborhood can expect the dust and construction noise to destroy the neighborhood’s peace
and quiet. It is completely unfair to allow construction activities to take place on Carlthorp’s
convenience, and disruptive to the neighbors.
In Carlthorp’s current configuration, we tolerate much disruption from noise emanating from
the school, along with excited kids yelling, and coaches hollering at the top of their lungs every
single afternoon. On a daily basis, we also tolerate lack of nearby parking plus the traffic
hazards created by dozens of pricey SUV’s lined up for several blocks surrounding the school
and blocking other vehicles during pickup hours. So yes, Carlthorp School already imposes
significant burdens on and requires daily accommodation from their neighbors.
What we cannot tolerate, however, is an open-air rooftop basketball court 30 feet from our
home, filled with 40 or more excited kids drumming basketballs on hard surfaces, with two or
three coaches hollering (as they currently do), a mere jump shot from where many in our
building are trying to live, read, study, write, or simply to be left alone in peace. Therefore, we
strenuously object to any approval of an open air basketball court.
We request that peace and quiet be preserved in our historic, R2 zoned community. It’s unfair
for a private school catering to wealthy patrons who retreat to their own private domains, and
which already imposes significant inconveniences on its neighbors, to be permitted to develop
its facilities that so drastically alters the noise level in the neighborhood as to drive older
residents and productive citizens from their homes of decades.
We support the appeal.
Sincerely,
John Nockleby
Lucie White
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Parker <jparker@rpa.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 4:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Carlthorp School Proposed Expansion
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I live next door to Carlthorp School. My kitchen window overlooks the playground. When I first moved in over twenty
years ago the school was smaller. School ended at 3:00 p.m. and it was peaceful after that. The playground noise now is
overwhelmingly loud and constant due to almost all day recess. The noise starts full blast in the morning from 7:45 a.m.
with an assortment of (screaming, whistles, dance music, loud amplified announcements, the coach yelling at the top of
his lungs to instruct the students for the games being played) and does not end until 5:00 p.m. Sometimes it’s even later
depending on evening events the school has planned. Last Saturday morning their tree trimmers started at 7:25
a.m. The school acts with impunity and shows no consideration to residents that will be impacted by their activities.
When the last playground expansion was planned Carlthorp promised the neighbors that their noise abatement plan
would mitigate the noise. It hasn’t. The wall that they installed with the foliage that was supposed to abate the noise
has blocked the view I used to have and darkened my apartment without accomplishing the purpose that was intended.
The double paned windows that were installed helped slightly but the noise still comes through. The windows need to
be replaced as the seals have broken over the years. It’s now so loud that even when I close the windows all day and
run a loud fan it’s still too loud. In order to cope, I have given up spending time in my apartment during the work week. I
leave in the morning and don’t return until the evening when it’s quiet and I can open the windows to let in fresh
air. My quality of life has been seriously impacted and diminished. I can’t imagine how untenable it will be to live there
if their next expansion is approved as is.
Carlthorp now wants to make residents endure years of construction noise and dirt as well as even more noise with an
elevated playground which will further disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Carlthorp claims that there will
be no additional noise. I don’t believe it based upon past promises that didn’t work out as they said they would. How
can the City recommend this project over the complaints of hundreds of residents in the neighborhood? Residents who
would otherwise be happy in their apartments shouldn’t be forced to move and pay double the rent they can’t afford to
pay to avoid their noise or else be miserable. There are many seniors in the building that can’t leave their apartment
physically or economically. If Carlthorp School wants to spend millions of dollars in construction it can afford to revise
their Expansion Plan to provide parking for their staff and realistic (and far more effective) noise abatement. All
requests for revision of the existing plans have been ignored by the school and approved by the City Staff. The City staff
is supposed to act in the best interests of the residents of Santa Monica yet appears to be advocating for the expansion
of the school. This is doing a very real disservice to the residents surrounding the school. We are imploring you to take
our valid and reasonable concerns seriously. Please uphold the appeal and stop this Carlthorp School Expansion Plan as
it exists until it is revised to reasonably protect the residents from noise, dirt and congestion. If the school won’t move
to a larger more suitable location to accommodate their growing population (which would be the most sensible and fair
solution), the least we can ask for is a better plan. Thanks for your consideration.
Janet
JANET PARKER
office services administrator
RPA ADVERTISING 2525 colorado ave. santa monica ca 90404 T 310-633-6121
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2
rpa.com
____________________________
This email may contain information that is confidential or is otherwise the property of RPA or its clients. Any use of this
information for purposes other than that for which it was intended, including forwarding the information to
unauthorized parties or using the ideas or materials contained in this email, may violate U.S. or foreign laws, and is
prohibited. If you received this message in error, please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Margaret Bach <mnlbach@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 3:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan;
Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject:Fwd: Appeal of CUP for Carlthorp School
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers, I am resending the letter I submitted in February, to call attention once again to the serious
issues with the Carlthorp School CUP proposal and to voice my support for upholding the appeal before you tonight.
Please do the right thing for the neighborhood and approve the appeal.
Thank you,
Margaret Bach
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margaret Bach <mnlbach@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: Appeal of CUP for Carlthorp School
To: <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>, <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>, <christine.parra@smgov.net>, Phil Brock
<phil.brock@smgov.net>, <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>, <kristin.mccowan@smgov.net>, <lana.negrete@smgov.net>,
<gleam.davis@smgov.net>
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed plans for Carlthorp School and its application for a Conditional
Use Permit to add additional facilities and improvements to their already highly congested site. The Appeal before you
raises serious, legitimate questions about the school's plans and its impact on the neighborhood.
Three issues must be addressed as you consider the Appeal:
I. What is the threshold beyond which a conditional use, that is, a non‐conforming use, no longer can be justified for
its site. When does a use exceed its envelope. or capacity of the site, without negative impacts to its neighborhood?
2. Has Carlthorp adhered to the conditions of its last approved CUP, which was based on an assumption of a particular
staff size as well as student body size. In 1995, staffing was at 32, it now stands at 80; and the student enrollment,
reportedly, was approximately half of the current 280 K‐6 enrollment, yet neighbors were assured that enrollment
would not increase beyond its then‐current level.
3. Does the current plan meet Santa Monica's code requirements? The school campus is situated on an R‐2 parcel yet
borders an R‐1 district. Do the various setbacks meet code? Does the Multipurpose room constitute a classroom with its
requirements for additional parking? Does the proposed sports use with its 8‐foot walls on the roof of the South building
constitute a third story in an R‐2 district? In short, does the proposed project meet all of the requirements of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code?
Many neighbors of the school have weighed in regarding the impacts on parking and traffic, as well as noise levels, that
are generated by the school. These issues need to be taken seriously by the City if Carlthorp School continues to occupy
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
4
its site with its current and proposed uses. Post‐construction mitigation of the rooftop noise is destined for failure, and
the proposed plan does not address the existing neighborhood impacts on parking and traffic.
But ‐‐ in the big picture ‐‐ is it time for Carlthorp to identify another site for its educational program, in its entirety, or a
portion thereof? I understand that this is not the issue before you, but the ongoing debates about the school's proposed
plans suggests that the school's programs, ambitions and physical resources have simply outgrown its site on San
Vicente Boulevard.
I urge you to uphold the Appeal before you and remand the CUP application back to the Planning Commission with
guidelines as to what might constitute an appropriate modification in Carlthorp School's campus plans.
Thank you for your consideration,
Margaret Bach
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 5:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; David White; Clerk Mailbox; Susan Cola
Subject:6.A. Appeal of PC Approval of CUP for Calthorp
EXTERNAL
Please stop the current
Carlthorp School Expansion and uphold the resident's appeal.
This expansion is flawed and abuse to the residents of the area. It will add
noise, dirt, traffic congestion and more burden to the already difficult
street parking issue.
I find it disheartening to have watched the Planning Department staff "do
as told'..by the corporate and wealthy of this City with
zero regard for the quality of life for the residents.
Please start doing it.
Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Judith Samuel <judithsamuel7@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 5:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
The following issues must be addressed when you consider the Appeal:
1. What is the limit beyond which a conditional use, that is, a non-conforming use, no longer can be
justified for its site. When does a use exceed the capacity of the site, without negative impacts on its
neighborhood?
2. Has Carlthorp adhered to the conditions of its last approved CUP, which was based on an assumption
of a particular staff size as well as student body size. In 1995, staffing was at 32, it now stands at 80; and the
student enrollment, reportedly, was approximately half of the current 280 K-6 enrollment, yet neighbors were
assured that enrollment would not increase beyond its then-current level.
3. Does the current plan meet Santa Monica's code requirements? The school campus is situated on an R‐2 parcel yet
borders an R‐1 district. Do the various setbacks meet code? Does the Multipurpose room constitute a classroom with its
requirements for additional parking? Does the proposed sports use with its 8‐foot walls on the roof of the South building
constitute a third story in an R‐2 district? In short, does the proposed project meet all of the requirements of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code?
I maintain that the appeal for expansion of Carlthorp will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. I live on San
Vicente Boulevard between 4th and Ocean Avenue. Each afternoon a long line of cars is double‐parked on Georgina
and 4th Streets. This seems to disobey parking codes and disrupts the flow of traffic. If staff grows, there will be a
need for additional parking, impacting residents of the neighborhood. The ongoing noise of construction will also
impact the livability of residents in the neighborhood.
The Carlthorp School has outgrown its current location. Because of the wealth of student families, benefactors, and
any school's endowment, the wise decision will be for the school to locate a larger, more suitable location with
adequate grounds for sports and outdoor activities, rather than the proposed one rooftop in a residential
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Judith Samuel
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:info Pioneers&Innovators <pioneers.innovators@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 9, 2022 6:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Carmen
Subject:City Clerk Re: Carlthorp School Appeal/ 20ENT-0275
EXTERNAL
My name is Carmen Piccini and I live at 446 San Vicente Blvd.
I strongly object to the School proposed expansion project. I am asking the Council to reject the proposed
development.
I am concerned about our mental and physical well being. I have some health issues, and this project will affect me
deeply.
In addition, the majority of us were not aware of this proposed development project. The school did not send detailed
documentation of their intentions to us.
Also, the mail during the pandemic was often not delivered and a small flyer can easily get lost with junk mail.
Here are my concerns about this massive proposed development:
Demolition debris, chemicals exposure, bad smell, dust, dirt, trucks, banging, drilling loud sounds and
noisy construction for 3 ‐ 5 years? That is not acceptable.
All of this could cause us some serious chronic health issues. Dust and debris can cause serious eye, nose, and throat
irritation, infection or even asthma attacks. Demolition dust is toxic. Some chemicals can cause lung problems.
Construction site noise is not only loud, but can also be hazardous to one’s hearing.
None of us will be able to open windows & balcony doors of our home due to all the debris, dust, & noises from
construction & proposed‐baskeball‐court. Are you aware that some of us don’t even have AC in their homes? This is not
acceptable.
The value of our homes will decrease dramatically. At 446 SV, I currently own 2 units. This project will have a long‐
term negative‐impact of the market value of my 2 units and all my neighbors properties. Not acceptable!
A basketball court? Who is proposing this? Perhaps they do not care or are oblivious to how far the noise travels. Our
ears will constantly be assaulted by the students screaming, coach yelling, constant pounding of the ball, and the
whistles that go along with the game. I suggest outlawing basketball hoops in neighborhoods where there’s less than
500 feet between houses. A baseball court on a residential area is absolutely NOT acceptable!
The proposed project will further exasperate the traffic problem that already exist due to all the trucks & construction
machinery, making it unbearable for us to access our homes.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
2
Dorothy Menzies who was the Head of Carlthorp School of recent, in her 1986 document, stated and promised the
following: “…the enrollment of Carlthorp school will not increase… and due to the size of the playground, there will be
positively no increase in the future.” This is a residential area, is it not? Instead of proposing a plan of expanding which
will be disrupting the lives within this historic neighborhood ‐ perhaps they should consider moving the school entirely.
I am 100% NOT in favor of this project being approved. United with my neighbors, I strongly oppose to this proposed‐
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carmen Piccini
Homeowners of two units at San Vicente Blvd.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Evelyn Lauchenauer <swissmissrealtor@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Good morning,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed plans for Carlthorp School and its application for a
Conditional Use Permit to add additional facilities and improvements to their already highly congested site. The
Appeal before you raises serious, legitimate questions about the school's plans and its impact on the
neighborhood.
Three issues must be addressed as you consider the Appeal:
I. What is the threshold beyond which a conditional use, that is, a non-conforming use, no longer can
be justified for its site. When does a use exceed its envelope. or capacity of the site, without negative
impacts to its neighborhood?
2. Has Carlthorp adhered to the conditions of its last approved CUP, which was based on an assumption
of a particular staff size as well as student body size. In 1995, staffing was at 32, it now stands at 80; and the
student enrollment, reportedly, was approximately half of the current 280 K-6 enrollment, yet neighbors were
assured that enrollment would not increase beyond its then-current level.
3. Does the current plan meet Santa Monica's code requirements? The school campus is situated on an
R-2 parcel yet borders an R-1 district. Do the various setbacks meet code? Does the Multipurpose room
constitute a classroom with its requirements for additional parking? Does the proposed sports use with its 8-
foot walls on the roof of the South building constitute a third story in an R-2 district? In short, does the
proposed project meet all of the requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code?
I think it is time for Carlthorp to select another site for its educational program, in its entirety, or a portion of it. I
understand that this is not the issue before you, but the ongoing debates about the school's proposed plans
suggests that the school's programs, ambitions and physical resources have simply outgrown its site on San
Vicente Boulevard.
I urge you to uphold the Appeal before you and return the CUP application back to the Planning Commission
with guidelines as to what might constitute an appropriate modification in Carlthorp School's campus plans.
Thank you for your consideration,
Evelyn Lauchenauer
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:45 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Kristin
McCowan
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please take a moment to imagine the windows of your home being within feet of Carlthorp School's playfield in use.
Now imagine doubling the activity and sound. Placing an open‐air rooftop play court on an already overloaded
residential property exacerbates an already intolerable circumstance. Uphold this appeal.
Neighbors of Carlthorp are looking to you for help. Residents of Santa Monica want to be assured you, our elected
council members are protecting our wellbeing and the peace and quiet within our homes.
The Carlthorp School is looking to you to allow them to expand beyond their property and into the homes of their
neighbors. Please stop them.
Carlthorp already dominates the residential street parking and now seeks to compound the parking burden by adding
more cars during sporting and other events. Please stop this.
Carlthorp School has obviously outgrown their property. It is now incumbent on you to protect the neighbors and
neighborhood from Carlthorp School’s avarice and indifference towards neighbors.
Please uphold this appeal.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Lerer
San Vicente Boulevard resident
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
May 10th, 2022
Planning Commission
Planning and Community Development
1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 planningcomment@smgov.net
Re: Carlthorp School 19ENT-0250 (Conditional Use Permit) & Minor Modification 20ENT-0066
Dear Planning Commission & Staff,
Planning Commission should NOT have approved the Carlthorp School’s Application for additional entitlements and accept the current Appeal, due to:
1) Brown’s Act. The majority of the residents next door at 446 San Vicente Blvd. were not directly notified by the City or Carlthorp School about their modification applications or plans. Please postpone any decisions to allow the residents time to review and comment on Carlthorp’s intentions.
2) Noise impact studies need to be redone since some studies occurred during Covid quarantine times (in May 2020), when the school was not at full student/teacher capacity. Also, the noise levels studies need to be current to reflect the growth in student body over the years and current audible noise levels. The PA systems need to be banned as they exceed the noise ordinance levels and disturb neighbors.
Hardscape playgrounds should also be banned due to it’s R2 zoned designation.
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
3) Carlthorp proposes building a rooftop play court, which would exceed the limitation of two stories in an R2 zone. (See SMMC Section 9.08.030 (Development Standards). Parking from the alley is considered 1st Floor, not basement, the 2nd
story is classrooms, 3rd story is the proposed large play court. The 3rd story play court (9,142sf ) would also have walls that would exceed 10ft., thus making it an obvious 3rd story. Hardscape playgrounds should not be allowed due to their noise level.
4) The proposed Basement/Lecture Hall should be considered a classroom if it is used
by the students daily or the majority of the school week. This would require additional parking requirements.
5) 1978 Carlthorp had 170 students. Today in upwards of 280 (+65%). Please
guarantee that enrollment cannot expand in the future as they intend to
expand/renovate the school.
6) Carlthorp is located in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District, which was designated by the City Council on January 12, 2016. The Landmarks Commission needs to conduct a formal review and revisions BEFORE
any approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
7) Enforcement and banning of school associated vehicles parked in the alley beyond the 32 allocated tandem spaces.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Christian Granzow and Inge Granzow 407 Georgina Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90402 Email: cgranzow1@gmail.com
Phone Number: (310) 451-2131
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
May 10, 2022
To the Santa Monica Planning Commission,
The Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica (SMBGC) is proud to endorse the work
of Carlthorp School. Carlthorp have been active members of the SMBGC
community for many years. The Carlthrop community been extremely generous
every year at the holidays providing Thanksgiving meals and dozens of toys every
Christmas for our kids and families. Not only have they consistently shown up and
done those things for our families every year but they have provided professional
development for our staff members. They’ve conducted trainings for our team
around English Language Arts instruction and will be offering trainings around
Classroom Management, Common Core Math and educational culture and
leadership.
The mission of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica is to enable all young
people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as
productive, caring, responsible citizens. Its vision is for youth to develop healthy
physical and emotional habits, succeed in their chosen educational and career
pathways, achieve self-efficacy and confidence, and become leaders in their
communities.
We feel strongly that Carlthop supports us in achieving the mission and vision of
SMBGC and highly value their partnership and thought leadership.
Sincerely,
Chief Executive Officer
The Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Terence Young <terence_young@gensler.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:asasso@carlthorp.org
Subject:COMMUNITY COMMENT FOR MAY 10, 2022 AGENDA ITEM 6A
EXTERNAL
IN REGARDS TO AGENDA ITEM 6A
6.A. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of
Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Deny Appeal 20ENT‐
0275 and approve Conditional Use Permit 19ENT‐0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT‐0066 for a 7,280 square foot
expansion to the Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29% increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage,
based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this report. 2. Adopt the CEQA Findings in this Staff Report under
“Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.”
Good Evening Councilmembers and community-my apologies for being unable to be
present this evening.
I address this room as a longtime Santa Monica Resident having purchased my Ocean
Park residence in 2000 and have remained inside the city since, and now have a child
who will graduate from Carlthorp next year. I have appeared before in support of
projects that I feel continue to elevate the built environment in this city towards
inclusivity, cultural innovation and resilience. As an Architect and design principal at
Gensler, a worldwide design firm focused on walkable cities, I am in support of this
project. This is another great example of the city’s balancing act of cultural investment
and community sensitivity. The school practices sensitivity towards it’s neighbors, while
practicing inclusivity in admissions -holding scholarship fundraising to help make their
excellent education available and affordable to the community. Approving the
Conditional Use Permit for this innovative expansion
invests in quality education for it’s neighbors, could assist the school to
continue operations during further pandemic disruptions, and maintain the
sensitive fabric of the parkway-like experience of San Vicente.
Terence Young
Principal
+1 213.327.3807 Direct
+1 213.327.3600 Main
Gensler
500 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
USA
Item 6.A 05/10/22
Item 6.A 05/10/22
6.A.x
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5012 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente