APPEAL TO THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL- COUNCIL FILE 10-0960

APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RULINGS Cases CPC 2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND.

PROPERTY ADDRESS- 7002 CLINTON, LOS ANGELES, CA

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF: BRIEF WITH EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

Respectfully submitted,

Lloyd Solly, Appellant & Clinton I La Brea Community Residents 542 N Detroit St Los Angeles, California 90036

clin tonlabrea@gmai I. com

By:-:--:c-:-,------­ Lloyd Solly Appellant Member, Clinton I La Brea Community Residents Group

_- .. ) Date: "6 " 3 -- ( o -­...... , Submitted in I? L u '""'- Committee Council File No: 10- o "\ ll> o Item No.: __/,______~: '>.:.b~c:t.. ~------

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 1 INTRODUCTION & INDEX

This brief comprises 8 parts plus exhibits in support of the Appeal to the Los Angeles City Council to Reverse the Planning Commission decision to approve Conditional Use for Case CPC-2008-5028-CU.

PART 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS 1.1. NOT SUPPORTED BY HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN 1.2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY CLAIM INAPPLICABLE 1.3. NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN 1.4 VIOLATES CODE RE CONDITIONAL USE

PART2. DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

PART 3. VIOLATION OF CITY ETHICS CODE 3.1 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS 3.2 MISUSE OF POSITION TO INFLUENCE

PART4. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS 4.1 FINDINGS CONTAINED ERRORS- BAD EVIDENCE TAINTED DECISION 4.2 APPLICANT MISLED COMMISSION

PART 5. UNCLEAN HANDS & VIOLATIONS 5.1 APPLICANT CONTINUES TO WILFULLY IGNORE CITY DEPARTMENTS 5.2 UPDATED VIOLATIONS LIST

PART6. INCOMP.LETE DETERMINATION 6.1 DETERMINATION MISSING CHANGES

PART7. GREATER WILSHIRE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL 7.1 Motion to Support REVERSAL of decision

PARTS. COMMUNITY PETITION 8.1 COMMUNITY SUPPORTS REVERSAL OF DECISION

EXHIBITS

SUPPLlMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 2 PART 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS 1.1. NOT SUPPORTED BY HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN 1.2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY CLAIM INAPPLICABLE 1.3. NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN 1.4 VIOLATES CODE RE CONDITIONAL USE

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 3 Decision is not consistent with the General Plan and its Framework Text or requirements defined in the Municipal Code on many points, including, but not limited to: l.l. NOT SUPPORTED BY HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN.

Proposed development is not supported under Hollywood Community Plan and is confinned by Planning Department in their Findings forthis case: CPC-2008-5028-CU FINDINGS Page FJ "The Hollvwood Communitv Plan does not address the development and expansion ofprivate schools"

EXHIBIT lA CPC-2008-5028-CU STAFF REPORT FINDINGS Fl

1.2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY CLAIM INAPPLICABLE General Plan Text cited by Planning Department with regards 'school facilities' is inapplicable in this case:

The text cited "That all school facilities in the Hollywood Community be constantly reviewed, analyzed and upgraded, in view of the fact that the District contains some ~(the oldest schools in the City" is inapplicable in this case as the applicant is seeking to modify a multi-family dwelling used as a dayeare. To support this claim we present evidence in 5 parts:

1.2.1: The Municipal code is clear in it's definition of'School', the existing use is not a school by definition: Municipal Code Section 12:03 SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY AND HIGH. An institution of/earning which offers instruction in several branches of learning and study required to be taught in the public schools bv the Education Code o(the State of California. High schools include Junior and Senior. 1.2.2: The Municipal code is clear in it's definition of 'Daycare' Municipal Code Section 12:03 DAY CARE FACILITY. Same as Child Care Facility. (Added by Ord. No. 145,474, Ejf 3/2174.) CHILD CARE FACILITY. A facility in which non-residential care is provided for children, 16 years ~f age or under, when licensed as a day care facility for children by the State of California or other agency designated by the State, under the categories defined in Section 30019 of Title 22 of the State of California Administrative Code. (Added by Ord. No. 145,474, Ejf 3/2174.)

1.2.3: The General Plan Framework Text is also clear in defining 'school': GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 9 INFRASTRUCTURE & PUBLIC SERVICES SCHOOL Education within the City is provided by the Los Angeles Unified School District CLAUSD) ...... Schools are fUnded through State tax revenues funneled through the County. Funds for the development ofadditional public school facilities are derived (rom State mandated tees paid by projects constructed within the City.

EXHIBIT IB 1.2.4: The Location is a multifamily dwelling used as a 'Daycare':

1.2.4.1 Department ofBuilding and Safety Records

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 4 APPLICATION INSPECTION. Application for Inspection for certificate of occupancy clearly describes 3 dwellings in an RD 1.5 zone and seeks to use them as daycare

EXHIBIT IC

1.2.4.2 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Certificate ofoccupancy for property.

EXHIBIT lD

1.2.4.3 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE CHILD CARE LICENSING DIVISION LICENSE #197403540 Issued to Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academy for 547 N Sycamore . . Licensed for 76 children for DAYCARE

EXHIBIT !E

1.2.5: Neither the General Plan, nor the Hollywood Community Plan, Support the development of Private Schools. Confinned in the findings presented by the planning department for this case.

CPC-2008-5028-CU FINDINGS Page Fl. "The Hollvwood CommunitY Plan does not address the development and expansion ofprivate schools"

EXHIBIT lA: CPC-2008-5028-CU STAFF REPORT FINDINGS

1.3. USE NOT CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN Contrmy to the incorrect and inapplicable excerpts quoted in the Planning Department Findings, the General Plan and the Hollywood Community Plan, as well as supporting General Plan Documents such as the Executive Summary and the EIR, are ALL explicit and impassioned with regards multi-family residential neighborhoods.

Not only are multi-family residential neighborhoods [RD!.S] 'assets' to be 'protected', but also that the concept of them being significant assets requiring protection and retention, according to the General Plan, is not only a 'Goal', but an 'Objective' and 'Policy'

Further, the General Plan is unequivocally consistent in its approach to the maintaining and protection of these 'significant assets'- positions clearly illustrated in the following excerpted General Plan texts:

1.3.1. General Plan Framework Text Ref: Chapter 3: Land Use: Introduction: "The Land Use policy encourages the retention of the City's stable residential neighborhoods and proposes incentives to encourage whatever growth that occurs to locate in neighborhood districts, commercial and mixed-use centers, along boulevards, industrial districts, and in proximity to transportation corridors and transit stations.

EXHIBIT lB

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 5 1.3.2. General Plan Framework Text Ref: Chapter 3: Land Use: Summary of Land Use Conditions and Characteristics: "3. The City's "stable" single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods represent significant assets whose character and qualities merit protection. Historically, the "strong" image exhibited by the City's single-family residential neighborhoods has distinguished Los Angeles from other metropolitan areas."

NOTE: the Planning Department's findings quote, in error, a passage from this section that is not applicable given point 3 's explicit view above.

EXHIBIT 1B

1.3.3. General Plan Framework Text for Goals, Objectives and Policies Ref: Chapter 3: Land Use: GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ISSUE TWO: USES, DENSITY, AND CHARACTER: "MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Overview It is the intent ofthe Framework Element to maintain existing stable multi-familv residential neighborhood,.

GOAL3C Multi-family neighborhoods that enhance the quality oflife for the City's existing and future residents. Obiective 3. 7 Provide fOr the stability and enhancement o(multi-(amily residential neighborhoods and allow for growth in areas where there is sufficient public infrastructure and services and the residents' quality of life can be maintained or improved and transit stations.

EXHIBIT 1F

1.3 .4. General Plan Framework EIR Ref: General Plan Framework EIR 2.1.11 "Existing Multi-Familv Residential Areas Changes in Functional Roll Pattern a( Uses The General Plan Framework maintains the land use classifications and densitv categories of areas currentlv designated bv the Communitv Plans for multi-family housing throughout the City (Policy 3. 7.1 !. "

EXHIBIT 1G - ON DISC 1

1.3.5. General Plan Framework EIR with regards to Hollywood Ref: General Plan Framework EIR 3: 2.1.54 "B. Evaluation oflmpacts and Significance: Multi family residential: Functional Role/Patterns a( Use: Maintains existing multi-family neighborhoods--no significant impact. "

EXHIBIT 1G - ON DISC 1

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 6 1.3.6. General Plan Framework EIR STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Ref: Proposed Revised Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pg 41 "F. The Framework Element protects the character ofsingle-familv and other low-density residential neighborhoods bv encouraging growth to locate in centers. districts. and mixed use boulevards with a sense ofplace and identity that respond to the unique cultural and other needs of surrounding communities.

EXHIBIT IH- ON DISC I

1.3.7. General Plan Framework Executive Summary State Requirements California State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires that each city prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its future development. This Element must contain seven elements, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. In addition to these, State law permits cities to include optional elements in their general plans, thereby providing local governments with the flexibility to address the specific needs and unique character qftheir jurisdictions.

In fulfillment of the State's requirements, the City's general plan contains citywide elements for all topics except Land Use for which community plans establish policy and standards for each of the 35 geographic areas. As optional elements, the City has adopted Air Quality and Service Systems Elements.

California State law requires that the dav-to-day decisions ofa city follow logically from and be consistent with the general plan. More specificallv. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 656474 require that zoning ordinances and subdivision and parcel map awrovals be consistent with the general plan.

EXHIBIT II - ON DISC I

Not only is the General Plan explicit, concise and consistent in it's language regarding multi-family zones but it is considered by the General Plan ElR ONLY on the basis of 'no change' and 'maintaining' and 'preserving' those uses. Nowhere are we to find language or intent that supports the establishment of a school in a residential RD 1.5 zone.

The decision to approve the applicants Conditional Use: i. Is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, ii. Is not considered by the General Plan ElR and iii. Violates California State requirements for consistency.

1.4, INCONSISTENT WITH CONDITIONAL USE LAW The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code [Section 12.24] is explicit in it's admonishments regarding Conditional Use Permits. In fact, it goes so far as to require not just conformance but 'substantial conformance' with the various 'elements and o~jectives ofthe General Plan'.

Not only do the Planning department findings not apply as evidenced above, but the recommendation and subsequent granting of the Conditional Use is clearly not consistent with requirements defined in the municipal code section 12.24:

SEC. 12.24. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND OTHER SIMILAR QUASI­ JUDICIAL APPROVALS.

SUPPLlMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 7 E. Findings .for Approval. In approving any conditional use, the decision-maker must lind that the proposed location will ...... be in harmony with the various elements and objectives ofthe General Plan.

X Further Authority ofthe Zoning Administrator.for Other Similar Quasi-Judicial Approvals. ~ The Zoning Administrator shall lind ...... that the action will be in substantial confOrmance with the various elements and objectives o[the General Plan.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 8 PART 2. 2.1 DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

SUPPLIMENTAL BRrEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 9 2.1. DECISION CREATES PRECEDENT The provision for the establishment of a new school, morphed from a residential dayeare in a multi-family neighborhood, is elearly and expressly not supported in the General Plan. Should the decision stand, a significant and dangerous precedent is set for the many THOUSANDS of dayeare's operating in residential neighborhoods through-out the city.

The fabric of neighborhoods would literally be tom apart with the creation of fully realized schools benefiting their establishment as a result of this decision. In fact, a quick Google search indicates 2800 results for" Child Day Care Center Los Angeles".

The Department of Social Services Child Care Licensing division lists the following facilities For the city of Los Angeles 694 Child Care Facilities - EXHIBIT 2A 941 Large Family Child Care Homes EXHIBIT 2B N/A Small Family Child Care Homes

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 10 PART 3. VIOLATION OF CITY ETHICS CODE 3.1 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS 3.2 MISUSE OF POSITION TO INFLUENCE

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 11 3.1 ETHICS VIOLATION, CONFLICT OF INTERESTS Further to investigation following the Planning Commission hearing on March 11 20 I 0, it appears that a gross violation of the Los Angeles City Ethics Code occurred as a result of a sitting Commissioner, William Roschen, President of the Commission, present at and participating in the hearing, does, or has done, business with the applicant. The applicant is, or has been, a client of the Commissioner. Five factual items support this claim: 3.1.1. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Property Activity Report for 555 N La Brea­ APPLICATION I PERMIT NUMBER: 99016-10000-11617 clearly describes architect for a remodel project as William Earl Roschen

555 N La Brea is a property owned and/or operated by the applicant since the late 1980's and a part of the campus for which the application subject property seeks a Conditional Use. During 1999 and 2000 William Roschen was the architect of record for that renovation [APPLICATION I PERMIT NUMBER: 99016-10000-11617] In other words, the school seeking the Conditional Use is, or was, a client of Architect William Earl Roschen.

EXHIBIT 3A Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Property Activity Report for 555 N La Brea -APPLICATION I PERMIT NUMBER: 99016-10000-11617

3.1.2. Roschen Van Cleve Architects Website William Roschen is a partner and founder ofRoschen Van Cleve Architects located in the City of Los Angeles. The Roschen Van Cleve website, located at the URL www.rvca.org, comprises multiple 'site areas' which contain pages of information pertinent to the claim of conflict of interest:

SITE AREA: Firm Profile PAGE: Principles Second Paragraph "Most recently, Bill has been appointed by the Mayor Villaraigosa to serve as vice president of the City Wide Planning Commission" EXHIBIT 3B- rvca website page

SITE AREA: Portfolio PAGE: A slide from the Slideshow Slideshow features an image of the applicants facility at 555 N La Brea and indicates the work provided by Roschen Van Cleve in renovating a campus building. [ Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Property Activity Report for 555 N La Brea- APPLICATION I PERMIT NUMBER: 99016-10000-11617] EXHIBIT 3C- rvca website page

3.1.3. Certificate of Occupancy 555 N La Brea Details the Academy as owners. EXHIBIT 3D

3.1.4. LA Times Article August 14 1989 Describes common ownership of properties related to the campus and links between Rabbi Krause, who appeared before the Planning Commission on March II 2010 representing the academy, and the property at 555 N La Brea EXHIBIT 3F

That the President of the Planning Commission should fail to disclose such a significant and well documented conflict of interest is clearly a violation of Municipal Code with regards to Ethics. Namely:

SEC. 49.5.6. DISCLOSURE REGARDING ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND OTHER OUTSIDE INTERESTS. J. Recusal Notification. (Added by Ord. No. 177,853, Eff. 10/7106.) 1. Each member ofa City board or commission required to file statements ofeconomic interests pursuant to the Political Reform Act ~f 1974. as amended, shall complete a "Recusal Notification Form"

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 12 each time the member recuses himself or herse(fjn relation to an actual conflict ofinterests or the arwearance of a conflict qfinterests under any applicable law. (a) The commission or board member shall submit a copy of the completed Recusal Notification Form to the Executive Secretary for the Commission or Board (or the person acting in that capacity) as soon as possible after the posting ofthe agenda containing the item, including continued items, involving the member's conflict of interests. (b) In addition, the commission or board member shall submit the original, completed Recusal Not{fication Form, along with a copy of the meeting agenda containing the item involving the commission or board member's conflict of interests to the Ethics Commission no later than I 5 calendar days after the date of the meeting at which the commission or board member recused himself or herself (c) The commission or board member shall also submit the Recusal Notification Form as described in (a) and (b) above to the Executive Secretary and the Ethics Commission even if the commission or board member will not be or was not present at the meeting, but would have been required to recuse himself or herself on a matter appearing on the commission or board agenda if the member had been present.

3.2 ETHICS VIOLATION, INFLUENCING BOARD MEMBERS The President of the Commission, William Roschen, did not recuse himself from the hearing despite an appearance of serious impropriety. In fact, Commissioner Rosch en proceeded to lead the remaining commissioners during deliberations, including, but not limited to, making the motion to grant the Applicant its' requested relief.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 13 PART 4. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS 4.1 FINDINGS CONTAINED ERRORS- BAD EVIDENCE TAINTED DECISION 4.2 APPLICANT MISLED COMMISSION

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 14 4.1 FINDINGS CONTAINED ERRORS- BAD EVIDENCE TAINTED DECISION Despite repeated efforts by the community to highlight facts to both the Planning Department and the Commission that are materially relevant to both the Planning Department Staff Report and the Commission decision, the Staff Report and department staff continued to rely upon inaccurate or false evidence. 4.1.1. Subject property is a daycare not a school The Planning Department continually refened to the project site as a 'school' and a 'school building' when, in fact, it is not. The Planning Department, in identifying the property should have reported the facts available from city records such as the property's Certificate of Occupancy [EXHIBIT ID] and building pelTllits [EXHIBIT I C] that clearly indicate the use as 'DA YCARE'.

To continually refer to the subject property in its present use as a school is not only incorrect, but critically misrepresents a significant material basis on which the Commission deliberated and subsequently based its decision. By referring to the property as a school, Planning Commission consideration was clearly tainted with the idea that the project is a simple 'renovation' of an existing school Not one but ALL of the claims to General Plan Consistency are invalidated by this erroneous evidence, which ultimately became a major element ofthe Applicant's Case. For example: FROM EXHIBIT 4A: TRANSMITTAL TO COUNCIL

Ref: Transmittal to City Council CPC-2008-5028-CU Final Project Description "The existing 3, 700 square .foot private school building"

FROM EXHIBIT 4B: STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU Staff Report: COVER "The existing 3, 700 square .foot private school building"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU Staff Report: A-1 "existing 3, 700 square:foot, 80 year old school building"

Ref: S CPC-2008-5028-CU staff Report: F-1 "continued operation ofa private school" "The existing school"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU Staff Report: F-2 "existing 3, 700 square-foot. 80year old school building"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU Staff Report: F-3 "expansion ofan existing institutional use and will not introduce a new land use into the area"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU Staff Report: Findings F-4 "the continued operation ofa private school"

FROM EXHIBIT 3E- On Disc I -Audio File 03/11/2010 Planning Commission Hearing Testimony on CPC-2008-5028-CU

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/ll/2010 Hearing Testimony (2min 15 sec] "existing Earlv Development Facility"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (?min 04 sec]

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 15 Commission President Refers to property as "existing Education Center"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony [7min 25 sec] City Planner Linda Smith refers to property as "Earlv Development Education Center"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/1112010 Hearing Testimony [10min 09 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "Nurserv School and Kindergarten program"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/ll/2010 Hearing Testimony [llmin 21 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "current enrollment ofaeproximatelv 120 students"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/ll/2010 Hearing Testimony [16min 20 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "It's an existing School"

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 16 4.2 APPLICANT MISLED COMMISSION The applicant did not accurately present certain facts and information to the Planning Commission (and to members of the public). The applicant made representations that this Day Care facility was actually a School (inaccurate), that the Applicant was not increasing the number of"students" who would occupy its' Day Care facility (inaccurate), that there would be no increase in enrollment in its "school," (inaccurate) and that granting the CUP would not increase existing traffic congestion problems in the area (inaccurate).

Given the significant community and neighborhood opposition to this project it is unclear as to why such critical and material facts were inaccurately presented -and these inaccurate facts clearly influenced the Commission and led to its approval of the CUPs.

4.2.1 Applicant claimed that the current and present use of the property is as a school and a nursery and kindergm1en [both uses sought by the Conditional Use] that has been operating for almost 30 years. This information was inaccurate. The current site is a Daycare as evidenced by the property's certificate of Occupancy [EXHIBIT ID]

FROM EXHIBIT 3E- On Disc 1 -Audio File

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (10min 09 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "Academy located here and the Nursery School and Kindergarten program has been operating for almost 30 years"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (16min 20 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "It's an existing School"

4.2.1 Applicant's claims regarding current occupancy levels at the project site were inaccurate. Applicant actually proposed a 57% increase in occupancy, as follows:

The project site is currently licensed as a Day Care by Department ofSocial Services for 76 children. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD CARE LICENSING DIVISION LICENSE #197403540 [see EXHIBIT lE]

In seeking an enrollment of 120 students for a school, the applicant has deceived the Commission into allowing an increase of 44 students- an increase of 57%

In fact, there is NO CURRENT ENROLLMENT FOR A SCHOOL at the project location, the current site is a Daycare licensed for 76 children as evidenced by the property's certificate of Occupancy [EXHIBIT 1D] and the Dept of Social Services Child Care Licensing Division report [EXHIBIT 1E]

The deception may be evidenced throughout the Planning Commission Hearing of March 11 2010 as follows:

FROM EXHIBIT 3 E-On Disc 1 - Audio File

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (llmin 21 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins

SUPPLlMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 17 "current enrollment o(approximatelv 120 students"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony [16min 23 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "We're not increasing enrollment"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony [50 min 08 sec] Applicant Representative: Rabbi J Krause "We're not looking to expand enrollment"

Further the applicant's claim, accepted by the Commission that 'traffic will not increase because enrollment is not changing' is belied by a 57% increase in project occupancy which will clearly exacerbate existing traffic problems:

FROM EXHIBIT 3E --On Disc 1 -Audio File

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/1112010 Hearing Testimony [16min 25 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "We're not increasing tra((ic"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/1112010 Hearing Testimony [50min 57 sec] Applicant Representative: Rabbi J Krause "this project will not increase any trafjic problems"

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 18 PART 5. UNCLEAN HANDS & VIOLATIONS 5.1 APPLICANT CONTINUES TO IGNORE CITY DEPARTMENTS 5.2 UPDATED VIOLATIONS LIST

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 19 5.1 APPLICANT CONTINUES TO IGNORE CITY DEPARTMENTS RE: Conditional Use and CO at 555 N La Brea and CO at 540 N La Brea Since the date of the Planning Commission Hearing the Applicant continues to ignore Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety directives and Certificate of Occupancy for 540 N La Brea and CU and Certificate of Occupancy for 555 N La Brea to provide parking. During April2010 as a result of a community complaint, the Dept. of Building and Safety issued an order to comply for the applicants property at 555 N La Brea which was not providing parking required by the CU for that property. The applicant promptly 'striped' an area that should have been a loading zone [also required by ZA 2005-5621 (CU) for the property] that they had been using as a playground, in violation again, of ZA 2005-5621 (CU). According to the Building and Safety inspector who did there-inspection, the School was aware of the inspection date and had parked vehicles on the newly striped lot. The following day, after the case was closed, the lot was again void of vehicles and used once more, as it has been since the re-inspection and in violation ofZA 2005-5621 (CU), as a playground. At 540 La Brea, 7011 Clinton and 7002 Clinton the story is, sadly, much the same. The applicant has fenced all required parking [although striped spaces exist at 540] and uses the spaces as playgrounds. [See Violations Below for complete details] In all, almost all of the near 60 staff members apparently employed by the applicant [See 2009 CA State Dept of Education required affidavit for Private Schools] are apparently parking on residential streets Sycamore, Detroit and Clinton near the Campus. Only 12 of the required 45 spaces are available. Members of the community have documented these continuing violations since the hearing in March and attach hereto as evidence are the following exhibits: EHIBITS SA-SH Photographic evidence EHIBIT SI- Video- ON DISC I - 555 La Brea May 25 2010 Parking used as Playground EHIBIT SJ- Video- ON DISC I- 555 La Brea May 21 2010 Parking used as Playground EHIBIT SK- Video- ON DISC 1 - 555 La May 17 2010 Brea Blocked Ambulance EHIBIT SL- Video- ON DISC 1 - 555 La Brea May 14 2010 Parking used as Assembly Space EHIBIT SM- Video- ON DISC 1-540 July 2 2010 La Brea Parking used as Playground

5.2 UPDATED VIOLATIONS LIST 1. 540 N La Brea Ave VIOLATION OF PERMIT and CERTIFICATE of OCCUPANCY

COMPLAINT 1: Parking Spaces fenced to prevent parking DETAILS: Certificate of Occupancy for this property [12220900174 4/25/2000 requires 18 parking spaces plus Handicapped parking. No Parking spaces are available as Property owners have fenced over parking spaces preventing them from being used - instead, the property uses them as a playground - No vehicles have access to, or use, this area during property's daily operation. Certificate of Occupancy clearly states parking spaces required and agreed-to by the property owner. NOTE: The fences were erected after the certificate of occupancy was issued. EXHIBIT5N

COMPLAINT 2: Excessive, unnecessary, and annoying noise. DETAILS: Due to the parking lot in Complaint 1 above being used as a playground, an excessive, unnecessary and ongoing noise disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and causes discomfort and annoyance to persons of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The parking lot is used as a playground throughout the day during both mornings and afternoons. Neighbors working nightshift are unable to sleep and now an inability to rent properties near the school

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 20 because of the excessive noise has become a financial problem. The use of the parking lot as a playground is a violation of the intended use. EHIBIT SM- Video- ON DISC 1 - 540 July 2 2010 La Brea Parking used as Playground

2. 555 N La Brea Ave VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE and ORDINANCE 167607

COMPLAINT 1: Eill!Qo.g Spaces fenced to prevent parking DETAILS: Conditional Use for this property [CASE NO. ZA 2005-5621 (CU) ] requires 13 parking spaces plus Handicapped parking. Only 6 Parking spaces are available as Property owners have fenced over parking spaces preventing them from being used. Plot plan cited in Conditional Use Approval Letter clearly shows parking spaces required and agreed-to by the property owner. NOTE: It appears that the fences were erected after the certificate of occupancy was issued. EXHIBIT 50 and 3D

COMPLAINT 2: Passenger Loading Zone [12'x33' Pick-up and Set Down Area] fenced to prevent use and parking DETAILS: Conditional Use for this property [CASE NO. ZA 2005-5621 (CU) Plot Plan] requires a pick-up and set-down area to the rear on the northern most end of the structure in addition to the 13 parking spaces plus Handicapped parking cited in COMPLAINT 1 above. Passenger Loading and Unloading area is unavailable as Property owners have fenced over area specified in Plot Plan. Plot plan cited in Conditional Use Approval Letter clearly shows Loading Zone required and agreed-to by the property owner. NOTE: No vehicles have access to, or use, this area during property's daily operation and the result is a blocked alley that restricts neighbors access to their property and access for City Fire and Safety services. EXHIBIT 50

COMPLAINT 3: Excessive. unnecessary. and annoying noise. DETAILS: Due to the parking lot in Complaint 1 and 2 above being used as a playground, an excessive, unnecessary and ongoing noise disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and causes discomfort and annoyance to persons of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The parking lot is used as a playground throughout the day during both mornings and afternoons. Neighbors working nightshift are unable to sleep and now an inability to rent properties near the school because of the excessive noise has become a financial problem. The use of the parking lot as a playground is a violation of the intended use.

EHIBITS SA- SG Photographic evidence EHIBIT 5!- Video- ON DISC 1 - 555 La Brea May 25 2010 Parking used as Playground EHIBIT SJ- Video- ON DISC I- 555 La Brea May 21 2010 Parking used as Playground EHIBIT SK- Video- ON DISC I- 555 La May 17 2010 Brea Blocked Ambulance EHIBIT SL- Video- ON DISC 1- 555 La Brea May 14 2010 Parking used as Assembly Space

COMPLAINT 4: Planted Trees required in ordinance 167607 have not been installed DETAILS: Property owners have not installed planted , potted, trees in 24 inch boxes with irrigation as required by the ordinance - the actual requirement language in the ordinance:

11. Landscaping: -Trees: One 24-inch box tree for every four surface parking spaces with such trees being protected by curbing and irrigated on a regular basis as needed by an automated sprinkler system and distributed throughout the paved parking area to ensure the reduction of heat gain.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 21 12. Landscaping - Rooftop: Trees 24-inch box in size 10 feet on center, shall be provided on the westerly 10 feet of the roof.

EHIBIT 5P

COMPLAINT 5: Soundproofing for Wall on West Side required in ordinance 167607 has not been installed DETAILS: Property owners have erected a wall [currently blocking parking] that does not meet the clear and unambiguous requirement in ordinance 167607 that calls for "ANY EXTERIOR WALL" to have soundproofing- Please note that the Ordinance refers to ALL fences as walls the actual requirement language in the ordinance:

21. Noise: Any exterior wall having a line of sight to the west shall be constructed so as to provide a Sound Transmission Class of 50 or greater, as defined in the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 35-1, 1979 edition or any revision thereto.

EHIBIT 5P

3. 7002 Clinton St VIOLATION of USE and CERTIFICATE of OCCUPANCY COMPLAINT 1: Parking Spaces fenced to prevent parking DETAILS: Certificate of Occupancy for this property [ See Permit LA73047/83 ] requires 4 onsite parking spaces for this property. No Parking spaces are available as Property owners have fenced over parking spaces preventing them from being used. Plot plan cited in permit records clearly shows parking spaces required and agreed-to by the property owner. NOTE: It appears that the fences were erected after the certificate of occupancy was issued. Fence should be removed and parking spaces restored.

EHIBIT 1C and lD

COMPLAINT 2: Excessive, unnecessary, and annoying noise. DETAILS: Due to the parking lot in Complaint 1 above being used as a playground, an excessive, unnecessary and ongoing noise disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and causes discomfort and annoyance to persons of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The parking lot is used as a playground throughout the day during both mornings and afternoons. Neighbors working nightshift are unable to sleep and now an inability to rent properties near the school because of the excessive noise has become a financial problem. The use of the parking lot as a playground is a violation of the intended use.

EHIBIT 1C and 1D

COMPLAINT 3: 6 foot fence in Residential RD1.5 Zone. The owners have erected a 6 foot fence around the property in violation of RD1.5 zoning restrictions. Upper portion of fence should be removed and restored to legal height.

COMPLAINT 4: No business license. The property was, as of July 10 2010, according to the Office of Finance, operating as a daycare

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 22 facility without a business license/registration.

4. 7011 Clinton Street VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL USE and CERTIFICATE of OCCUPANCY COMPLAINT: Parking Spaces fenced to prevent parking DETAILS: Conditional Use for this property [ CASE NO. CPC2003-6124-CU ] requires 9 parking spaces. Only 7 Parking spaces are available as Property owners have fenced over parking spaces preventing them from being used by vehicles. Plot plan cited in Conditional Use Approval Letter clearly shows parking spaces required and agreed-to by the property owner.

EHIBIT 5Q

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 23 PART 6. INCOMPLETE DETERMINATION 6.1 DETERMINATION MISSING CHANGES

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 24 6.1 DETERMINATION MISSING CHANGES The determination made my the Planning Commission and mailed April 26 2010 for CPC-2008-5028-CU and the Conditions of Approval attached to that letter, are missing a number of items specifically tabled and accepted during the Planning Hearing of March 11 2010.

6. 1. 1. The applicant materially modified, and the Commission approved, a change to the fence height sought on the Sycamore frontage. The Applicant revised the request for a variance to increase fence height for Sycamore to "no increase above zone limit of 3feet five inches". This change is not reflected in the Determination Notice mailed April26 2010 or the attached Conditions of Approval

EXHIBIT 3E: Audio File- On Disc 1 -Planning Commission Hearing on March 11 2010 for CPC-2008- 5028-CU

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/1112010 Hearing Testimony (12min OS sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins Change details "We have also agreed that thefence along Sycamore ......

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (I hr lOmin 20 sec] Applicant Representative Latham and Watkins followed by Planner Lynda Smith INCLUSION OF ALL CHANGES "Can I clarify ...... mitigation measures [1.10.55]'"

6.1. 1. The applicant materially modified, and the Commission heard and approved, that the applicant was making material changes to the design including but not limited to enclosing and moving the stairwell and other changes, and that the new design for same be presented to both the council office and the planning department. These changes are not reflected in the Determination Notice mailed April 26 20 I 0 or the attached Conditions of Approval

EXHIBIT 3E: Audio File- On Disc I -Planning Commission Hearing on March 11 2010 for CPC-2008- 5028-CU

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/ll/2010 Hearing Testimony (14min 21 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins "Revised design .... and planning department prior to a building permit [thru 0.14.45J"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (14min 50 sec] Applicant Representative: Latham & Watkins MATERIAL CHANGE TO BUILDING DESIGN "With respect to the stairwell ...... enhanced landscaping plan [thru 0.15.46}"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony (40min 06 sec] Planner Lynda Smith MATERIAL CHANGE TO BUILDING DESIGN "Condition number 2 under Plans .... In consultation with the council"

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 25 Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 0311112010 Hearing Testimony [1 hr 04min 31 sec] Planner Kenin Keller MATERIAL CHANGE TO BUILDING DESIGN "On the Stairwell issue .... To the satisfaction ofthe director ofplanning"

Ref: CPC-2008-5028-CU 03/11/2010 Hearing Testimony [1 hr 10min 20 sec] Applicant Representative Latham and Watkins followed by Planner Lynda Smith INCLUSION OF ALL CHANGES "Can I clarify ...... mitigation measures"

6.2 DUE PROCESS DENIED It has come to our attention that the applicant changed certain material aspects of the project after the initial public hearing in January. As a result of those changes, not made public or noticed to neighbors within 500 feet of the project, a right to due process in this matter has been denied.

Further, the Planning Departments original notice to neighbors indicated that the applicant was seeking to expand an existing school, when in fact, the relief sought was to convert a daycare center into a school. This erroneous notice likely lulled many of the neighbors into inaction. Had neighbors been given accurate information, many more of them would likely have taken action to contest the application. This denial of fair notice constitutes a denial of procedural due process.

This gross deprivation of due process could easily have been avoided if

A] The original notice had been accurate rather than misleading and

B] Changes had been properly noticed with the opportunity for public input.

SUPPL!MENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 26 PART 7. GREATER WILSHIRE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OPPOSE DECISION, SUPPORT APPEAL 7.1 Motion to Support REVERSAL of decision

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 27 7.1 MOTION TO SUPPORT REVERSAL OF DECISION On July 14 2010 the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council carried a motion supporting the appeal to the City Council to REVERSE the Planning Commission decision approving CPC-200805028-CU and it's accompanying MND.

7.1.1. The Motion [Excerpted from email from GWNC Secretary]: It was moved and carried that: "TheGWNC: 1. Support the neighbors' appeal to reverse the Planning Commission decision regarding CPC-2008-5028- CU and its acceptance of an MND in relation thereto.

2. Send a letter to the PLUM committee and the City Council reporting the motion/support.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 28 PART 8. COMMUNITY PETITION 8.1 COMMUNITY SUPPORTS REVERSAL OF DECISION

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 29 8.1 COMMUNITY SUPPORTS REVERSAL OF DECISION Many, many members of the community oppose the development and support the Appeal to reverse the Planning Commission Decision. The members of the Community listed below, comprising exclusively of immediate and adjacent neighbors, property owners and businesses, have electronically added their names to the following petition located online at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/CLINTONLABREAGROUPI:

8.1.1. Petition

"We the undersigned, residents, property owners, business owners and tenants in the Clinton I La Brea neighborhood located in the City of Los Angeles, present to the City Council of the City of Los Angeles this petition and request that the City Clerk enter into the public record for Council File No 10-0960 the following:

The People find and declare as follows: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVERSE THE ENTIRE DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A CONDITIONAL USE [ CPC-2008-2058-CU] TO ESTABLISH A NEW SCHOOL IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AT 7002 CLINTON ST, LOS ANGELES.

The City Planning Commission must be reversed because: 1. The foundational right quoted from the general plan claimed by the applicant is inapplicable. Only a 'day care' operates at the address. Schools and DayCare facilities are not the same - They are not licensed or regulated by the same authorities and are defined differently in city code. The decision must be reversed as it sets precedent to allow ANY 'DAYCARE' center to claim a right to morph into a school. 2. The Applicant is in violation of various certificates of occupancy and conditional uses at existing properties. In granting a further CUP the city must clearly see indications in existing behavior that the applicant will not comply with new requirements. It cannot be the City's intention to reward and support violators with further concessions and to set such a precedent for future applicants. 3. The applicant currently, and willfully, violates its Conditional Use Permits and Certificates of Occupancy at adjacent properties [part of the same business operation] by closing required parking spaces to cars and using them instead as playgrounds. Despite numerous Building and Safety complaints and noise complaints, the applicant continues to flaunt the requirements to provide parking and have children assemble and play in areas approved by city plall!ling. 4. Prior to the applicant's approval for a maximum emollment of 1175 [ord. 167607 03-28-1992] the LADOT had determined in writing [Nov 15 1990] that should maximum enrollment increase above 1060 that a full traffic study must be undertaken. No study, as required by the DOT was undertaken and congestion on streets and in alleys has now reached epic proportions. The resulting blocked alleys and intersections presents a liability to both the applicant AND THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. As Fire, Police and other emergency services have no access during peak times. The Public welfare is placed at risk and liability continues to escalate until a full study is undertaken and the congestion relieved.

I/We the undersigned do hereby submit the above and confirm in signing our position as a resident, property owner, business owner or tenant in the Clinton/ La Brea neighborhood located in the City of Los Angeles

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 30 "

1 Jackie Rubi said I support this petition.

2 Jerome Langer said I support this petition.

3 Jeffrey Bass said I support this petition.

4 Mark Boucher said I support this petition.

5 Peter Rubi said I support this petition.

6 Lucinda keller said I support this petition.

7 Kari Johnson said I support this petition. The project is out-of-scale for the neighborhood and should be scaled back.

8 ALAN RONAY said I support this petition.

9 Dietrich Smith said I support this petition.

10 Marc Wuertemburg said I support this petition.

11 John Embry said I support this petition.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 31 12 Sandra Lert said I support this petition.

13 Lisette Bovaird said I support this petition.

14 Lucille Saunders said I support this petition.

15 maelle de schutter said I support this petition.

16 tami Brandel said I support this petition.

17 Joe Paganelli said I support this petition.

18 kristina kelly said I support this petition.

19 Barry Burchell said I support this petition.

20 Virginia Biddle said I support this petition. 21 Michele Atkins said I support this petition.

22 Billy Criswell said I STRONGLY support this petition.

23 alexis addrisi said I support this petition.

24

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 32 Steven Murphy said I support this petition.

25 Sarah Lyons said I support this petition.

26 Eric Deutsch said I support this petition.

27 Katherine Manolopoulos said I support this petition.

28 Deborah Howell said I support this petition.

29 Lori Karny said I support this petition.

30 Marion Schulman I support this petition. Especially as it retains to traffic. I have been a resident for approx. 15 years.

31 Kurt Kasinoff I support this petition.

32 Rachel Adkins I support this petition.

ADDED AS A RESULT OF EMAIL OR OTHER REQUEST

33 Alan Lert I support this petition.

34 Nick Brenchack I support this petition.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 33 35 Carol Jeffers I support this petition.

36 Lloyd Solly I support this petition.

SUPPLIMENTAL BRIEF IN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL RE: CPC-2008-5028-CU 07/02/2010 34 APPEAL TO THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL- COUNCIL FILE 10-0960

APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RULINGS Cases CPC 2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND.

PROPERTY ADDRESS- 7002 CLINTON, LOS ANGELES, CA

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF PORTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

Respectfully submitted,

REXLAWLLP 70S. Lake Ave. Ste. 1000 Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (626) 798-7869 /------;

By:~ / H~uiin,~ .// .. Attorney for~ants Clgi..SCENT ~~-~~IE~~~LJOYD SOLLY,

Date "i'i. ~ 3- It> ·' ' . /" Submitted in (> 1.. vVV'\ /~m~e'

Council File No·_1f-"o<--O.--~'"'--UJ<-~- Item l\lo.: __...... ::1. ____ ~·~~P2ll~

L1J : l! l·l':i SZ lflr OIOZ

000001 ~ p FORM GEN. 160A {Rev. 1182) CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

7002 Clinton St DOT Case No. CEN 09-5085

Date: September 14, 2009

To: Hadar Plafkin, City Planner Department of alanning

From: Toma=~ransportation Engineer Department of Transportation

Subject: TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED YESHIVATH TORATH EMETH ACADEMY RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CLINTON STREET AND SYCAMORE AVENUE

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has reviewed the traffic study, prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, dated August 4, 2009, for the proposed Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academy Renovation and Expansion project on the southwest comer of Clinton 1 Street and Sycamore Avenue. Based on DOT's traffic impact criteria , the study included the detailed analysis of two intersections and determined that none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by project-related traffic. The results of the traffic impact analysis are summarized in Attachment 1. Except as noted, the study adequately evaluated the project's traffic impacts on the surrounding community.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS ·

A. Project Description The project proposes to renovate and expand an existing nursery school, pre­ kindergarten, and kindergarten facility to serve a future enrollment of 180 students --· __ , ____ --- .... (60 nursery and 120 pre-kindergarten/kindergarten students). The existing school serves 70 pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students arid 40 nursery school students.· The project would provide 12 parking spaces. The traffic study did not include a site access and circulation plan for the project; however, student drop-off and pick-up is currently conducted via the alley bordering the western boundary of the project and will continue upon the project's completion. The project is expected to be completed by 2012. ·

B. Trip Generation The project is. estimated to generate a net increase of approximately 155 daily trips, 38 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 23 trips during the p.m. peak hour. A

l. Per the DDTTraffic Study Polices and Procedures Revised March, 2002, a significant impact is idenl.ffied as an inctease in the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) value, due to project related traffic, of 0.01 or more when the final (.. with project1 LeveJ of Service (LOS) is LOS E or F; an increase of 0.020 or more when the final LOS is LOS D; or an increase of 0.040 or more when the iinal LOS is LOS C.

FILE COPY 000002 Hadar Plafkin -.3- September 14,2009

E. Development Review Fees An ordinance adding Section 19.15 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code relative to · application fees paid to the Department of Transportation for permit issuance activities was recently adopted by the Los Angeles City Council. Ordinance No. 180542, effective March 28, 2009, identiTies specific fees for traffic study review, condition clearance, and permit issuance. The applicant shall comply with any applicable fees per this new ordinance.

If you have any questions, please contact Wes Pringle of my staff at (213) 972-8482.

Attachments

Letters\CENOiJ-5085 7002 cnnton St Nursery.Pre K-K School project ts ltr.wpd c: Usa Trifiletti, Council District No. 5 Mo Blorfroshan, Southern District, DOT Taimour Tanavoli, Citywide Planning Coordination Section, DOT Carl Mills, Central District, BOE Jonathan Chambers, Gibson Transportation Consulting

000003 ,... ·~ ~ jiiJliiiJi[ l!miiSIS ~ . ~ -- ~ .mzQ25ill ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fii!EBI.II &aiililllil li1iiii8I!IJ --.

TABLE 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2012) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE

Future Base Conditions Future with Project Conditions 1 Peak No. Intersection Hour Change In Significant VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC Impact? 1. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.985 0.967 E 0.002 NO E ' Melrose Avenue PM 1.005 F 1.005 F 0.000 NO 2. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.484 A 0.489 A 0.005 NO Clinton Street PM 0.483 A 0.487 A 0.004 NO

~ ..8111 "'o O::r 5'3 S'w :> ::1 en ... -N

g0 ~ From: James Williams To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CPC-2008-5028-CU

Mr. Smith,

It is completed and signed. We are waiting for our clerical staff to mail it out We are down to one clerical member and she is doing the best she can to handle all of the Area Planning Commission work. I will be able to assist her on Friday as we will both be in the Valley for the City Planning Commission meeting. I will make sure it mails by then if not sooner. I will send you a scanned copy by email.

James

>>> 4/20/2010 1:50PM >>> James,

Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in on the status of the determination letter for the above referenced case, concerning the approval of a private early education building for Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy, located at 7002 West Clinton Street. The Planning Commission approved the project on March 11. Thanks.

Robert M. Smith

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Direct Dial: + 1.213.891.7736 Fax: + 1.213.891.8763 Email: [email protected] http://www.lw.com

******************************************************************************* To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For more information please go to http:/lwww.lw.com/docs[irs.pdf *******************************************************************************

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Latham & Watkins LLP

000005 From: John Darnell To: Michele Atkins , Christopher Koontz

Dear Neighbors,

Thank you for your input and your activism regarding the Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy primary and kindergarten school remodel project. The Councilmember is very supportive of the education mission of the school, and knows that the entire community is equally supportive of this mission. In addition, he heard from many community members who support the school project as proposed. Still, the Councilmember also heard concerns from some neighbors of the project regarding possible negative impacts from the project on their neighborhood.

Accordingly, the Councilmember listened to the neighbors who had concerns regarding the expansion project and took the neighbors' concerns to the school. We are pleased that the school responded to the Councilmember, and that the school is committed to being a good neighbor and thereby agreed to support modifications to its project to address the neighbors' most pressing concerns.

1. That ?II exierior staircases on the building be enclosed.

2. That the proposed perimeter wall be built as an attractive fence including landscaping.

3. That the rear facade (adjacent to the Apartment Building) be enhanced from a blank wall. rlL/7/{ iFf- NCJ f!{;tJ" (Y717/(j47/C?tV j)l.{..fZ.. f~ ~ 4. Final architectural and landscape plans to be prepared and reviewed by "fru:,;~f­ the Council Office prior to permit issuance.

5. Annual compliance review for the first five years. ·.

In addition, the Yeshivath has been informed that all of the schools will be reviewed for condition compliance. Continued violations will lead to enforcement and corrective conditions. We have also contacted the Department of Transportation, and they will be increasing enforcement in the area.

Thank you,

John Darnell Field Deputy Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz

000006 822 S. Robertson Blvd., Ste. 102 Los Angeles, CA 90035 (31 0) 289-0353 (31 0) 289-0365 fax

000007 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO YESHIVATH TORATH EMETH ACADEMY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CPC-2008-5028-CU CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING -3/11/10

1. Condition 1. Use. "Use of the subject property shall be limited to !1.....-"""rlktruction of a maximum 8,300 square foot nursery school and kindergarten expansion, 1 tudents maximum (ages 2 through 6) of the existing Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy, in 1.5-1XL Zone."

2. Condition 5. Fence fleig!tl. The subject use shall be ermitted a maximum front yard fence height of 6 feet along Sycamore Avenue. The fence hall be covered with vines or other landscaped material to screen it from view. 3. Condition 6. Hours of Operation. "Hours of operation for th~nsery school and kindergarten / shall be limited to Monday through Thursday, 8:00a.m. to : 4:30p.m., and Friday 8:00a.m. to v 2:30 p.m .. except as noted for special events." ·

4 .. , Condition 20. Traffic and Circulation. The applicant shall inform all parents, students, faculty and 1 --' staff, in the form of a contract to be issued on an annual basis, of all rules regulation school traffic and parking. A copy shall be submitted as part of the annual complianc report. The applicant shall maintain a progressive disciplinary system of enforcement in whic the third violation and any subsequent violation shall result in . oneta fin · · student(s) From school. The school administration shall maintai numbers of all families whose children are enrolled as well as the license umbers for each em ee and guest who parks on the property. .,( ...... J lA """'f'l'>(} "' th...... ? 5. Condition 23. "The sshool shall institute a system of · · r / unloading of students From personal vehicles." ·--- V'J' 6. Condition 24. "To fasilitate the pickup and drop off of students the sshaal shall insliMe either staggered start times for different grade levels (i.e. high ssheol students shall begin classes after the start ef other grade levels) er drep off pick up hours so as te reduce queuing an site." ·

7. New Condition. Prior to the issuance of any building permit. the applicant shall provide a revised site plan. floor plans and landscaping plan to the Department of City Planning and aa!llieable 6-ul"-5il Council District OfficeJgr tl:leir re¥iew. Such plans shall include additional landscaping along / W (!. Sycamore Avenue and shall consider enclosure of the exterior stairwell and additional I'll V landscaping opportunities. to the extent feasible. (\ ~ .,

. ~

lA \2073064.1 000008 FORM GEN. iGOA (Rev. 1182) CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

7002 Clinton St DOT Case No. CEN 09-5085

Date: September 14, 2009

To: Hadar Platkin, City Planner Depa~~lanning

From: Tomas Carranz~ransportafion Engineer Department ofTransportation

Subject: TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED YESHIVATH TORATH EMETH ACADEMY RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CLINTON STREET AND SYCAMORE AVENUE

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has reviewed the traffic study, prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, dated August 4, 2009, for tihe proposed Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academy Renovation and Expansion project on the southwest comer of Clinton 1 Street and Sycamore Avenue. Based on DOT's traffic impact criteria , tihe study included the detailed analysis of two intersections and determined that none of the study intersections would be significantiy impacted by project-related traffic. The results of the traffic impact analysis are summarized in Attachment 1. Except as noted, the study adequately evaluated the project's traffic impacts on the surrounding community.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS ·

A. Project Description The project proposes to renovate and expand an existing nursery school, pre­ kindergarten, and kindergarten facility to serve a future enrollment of 180 students (60 nursery and 120 pre-kindergarten/kindergarten students). The existing school serves 70 pre-kindargarten and kindergarten students and 40 nursery school students. The project would provide 12 parking spaces. The traffic study did not include a site access and circulation plan for the project; however, student drop-off and pick-up is currently conducted via tihe alley bordering the western boundary of the project and will continue upon the project's completion. The project is expected to be completed by 2012.

B. Trip Generation The project is. estimated to generate a net increase of approximataly 155 daily trips, 38 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 23 trips during the p.m. peak hour. A

1 Per the DOT Traffic Study Polices and Procedures Revised March, 2002, a significant impact is identified as an increase in the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA} value, due to project related traffic, of 0.01 or more when the final {"with project") Level of Servit:e (LOS) is LOS E or F; an increase of 0.020 or more when the final LOS is LOS D; or an increase of 0.040 or more when the final LOS is LOS C.

000009 Hadar Plafkin -3- September 14, 2009

E. Development Review Fees An ordinance adding Section 19.15 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code relative to · application fees paid to the Department of Transportation for permit issuance activities was recently adopted by the Los Angeles City Council. Ordinance No. 180542, effective March 28, 2009, identifies specific fees for traffic study review, condition clearance, and permit issuance. The applicant shall comply with any applicable fees per this new ordinance.

If you have any questions, please contact Wes Pringle of my staff at (213) 972-8482.

Attachments

Letters\CEN09-50B5 7002 Clinton St Nursery-Pre K~K School project ts ttr.wpd c: Lisa Trifiletti, Council District No. 5 Mo Blorfroshan, Southern District, DOT TaimourTanavoli, Citywide Planning Coordination Section, DOT Carl Mills, Central District, BOE Jonathan Chambers, Gibson Transportation Consulting

000010 BiiiUi'iiM' '!iiiEIIIIR - - liiiiEil ... ~ ilii!llli.l .fillfiiliil ~ Jlli'illl'iU ~ .... ~ - liiil'iiiDW ...... 'lillii8IIW ~

TABLE 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2012) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE

Future Base Conditions Future with Project Conditions Peak No. Intersection Hour Change in Significant VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC Impact? 1. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.985 E 0.987 E 0.002 NO Melrose Avenue PM 1.005 F 1.005 F 0.000 NO 2. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.484 A 0.489 A 0.005 NO Clinton Street PM 0.483 A 0.487 A 0.004 NO

gill"'~ "'oo-:: 3'3 0<1) ::>:I en ... ~N

0 0 0 ~ Table of Contents

Applicant: Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academy Project Location: 7002 W. Clinton Street Los Angeles, CA 90036

Exhibit Title ·Pages Exhibit A Project Description and Applicant Requests 3-4 Exhibit B ZIMAS Aerial Site Map 5 ExhibitC Additional Information for Schools 6-8 Exhibit D Applicant Proposed Conditions 9 Exhibit E Applicant Proposed Draft Findings 10-13

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

I. Project

Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy (the "Academy") proposes to demolish an existing private school building of approximately 3,700 square-foot and construct a new expanded three-story building (33 feet in height) of approximately 8,300 square feet with 12 parking spaces at 7002 W. Clinton Street. The proposed school project is located at the intersection of West Clinton Street and North Sycamore Avenue in the Hollywood Community Plan area. The project would provide needed space for the Academy's Pre-Kindergarten I Kindergarten School for 120 students and Nursery School (daycare) for 60 children.

The property is designated as being in the RD1.5-1XL zone, corresponding to the Low Medium II Residential land use designation of the Hollywood Community Plan. Private kindergartens and nursery schools are permitted in the RD1.5 zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 12.24.U.24(b) and 12.24.W.51, respectively. Properties to the north, east and south are also in the RD1.5-1XL zone. Properties across Sycamore Avenue to the east and adjacent properties to the south are improved with single family residences. The property to the north across Clinton Street is developed with a building for the Academy. The property to the west across the alley is in the C4-1VL zone with frontage on North La Brea Avenue and also is improved with an Academy building.

Hours of Operation would be 8:00 A.M. until 4:30 P.M., Monday through Thursday and 8:00 A.M. to 2:30P.M. Friday. The school would host activities with parents until10:00 P.M. on up t9 four nights per school year.

000012 4 EXHIBITC

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Pre-Kindergarten I Kindergarten and Nursery School (Daycare)

Applicant: Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy Project Location: 7002 W. Clinton Street a. Describe the type of school (e.g., elementary, junior high school, nursery, etc.).

Private Pre-Kindergarten I Kindergarten and Nursery School (Daycare)

b. What is the maximum number of students (children) to be enrolled at each grade and age level?

Grade Level Age Number of Children I Students Nursery School 2-4 60 (Daycare) Pre-Kindergarten 4-5 80 Kindergarten 5-6 40 Total 2-6 180 c. What are the hours of operation? Indicate whether Monday through Friday only or also weekends.

8:00A.M. until 4:30 P.M., Monday through Thursday and 8:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. on Friday.

d. What are the number of classrooms and teachers?

Six classrooms of the nine in the building for the Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten with 6 teachers and six assi.stants.

Three classrooms of the nine in the building for the Nursery School (Daycare) with 3 teachers and 3 assistants.

e. What are the number of administrative staff?

Two. A director and assistant.

000013 7 IDiiii1Q' .... IJiili!iliiJ - liiilll5liD -. ~ ~ lfJi!illiili!li -- i1llGti!P ~ ~ ~ - - .... - .,.._

TABLE 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2012) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE

. Future Base Conditions Future with Project Conditions Peak No. Intersection Hour Change In .Significant i VIC LOS \1/C LOS VIC lm.Jl"ct? 1. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.985 E 0.987 E 0.002 NO Melrose Avenue PM 1.005 F 1.005 F 0.000 NO 2. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.484 A 0.489 A 0.005 NO Clinton Street PM 0.483 A 0.487 A 0.004 NO

""i!;:o ... 0~ "'oO:r 5'3 0(!) ":Irn ... ~N - ,,_., illlillilill - JiiiiSiil ililil'8il· liiirliliiWi - liiif,ili!llli. -- ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - - -

TABLE 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2012) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE

Future Base Conditions Future with Project Conditions Peak No. Intersection Hour Change In .Significant V/C LOS V/C LOS VIC Impact? 1. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.985 E 0.987 E 0.002 NO Melrose Avenue PM 1.005 F 1.005 F 0.000 NO 2. La Brea Avenue & AM 0.484 A 0.489 A 0.005 NO Clinton Street PM 0.483 A 0.487 A 0.004 NO

...,;!: o .... OQl "'(')

~30(\) rn" ....::1 ~N EXHIBITD

APPLICANT PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Applicant: Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy Project Location: 7002 W. Clinton Street

Site Use and Development 1. Use. The use of the subject property shall be limited to a private school in the RD1.5- 1XL zone, pre-kindergarten I kindergarten with a maximum enrollment of 120 students and a related private nursery school (daycare) for 60 children for a maximum of up to 180 children on the property. 2. Site Plan. The use and development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan labeled "Exhibit A," dated December 3, 2008. Minor deviations may be allowed in order to comply with provisions of the Municipal Code, the subject conditions, and the intent of the subject permit authorization. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, detailed development plans including detailed site and elevation drawings, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of City Planning for verification of compliance with these conditions. 3. Floor Area. The total floor area on the subject property shall be limited to 8,300 square feet, as defined by Sections 12.21.1 A.5 and 12.21.1 8.4 of the Municipal Code. Minor adjustments shall be allowed in order to comply with provisions of the Municipal Code, the subject conditions, and the intent of the subject permit authorization. 4. Height. The height of the new building shall not exceed 33 feet and three stories, as defined by Section 12.03 of the Municipal Code, which shall be measured from existing natural or finished grade; whichever is lower, in substantial conformance with the building site plan and elevations labeled "Exhibit A," dated December 3, 2008. a. Any mechanical structures on the roof, such as air conditioning units, elevator overruns and other equipment, shall have wall screens facing all abutting properties with single-family dwellings, to the extent feasible, with materials compatible with the design of the building, and shall incorporate noise attenuation features as required by the Municipal Code. Roof structures such as mechanical equipment, elevators and fire stairs, etc. shall not count toward building height consistent with Section 12.21.1 8 3 of the Municipal Code. 5. Parking. A minimum of 12 on-site parking spaces shall be provided and reserved for the faculty and staff of the school. 6. Hours of Operation. Hours of school operation shall be between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 8:00a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Friday. The school may host evening activities until1 0:00 p.m. up to four nights per school year. Regular maintenance, servicing and administrative staff may use the school beyond the hours of operation. 7. Fence. A fence of up to six feet in height may be located in the front yard along the Sycamore Street frontage and in the side yard along Clinton Street.

10 000016 City of Los Angeles ZIMAS INTRANET 05/26/2009 Department of City Planning Generalized Zoning I ''}[,: ~~f~ ·• 'If bf?,''s , ..... :'.111- :sRA

D RE, RS, R1, RU, RZ, RW1 R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, RAS3, R4, RA$4, RS ADP, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CR, CW, LASED, WC CM, MR, CCS, Ml, M2, LAX,M~,SL P,PB PF w CLINTON ST ~ ~ w HILLSIDE ;j'J II! ~ "'m C) :s ~

--~

\.OS~~ M!Gtll!'iC!H PLANNING lA City Planning Background Display: Generalized Zoning lli.I"AP.lt.!i"~~-1 g0 Address: 7002 W CLINTON ST Tract: TR 6143 Zoning: RD1.5-1XL 01 General Plan: Low Medium II Residential -J APN: 5525020011 Block: None PIN#: 1418181 907 Lot: 161 Arb: None

Streets Copyright (c) Thomas Brothers Maps, Inc. Office: , . Downtown n:LJ Nfl 275519 VanNuys b Department of City Planning los Angelos City Planning Request

NOTICE: The staff of the Planning Department will analyze your request and accord the same full and impartial consideration to your application, regardless of whether or not you obtain the services of anyone to represent you. .

-7% Expediting Fee Bad Check Fee Miscellaneous/Photocopy

TOTAL FEES PAID

( ) Cash Council District -~-t-_.-:-:-----­ -:J:X Check# (J)-1.,\..'-4-':) Pian Area J"lc>))\;WV v-\ { ) Money Order#·------LA DePartment of" Buildins a.nt! SnfetY LA 01 26 230768 12/29/1}8 12~54-Pf-i Processed by --;;-="7"__ _,C)..,·,~-· -'-'"-~~>1"\...."._---j------'F!!!.'l.l'•'i!l-.;' & LAND USE Print&sign V-._..,1 ONE STOP CITY PL DEV;.:LDPi1T SIJRC:HG ~;.:~25~ OPERATING SURf;HE $4,9!~,.. rJH;C: CITY PLt1?!

White· Applicanl Canary~ Return to Planning Pink. Building & Safety Golden Rod. Master Copy $8~1~·3, Form CP 7107 (Rev;SJOSl Check" $Bd+3. 000018 EXHIBITE

DRAFT FINDINGS

Applicant: Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy Project Location: 7002 W. Clinton Street

1. General Plan Land Use Designation. The subject property is located within the Hollywood Community Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1988. The Hollywood Community Plan land use map designates the property as Low Medium II Residential, with corresponding zone of RD1.5 and RD2. The existing zoning is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan as reflected in the adopted community plan. Implementation of the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as the proposed project is requesting conditional use approval for construction and operation of a private pre-kindergarten I kindergarten school and nursery school (daycare).

2. General Plan Text. The Hollywood Community Plan text includes the following relevant land use policies:

"That all school facilities in the Hollywood Community be constantly reviewed, analyzed and upgraded, in view of the fact that the District contains some of the oldest schools in the City"

"That due to an absence of vacant land, an after-hours, multi-use concept of school facilities, together with a joint-use concept of other public facilities, be encouraged and promoted."

The project would meet the above policies of the Hollywood Community Plan by allowing the development of a larger replacement school building for a private pre­ kindergarten/kindergarten school along with a private nursery school (daycare). Development of the property to provide a private pre-kindergarten/ kindergarten school and nursery school would provide an alternative school that would help relieve public schools in the area. The school would be operated as an integral part of the applicant's adjacent schools including the high school to the west across the alley and the elementary I junior high to the north across Clinton Street. The project would not encroach upon the surrounding residential community. Thus, the existing land use relationships in the area as well as the overall character of the neighborhood would be preserved.

The project also would be consistent with Land Use Policy allowing for a multi-use concept of the property with both a pre-kindergarten I kindergarten and nursery school (daycare) serving many members of the surrounding neighborhood.

3. The Transportation Element of. the General Plan will not be affected by the recommended action herein.

4. The Sewerage Facilities Element of the General Plan will not be affected by the recommended action. Requirements for construction of sewer facilities to serve the project and complete the City sewer system for the health and safety of City inhabitants will assure compliance with the goals of this General Plan Element.

11 000019 5. Conditional Use Findings: Pursuant to Sections 12.24E and 12.24F of the Municipal Code:

a. The proposed location will be desirable to the public convenience or welfare.

The proposed project involves the demolition of an existing 3,700 square-foot 80 year old deteriorating school building and the construction of a new larger combined pre-kindergarten I kindergarten and nursery school building of approximately 8,300 square feet. The project would provide three nursery school rooms for daycare for up to 60 children on the ground level, four classrooms for pre-kindergarten for up to 80 students on the second level and two classrooms for kindergarten for 40 students on the third level. Many private schools throughout the City of Los Angeles are located in residential neighborhoods. The applicant anticipates that the school will primarily serve families in the Hollywood and adjacent areas. Providing nursery school along with pre-kindergarten/kindergarten instruction in the same building in close proximity to the other grade levels provides added convenience for the families in the area needing daycare. It is anticipated that many of the children in the nursery school and the pre-kindergarten I kindergarten will be siblings of students attending the schools operated by the applicant. This will allow many of the children attending all grades levels in the schools operated by the applicant to walk together or arrive together in carpools and vanpools.

b. The proposed location is proper in relation to adjacent uses or the development of the community.

The project, a private pre-kindergarten I kindergarten and nursery school, would be immediately adjacent to the school buildings for the school's higher grade levels owned and operated by the same applicant. The project site is a corner lot directly across Clinton Street from the elementary I junior high school and immediately across the alley to the rear of the high school.

A private pre-kindergarten I kindergarten and nursery school use would not affect any development in the community as almost all lots within the vicinity of the project site are already developed with existing single and multi-family residential uses. Locating a private school within a residential area is not an unusual situation as there are many examples of such sitings throughout the City including the applicant's adjacent elementary I junior high school.

c. The proposed location will not be materially detrimental to the character of development in the immediate neighborhood.

As a corner lot across the alley from the commercial zone property with the applicant's high school to the rear (west} of the proposed building, only the south side of the building would abut a residential property. The windows on the south side of the building would be located high in the rooms to provide light, but would also ensure visual privacy for both the school and the abutting residential property. Additionally, the play area for the children would be on the north side of the building opposite and shielded from the adjacent residential building to the south of the project site.

12 000020 Height Increase Modification

Although, the building is proposed to be three stories in lieu of two stories generally allowed in the height district, the building would be of a scale similar to most two story buildings. The requested 33-foot building height would be only 3 feet above the generally allowed 30-foot height. Since the proposed building would be on a corner lot, the perception of the building height would be similar to the 35-foot height of the existing elementary I junior high school building across Clinton Street to the north. The height of the proposed building would not be out of scale with the neighborhood.

North Side Yard Reduction Modification

The building would observe the standard front yard along the Sycamore Avenue frontage consistent with other buildings fronting Sycamore. On the north side of the lot along the Clinton Street frontage, the proposed building would observe a 5-foot yard in-lieu of a 6-foot yard that would generally be required for a three story building. The building would have a 6-foot yard on the south side of the building. The reduced yard would allow for a slightly larger play area on the second level for the pre-kindergarten classrooms. Since the reduced yard on the north side would not abut a residential property, but would be along Clinton Street, the reduction would not have an impact on the character of neighborhood. ·

Fence Height Increase Modification for the Sycamore Avenue Frontage

Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the project would be allowed to have a 6-foot fence along the Clinton Street frontage as a side yard. The requested modification for the fence in the front yard would allow a fence of consistent height along both Clinton Street and Sycamore Avenue. State Code requires a minimum 4-foot fence for daycare play areas to secure the play area. The requested modification would allow for added security in the front yard area.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not be materially detrimental to the character of development in the immediate neighborhood. d. The proposed location will be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan.

The subject property is located within the Hollywood Community Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1988. The Hollywood Community Plan land use map designates the property as Low Medium II Residential, with corresponding zone of RD1.5 and RD2. The existing zoning is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan as reflected in the adopted community plan. Implementation of the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as the proposed project is requesting conditional use approval for construction and operation of a private pre-kindergarten I kindergarten school and nursery school (daycare).

As stated in the finding above, the project would meet the policies of the Hollywood Community Plan by allowing the development of a private pre­ kindergarten/kindergarten school along with a nursery school (daycare). Development of the property to provide a private pre-kindergarten/ kindergarten

13 000021 school and nursery school would provide an alternative school that would help relieve public schools in the area. The school would be operated as an integral part of the applicant's adjacent schools including the high school to the west across the alley and the elementary I junior high to the north across Clinton Street. The project would not encroach upon the surrounding residential community. Thus, the existing land use relationships in the area as well as the overall character of the neighborhood would be preserved: The project also would be consistent with Land Use Policy allowing for a multi-use concept of the property with both a pre­ kindergarten I kindergarten and nursery school (daycare) serving many members of the surrounding neighborhood.

LA\1907071.4

14 000022 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning

12/19/2008 PARCEL PROFILE REPORT

PROPERTY ADDRESSES Address/Legal information 7002 W CLINTON ST PIN Number: 141B181 907 Lot Area (Calculated): 9,070.7 (sq ft) ZIP CODES Thomas Brothers Grtd: PAGE: 593- GRID D7 Assessor Parcel No. (APN): 5525020011 90036 Tract: TR 6143 Map Reference: M B 68-90/91 RECENT ACTIVITY Block: None None Lot: 161 Arb (Lot Cut Reference): None CASE NUMBERS Map Sheet: 141B181 CPC-1986-831-GPC ORD-164707 Jurisdictional Information Community Plan Area: Hollywood Area Planning Commission: Central Neighborhood Council: Greater Wilshire Council District: CD 5- Jack Weiss Census Tract #: 1919.00 LADBS District Office: Los Angeles Metro

Planning and Zonina lnfonmation Special Notes: None Zoning: RD1.5-1XL Zoning Information (ZI): Zl-2374 Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone General Plan Land Use: Low Medium II Residential Plan Footnote - Site Req.: See Plan Footnotes Additional Plan Footnotes: Hollywood Specific Plan Area: None/ Design Review Board: No Historic Preservation Review: No Historic Preservation Overlay Zone: None Other Historic Designations: None Other Historic Survey Information: None Mills Act Contract: None POD - Pedestrian Oriented Districts: None CDO - Community Design Overlay: None NSO - Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay: None Streetscape: No Sign District: No Adaptive Reuse Incentive Area: None CRA- Community Redevelopment Agency: None Central City Parking: No Downtown Parking: No Building Line: None 500 Ft School Zone: No 500 Ft Park Zone: No

Assessor Information Assessor Parcel No. (APN): 5525020011 APN Area (Co. Public Works)': 0.208 (ac) Use Code: 7200 - Private School Assessed Land Val.: $357,169 Assessed Improvement Val.: $185,723 Last Owner Change: 08/11/89 Last Sale Amount: $9 Tax Rate Area: 67 Deed Ref No. (City Clerk): 753074 5-680 1292358

Tha conhtnts ofthls report aro bot

Additional Information Airport Hazard: None Coastal Zone: None Farmland: Area not Mapped Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone: No Fire District No. 1: No Fire District No. 2: No Flood Zone: None Hazardous Waste I Border Zone Properties: No Methane Hazard Site: Methane Zone High Wind Velocity Areas: No Hillside Grading: No Oil Wells: None Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone: No Distance to Nearest Fault: 2.50096 (km) Landslide: No Liquefaction: No

Economic Development Areas Business Improvement District: None Federal Empowerment Zone: None Renewal Community: No Revitalization Zone: Central City State Enterprise Zone: Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone Targeted Neighborhood Initiative: None

Public Safety Police Information: Bureau: West Divis.ion I Station: Wilshire Report District: 706 Fire Information:

The ~;ontonts of this mp.ort aro bound by thellsor Agro&mont as doserlb&d In tho Terms and Cond1tions of this -bslto. For moro dotal!s, please r11fur to tho T~:~rms &. Conlf!!ions !'ink lo~;:atod 11t http://z:imas.htclty.org. M. APN Aroa: LA County Asssssor's Offiw Is not the data provlderforthls !Wm. Tho data sourco h;; from tho Los Angol$s County's Public Works, Flood Control, Benefit Assessment. OOQ0 24 District I Fire Station: 61 Batallion: 18 Division: 2 Red Flag Restricted Parking: No

Ttl11 contents of this report am bound by the UserAgroom11nt as describod In tho Terms and Conditions of this websito. For mom details, please ref&rlothe Turm~; & Conditions link located at tlttp:/~m~s.lae!ty.org. (") • APN Area: LA County Assossot's Offic:& Is not the data PJ'QVIdor for this lt&m. The data souroo Is from tho Los Angel&~~ County's Pub!!c Wofts, Flood Control, Benent As$0ssrrn:mt. 000025 CASE SUMMARIES Note: Information for Case Summalies is Retrieved from the Planning Department's Plan Case Tracking System (PCTS) Database. Case Number: CPC-1986-831-GPC Required Action(s): GPC-GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY (AB283) Project Description(s): HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN REVISION/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGES AND HEIGHT DISTRICT CHANGES DATA NOT AVAILABLE ORD-164707

Tho contents of this report ara bound by thn User Agrwmunt as d~Jscrlbed In the Terms and Conditions of this Wllbslta. For more detalls, ph:ti!SO roforto tho Terms & Conditions link located at httpu'/timas.lecity.org. rl • APN Aroa: LA County Assos!>ol's Off!Cfl is not the data provldl!r for this 1tllrn. Tho data sou reo Is from tha lol!; Allgeles County's Public Works, Flood Control, Benefit Assossment. OOQ0 26 12/19/2008

II Generalized Zoning -OS c:=J A,,RA D RE, RS, R1, RUI Rl. RW1 rr!M~lfh~~!il3 ' IIIII AOP,C1,CU,C2,C4, · <:5, CR. cw, !i.ASED, we Ml"""'·"""'· f:x, ':!.~is, M1, w, IIIII P,PB w w CLINTON ST IIIIPF ><( ~ w HlU.SIDE ~ IIIII ii1 0 "' :!! 5"' ~ ~

- ·~"' JWi' "'- •.. lit~ till··.-.'' ~~ ~~~.';!-

0 0 Address: 7002 W CLINTON ST Tract: TR 6143 Zoning: RD1.5·1XL § APN: 5525020011 "' Block: None General Plan: Low Medium II Residential PIN#: 1418181 907 Lot: 161 Arb: None

Streets Copyright (c) Thomas Brothers Maps, lnc. II..... IIIII .....•• • Ill ••• •••B II •

December 17,2008

Los Angeles City Planning Department 201 North Figueroa Street. 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: Ma,~ter Land Use Petmit Application

To Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that Yeshiva Rav lsacsohn Torath Emeth Academy is the current owner of the prope11:y located at 7002 W. Clinton Street (547 N. Sycamore Avenue) within the City of Los Angeles. This leiter confirms that Rabbi Bedsh Goldenberg is authol'ized to execute and enter into that certain Master Land Use Pe1mit Application and any associated forms in connection with a proposed Conditional Use Pem1it.

S~1ould you ha,~y questions. please do not hesitate to ~ontact me at 323-646-6044.

St ely, .· II

Mr. · ishe Chopp Chairman Board of Directors Yeshiva Rav Tsacsohn· Torath Bmeth Academy

000028 Kindergarten in California- Rlementary (CA Dept of Education) Page4of4

Note: The guidance in this document is nat binding on local education agencies or other entities. Except for the statues, regulations, and court decisions that are referenced herein, this document is exemplary, and compliance with ~is not mandatory. (See Education Code Section 33308.5.) ----·--- California Department of Education Resources

I Home II Phone I Tcpfc IElementary Education Office II 916-319-08391 Enrollment age; curriculum; instruction; extended-day kindergarten IChild Development Division 11916-322-62331 ~':'.::~standards; Prekindel'!1"fWn Learning and Development

IEducational Demographics 11916-327-021911 Comparison data on schools' demographics, characteristics I IElementary Education Office II 916-319-0839 II Kindergarten continuance/retention policy and forms I IKim Clement II 916-327-0857 II Average daily attendance; fiscal reports; apportionment I

Resources Cited

California Department of Education. 1988. Here They Come: Ready or NoU Sacramento, CA: Author.

____ 1997. Continuity for Young Children: Positive Tmnsitions to Elementary Schoo/. Sacramento, CA: Author.

____ 1999. First Class: A Guide for Early Primary Education. Sacramento, CA: Author.

____ 2000. Prekindel'!1"fWn Learning and Development Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Developmentaity Appropriate P!aCfke in Early Childhood Programs, Rev. Ed. 1997. Sue Bredekamp and Carol Copple, Eds. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers - Executive Summary. 2000. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Fact Sheet on Kindergartners in Mixed-Aged Classes. 1995. Doris Smfth, Ed. San Mateo, CA: California Kindergarten Associatiion.

Getting Ready for Kindergarten: A Guide for Parents. 2001. Redwood City, CA: San Mateo County Office of Education (in English and Spanish).

Harvard Education Letter (Outside Source). Research Online. Jan/Feb 1998.

Rothenberg, D. 1995. "Full-Day Kindergarten Programs" in ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

____ 1997. 'What Should Parents Know About Fui~Day Kindergarten?" brochure prepared by ACCESS ERIC. Urbana, fl: Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. . "School Readiness: Helping Communities Get Children Ready for School and Schools Ready for Children. " Executive Summary of Background for Community-Level Worl< on School Readiness: A Review of Definitions, Assessments, and Investment Strategies by Halle, Zaslow, Zaff, & Calkins. 2000. Child Trends.

Slavin, R, Karweit, N., & Wasik, B. 1994. Preventing Early School Fru1ure: Research, Policy, and Pmctice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

U.S. Department of Education. 1992. Heloinq Your Child GetReadv for School (Outside Source). Washington, D.C. Author.

~-~- 1999. Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promo/ion: A Guide for Educators and State and Local Leaders. Washington D.C.: Author.

Questions: Elementary Education Office I 916w319-0839 Last Reviewed: Wednesday, October 22, 2008

000029 Kindergarten in California- Elementary (CA Dept of Education) Page2of4

3. Alternatives for Placement of Under-age Children. Districts may offer attematives for later placement of children whose paren!slguardians wanted them to be admitted before they were of legal age. These options should best sutt the children's educational and social needs:

• The child may be assigned to a kindergarten teacher who uses developmentally appropriate cuniculum and instruction that is unique to the individual child's pattern of growth. In this type of classroom, differences in children's interes!s and development are expected and used to differentiate cuniculum and enable children to be accelerated within the kindergarten classroom. (For more information, see First Class: A Guide for Earfy Primary Education [1999]; Developmentally Appropriate Pracfice in Early Childhood Programs [1997]).

• The child may be enrolled in a muHj..age program in which grade-level distinctions are blurred and a student completes assignmen!s and projects based on his or her abiltties, needs, or interes!s rather than on assigned grade level. Thus, a kindergarten child who has accomplished kindergarten standards may have some first grade assignmen!s. The California Kindergarten Association (Ou!side Source) has research summaries in its Fact Sheet on Kindergartners in Mixed-Aged Classes. The Hatvard Educauon Letter of January/February 1998 also has information on muHi-age classrooms.

• A child may ·be assigned to one teacher but also attend another teacher's class for a particular subject area. For example, a chikl who has completed kindergarten mathematics standards may attend a first grade classroom for mathematics instruction.

Young children who are accelerated to kindergarten or first grade. may feel stress as they try to achieve academic expectations and relate to older children. Parents/guardians and early childhood educators are the best judges about what may be gained by acceleration and whether tt is worth the price. CDE recommends that educators and district employees explain to paren!slguardians of under-age children the following information:

• The academic, social, physical, and emotional readiness required for kindergarten and first grade • The rigorous nature of the academic standards • The potential for harming a child's disposition to learn by inappropriate accelerstion. and • The important concep!s, skills. and knowledge imparted at each stage of a child's education. inclUding preschool

Oflen it is helpful if school or district staff members arrange for parents/guardians to read kindergarten through first grade standards, visH classrooms, and observe instruction. Districts may provide addttional information for parents/guardians, such as:

o The COE documen!s, Conunuity for Young Children: Positive Transitions to Elementary School; and/or Prekindergarten Learning and Development Guidelines o The National Research Council document. Eager to Learn: Educaung Our Preschoolers o "School Readiness: Helping Communities Get Children Ready for School and Schools Ready for Children" by Child Trends o Getting Ready for Kindergarten: A Guide for Paren!s by the San Mateo County Office of Educa6on, and o Helping Your Child Get Ready for Schoo/ by the U. S. Department of Education.

C. Private School Considerations: Private schools do not necessarily operate under the same requiremen!s as public schools, but representatives of the Galifomia Association of Private Schools Organizations (CAP SO) indicate many private schools do follow Educauon Code sections referenced in this document If children have been admitted as three- or four-year olds to private school kindergarten, it is their parents'/guardian's responsibility to monitor their children's emotional and physical responses to the accelerated curriculum.

PubHc school officials do not automatically enroll in first grade those studen!s who attended a private school kindergarten (see 8.2. Acceleration to First Grade above for guidance).

Kindergarten Continuance

Continuance is defined as more than one school year in kindergarten. EC Section 48011 requires a child who has completed a year of kindergarten to be promoted to first grade, unless the parent or guardian and the district agree that the child may continue in kindergarten not more than one additional school year.

A paren!/guardian who agrees the child is to continue in kindergarten must sign the Parental Agreement Form, which is available on CDE's Puoil Promotion & Retention Web page. Failure to have signed forms on file may jeopardize audit findings and resuH in a loss of apportionment.

EC sections 48070-48070.5 set forth requiremen!s for pupil promotion and retention (PPR). While kindergarten was not a grade level Included by legislators, EC Section 48070.50) enables local boards to adopt additional PPR policies. Districts considering continuance of kindergartners may want to consider:

• Reviewing current research • Developing a plan to reduce the rate of continuance 000030

t.....-..11,.,~-~-~· -...:1'- -~ -~-·1-!1--1--n~:-..l~-=-.c- __ r,_ _:_..__. __ California Department of Education (http:/lwww.cde.ca.gov/cVgslemlkinderinfo.asp) Page Generated: 512612009 2:24:05 PM Kindergarten in California California state law and infonnation regarding admission to kindergarten.

There is a growing interest in a number of kindergarten issues: e.g., enrollment age, retention, and extended-day kindergarten. This guidance material is designed to address many of these issues. Since many private schools also adhere to the state Education COde, this guidance may be of assistance to them. This infonnation may also be helpful to parenls and guardians, as well as teachers of preschool, kindergarlen, and first grade.

Kindergarten Enrollment

Parenls and guardians are currently not required to enroll children in kindergarten (Education Code [EC] Section 48200) (Oulside Source). If parenls/guardians choose to enroll their children, schools must adm~ children who are of legal age (EC Section 49000 [a]). Admission of age-efigible children must occur at the beginning of the school year or whenever the studenls move into the school district (See Barajas, et al. v. Board of Trustees. eta/, Sup. Crt. Sonoma County, 1990, No. 80963.)

While local education officials may need a day or two to identify the particular assigned kindergarten classroom, no age-efigible child may be denied access to school by being placed on a waiting list. Although demographics and class size reduction restrictions may prevent parents/guardians from enrolling their children in the neighborhood school, the district must provide the name(s) of available schools. Parent!?fguardians may discuss school choice options with district officials. To help make placement decisions, pa~nts/guardians may compare sChools online at either Ed-Data (Outside Source) or Data and statistics. Both sites offer information on schools' demographics and characteristics.

A. Age-Eligible Children: Districts must admH children at the beginning of the school year (or whenever they move into a disbict) if they will be five years of age on or before December 2 of the school year (EC Section 49000[a]). Children who are age-efigible for kindergarten may aHend any prekindergarten summer program maintained by the school disbict lnfonnation about ~ms cons!Huting proof of age supplied by parent or guardian is found in EC Section 48002. Immunization requirements are found in Health and Bafety Code Section 120325 and Section 120335 and on CDE's Factbooll Web page.

B. Under-Age Children: Districts and CDE staff are frequently requested by parents/guardians to enroll children who are not age-eligible in kindergarten and first grade. CDE has no authority to require disbicts to admit or accelerate under-age children. The infonnation below is regarding enrollment of under-age children in either kindergarten or first grade.

1. Earfy Admission to Kindergarten. In addition to the laws mentioned above (in A. Age-Eiioible Children), there is an additional-but rarely used-option for admHIIng children to kindergarten once they tum five years old. Districts may admH to kindergarten those children whose birthdays occur after December 2. These children may not begin school at the beginning of the school year, but they must waH until their fifth birth date occurs (EC Section 4BOOO[bD. Districts that adm~ these children to kindergarten prior to their turning age five jeopardize their apportionments, as audHors may take fiscal sanctions through an audit process (see pages 68 through 70 of the slate Controlle(s Office attendance accounting procedures [PDF; Oulside Source] for audHors). While EC Section 48000(b) allows a child to be admitiled eacy on a case-by--case basis, districts offering this option to families would be wise to have local governing board-adopted criteria by which students are accepted. Districts that base eacy admissions on test resuns, maturity of the child, or preschool records may risk being challenged by parenlslguardians whose children are denied admission. If these children continue in kindergarten past the anniversary dates of their admission, the school would be well advised to have signed Parental Agreement Forms on file to continue the children in kindergarten to the end ofthe school year.

2. Acceleration to First Grade. california law requires a child to be six years old on or before December 2 to be legally eligible for first grade (EC Section 4801 0). A child who was legally enrolled in an out-of-slate kindergarten (using that state's requirements), but who does not meet California age eligibility for first grade, may be enrolled by the district in first grade (EC Seclion 48011 ). A child who was not age-eligible for kindergarten (that is, the child turned five after December 2 in the school year) and who attended a California private school kindergarten for a year is viewed by the CDE as not legally enrolled in kindergarten, pursuant to EC Section 48000 requirements. Therefore. this chi.ld, upon enrollment in public school, is enrolled in kindergarten, assessed, and may (but is not required to) be immediately promoted to first grade Wthe child meels the following State Board of Education criteria, pursuant to Tille 5, Section 200:

• The child is at least fiVe years of age. • The child has attended a public school kindergarten for a long enough time to enable school personnel to evaluate the child's ability. • The child is in the upper 5 percent of the chnd's age group intenns of general mental ability. • The physical development and social maturity of the child are consistent with the child's advanced mental ability. • The parent or guardian has filed a wriHen statement wfth the district that approves placement in first grade.

A statement, siyned by the district and parent/guardian, is placed in the official school records for these five--year--olds who have been advanced to first grade (EC Section 48011). This action prevents a subsequent audH exception for first grade placement of an age-ineftgible student.

000031 http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/em!kinderinfo.asp?print=yes 5/26/2009 Kllll1ergarten m caurorma- c,1e· ·nary t L-A uepr or naucauonJ ragej OI4

• Improving the instructional program for students at risk of continuance, and • Monitoring the progress of schools in reducing continuance rates, including the differential effects of continuance for different ethnic groups, non-English..,peaking children, and gender

Section 3934, subdivision (b), located in Tille 5 of the Galifomia Code of Regulafions, states:

(b) No program utilizing consolidated application funds shall:

• Create special tracks for the educationally disadvantaged; • Establish adjustment, pregrade, or junior grade classes for the educationally disadvantaged.

Current filerature reveals that retention may have a negative effect on student achievement, school attendance, attitude toward school, and student dropout rates. On the other hand, social promotion also may have a negative effect on student achievement. The U.S. Department of Education provides guidance for state and local leaders to preven~ and intervene to reduce, student failure in Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promofion. This document may assist schools and districts to adopt a comprehensive approach to retention. All CDE guidance points to the need for districts and school staff to provide interventions for students who are at risk of failure to prevent the need for retention. Although kindergarten is not currentiy a mandated grade, appropriate interventions should not be delayed.

Extended-Day Kindergarten

Extended-day kindergarten (EDK) is defined as a class, taught by the same certificated staff member, that exceeds the four-hour maximum. In some districts EDK is the same length of day as that for older elementary students. While California districts do not receive additional apportionment funds to lengthen the kindergarten day, there is a growing interest in this topic. From 1965 to 1998, participation in what is referred to nationally as "full-day• kindergarten rose from 17 percent to 50.8 percent. Educators may wish to extend the kindergarten day for a number of reasons, including the following:

• To improve the educational program fur children • To provide more time for the teacher to get to know each child • To encourage children's maximum social, emotional, physical, and academic growth • To address transportation issues related to district bus schedules, and • To address parents'/guardian's needs for child care

EC sections 46110-45119 detail the minimum and maximum lengths of the school day for kindergarten and other elementary grade classrooms. The maximum number of minutes for kindergarten is four hours, (EC Section 46111 ), excluding recess. However, recess time may be counted as instructional minutes, at the district's discretion, if teacher supervision occurs.

Another portion of the Education Code (EC sections 8970-8974) authorizes EDK ff the local school board adopts a policy establishing an Early Primary Program, in keeping with the 1988 recommendafions of the School Readiness Task Force, found in Here They Come: Ready or Not! (1988). EC Section 8973 allows schools to offer EDK ff both of the following conditions are met:

• The kindergarten program does not exceed the length of the primary school day, and • The extended-day kindergarten program takes into account ample opportunity for both active and quiet activities wllh an integrated, experiential, and developmentally appropriate educational program.

To establish EDK. districts should adopt a formal policy in keeping with an Early Primary Program, EC sections 8970-8974. They may also consider the impfications of curriculum and instruction changes, class size reduction, facilities, parents'/guardian's issues, potential bargaining unit agreements, and fiscal considerations. Districts may also carefully evaluate lengthened programs to determine if children are benefiting in all domains (academic, social, emotional, and physical).

While lengthening the day affects the organization of kindergarten classrooms, the most long-lasting and far-reaching change will involve what goes on inside the kindergarten classroom. The National AII-Day Kinderaarten Network {Outside Source) contains research findings, resources, a discussion group, and contact people on ali-day kindergarten.

Transitions to Elementary School

Helping children get off to a good start In school is important to families, teachers, and children. Transition plans are required by the federal, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Trtle I, Part A. Section 1114(b)(1)(G) of the act requires Schoolwide Projects to plan children's transitions from early childhood programs to local elementary school programs. Section 1115(c)(1)(D) of the Act requires Targeted Assistance programs to assist preschool children in their transitions to elementary school. Head Start programs are also required to plan transitions and share relevant child..:entered information (Section 642A of 42 U.S.C. 9837 A). students with exceptional needs are also provided appropriate transitions, pursuant to EC Section 56445.

A state law offers an additional opportunity for preschool and elementary educators to help children transition to school. The California Preschool Transfer Act of 2001 (Assembly Bi111539, Chapter 629, Statutes of 2001) requires state-funded preschools to provide to the parentlguardian(s) developmental and any other information deemed beneficial to the child and public school teacher (see EC sections 56435, 56449, and 58930). ff parents/guardians authorize it, preschools may provide this information directly to the schools. 000032 httn,//www.cde.ca..

Findlaw~ Find a lawyer: Find answer;.

• California Codes o California EducatiQ!l_ ..Q>Jl~ • EDUCATION CODE SECTION 48200-48208

48200. Each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years not exempted under the provisions of this chapter or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 48400) is subject to compulsory full-time education. Each person subject to compulsory full-time education and each person subject to compulsory continuation education not exempted under the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 48400) shall attend the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes and for the full time designated as the length of the schoolday by the governing board of the school district in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located and each parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of the pupil shall send the pupil to the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes and for the full time designated as the length of the schoolday by the governing board of the school district in which the residence of either the parent or legal guardian is located. Unless otherwise provided for in this code, a pupil shall not be enrolled for ·less than the minimum schoolday established by law.

48200.5. Notwithstanding Section 48200, any resident of the City of Carson who is the parent or legal guardian of a person subject to compulsory education may enroll that person in either the school district in which the residency of the parent or guardian is located or in the Los Angeles Unified School District pursuant to the terms of an agreement permitting those transfers that is mutually adopted by the Compton Unified School District and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

48200.7. (a) The State Department of Education shall identify the three lowest performing elementary schools in the Compton Unified School District for purposes of extending the school year for pupils enrolled in kindergarten or grades 1 and 2 and for those pupils in any of grades 3 to 5, inclusive, who are performing in mathematics or English language arts two or more grade levels below the grade in which those pupils are enrolled as determined under subdivision (d).

(b) Beginning with the 1998-99 school year, the Compton Unified School District may identify schools of the district, in addition to those identified pursuant to subdivision (a), that are among the lowest performing schools in the district, and may provide extended school year instruction pursuant to Section 41601.1 to any pupil

000033 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.corn!cacodes/edc/48200-48208.html 5/26/2009 ·-··· ·•. '.·'

·' .. <.

\,, ' ·:.,.. \ -~ ' ·..... _.,, ·, t, \c ' ,. ~-- ·~. -· ' ' .. "<-.-~'"%·-..2:~,,.-., .. :~~ ;..... : ,,,~' .

000034 llNC0i..,

~El)·tN: ~AL~ OF LOS ANGaESCOUKn'_ Co\ AUG 11& Yeshivath Torath Emeth 540 N. La Brea Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90036

Yeshivath Torath Emeth 540 N. La Brea Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90036 _j \FEE $7 - [ z Quitclaim Deed TIHS" 'i'"OR:l-1· F'UI'

"F&e m:tctf:rsigned Gnntor (s) d«bn- (s} under pen:dty of,yrjury that 1M foUowP:Ig h rme :l!:ld con:ect~ DOCCME:-..'TARY TRA!\'SfER TAX $ ...... 0 ...... } cow.puted or.: full i:;);!~.te- (If propem· nvn.\e-Yeci. o-r l.co."l!.puted o.n ful) value}<.-::,;: \·a!ue ~lf iit-n'> .and t"ncumbr.~:rn;t-t- r<:mainm~ at tim.:- !'r :-ale. ) Cnincorpon:u:C area: t } City uf Los. Anaeles . ~nd

FOR A \'AU:." ABLE CO~~.SH}ERATIO~. t«eipt .. r whit·h itt h<-r.-h~ a··knuwledged. Yeshiva Rav Isacschn (which erroneously acquired title as Yesb:iva R.av Isaacsohn} r a California corporation. heteb~ RE!IUSE!S\. R£1.£..>\SEl:'l AND FORElf.R Qrrrt:f.AIM>$1 t•) ~eshivath Torath Emeth AcaC~ ny, a Californi~ non-profit corporation

die foUow:i:n~ d~-eii..-d re-ai F'~'"i><'~h- i1l lb.-. <'"tmnty o£ Los Angeles ~1:a.te of Calif,unia; Lot 161 o£ Tract No-.. 6143. as per Map recorded in Book ti-S, Pages 9:0 and 91 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said cotu~tY~

* lt.This conveyance conz:t.rms a change of name, a.nd the Grantor and Grantee· are the same party, R£T 1.1911 ...

o.ted _ _::___::::_c_::..:_....:.:_:..:_25, 1989 ______Yesl::>..i va Rav Isa.csohn. a California corporation (j I 7ff!.i ~· . By:V '-"'\../...... :7"'"/~ I. fAY\ HV'- .... - . " CEARLES ABBO\l'T Chairman of. the Board of Directors

Q ~ly ibo"I1>"Jl to me ~ 0 p:Ro~to.~o:odtt!~ofsatis;U::roey-e~-:·~n~ w.'l:Je-·t:fw~s\- ~ ~st su~. to r..hl: 'lli"iitbitt, inst..~tmd~iedged U::at ---executed i!. ~'lliy~~~$4}. From: alain To: Lynda Smith Date: 11312010 11:03 PM Subject: Case# CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

January 3, 201 o

> Dear Officer Smith,

Today is Sunday.

All morning the ACADEMY that has asked for permission to expand, yet again, in this residential neighborhood is, as is it's weekly habit, in full swing operation.

As usual, this Sunday, children are playing basketball on the roof play ground (how could the city allow that? It is a few feet from an apartment building! ).

As it does every time it asks for a permit to build another building (it has six within 100 yards, or less, of each other), the ACADEMY presents a false statement about it's operating hours.

Come and check their evening events !!! And come on Sundays. Remember the impact of the parents' cars. And the NOISE!

The ACADEMY, uses school bells which ring all the time --at 15 minute intervals. Come, and listen.

How can false representations .... offered year after year, that routinely lead to granted permissions, be allowed? Are hours ever enforced? NO! Does the city honor the fundamental rights of residential tenants? NO.·

Please help us.

Deny the permit request and enforce the operating hours under which ALL six of the ACADEMY buildings were granted permits.

And could the city begin to cite all the illegal parking that the Academy routine!)( causes with impunity?

The alleys, required for deliveries, garbage pick-ups, etc. are always blocked by parent's and Academy staff. If they act as if it is their entitlement, it is because they are NEVER cited. (You try to park daily at fire hydrants, in red zones and block intersections and NEVER get cited.)

Please, give back the city to it's other citizens.

Sincerely,

Alan Ronay

> Dear Officer Smith,

000036 > >Since my neighbor has stated the situation so well, I will join in > on his statements. I would like to add that the ACADEMY hours for > operations are NEVER correctly stated or enforced. For years I've > had to endure school bells ringing all the time every SUNDAY when > they hold school or events. Their operations can last late into > the evening as well. The ACADEMY is a catch-all euphemism for a > multi purpose organization not solely limited to classes. The >special requirements of the Academy should only be met when they > don't interfere with the good and the needs of the rest of the city. > > For example, the city needed to do work on Clinton tecently and > posted no parking signs for the whole day and week. The > restriction was ignored as the ACADEMY parked it's cars as it . >deemed it should and could-- all week. They were aided by the > parking enforcement officers who explained .to me that they were > not to give tickets to the ACADEMY violators. (You and i were not >exempt, however.) Such favoritism sets such bad precedence and the. > city is watching. > > If the city does impact reports, then the petition will be rejected >out of hand. The negative impact on the flow of.La Brea traffic ., .. '·:/;

> (one of the main North/South arteries can be ascertained during the 'J > morning and afternoon rush hours when the mothers' cars block the . ,.,, . ·.··.<·: > streets (check out Clinton, too) .. The impact of the traffic

>mayhem caused by the ACADEMY can be felt for almost a mile. Come "{' > and check one afternoon. Their school cro11sing g~;~ard has > sometimes kept me from turning for as many as three consecutive . f•;·::' > green lights. Any child crossing La Brea can bring traffic flow to > a stop at the push of a button. > >The sound of horns and angry drivers and clogged traffic is the > legacy of the last time the city granted yet another of the > ACADEMY building permits. My neighbor, John Embry, is kind ... the > construction took way over a year and the hardships we suffered are > untold and were unconscionable. > >The ACADEMY can , as it has in the past, mobilize a dramatic number > of baby carrying mothers to show up at meetings asking for abeyance > of Jaws, and permits etc. They have claimed an entire neighborhood > that way and a casual survey will confirm that. I beg you to > remember the rest of us citizens. Most of us are working people >whose numbers cannot make a dramatic showing downtown. We are good > voters and would like our needs and voices to be heard for a change. > > Please help us. > >Would you tell me if this e-mail complaint had the impact of a >personal call and/or a personal appearance. Please let me know. We > must not be hoodwinked again. > > Also, the ACADEMY keeps requesting that additional street school >signs be added for its charges' safety. (Check the number of signs > in the neighborhood). Please come bear witness with me that, the > safety of the little children is completely ignored by the school > which treats Clinton as a school corridor and it's rightful

000037 _(1/5.'?Q~_Q)J~~l!!;1_~Case# CI-'C-2008~CU ano I::N\f·2UU8-bU2~-MNLJ_ Page =--=""-.,~""====-·==="·===·=·-======~·-~ .... ~-~

> adjunct. The children and teachers run across Clinton traffic ALL > DAY. The safety of the children is always unchecked and >compromised. Some of the teachers are particularly reckless and > cross the street at Sycamore on the diagonal !!!! ! Come and >witness it, and judge whether you should encourage groWth. > > >Thank you, > >Alan Ronay > > 323-934-5504 > > ' .. . ' >Subject: Case# CPC-2008-5028-CU·and ENV-2008-5029-MND > > Hearing Officer Smith - > > I am sending this email in an attempt to put a stop to the ., __ , >expansion of the Yeshivath Toratl:l Emeth Academy. Unfortunately, ",H• >although I do believe in quality education "for our city's youth, I -~1 . ,.,,.' > believe this expansion would have a severe and negative impact on .;_,_,·, .. ,·· > our neighborhood. I have lived ori the 600 block of North Sycamore _,. r·.:.,. ·.,,_. > for 12 years, and in that time, my I'Jreatest ~om plaints have come ··.;'. >from this academy. Daily drop offs and pick· ups of children cause > dangerous traffic jams. Dozens of vehicles violate parking and > traffic laws on a daily basis. A similar construction project in > recent years caused noise, pollution, and parking issues for well >over a year. Greater numbers of.students, parents, and staff have > overloaded p.edestrian traffic during school hours. I have . '.:,;

> experienced attitudes and practices by academy staff that showed no . -· ~. '. :_ .1- .. ' > interest in neighborhood or community, only self interest. Traffic > signs and patterns have been directly manipulated by the academy to >accommodate their needs. Alley ways and Painted red curbs are now > used as waiting or stand by zones. This area has become extremely >congested and I believe·any more expansion of any kind will > continue to negatively impact our community, and create a hazardous >situation in our neighborhood. I. certainly believe the academy > should continue to operate, but I would hope that in the future > they will consider how their actions effect those around them. > Please feel free to contact me. > > Sincerely, >John Embry > 619 1/2 North Sycamore Ave. > 323-936-7161

000038 RE: Case Number CPCc2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

Lynda Smith · . Los Angeles Department of City Planning, City Hall 200 N. Spring Street Room667 Los Angeles,CA 90012

Dear Ms. Smith,

I am a current resident of543 N. Sycamore Ave, which is located directly next to the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academy. I could not appear in person at the hearing due to work . . . conflicts, but I sincerely hope that my statements will be considered before approving this school expansion project. ·

I live on the second floor, with windows that .overlook tht: proposed building site. I chose this apartment primanly for the incredible natural light, nice views, a wonderful sense of· privacy and rare quiet that are all so hard to come by in the city. I've lived here for a year and a half; I love this space, and have no intention of moving. However, the new school . would decrea.Se our quality of life significantly, not to mention devalue the property as a whole.

The proposed new school project would block out every ray of natural light our building currently enjoys, casting a constant shadow that would never subside. Classrooms full of children, teachers and late-night maintenance staff would be able to look directly through our windows day and night, eliminating any semblance of privacy. This also raises a safety and security issue, as I'm sure most of us would feel uncomfortable with strangers looking through our windows at all times, intentionally or not. The building would additionally obstruct any views ofthe surrounding hills.

Less than hospitable to its neighbors, the current school's noise levels are already troublesome, with teachers who yell directly below our windows bright and early every morning. I doubt they realize how much we can hear, but be assured that their school has no secrets from the residents of543 N. Sycamore (sorry your paychecks didn't come in that time, but we hope that the cake the rabbi brought in made up for it). In addition, tJilji0039 school's maintenance crew bangs around loudly at all hours, keeping our building awake well past midnight on a regular basis. The expansion of the school would not only exacerbate the noise issue during demolition and building, but the three-story structure would bring the day-to-day noise to cacophonous new heights. Many of our building's residents work from home, and I imagine it will be much more difficult to concentrate with lessons being held not 5 feet away at eye level.

The school has historically been unfriendly and unhelpful in regards to parking on our very limited permit-only streets. While we are all excited that they will have their own parking, I cru:i only guess that construction would cause long-standing street closures and severe parking shortages as trucks and materials move in and out. When the city repaired the sidewalk on just one block of Clinton, the street was closed off and parking was nearly impossible to find for over a month ... the disruption caused by building an entirely new structure would undoubtedly put similar long-ranging strain on the street. The notion of again walking several blocks at night just to park in my own neighborhood is unacceptable, not to mention UI)safe.

AB I said, I love where I live and do not wish to move. However, I fear that if the project goes through, I and many other residents will have no choice but to do just that. If that is the case, theYeshiva is more than welcome to pay our relocation expenses, plus "pain and suffering" compensation.

Thank you for taking these concerns into account. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Sarah Lyons 543 N. Sycamore Ave Apt 12 Los Angeles, CA 90036 310.691.2343 CC Sycamore Apartments Company

000040 From: To: Date: 1/20/20101:13 PM Subject: 7002 W. Clinton expansion Attachments: IMG _ 0093.jpg

Officer Smith -...... My neighbor took this picture this morning. Just a glimpse of the already concerning activities surrounding the academy. Thanks for your attention.

John Embry 619 1/2 North Sycamore Ave. 323-936-7161. . . ·- ·~

·__ ' '·:

;,.· . ,:;. '; .i- ·.;(.·

.-.··_, ,-,._:·. ··.-·· ··.• .

. . : . .. . ,·-:... !-".'' ·_;,·-· ... 1 ,·'>' '·' '·: , ·. ,-, ,, .. !···. ' .. ~./ . ' ' ',., .;:· . -: ~ .. : .. >' '·, •:. 'f ·.-!'

I·' _'::::;,,_:_,·;..

. -,.:: ,:

·.·.-.;.. .' _·,:.:·•·

000041

REX( LAW

January 7, 2010

VIAE-MAIL

Lynda Smith, Hearing Examiner Los Angeles Department of City Planning Los Angeles City Hall 200 N. Spring St. 1Oth Floor Los Angeles, CA E-Mail: [email protected]

Re: Case No.'s: CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND Property Address: 1002 W. Clinton Street Hearing Date: Friday, January 22, 2010 at 9:30a.m. Applicant: Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy Our Client: Crescent Management.

Dear Hearing Examiner Smith:

I represent Crescent Management, a partnership that owns a 12 unit apartment building at 543 N. Sycamore and a 10 unit apartment building.at 536 N. Sycamore. My client opposes the above referenced applications (for multiple-CUPs and Modifications) by applicant Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy ("the Academy'') because the proposed CUP's and Modi;fications would intolerably burden my client, my client's tenants and residents of the entire area.

My client's 543 N. Sycamore property is directly adjacent to the applicant's proposed new Nursezy School & Kindergarten facility and my client's 536 N. Sycamore property is across the street from the proposed new facility at 7002 W. Clinton Street. Neither of my client's properties have on-site parking. There is a severe shortage of on-street parking in this geographic area and the Academy's activities have been the prirnazy cause of this shortage.

The Academy has constructed building after building in this small area pursuant to a never ending series of applications to the City. However, after obtaining City regulatory approvals the Academy has not complied with City imposed use limitations.

Specifically, the Academy consistently fails to provide adequate parking for each new project it builds and it consistently disregards applicable zoning laws and land use controls obligating it to provide parking spaces for its new facilities. In fact, the Academy has, in one case, closed off and gated a large area designated for parking by the City and uses the gated parking area exclusively for students to play basketball - and not for parking.

This has been an ongoing problem as reflected by my demand letter to the Academy of

70 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000, Pasadena, California 9ll01 USA Tel: 6>6.798.7869; Fax: 6>6.463-7357; [email protected]; www.rexlawllp.com 000044 Letter to Hearing Examiner Smith January 7, 2010 Page2

June 10, 2007 (copy enclosed). In that letter, sent to the Academy on behalf of several owners of buildings on the 500 block ofN. Sycamore, demand was made that the Academy comply with applicable zoning ordinances and land use controls by providing adequate parking for its patrons. The Academy disregarded this letter- refusing to comply with zoning laws and land use controls by providing adequate parking.

The construction proposed by the Academy would allow a private nursery school and a private kindergarten that would accommodate 180 children, plus faculty, administrators and support staff in this restricted density multiple-family zone. The Academy fails to. propose any meaningful amount of on-site parking for this property despite proposing an extreme use intensification. Further, the Academy seeks relief from: (1) minimum side yard requirements; (2) fence height limitations; and (3) building height limitations. This will further. burden the entire . neighborhood and negatively impact my client's tenants.

The Academy's never ending construction has reduced rent levels in my client's buildings on North Sycamore and as a result it has reduced the value of my client's properties. The proposed nursery school and kindergarten will further reduce rents for my client's properties and will therefore further reduce the value of my client's properties.

Crescent Management opposes the proposed CUPs and Modifications because, if granted, the corresponding use intensification will worsen the ext:J:eme shortage of on-street parking in the neighborhood, reduce the value of my client's properties and create hardship for all.the residents of this neighborhood (including, but not limited to, my client's tenants). Further, there is no reason for granting the Academy relief from codified standards limiting building and fence heights and side yard width.

For these reasons, on my client's behalf! urge you to deny the Academy's applications.

Very truly yours,

REXLAWLLP

Enc:

70 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000, Pasadena, California 91101 USA Te~ 626.798.7869; Fax: 626.463.7357; [email protected]; www.rexlawllp.com 000045 From: alain To: Lynda Smith Date: 1/20/2010 5:01 PM Subject: could you file this with case CPC 2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

Dear Officer Smith,

Kindly make sure this gets filed before Friday.

This is a scene produced all day... daily

Car brakes as father .and child· cross· .. jaywalking is the norm as Clinton Street shown, is used as a school corridor. Proposed 3 story expansion is to be in background.

Note the proximity of the pink residential building to the proposed THREE STORY expansion.

The car behindthef1llher is parked in the red. Not in picture are cars parked in front of hydrants.

Running across the street is an all day problem: The safety of the little children is always in jeopardy. The pedestrian crossing is a few feet away.

000046 From: Debra Donnelson To: , ,

To All Concerned -

As a Resident of one of the Condo's @ the Sycamore Villas located at 525 N Sycamore Ave. I am advising that I am opposed to the building of a new Academy at 7002 W.Ciinton Street. As it stands now 1 have been a homeowner here for 7 years and have noticed the traffic congestion escalating with the building of the additional facility across the street. The illegal use of parking and blocking the condo entrances on Sycamore Ave in the mornings and afternoons by parents dropping their kids off continues to worsen and with the new building I foresee only additional congestion and traffic becoming "dangerously" even more congested. I have been hit almost several times with parents zooming out of illegal parking areas so as not to be ticketed. This area as it stands now does not have a good. traffic flow and cannot accommodate the current cars coming through let alone additional cars as this area is predominately zoned as a "RESIDENTIAL" neighborhood. Unless they can eliminate traffic on Sycamore and Clinton and redirect it to LaBrea Ave I am adamantly opposed to this building. I also believe it will affect the value of my condo as this will be a deficit! negative mark to future home buyers if they see there are "major" traffic/ congestion issues on a daily basis here.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Debra Donnelson

Home Owner- 525 N Sycamore Ave .

Hotmaii:.Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http:l/clk.atdmt.com/GBUgo/19639071 0/direct/01/

000047 From: "Katherine Manolopoulos" To: , ,

Re: CASE CPC-2008-5028-cu/ENV 2008-5029-MND

I am a concerned homeowner regarding the expansion of 7002 W. Clinton Street, and unfortunately I will not be able to make the meeting at City Hall this Friday to express these concerns. When they were initially planning on building the school I attended meetings with the school .·,,- : . . administration and the neighbors. At that time the neighbors were assured .. ; ' .>-··' ...... Jh.aJ the .school would havE) minimal impact, if any, on the neighborhood. W€1. ~ ' ! . . ';' · .· • were told that they would have people directing traffic, only through the . . a:iiey, and that no chiidren would be dropped off on the streets. We were . . .. also \old that parking would riot be a problem as they would provide parkinif .

.·· fof.lheirteachers. Tliesewere empty promises:Pi21rents ·drop tnei(children ..•.·.·· '· ,:, ·· .· off in.lhe street with n:o regard to other cats; let alone. the safety bf their children. I am still always shocked when ·1 see it: I don't know what ·parking they have for teijl~~ers, but I see many c;:>f them parking on the . · -· street; Lam certain that expansion of the schooF 11,/0Uid· ni'ake th€1' current ' . . •:"·.• ..

·.... :. : .... ,situation worse, not betteir.~They did-not tJold'true to-their promises the ·.:.• -:.c· •. ;Gn ·:,t, · .· - . first time-so I have no reason-to th.ink that it will \)e.ariy diffenm~ no,V. Plimse take this into· consideration~ Thank:you: :. __ ..• ·. : .: . . . . • : ,. ·r.·· ',,. -·. ,•

...... ' · sf'!cerely, . ' ... . .

Katherine Manolopoulos

530-B No. Sycamore Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90036

213-703-5111

000048 From: Rebecca Rich To: Date: 1/20/2010 2:36PM Subject: case #CPC-2008-5028-CU/ ENV-2008-5029-MND

Dear Lynda, I am writing to protest the construction of 8,300 square feet of private school building on 7002 W. Clinton. There is already a problematic amount of traffic and cars from the completion of the last addition to these schools. Clinton is a small street and EVERY DAY there is a long back log of traffic that extends out into the La Brea intersection. It is dangerous and scary. There is no management to the pick/up and drop-off and the cars double park and then end up stuck in the intersection where oncoming traffic gets jammed and causes grid lock...... In addition, parenis use the alley between Clinton and LaBrea as a pick/up and drop/off point. This then clogs the alley as the·diniers· double park and wait for the students. !live next door to the school and our parking is in the alley. We can never get into the !llley or exit the alley because there are always cars blocking it, using the alley a.s pickup/drop off. . In addition, (he boys from the boys.school run across ihe· alley at Will and every day there is almost an accident as these" studenis run across the alley and cars cant see them. · Sycamore and Clinton are very busy streets already. Both are narrow streets

and two cars can barely fit going by each other. '.'·: There will be more aecidents and more traffic if this addition is built. -:. . ,. . ~:: ··. J: ..· i t ···: '. There is also no policing of the double-p

understand. If there were cons~uences to double par!

000049 LORIKARNY 536% North Sycamore Avenue, Los Angeles California 90036 [email protected].

january 19, 2010

To: [email protected]

Re: Case Number: CPC2008-5028-CU Expansion of elementary school at 7002 W. Clinton at the comer of Sycamore Ave.

I am a 12-year resident on the same block of Sycamore as the elementary school. I am strongly opposed to the ex:pansion of this school.

Currently this is still a relatively quiet residential area. Any further commercial expansion would destroy the character of this area and drastically increase the traffic density and noise, '

The expansion of the high school several years ago directly across the street from the proposed school expansion has already used one full block of public parking- the street is chronically blocked and not useable to residents - and all the neighborhood good will. Promises were made and broken during that time.

• The neighborhood has already been negatively impacted by the previous incursion and . expansion of these institutional facilities. • Traffic density is currently at an unacceptable level daily with blockages and gridlock • Parking consideration forthe previous expansion were not adhered to or honored • The noise impact from traffic as well as the activity of the students during the weekday and especially during the weekend (Sunday) erodes the quality of life in a palpable way.

The density of 180 students and their parents and school staff and security guards will further disturb the quiet residential quality of this area.

There is already additional noise from the newly expanded high school and on going parking problems on Clinton and Sycamore due to the parents lined up or parking in restricted areas to drop and pick up children. Unfortunately, residents' concerns are routinely disregarded. I must frequently park two or three blocks away from my home.

For over 12 years I have spoken with the staff of the nursery school to improve their interaction with neighbors. Regrettably, there is little regard for residents who live in the area.

I am highly opposed to the expansion of a school, which is a business, in this residential area. I do not believe that this area can tolerate this type of institutional expansion.

I strongly urge the planning commission and the city council to proceed with any and all legal, environmental, traffic and neighborhood planning studies to properly evaluate any further commercial development in this area.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Lori Kamy

000050 From: Lori Kamy To: CC: , ,

Attached please find a letter regarding Case Number: CPC2008-5028-CU Expansion of elementary school at 7002 W. Clinton at the corner of Sycamore Ave.

Thank you, Lori Karny

000051 Mr Ronay, Thank you for your comments and concerns. This information has been noted and will be forwarded to the administrative file and to the City Planning Commission. Thank you again,

»> alain 12/17/2009 3:25PM»> > Dear Officer Smith,

Since my neighbor has stated the situation so well, I will join in on his statements. I would like to add that the ACADEMY hours for operations are NEVER correctly stated or enforced. For years I've had to endure school bells ringing all the time every SUNDAY when they hold school or events. Their operations can last late into the evening as wen. The ACADEMY is a catch-all euphemism for a multi purpose organization not solely limited to classes. The special requirements of the Academy should only be met when they don't interf('lre with the good and the needs of the rest of the city.

For example, the city needed to do work on Clinton recently and posted no parking signs for the whole day and week. The restriction was ignored as the ACADEMY parked it's cars as it deemed it should and could-- all week. They were aided by the parking enforcement officers who explained to me that they were not to give tickets to the ACADEMY violators. (You and i were not exempt, however.) Such favoritism sets such bad precedence and the city is watching. . ·.u ·.:.--·· ,.

If the city does impact reports, then the petition will be rejected out of hand. The negative impact on the flow of La Brea traffic (one of the main North/South arteries can be ascertained during the morning and afternoon rush hours when the mothers' cars block the streets (check out Clinton, too). The impact of the traffic mayhem caused by the ACADEMY can be felt for almost a mile. Come and check one afternoon. Their school crossing guard has sometimes kept me from turning for as many as three consecutive green lights. Any child crossing La Brea can bring traffic flow to a stop at the push of a button.

The sound of horns and angry drivers and clogged traffic is the legacy of the last time the city granted yet another of the ACADEMY building permits. My neighbor, John Embry, is kind ... the construction took way over a year and the hardships we suffered are untold and were unconscionable.

The ACADEMY can , as it has in the past, mobilize a dramatic number of baby carrying mothers to show up at meetings asking for abeyance of laws, and permits etc. They have claimed an entire neighborhood that way and a casual survey will confirm that. I beg you to remember the rest of us citizens. Most of us are working people whose numbers cannot make a dramatic showing downtown. We are good voters and would like our needs and voices to be heard for a change.

Please help us.

Would you tell me if this e-mail complaint had the impact of a personal call and/or a personal appearance. Please let me know. We

000052 must not be hoodwinked again.

Also, the ACADEMY keeps requesting that additional street school signs be added for its charges' safety. (Check the number of signs in the neighborhood). Please come bear witness with me that, the safety of the little children is completely ignored by the school which treats Clinton as a school corridor and it's rightful adjunct. The children and teachers run across Clinton traffic· ALL DAY. The safety.of the children is always unchecked and compromised. Some of the teachers are particularly reckless and cross the street at Sycamore on the diagonal !!!!! Come and witness it, and judge whether you should encourage growth.

Thank you,

Alan Ronay

323-934-5504

>Subject Case# CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND > > Hearing Officer Smith - > > I am sending this email in an attempt to put a stop to the > expansion of the Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy. Unfortunately, > although I do believe in quality education for our city's youth, I > believe this expansion would have a severe and negative impact on > our neighborhood. I have lived on the 600 block of North Sycamore >for 12 years, and in that time, my greatest complaints have come >from this academy. Daily drop offs and pick. ups of children cause > dangerous traffic jams. Dozens of vehicles violate parking and > traffic laws on a daily basis. A similar construction project in > recent years caused noise, pollution, and parking issues for well >over a year. Greater numbers of students, parents, and staff have > overloaded pedestrian traffic during school hours. I have > experienced altitudes and practices by academy staff that showed no > interest in neighborhood or community, only self interest. Traffic > signs and patterns have been directly manipulated by the academy to >accommodate their needs. Alley ways and painted red curbs are now > used as waiting or stand by zones. This area has become extremely > congested and I believe any more expansion of any kind will >continue to negatively impact our community, and create a hazardous >situation in our neighborhood. I certainly believe the academy > should continue to operate, but I would hope that in the future >they will consider how their actions effect those around them. > Please feel free to contact me. > > Sincerely, >John Embry > 619 1/2 North Sycamore Ave. > 323-936-7161

000053 http://www.eset.com

000054 Attn: Lynda Smith Hearing Officer Los Angeles Department of City Planning City Hall, Room 667 200 N Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012

January 19 2010 RE: CASE NO.'s CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

Testimony in objection to the granting of multiple Conditional Uses, Municipal Code Modifications and adoption of MND for CASE NO.'s CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND Pursuant to the public right to present testimony at hearings concerning the granting of Conditional Use and requests for Municipal Code Changes for property in Los Angeles the below signed resident/homeowner/business in the La Brea I Clinton neighborhood hereby objects strenuously to the issuance of Conditional Use's, Municipal Code Modifications and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND] requested in hearing notice [undated] for cases CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008- 5029-MND. l3 such objections to the requests are herewith presented for the record. Objector and signee does not state all objections herein and reserves the right to add further objections in the future as may be required.

OBJECTIONS 1.1 through 1.4: General Welfare Standard and Modifications to Municipal Code Height and Area Requirements of the RD1.5-1XL zone : The establishment, maintenance or conducting of the use for which a use permit is sought will, under this particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.

1.1 Objection to Conditional Use[s] and Municipal Code Modifications due to alteration of character and integrity and viewshed. The use and Municipal Code Modifications sought will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood by introducing a very large building for private & commercial use on a block consisting of principally residential dwellings on BOTH sides of the Street. In radically changing the character and integrity ofthe block such development would be injurious to not only property value in the neighborhood but would physically restrict sunlight und the visual outlook of nearby properties. See Appendix A in support.

!2 Objection to Conditional Use[s] and Municipal Code Modifications due to viewshed. Due to the geographic contour in the area a building 3 stories tall will also impair the view and outlook of properties as far away as Detroit St [West side of street]. Blocking morning sun, impairing vision and view and a detrimental impact on nearby property values are all determined to be injurious in nature. See Appendix B in support.

1.3 Objection to Municipal Code Modification due to a] safety, b) aesthetics and c) planning consistency. A 6 foot high fence on Sycamore frontage - a residential street, will significantly reduce corner visibility on an already busy corner, ploce the public welfare in tlanger and negatively impact the viewshed of neighbors on BOTH sides ofthe street. See Appendices B and C in support.

1.4 Objection to Conditional Use[s] and Municipal Code Modifications due to public welfare and safety. Traffic congestion in the area along with a total lack of pick-up and set-down space for parents delivering and retrieving students already COMPLETELY BLOCKS the alleys on BOTH sides of La Brea [behind school facilities at 555 and 5

oooilss OBJECTIONS 2.1 through 2.2.2: Nuisance Standard and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND]:

Objector believes the proposed use is found to be objectionable and incompatible with the character of the city and its environs due to increased noise and other undesirable characteristics such as traffic congestion, damage to property and trash. Without the benefit of a full Environmental Impact Study to more fully understand the possibility of further traffic congestion a MND should not be adopted.

The use sought will introduce a significant nuisance to the surrounding neighborhoods in a variety of ways:

2.1 Objection to Adopt MND and to Conditional Use for private Kindergarten and Private Nursery in RD Zone:

2 J .1 Objection to AtU>pt MND, and to requests for Conditional Use because of traffic congestion. Already vastly congested with traffic from existing zoning exceptions in the area, the addition of the proposed use will vastly increase traffic, noise and congestion. Currently under an increased watch by city parking the pick-up and set-down of students from school facilities east of La Brea already occurs as far away as Detroit St. Supporting images detailing parents parked on red-zones, double­ parked and blocking Clinton street between La Brea and the Alley east of La Brea are appended to this document as exhibit A. Further traffic would clearly be.a nuisance incompatible with the rights and reasonable needs of the public and traffic should be studied as part of an Environmental Impact Report. See Appendices E )Jl, D2 and H in support.

2J.2 Objection to Adopt MND, and to requests for Conditional Use because of impaired accessibility by Fire and Safety services, residents, and property owners. Accessibility for entry and egress to the Alleys on the east and west sides of La Brea is already significantly impaired by the use of existing school facilities in allowing parents to pick-up and set-down students in a manner that violates permitted use. Residents on Sycamore and Detroit who require the alley for access to their property are significantly impacted by present conditions,.further traffic woald clearly be a nuisance incompatible with the rights and reasonable needs and safety of the public and traffic shoald be studied as part ofan Environmental Impact Report. See Appendices Dl, D2 and H in support.

2.2 Objection to Adopt MND and to Conditional Use for private Kindergarten and Private Nursery in RD Zone Because of Damage to Property. Damage to property arises as a result of both traffic congestion and the large numbers of students in the neighborhood waiting to be 'picked-up' by parents.

2.2.1 Objection due to Damage from Traffic Congestion. Vehicles parked in the area are already subject to increased damage from the additional traffic generated by school facilities at 555 and 540 N La Brea. In fact 6 residents are prepared to testify or provide affidavits as to their vehicles having been hit by parents collecting or setting-down children. Already clearly a nuisance and most probably a breach of existing conditional use granted in the area, .further traffic wiU serve to do nothing but exacerbate the current situation and create an untenable nuisance.

2.2.2 Objection due to Damage From Students. Already almost 1000 students flood the streets of the neighborhood waiting to be collected by parents at the end of each school day. With the understanding that 'kids will be kids' it is a common occurrence that during this wait, front lawns are occupied, balls kicked and thrown, and sadly, ongoing damage to property is occurring. From broken plants and mirrors on cars to massive amounts of trash ranging from orange peels to plastic bags and food wrappers the damage and clean-up is an on-going nuisance to local property owners and occupiers- and to the general public who have to negotiate students in very large numbers. Not just a nuisance, there is a significant safety factor to be contemplated. See Appendix Fin support.

Continued on Page 3

2 000056 Continued on Page 3

OBJECTION 3. General Plan Consistency Standard:

Proposed use would be inconsistent with current uses jn a:rea, namely residentiaL S411!P- t::.;¥-.....J~...: &, ,,_.. s..,....,I"'~...-.L. OBJECTIONS 4.1 through 4.4 Zoning Consistency Standard:

The California Governors Office of Planning and Research clearly states:

"To obtain a use permit, the applicant must generally show that the contemplated use is compatible with the policies in terms of the zoning ordinances, and that such use would be essential or deSirable to the public convenience or welfare, and will not impair the integrily and character of the zoned district or be detrimental to the public health, safely, rnorals or welfare" ( O'Hagen v. Board ofZoning Adjustment (1971) 19 Cai.App.3d 151).

4.1 The proposed nse IS NOT ESSENTIAL There are more than 25 primary and kindergarten schools in the immediate area

4.2 The pro~ Use IS NOT DESIRABLE 10 the public welfare The public welfare is not served by a private school

4.3 The proposed nse WILL IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY AND <;HARACTER of the area The area's character and integrily will be impaired by proposed strnctnre in a residential neighborhood.

4.4 TJll. proposed qie WILL BE DETRIMENTAL 10 the public welfare Additional ttaffic cOngestion, overflow of non-bused students on the streets and impairment of access to alleyways are'all detrimental to the public welfare. Uuless the proposed use can operate without impact at all in the neigboorbood it will be detrimental to public welfare.

000057 Sycamore: Existing Neighborhood charm, character and integrity. Front Yards, Trees, and manicured Landscaping - Residential Community ·

000058 Zoning

0 1 Jl~ RE,RS,R1,RU,RZ,RW

0

~ !:: 0 a! I:{X:?C';£1;1?11 - Blocked Alley ~ ,,. , '" - Blocked Street 1\x~""'s,;.~_,,JI - Parked on Red or illegally parked • Double parking and parking in driveways& teacher and staff parking ~""~

LA Ctty Planning Background Display: Generalized Zoning 8 8 Address: 7002 W CLINTON ST Tract: TR 6143 Zoning: R01.5·1XL ~ APN: 5525020011 Block: None General Plan: Low Medium II Residential PIN#: 1418181 907 Lot: 161 Arb: None Existing structure at 7002 W Clinton - backs onto East La Brea Alley.

NOTE 1: Both present and proposed fences will create a visual disconnect with the existing neighborhood character and integrity and are not approved in current zoning NOTE 2: is there presently a conditional use for this property? if so, what are the details?

g0 0 ~

000062

·I DAMAGE FROM STUDENTS: One Days Damage: [1] Disturbed topsoil, [2] Dislodged plants, [3] broken plants, [4] trash [est cost $100.00j -~

0 0 . -~ ~ .. ,< ..

· .. Ill

~~[ill~·

HCAN3HOO I •ij' • ~~------~' Zoning

0 llt_.__.j RE, RS, R1, RU, RZ, RW1

0

1-g ~ - Blocked Alley -Blocked Street - Parked on Red or illegally parked Double parking and parking in • driveways & teacher and staff parking

LA Ctty Planning Background Display: Generalized Zoning

0 8 Address: 7002 W CLINTON ST . Tract: TR 6143 Zoning: RD1.5·1XL 0 8l APN: 5525020011 Block: None General Plan: Low Medium II Residential PIN#: 1418181 907 Lot: 161 Arb: None If/15i20'fD[LyndaS§ilfi;coiii:erning cas~ CPC-2008-5028-CU =

From: Peter Rubi To: CC: , ,

Dear Mrs. Smith,

As I mentioned on your voicemail, I could not make the public hearing today.

Attached please find the photos in reference to concerns relating to the proposed 8,300 square foot school to be built near the South-east corner of LaBrea and Clinton Streets. The concern involves the overall impact of a new school which would more than double the square footage of the existing school, specifically the traffic caused by 'drop offs' and 'pick ups' of children.

The attached photos reference the existing girl's school across the street from the proposed building, at the South-west corner of LaBrea and Clinton, which already causes traffic issues on a daily basis. Adding more traffic to this area will put an inordinate strain on the daily lives and property for residents. in the area.

(photos taken at about 4pm on Thursday, January 21st, 2010)

Photo 1 Map reference · · · ·'· · · · ' "" · , ·.. " , .. Pointing to the 'alley' between Labrea and Detroit streets, which is the existing primary drop. off/loading . •:.-·1 area for the Girls school at the Southcwest corner of LaB rea and Clinton. Large cars clog this-alley, a· . , ' producing an excessive amount of traffic congestion and parking problems in the morning:{8.am) and. .. ,, .. afternoon (3-4pm) on the 500 North block of Detroit St. ..

Photo 2 Corner of Detroit/Clinton Some children do not get picked up at school, but instead walk a block or so to this corner, waiting on residents lawn for their parents

Photo 3 Girls school at South-west corner of LaBrea and Clinton This is very typical of the congestion caused by the alley pickups at the girls school

Photo 4 Girls school at South-west corner of LaBrea and Clinton, facing East Second view.

Photo 5 Proposed Site Traffic, facing East Here you can see how traffic is already stacked and congested at the intersection of Labrea and Clinton.

Photo 6 Loading/Drop Off on Side Streets Parents park in driveways, sometimes at stop signs, waiting for children. This 'stacking of cars' causes traffic jams, and sometimes, accidents.

In the last three years, my wife and I have experienced three 'hit an run' accidents to our vehicles (2 filed with our insurance company) that have occurred on Monday and Tuesday mornings on the 500 N. Block of Detroit St. These are street sweeping days, and limited parking makes the congestion during school drop-offs to become quite dangerous at times.

I can provide pictures showing the greater extent of the congestion during the morning hours, if necessary.

000067 1hope this information helps you and your planning office when considering the impact of this proposed project on the livability of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your time.

Peter Rubi New Media Director 540 North Detroit St Los Angeles, CA 90036 (310) 621-8751

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http:/lclk.atdmt.com/GBUgo/196390708/direct/0 1/

.. , r ., . . ' .. ;

000068 From: "jmmc" To: Date: 12/18/2009 1 :28 PM Subject: Case: CPC-2008-5028-CU I Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy Construction Project

Dear Ms. Smith:

I am a business owner (and apartment dweller) near the Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy. As I will not be able to attend this hearing I would like to voice my opinion against approving this new project.

Currently, the traffic problems this school creates in our neighborhood is beyond the pale. Apparently, each and every mother feels it necessary to drive their own mini-van to pick their children that live just a couple of blocks away. I am talking about over 75-85 mini-vans during drop-of and pick-up times every day. If they claim the number is less, I can assure you that they are not telling you the truth. In fact, it is probably more. They snarl traffic on LaBrea as well as all of the surrounding side streets during these peak drive times. They have attempted to come up with a system for picking up and dropping off, but even that does not work.

This school just went through a construction project that recently finished. The noise, traffic congestion, and dirt created from that project was enough for a lifetime.

I am extremely concerned what the excavation process will do to traffic as well as the impact physically on the surrounding residential streets. Our streets in this part of town are the worst already. Having 6-ton trucks in constant motion in the area is bound to make our streets crumble faster and worse.

If they plan on ·;mrolling more students, that is only going to make traffic issues worse, Traffic that is' already at its breaking point.

Please do no! approve tHis project.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the number below or this email.

Sincerely, Joseph Marich Jr. President

Marich Communications 7024 Melrose Avenue Suite 310 Los Angeles, CA 90038 www.marichcom.net 323-939-6700

****************************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for your compliance.

====;- Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4699 (20091218) ____

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

000069 Page'

From: Deborah Howell To: Date: 1/19/201011:14 PM Subject: Regarding Case No.'s CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

To Whom It May Concern:

I arn writing as a property owner of 507 N. Sycamore Ave. to voice my concerns about the proposed Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy.

The area of Sycamore Avenue and Clinton Street is already severely congested with the existing schools. The idea of demolishing the current 3,700 s.f. building to erect a 8,300 s.f. building in its place seems to guarantee adding additional stress to an already bottle-necked, pot-holed alley and . - -· · - ,,;''- street. I have to use the alley between La Brea and Sycamore to access my . ·• • , .. , . : , garage and it is often extremely difficult to navigate through that'area -.. , .,_ ., . with parents double parked and lined up in the alleyway waiting for their ·, . ,; .• ·· children.

I want to voice my serious concerns and objections to this new, proposed . _.,, .' · school. I have lived on this street for 23 years and would like to protect and maintain its low profile character. There is a reason it is zoned for 2 story buildings and I don't see the point of having zoning regulations if ,, .. they ciom be discarded at will. Building such a large building and adding yet . ·· more children and cars feels disrespectful to the character of my .. , , ·· . ·.·•.•:" ., • : . neighborhood. .. ;. .-.f-:·c, 1.• uJ

Thank you for this opportunity to state my concerns, .•. •• ,,., . ;.-,, · Deborah Howell · ·.:.·::r:.J:'. ;-•v.. · 323) 935-7543 . - ,, ·. '

000070 From: JUDIE GOLD To: CC: Date: 1/19/2010 7:02 PM Subject: Proposed new school building

I am going on record opposing the building of a 3-story new preschool/kindergarten on the corner of Clinton and Sycamore. Heaven knows the congestion as it is now is bad enough without more traffic and restriction of access to the alleyway for the residents who live on Sycamore now. There are times when 1 cannot even get my car out of the alley, where parents and teachers sometimes stop to talk to each other, impinging on the rights of residents. I have no objection to either the children or the school, other than it greatly hinders easy access to parking areas of residents in what is supposed to be a residential neighborhood.

Dr. Judie Gold 525 N. Sycamore Ave., #203 Los Angeles, CA 90036 [email protected] . ' ·.: .~ ·: .

000071 From: sally mcdermott To: Date: 1/19/2010 3:08PM Subject: proposed expansion of elementary school/7002 Clinton ave

I am a resident of 617 n sycamore Ave,

I am deeply concerned with the proposed "Expansion" for the 7002 w Clinton Elementary school. .. many are my concerns .•. somehow no one seems to care that is a residential neighborhood ...

The traffic on the corner of Sycamore and Clinton as well the traffic on Clinton and La brea is so badly congested at school hours that is actually seems unsafe to drive that route even though is it the normal route for me to assume to and from my home ...

The traffic from the existing school across the road is badly monitored and frankly there are too many cars for the size of the street for the parents to drop off and pick up their children in a safe manor... more traffic encroaching into our neighborhood streets ... .is this why we pay rates and taxes ???

The schools are open on Sundays .. so the traffic never stops ... also the noise .. _, --- level, school bells ringing at 15 minute intervals are loud enough to be heard for miles ... also air conditioning ducts spew out loudly constantly sometimes even in the evening ... are these not environmental concerns ... ???.

The trauma involved in the actual construction of the school which would be at least 2 years worth, is an unfair unsound proposition, never mind what would follow with an addition 180 children attending the said school.

I protest.

Thanking you,

Sally Mcdermott

000072 From: "Charnelle Smith" To: Date: 1/20/2010 9:12AM Subject: Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy

Lynda:

I live on Sycamore, where they are planning to re-build the elementary school.

The streets are congested enough. The school occupies 3 of the 4 corners at Clinton and Sycamore.

Enough, and by the way, they always water every evening, I reported the school to the DWP, it was out of ";. control.

Please consider the neighbors

Charnelle Smith I Aim Artists Agency ,, .....

509 N. Sycamore Los Angeles, Ca. 90036

323 931 2745-323 931 2747 (f)

www.aimartist.com

000073 From: To: CC: Alain Ronay Date: 12/17/20091:43 PM Subject: Case# CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

Hearing Officer Smith -

I am sending this email in an attempt to put a stop to the expansion of the Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy. Unfortunately, although I do believe in quality education for our city's youth, I believe this expansion would have a severe and negative impact on our neighborhood. I have lived on the 600 block of North Sycamore for 12 years, and in that time, my greatest complaints have come from this academy. Daily drop offs and pick ups of children cause dangerous traffic jams. Dozens of vehicles violate parking and traffic laws on a daily basis. A similar construction project in recent years caused 1:1oise, .pollution, and · parking issues for well over a year. Greater numbers of students, parents, and staffhave.overloaded pedestrian traffic during school hours. I have experienced attitudes and practices by·academy staff that showed no interest in neighborhood or community, only self interest. Traffic signs ·and patterns have been .. directly manipulated by the academy to accommodate their needs. Alley ways and painted red curbs are now used as waiting or stand by zones. This area has become extremely congested and I believe any more expansion of any kind will continue to negatively impact our community, and create a hazardous situation in our neighborhood. I certainly believe the academy should continue to operate, but I would hope that in the future they will consider how their actions effect those around them. Please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, John Embry 619 1/2 North Sycamore Ave. 323-936-7161

000074 From: JOHN DALEY To: Date: 1/21/2010 10:18 AM Subject: Fwd: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AT 7002 CLINTON STREET

Begin forwarded message:

> From: JOHN DALEY >Date: January 21,2010 10:16:26 AM PST >To: msatkins1 @earthlink.net > Subject: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AT 7002 CLINTON STREET > > Madam and Sirs: > > I am a board member of the Sycamore-Rosewood HOA, a condominium > located at 450 N. Sycamore Avenue. We are one block from the > proposed sight for the construction of a 3-story school to house > Yeshivath Torah Emeth Academy. At the present time, a much smaller > school exists at the corner of Sycamore and Clinton. During the >start and end of each school day when children are being dropped-off > and/or picked-up, cars are lined-up and clogging the alley and > narrow streets there. > >We are disturbed by the fact that this project seems to be on the >fast-track and will probably be green-lighted after a perfunctory > approval process. The building of a 3-story school at that .. ;, . > particular sight will erode the residential character of the >surrounding neighborhood, especially if the set-backs are > insufficient as they apparently are in the proposal. Furthermore, > the increased enrollment envisioned for the school will cause even > more congestion on nearby local streets, and parking, which is >already difficult in this area, will be badly impacted. > > These objections have not been addressed and should be. > >John Daley

000075 From: To: , , Date: 1/21/2010 12:34 PM Subject: Case no's CPC-2008-5028~CU and ENV-2008-5029.MND

Case no's CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029.MND

I am writing to you on behalf of the 14 people who live in my building at 536-540 Sycamore Ave. We are very concerned with the proposed new demolishing/building of Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy, Rabbi Berish Goldenberg at 7002 W. Clinton Street.

Our biggest concern is with the parking and congestion of our residential streets and neighborhood. As it is now, the employees and parents of the school take up all of our residential parking, exceed the 2 hour parking restrictions on Sycamore Ave and completely congest our street, block driveways, etc when dropping off and picking up the students. I can't even imagine how I will get home or where I will park if this building is made larger.

Furthermore, there was a "similar" rebuild to the school across the street from this location which was , . completed about a year ago. It took them close to 2 years to complete the rebuild, blocking all neighborhood parking on Clinton AND Sycamore from 6a-6p during the entire construction time. There was literally nowhere for the residents to park for 2 years, and I would sometimes have to park blocks away and walk home alone, in the dark in which I felt completely unsafe and uncomfortable due to the construction parking limitations. Not to mention the fact the residents on Sycamore already have a difficult . time due to the street sweeping on Monday's and Tuesday's but add the construction and· there was literally nowhere to park for blocks. Only about 2-3 buildings on the 500 & 600 blocks of Sycamore come with residential parking, the other 20 or so building's residents have street parking only.

Finally, our other concern is that the proposed underground parking will be used as a "playground" for the students and not for actual parking. The reason I bring this up is because I rent a garage in the building across the street from me (539 Sycamore Ave) and see firsthand how the school on the corner of Clinton and Labrea use their parking as a full time playground for their kids, which in turn means their employees are parking in my Residential neighborhood and the Parents are blocking our streets and the enterance of the alleyway that leads me to be able to access my home and my garage.

I love my neighborhood and everyone in my building has lived here for over 6 years, some over 10 years and the growing concern of the parking situation because of these schools has been the only hiccup for us. I hope you will put some additional thought and investigation into this situation before giving a green light to the construction.

Thanks you.

Tami Brandel Resident of 538 Sycamore Ave [email protected] 714-401-2503

000076 From: "Jasmin K. Morad" To: , , Date: 1/21/2010 5:57PM Subject: Case No.'s CPC 2008-5028-CU and Env-2008-5029-CU: Comments and Objections

My name is Jasmin Morad, and I am the recent homeowner of 534 Sycamore, Unit. C. I purchased the unit in November 2009. I am writing you with respect to Case No.'s CPC 2008-5028-CU and Env-2008-5029-CU. I want to start by saying that I did not receive the proper written notice of the action being taken as required under the law. It is my understanding that I am not alone. This issue only came to my attention yesterday.

As an attorney, I spend all day trying to discern naysayers from individuals who have valid claims and objections. Thus, I am not a complainer at all for that reason and I personally only voice concern, when concern is justified based on facts, logic and fairness and in the most even handed manner. I currently sit on the Public Affairs Committee for the Junior League of Los Angeles and so, I, better than most, understand the balancing the needs of children, whom I advocate on . behalf of, and the objections of others who may have cross-interests.

The project that is being proposed of the expansion of Yeshivath T orath Emelh Academy causes me great concern as a first time property home owner and I have objections to it; in part, because no information has been provided to alleviate concerns and in part, because I have :'- (.-: .._,_, ...!.::·._\ ,-, '· _.,_ .•. skepticism towards what "mitigation" efforts will be done when so little • ' I·. ' '':.' " t f :';'. . ·: .· .~~ } ._~ ... ~ ·- ' ·- ' has been done by way of environmental assessment/impact on the numerous properties in the surrounding area.

In an area, already congested and without parking and a historic character, the expansion of what is now a manageable school to what seems unmanageable, three times the size in students and property, with a mere fourteen subterranean parking spots during the day for a staff and student size that will almost triple, is cause for concern. There appears to have been no detailed environmental impact studies on traffic and how parking will be affected when the neighborhood has virtually no street parking as it is and there have been no environmental impact studies on the increase in noise. In addition, how will large multi-tiered enormous concrete structure change the character composition of a street I purchased on due to its historic quality?

Although no one will want to address this issue directly, but the potential decrease in property value is cause for concern when we know that statistically this can occur in this situation. As homeowners, many of us, who are petitioning want to know how our properties will be impacted so we know where we stand. We deserve to know what it is we can expect in an already depressed real estate market and whether this

000077 (1?25/2b1Q}_LyndaSmith.: Case No.'s Cf"C 2008-~028-CU and Env-2008_-5029-CU; C~!:!)_Q:.l_<;!:ltS and <2.\?)_!;,ctionJ_m ·· -·-·-:e~f

can truly be "mitigated."

I understand the academy is pre-existent, but I moved into this neighborhood for the peace, quiet, and preservation of the unique character of my condo {which is street facing). So far that has been undisturbed, but what the academy is proposing appears to serves its interests at the cost of the interest of the community.

There is at least one other private and two other public elementary schools in the immediate surrounding area, so the need to build a larger and bigger school surely cannot be outweighed by the two years of construction noise that residents in the area have to withstand, and the wave of people congesting traffic,- parking and the substantial increase in noise due to the number of small children, all of whom should be able to play and express themselves freely. But, they should do that in a location that does not adversely impact the environment of hundreds of other individuals who cannot leave their homes.

' t"

I will be taking on this issue on. I know that I am not alone and I will use whatever resources are available to me under the law and as a . member of the community and trlis c;ity to protect my interests ,as a • ,property owner and the interests pf those aligned wit!l_ my opinion. I ... , ·' ·:. -. ,hope_ that my comments aretake!];with seriousness and thought that they ... I .. •. J ··r! . . .• w~n~ mad~-- . . ' ' .:.,

Thank you for your time.

Yours Truly,

Jasmin K. Morad, Esq.

KLINEDINST PC

777 Tower

777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4700

Los Angeles, California 90017

{213)607-2115, ext 3213

Fax: {213) 607-2116

000078 From: Jillian Greene To: , ,

I am writing to express grave concern over the proposed plans to build an 8300 square foot facility in place of an existing 3700 square foot school facility at 5002 W. Clinton Street. This school and the recently opened one directly across the street already cause so much congestion, noise and traffic that it is impossible to enjoy peace and quiet in any respect. Any increase of people would only exacerbate an already bad situation. Last week I witnessed a student on a bike nearly run over, the bike was severely damaged. It could have been much worse. Clinton street between La Brea and Sycamore is permanently buckled, and has been deteriorating since I moved here in 1998. I am also very concerned that environmental studies have NOT been done, and I suspect that this is what happened with the property directly across the street from this project and mentioned above. I respectfully request that ALL environmental studies be done to assess properly the impact this project will have upon me and my neighbors. When the city actually does an environmental study, this project will never be approved. Jillian Greene 528 N. Sycamore Avenue #A Los Angeles CA 90036

000079 From: Jose Zavala To: Date: 1/21/2010 8:19PM Subject: Case# CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-200-5029-MND

Case# CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-200-5029-MND

Dear Ms. Lynda Smith:

I am a condominium owner at 525 N. Sycamore Ave, #226, LA, CA. 90036, and am writing to express my concerns about the proposed project by Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy, Rabbi Berish Goldneberg. I will not be able to attend the public hearing on Friday, January 22, due to previous commitments, but I would like my letter to be submitted and filed for review.

525 N. Sycamore is located about three buildings south of the proposed site. I am concerned that if the building is expanded, it will cause more chaos than already exists with the current.size and population of students who attend the school. I do not know how many students· currently attend the smaller facility, but it's reasonable

to infer that with a bigger building, it will acco.mmodate even more students. \:. · ···· ··The ·concern.is with the-traffic-in·the·areaA!:urtently;··in the morning before .-school begins and inthe·ever.lirig,when schooUs.let out, there are so many. ears around the two-lane streetwith•people:picking up kids that it creates so · much grid-lock on the two-_lane streets•otCiintori and·Sycamore. Further, people . ",, :·. are. permitted to park on the street$ so. it· becomes mess when the traffic cannot flow due to cars parked on the side:of the street,•parents letting their children out and picking them up. I think it's. safe to assume that with a larger school, there will be even more traffic because the population of students will be increased.

Further, I understand that some time ago, the school across the street was built to accommodate more students. So, there is currently a newer, larger three story building and the older current building that is proposed to be torn down and replaced with a new larger building. The area where the school is located is not a business or commercial area. It's purely a residential area with. homes or small apartments all around. It's beyond me, how there can be two schools (the smaller school building that is being proposed to be torn down and replaced with a larger building, and the newer, larger facility across the street.

I ask the planning committee, council members, etc. to please look into this more carefully and understand the impact it will create to our residential area.

Sincerely,

Jose Zavala

000080 525 N. Sycamore Ave., #226

LA, CA90036

(31 0) 529-9468

.. ~ ...... ···.··.:·.;\ .• ...... '''''

000081 From: Drew Hallmann To: , , Date: 1/21/2010 9:27PM Subject: Case #CPC-2008-5028-CU & ENV-2008-5029-MND

January 21, 2010

To the Department of City Planning:

I am writing about the potential construction of a private school at 7002 W. Clinton Street (case #CPC-2008-5028-CU & ENV-2008-5029MND). I live in the 500 block of Sycamore Avenue and feel that there Is no way our neighborhood can accommodate any more traffic that would result from this new school.

When this area was laid out back in the 1920s not everyone had a car. And that's reflected in the size of the streets. But today ., . -· everyone has some sort of vehicle; most households having two. And with so man}'" people parking cin the street; plus the daily traffic for the current school on Clinton, Sycamore is already Incredibly (' congested. A much larger school would only compound this problem and surely make the traffic situation Intolerable.

But more than traffic and cars, please consider the personality of the area. One of the reasons I wanted to rnove to Sycamore was because of Its charm and character. This historic neighborhood retains a look and feel that you don't find anywhere else in the city. Adding a new, three-story structure with a high fence around It would not blend in with the more low-key appearance and appeal of the buildings on the street.

So please do not approve or go forward with the plan for the new school on Clinton. Sycamore has already been compromised enough with regards to traffic and urban encroachment. Too often people fail to realize the impact certain development will have upon the livability and scale of an area until it's too late. Please don't let that happen here.

Sincerely,

Drew J. Hallmann

000082 From: Marty Lisker To: Date: 1121/2010 8:59PM Subject: Case no's: CPC-2008-5028-CU, ENV-208-5029-MND

1 am a neighbor living right next t the newest addition of the school. .. 7011 Clinton. My address is 613 N. Sycamore Ave. Living through their last construction, about 18-24 months ago, was a true living hell. Not only was the contractor and their workers inconsiderate but the school management was rude and offensive. Their project was going to completion no matter how filthy and noisy (after hours, weekends) they were. I suspect that the Jewish community will come out in droves to support their own and it is pointless for me to tell you how inconsiderate the parents and students are to their neighbors and property. There is absolute no regard for common decency. The parents stop the cars in the middle of the street to pickup and discharge their kids and other students while talking on their cell phones, stopping to chat with one another all the while blocking traffic .. They are not interested in using the lanes that the school has attempted to set up nor the rules about picking up and dropping off students in specific areas .. Without any regard for anyone else except themselves. I think that another construction with this kind of behavior would be unfair to the neighborhood, you might as well close off the street to any other .. i· .,._,_. traffic. Non the less they will tell you different. .. and they have numbers. -·-·- What I am going to tell you is that there is a private Synagogue operating out of 7011·Ciinton Ave:This,is.nb!'a school function b.ut a private group •, ., ·~· ·>' ' .. · ~' ... . that. either rents the space or is given .itto use.· A full fledged operating . Temple' I suspect that-when they took out the permit for the · construction/remodel of the building this was not included on the permit. If I cannot be effective due to my small voice perhaps their outright

abrasive misuse will delay or prevent the other project.from taking place. :. ·~' ' '

Marty Lisker 613 N. Sycamore Ave #1 0 Los Angeles, CA 90036 323 935 7011

000083 From: David To: , , , ,

Let this email serve as my written concerns for the PROPOSED PROJECT .. The nursery school through kindergarten at 7002 w. Clinton st

First let me say that I dont know how this "Proposed Project" can even be considered when there are SO MANY unresolved issues with the CURRENT schools that already exist behind, across etc ... with the current schools there is a constant issue with traffic and safety- Another major issue is the fact that the supposed parking lot of the school that corners labrea and clinton is being· used as an outdoor rec area for the children which has caused such a noise concern for so many neighbors. I know for a fact that the building directly behind the school with the rae/parking area and directly next to the PROPOSED PROJECT has had people move out because the noise is unbearable ---­ There is currently an outdoor play area with the kindergarten/nursery school so will there be one as well with the new construction of the PROPOSED PROJECT???? Where will the children play/exercise etc? Along the PROPOSED side yard that will be SMALLER than normally required? The fact that there will be MORE children attending the PROPOSED SCHOOL than currently could be an even worse situation noise and traffic wise ...

As a homeowner that has a parking space off the alley behind the school (clinton to rosewood) the traffic of the cars picking up the :' ' .. ( children is not only a MAJOR problem but has now restricted the ability to make certain turns into the alley at certain times - IF I am not mistaken these schools are PRIVATE schools correct? and yet as a TAX PAYING homeowner I am now being inconvieneced because of the PRIVATE school..????? This not only seems completely unfair but unethical...

Back to the matter at hand, the construction of this school is of major concern as well - The construction of the HIGH school or whatever grades it accommodates on clinton and sycamore across from PROPOSED PROJECT caused a severe lose of parking spaces as well and traffic nightmares for the residents in the neighborhood I can only imagine this being EVEN WORSE since it will take even longer with the demolishing and then reconstruction at the same time the other schools are in session

There Is absolutely no reason that the school cant be remodeled so that it looks better and newer ! There is no need for more problems than the ones that already exist -1--

lm sure there is more but !hats all i can think of right now thank you-

000084 Pafle

DAVID RAFF

.. - ...· .. ,. ~:. -: .. , ;.... , . ,_~ r .

. ' ·''

000085 From: "Addrisi, Alexis" To: Date: 1/22/2010 8:53 AM Subject: Case No.'sCPC-2008-5028-CU & ENV-2008-5029-MND

Good morning,

I am writing to express my deep concern about the project proposed at the Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy at 7002 W. Clinton Street. I have been a homeowner on Sycamore Avenue for the past seven years, just a few buildings from this school. The daily car traffic in the mornings and afternoons is already severely impeding residents from safely getting to and from their own homes. The parents and/or staff regularly speed down the alley behind the school, which is incredibly dangerous. Additionally, these same cars are·often seen double parked on Sycamore and Clinton. Often times, you cannot even drive down Clinton between La Brea and Sycamore due to the school's traffic.

"·- . . . To allow this school to e~pand will only further increase the tr~f'fic .·and hazard in·this residential area. Several years ago the school·across .ihe street was allowed to expand and it wreaked havoc _on our neighliorhodd for'nii:iretli'an:a year-during constfucticiri. We lost. desperately needed,str:eetparking.allthe while the enrollmentwas going ,. · up at the school. .· " · '·· ' . ·-·,;.'( :: ~ . ',: ;.~~~;~-~- :·~~~-\- \.:.--~ :' ·-! ...,. We are happyt~'siiMeth:e:~eigt\b~ihood wiihth~~;fstfng businesses and '•. .-.--,,. schools, however, I truly believe.that allowing for-further expansion would negatively impact tlie homeowners unfairly.

I am confident that upon more ex1ensive review of their plans, you will agree that this is not an appropriate project for this neighborhood.

Sincerely,

Alexis Addrisi

525 N. Sycamore Avenue, #416

Los Angeles 90036

(213) 621-8736

000086 From: Jennifer Enani To: , ,

Hello, My name is Jennifer Enani & I have been a resident of 455 N. Sycamore Avenue for 12 years. As much as I love our neighborhood & street, one recurring complaint of mine as well as many of the neighbors is that there is way too much through traffic (often speeders trying to bypass La Brea) and way too little parking. If I arrive home during the typical street-sweeping period, I am looking for parking 3-4 blocks away! Please consider this when reviewing any plans for new construction in the area. Also, we petitioned the city for speed bumps a few years ago and our plea was granted, but haven't seen speed bumps any appear. If you know anything about those plans, could you let me know? Thank you so much for your time, Jennifer

000087 Attn: Lynda Smith Hearing Officer Los Angeles Department of City Planning City Hall, Room 667 200 N Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012

January 19 2010 RE: CASE NO.'s CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND

Testimony in objection to the granting of multiple Conditional Uses, Municipal Code Modifications and adoption ofMND for CASE NO.'s CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND Pursuant to the public right to present testimony at hearings concerning the granting of Conditional Use and requests for Municipal Code Changes for property in Los Angeles the below signed resident/homeowner/business in the La Brea I Clinton neighborhood hereby objects strenuously to the issuance of Conditional Use's, Municipal Code Modifications and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND] requested in hearing notice [undated] for cases CPC-2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008- 5029-MND. 13 such objections to the requests are herewith presented for the record. Objector and signee does not state all objections herein and reserves the right to add further objections in the future as may be required.

OBJECTIONS 1.1 through 1.4: General Welfare Standard and Modifications to Municipal Code Height and Area Requirements of the RD1.5-1XL zone : The establishment, maintenance or conducting of the use for which a use permit is sought will, under this particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.

1.1 Objection to ConditWnal Use[s] and Municipal Code Modifications due to alteration of character and integrity and vkwshed. The use and Municipal Code Modifications sought will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood by introducing a very large building for private & commercial use on a block consisting of principally residential dwellings on BOTH sides of the Street. In radicaUy changing the character and integrity ofthe block such development would be injurious to not only property value in the neighborhood but would physicaUy restrict sunlight and the visual outlook of nearby properties. See Appendix A in supporl.

1.2 Objection to Conditional Use[s] and Municipal Code Modifications due to viewshed. Due to the geographic contour in the area a building 3 stories tall will also impair the view and outlook of properties as far away as Detroit St [West side of street]. Blocking morning sun, impairing vision and view and a detrimental impact on nearby property values are aU determined to be injurious in nature. See Appendix B in supporl.

13 Objection to Municipal Code Modification due to a] safety, b] aesthetics and c] planning consistency. A 6 foot high fence on Sycamore frontage- a residential street, wiU significantly reduce comer visibility on an already busy corner, place the public welfare in danger and negatively impact the viewshed ofneighbors on BOTH sides of the street. See Appendices B and C in supporl.

1.4 Objection to Conditional Use[s] and Municipal Code Modifications due to public welfare and safety. Traffic congestion in the area along with a total lack of pick-up and set-down space for parents delivering and retrieving students already COMPLETELY BLOCKS the alleys on BOTH sides of La Brea [behind school facilities at 555 and 540 N Ia Brea].In the event of Fire or emergency the blocking ofthese alleys on a daily basis places the public welfare in danger, adding to this congestion clearly makes the proposed use a detrimental impact on public welfare and safety. See Appendices Dl, D2 and H in supporl. Continued on Page 2 ·

ooofus OBJECTIONS 2.1 through 2.2.2: Nuisance Standard and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND]:

Objector believes the proposed use is found to be objectionable and incompatible with the character of the city and its environs due to increased noise and other undesirable characteristics such as traffic congestion, damage to property and trash. Without the benefit of a full Environmental Impact Study tu more fully understand the possibility of further traffic congestion a MND should not be adopted.

The use sought will introduce a significant nuisance to the surrounding neighborhoods in a variety of ways:

2.1 Objection to Adopt MND and to Conditional Use for private Kindergarten and Private Nnrsery in RD Zone:

2J .1 Objection to Adopt MND, and to requests for Conditional Use because of traffic congestion. Already vastly congested with traffic from existing zoning exceptions in the area, the addition of the proposed use will vastly increase traffic, noise and congestion. Currently under an increased watch by city parking the pick-up and set-down of students from school facilities east of La Brea already occurs as far away as Detroit St. Supporting images detailing parents parked on red-zones, double­ parked and blocking Clinton street between La Brea and the Alley east of La Brea are appended to this document as exhibit A. Further traffic would clearly be a nuisance incompatible with the rights and reasonable needs of the pubUc and traffic should be studied as part of an Environmental Impact Report. See Appendices E,D1, D2 and H in support.

2J.2 Objection to Adopt MND, and to requests for Conditional Use because of impaired accessibility by Fire and Safety sen>ices, residents, and property owners. Accessibility for entry and egress to the Alleys on the east and west sides of La Brea is already significantly impaired by the use of existing school facilities in allowing parents to pick-up and set-down students in a manner that violates permitted use. Residents on Sycamore and Detroit who require the alley for access to their property are significantly impacted by present conditions,further traffic would clearly be a nuisance incompatible with the rights and reasonable needs and safety of the public and traffic should be studied as part ofan Environmental Impact Report. See Appendices D1, D2 and H in support.

2.2 Objection to Adopt MND and to Conditional Use for private Kindergarten and Private Nursery in RD Zone Becanse of Damage to Properly. Damage to property arises as a result of both traffic congestion and the large numbers of students in the neighborhood waiting to be 'picked-up' by parents.

2.2.1 Objection dne to Damage from Traffic Congestion. Vehicles parked in the area are already subject to increased damage from the additional traffic generated by school facilities at 555 and 540 N La Brea. In fact 6 residents are prepared to testify or provide affidavits as to their vehicles having been hit by parents collecting or setting-down children. Already clearly a nuisance and most probably a breach of existing conditional use granted in the area, further traffic will serve to do nothing but e:mcerbate the cu"ent situation and create an untenable nuisance.

2.2.2 Objection dne to Damage From Stodents. Already almost 1000 students flood the streets of the neighborhood waiting to be collected by parents at the end of each school day. With the understanding that 'kids will be kids' it is a common occurrence that during this wait, front lawns are occupied, balls kicked and thrown, and sadly, ongoing damage to property is occurring. From broken plants and mirrors on cars to massive amounts of trash ranging from orange peels to plastic bags and food wrappers the damage and clean-up is an on-going nuisance to local property owners and occupiers- and to the general public who have to negotiate students in very large numbers. Not just a nuisance, there is a significant safely factor to be contemplated. See Appendix Fin support.

Continued on Page 3

2 000089 OBJECTION 3. General Plan Consistency Standard:

Proposed use would be inconsistent with current uses in area, namply residential. ~ c:::rp~rk ca;:,. ,...... _ &c.-yo~.t- · OBJECTIONS 4.1 through 4.4 Zoning Consistency Standard:

The California Governors Office of Planning and Research clearly states:

''To obtain a'use permit, the applicant must generally show that the contemplated use is compatible with the policies in terms of the zoning ordinances, and that such use would be essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare, and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoned district or be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare" (O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1971) 19 Ca1App.3d 151),

4.1 The proposed use IS NOT ESSENTIAL There are more than 25 primary and kindergarten schools in the immediate area

4.2 The proposed Use IS NOT DESIRABLE to the public welfare The public welfare is not served by a private school

4.3 The proposed use WILL IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER of the area The area's character and integrity will be impaired by proposed structure in a residential neighborhood.

4.4 The proposed use WILL BE DETRIMENTAL to the public welfare Additional traffic congestion, overflow of non- bused students on the streets and impairment of access to alleyways are all detrimental to the public welfare. Unless the proposed use can operate without impact at all in the neighborhood it will be detrimental to public welfare.

000090 Sycamore: Existing Neighborhood charm, character and integrity. Front Yards, Trees, and manicured Landscaping - Residential Community

000091 Zoning OS

0 A,RA RE,RS,R1,RU,RZ,RVV1 Ill---' ~ R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, ~ . ,,~ RAS3, R4, RAS4, RS 0 ~ t:,1tfi~'t'i 1111!111 ~.pe:i~~:~ioc:\., CM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, LAX. M3,Sl P,PB PF 1- U) !:: HILLSIDE 0a: ~ - Blocked Alley - Blocked Street ::1;~;"\'ll - Parked on Red or illegally parked • Double parking and parking in driveways & teacher and staff parking ttl,.~ 4111 lA Cny Planning Background Display: Generalized Zoning g Address: 7002 W CLINTON ST Tract: m 6143 Zoning: RD1.5·1XL 0 g APN: 5525020011 Block: None General Plan: Low Medium II Residential "' PIN#: 1418181 907 Lot: 161 Arb: None

Streets Copyright (c) Thomas Brothers Maps, Inc. Existing structure at 7002 W Clinton - backs onto East La Brea Alley.

NOTE 1 : Both present and proposed fences will create a visual disconnect with the existing neighborhood character and integrity and are not approved in current zoning NOTE 2: is there presently a conditional use for this property? if so, what are the details?

0 0 0 0 8

000095

jDAMAGE FROM STUDENTS: One Days Damage: [1] Disturbed topsoil, [2] Dislodged plants, [3] broken plants, [4] trash [est cost $100.00]- I

0 0 -, '' g ... \. ~ '·

·;,. Ill

!Slf~Mo::J

lJOAN3HOO

oooogs Zoning

0

I .•• ······"llr----1 RE, RS, R1, RU, RZ, RW1 R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, ~3,R4,~4,R5 ADP, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, 0 CS, CR, CW, lASED, W( CM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, LAX, M3,SL P,PB

1:: ~ ~ - Blocked Alley - Blocked Street - Parked on Red or illegally parked • Double parking and parking in driveways & teacher and staff·

LA City Planning Background Display: Generalized Zoning

0 Address: 7002 W CLINTON ST Tract: TR 6143 Zoning: R01.5·1 XL g0 APN: 5525020011 Block: None General Plan: Low Medium II Residential ~ PIN#: 1416181 907 Lot: 161 Arb: None

Streets Copyright (c) Thomas Brothers Maps, Inc. From: "Danny Phillips" To: Date: 211412010 1:07PM

Lynda Smith

[email protected]

RE: Proposed new building by Yeshivath Torath Emeth Academy.

7002 W. Clinton Street

Dear Ms. Smith,

1 am writing to express my extreme concern over the proposed construction of a three story, 8300 square foot private school building at 7002 W. Clinton Street. I am owner of a condominium unit in the Sycamore Villas building immediately south of the proposed building site. As it stands today, the neighborhood is already significantly negatively impacted by the existing schools in the area. There is only one small stretch of street (Clinton Street, between La Brea Ave.and Sycamore Ave.) that is non-permit parking, which means that available parking in the neighborhood is already very scarce. There is also significant· traffic congestion in the streets· and alley (my garage access) surrounding my building caused by J)arents in SUV's and vans ihat are parked in the street while dropping off or picking up their children from the existing school.

I am not reassured by promises of on-site parking at the proposed site for a number of reasons. First, the numbers of parking spaces proposed are inadequate for the size of the structure and its intended use. Second, and perhaps more important, the parking garage for the Jewish Academy located off the alley on the corner of La Brea Ave and Clinton Street has been converted to a playground which not only diminishes parking for the school but also causes an extreme amount of noise from the nearly constant daytime activity there Sunday through Friday. Even with double-paned windows the noise from the children playing in the garage/playground - often accompanied by microphone-enhanced supervision - is a serious nuisance. I suspect that this makeshift playground is already a violation of zoning law, and 1am very concerned that this problem will only be exacerbated by a new, much larger school adjacent to the Jewish Academy. This existing situation also does not inspire confidence that parking in the proposed structure will be used appropriately or for it's intended purpose. As a home owner I am very concerned about my property value as well as my quality of life. As a registered voter, taxpayer and citizen of this neighborhood who must share the local resources of the community, I insist that this proposed building be reconsidered. I do not believe that it serves the best interest of the majority of the residents who live here.

I will be paying very close attention to this process and the actions of my representatives and will be participating actively in organizing an appropriate community response to this poorly-conceived plan.

Sincerely,

000100 Danny Phillips

525 N. Sycamore Ave. Unit 311

Los Angeles, CA 90036

000101 /. /9 From: Ed and Bobbie Johnson To: CC: Date: 1/23/2010 2:23PM . Subject: Case#'s cpc-2008-5028-cu $< env-:2008-5029-mnd

Dear Ms Smith. I know that this is a tough one for you. I would not want to be in your shoes. You have our sympathy. Who are we? We own a little condo about one hundred yards away from this growing Leviathan called a school. The people who want this, in general, do not live here .. They do not suffer the impact of this on our quality of life. We worry about all this congestion, and the real possibility of a high magnitude earth quake. In earth quakes, open space is needed as much as possible. Especially for children. To put a 9,000 foot square building on an .approximately 150 x 60 foot lot is not, in our opinion, a responsible thing to do for the people involved; nor is it a positive thing to do to the environment: You have· powerfUl forces pushing you in all directions; but we have got to believe that you will make the right ·decision. Thank you, Margret!l·aiid' Eq).cihrison ·

',.:. . '·;.

··;.... .,. .. · '' ·.~- ' '· . . .. ' ,.. ._.. ' ···n,.•' ·, - . '

. '~ . . ; ... . _,;

' .. '. ·' , I: • ·.· ... ·..... ·· .. '

.... ,t .{:' ;:

. ''!. :.'- . ··,! ; . ;-:''.! ,_~:\:. ·.-· ..·· ... ,

000102 ·-=-,·-·-

From: Amy Albert To: , , Date: 1/20/2010 5:32PM Subject: 7002 W. Clinton Street

Please bring us in on the discussion about the school--we care about our neighborhood, traffic, safety, aesthetics and community. Keep us involved-don't bulldoze us· and steamroller community involvement. We love our neighborhood! Amy Albert, residen!North Sycamore AvenueLA CA 90036

000103 Gn er Wilshire Neighborhood 0 11cil

419 North Larchmont Blvd. # 331 Los Angeles, CA 90004

January 21,2010

Ms. Lynda Smith City of Los Angeles, Zoning arid Planning Department . Los Angeles, CA 90012

Subject: Proposed Ycshivath Torath Emeth Academy, 7002 West Clinton Avenue Case Number: CPC-2008-5028-CU

Dear Ms. Smith,

The above captioned location and case fall within the boundaries of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. The Planning and Landuse Committee of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council (GWNC) and the Board of the GWNC has just this week been made aware of the proposed Academy (reference the above captioned Case Number) and ofthe hearing tomorrow, Friday, January 22, 2010. There is considerable concern voiced by many neighbors adjacent to and surrounding the proposed Academy which should be taken into consideration.

At the present time, it is believed that the stakeholders of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council area, and in particular, the surrounding residents and businesses have not have sufficient opportunity to work with the proposed Academy to craft suitable conditions associated with the proposed use and to take appropriate considerations as it relates to the numerous variances being proposed by the applicant. Consequently, on behalf of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council and its stakeholders, we respectfully request that the hearing on Friday, January 22, 20 I 0 be held open so that the Academy and the stakeholders have suitable time and process to meeting with and work with the Academy before the March meeting of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. Leaving the file open and allowing the stakeholders and the applicant to meet and possibly work out mutually agreeable conditions is the most appropriate action. Judging by the Case Number, it would appear that the case was opened in 2008 and that adding two months should not put undue burden upon the applicant. Not having suitable and appropriate involvement by the stakeholders would be a considerable burden upon the community. ·

000104 Ms. Lynda Smith GPC-2008•5028-CU Page 2

Please contact me, James Wolf (phone 323-459-8940) or (email: [email protected]) so that the Planning and Landuse Committee may plan and schedule for the appropriate forum in March, 2010 for the stakeholders of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council area to review the proposed materials and get input that may be shared with anticipated action by the Board of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.

Thanking you in advance for your cpnsideration of this request to keep the file open and consideration of an additional hearing later in March, 2010 after the Board meeting of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council.

Yours Sincerely, ;z:;·e~~~~

James C. Wolf, AlA I Vice President and Chairman of the Planning and Landuse Committee

Cc: Mr. Charles Dougherty, President, Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council Ms. Elizabeth Fuller, Secretary, Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council

000105 LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 CPC - 2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND- 7002 Clinton Ave. we, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare cimter to a 3 : s~ory daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plan and r.J compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the I 'J) proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed " due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies. ' ··

+z. of IV: ...Y~..u.... >'9-...-e_ 0, Cl'!- '?'oro 3G.

~.2-8' /z._ t-1. _s,l "-'\w1;.f­ M-- t:A · CJ., LAs'1> SD e Grv\At l -O'Vl

Koretz petition 2 000106 LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 CPC • 2008-5028•CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND- 7002 Clinton Ave. We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare center to a 3 story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plan and compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is n~eded due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies.

Print Name Address, City, State, Zip Phone

Sign Email ______"""".,..,._.,.... ______1- _____.._ ...... --~--. ,., ... " . 1- ...... :· . Ctzo N. S~cly!'noei(!j L..t4 CA ~OP3b ~----"'~~~~ ,:,~~eN ,S .~Qit.. ~::.::_::_~~~--'--l 00

Koretz petition 2 000107 LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 CPC • 2008·5028-CU and ENV-2008·5029-MND - 7002 Clinton Ave. We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare center to a 3 story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plan and compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed d!Je to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies.

5813)J P.)t"AlrbiU..f" 3)3 )7)~·3-:t:SH ,' . . u\ .. c A _'fou3i jef-f. rY1cA~~~t-J1~~riA·.). coH

• • • •• #"<",H-.'w.•"H ~ • ' • '"'ffi~»' '""" ••:. , ....,-,.,,_,.,.;.,.,!.•~'~'!"!:'~~<'~~.•'<'"'<'"!

1"\~i"\ \'\L-[~~ So~ ~ S~L-1\\\~>~ /7;.<-7) 1"1'\- 1-ltO lc<,. P., t-l ..'6:\-"6 ') 1 [ /"< 'joo?J_

Koretz petition 2 000108 LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION· -· . PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 . CPC - 2008·5028•CU and ENV-2008·5029-MND - 7002 Clinton Ave. We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare center to a 3 • · · ·· story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plan and compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies.

Print Name Address, City, State, Zip Phone 1>'{~<; N. Ov"'~ '\), , ~1",-)l.). -lj '5~;).. S'i:voA ~~p~r-e<4 :f L•> ~<.5, '\ob~ 51~ Jll _/)· I • ..dl. E~J r>.W~ ~~.:.r._L,P~4>H; __ . .,_.. .,.,., ...,., ...... ,.,"':.,·· rs ~6 R). CIQr'qe. Dr. 'ner \ ~ p r 'SC1I &\~-lD\03 _qz_ct ( N)S f\\'I~S tcJ::\ Q003~ \(e_ '{Y.)Q_~ I2D 0 '('0\W\~i \ .C( ry\ hrte :tA..X.A II " ~"rl\ n Q>Xro 1 gqo -4'8\"'"lP1So6 ' -~ ~~~-~~r. - :S~~t!:f:~rl\~\ \G M ~--- .. ~· ' . ···•t.".>{'i• . 1 ' .· '...... k I ~/v1}.L~f-'""~·•_· _ . .· <-~lhWI1nn.u,- . - M .. ,...... ,.,.; •;,.;~\.-:.,~ ··.- - ·~· 3 iO · {,7..'?, =t]-S.~· .. · · lA stJfe-- Do va.; v-t:ft-. Sl~N Ov~ -'lOvive- -- li~~~- 900~(o U~Vc>.ivcA C' C:.~\ ·CO">"-

'Po..v ,Q\ ~b/oarYI t ~ 3 Jtp (oCj<>t · (p C2f.o DL~btoo...A e ovut · (o v-- 1)!0,i!P'D L

~IJ~S~ 5M N Orar1ee Cr' :3&-3- C:f)CJ-3fo'J{o LA Cf003fc, L ;>I~ . c::-·LIWU:s 7/U'. ~clib::l'\[email protected]\ -z he L. f)z:;s LZ \o'J tv. ORII 1/!jE-lJ,, Jz s Cj'i'/-]71~ w/o t;ifjj/_;_/ c-119CJCJ <;( ~ J;_l!i fV'.& ~e. ffJJ__- ,{_ -f1- ( ?t--> sTq - 0 -:r-r 1-- (!

Koretz petition 2 000109 •/:><. LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 CPC - 2008-5028-CU and ENV-20.08·5029-MND - 7002 Clinton Ave. We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare center to a 3 story daycare/klndergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and · endorse retention of the e>¢isting zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plan and compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies.

·.· Aw~.e... Soj,2_ icM.c.n'-h to}>q;/'.i p~-a,t-..Dr-IN ?fLff- 3ljO':~Hl? , \'~ >:·. •·; <.·

'-A. c .A- c;cro~"' L'tv\V\e,C.S?'1~;oi~~

-::

Koretz petition 2 000110 ., :: LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ... •· PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026

CPC ,. ·2008•5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND - 7002 Clintori''Ave~:· '-' ·.·: ·' S '' c_, • We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare·centet"to•a 3<' ··-- ,. - story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. ·and endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Community' Plan and · compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose·the · proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies. · ··

.t:YCA~ &too6,b · t-----~--~·--·_----l

Koretz petition 2 000111 ~-· LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ,PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 CPC • 2008·5028-CU and .ENV.,.2008-5029·MND - 7002 Clinton Ave.· · We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare center to a 3 story daycare/klndergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and . endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plari and ·· compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies. ·

Print Name Address, City, State, Zip Phone

''l'' I Em?Jil Sign ,. ' ... i ' ··'";' 02/o IJ; (J< "7. L>.-·. ~~~~--~--~~ ~} ~~wJ,tA fila ] 0 BSL ffi I@ c, hce , Lt'n

·;_.:_: .. ; ..

+o @) V1o\-rn tU.O. rffft/1;"> '53~ N!! s,y-c,f1l 3Z 1 1 J s: s 1T1 /--,----~.1--r----:---4 p 1\-- (.A.l c 1l q vv]{, t,cha e J..cpvh I( c. 617 AI. oMI'IQtil>fl. Apr- :tfz c J !-'---'------,::'---''--'--'-----~ L. ·A . CA-

Koretz petition 2 000112 ,. · · LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION · PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026

· '. -CPC,., 2008-5028-CU and ENV-2008-5029-MND - 7002 Clint6ri Ave~. · We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare'centert'o .a 3 story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and . endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the Commonity.Pian and compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies.

11 '~liclfll.- · itOt:JJ6 · "'· .·· .. ~ot;; 2-:;D'''"?~::J~ · ., '·· ·

,..,,,,,.,,"., "-.. //- 'It- vtDtc ,,u.d llc(0 'fc.~!> ...~~~-~- ...~ • .,~.;..,.. ii\i~TJ:ii~,t~~~:~.,Ji'.~~b~ .~"· .. ··

"·: ··,•· .. ·.·· .. ·. -~1~·L T}:r?J~vf/;YX': ::x6:Z,} · t ·. ~- '(( J· '?'. M {. .· ; 2; :> 7 0.)';\f!1') '1, ·· : · : '' '~~"'·::-· 1?'1~~

Koretz petition 2 000113 LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION . . PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026

< • '. , r · CPC • 2008'"5028-CU and ENV•200.8·5029·MND - 7002 Clinton A'in:!.-' . . · i; ' We, the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare center to a 3 : · story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and · endorse retention of the exsisting zoning to remain consistent with the COmmunity' Plan and compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies. · ··

...... '-··.·· ~ ·-- .

Koretz pe~SilWi . : · · LABREA/CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION· .. · · •, . PO BOX 26612 LA, CA 90026 :• , ,,,.:,CPC • 2008-5028-CU and ENV""2008-5029·MND • 7002 Clintort.'Ave> . .we, :the undersigned owners/residents, oppose the development of a daycare'center to a 3 . story daycare/kindergarten/pre-kindergaten at 7002 Clinton Ave at Sycamore Ave. and .endorse retention of the exsistin!;f zoning to remain consistent with the Community Plan and . compatible with the adjacent low medium density residential housing. We oppose the proposed mitigation negative declaration and feel a full impact study with an EIR is needed · due to the overdevelopment of the Yeshiva Torath Emeth Academies. ·· ' ' · ·

(;.' ::~... 1::-1/\/. ~ L- .lA C)f! 'f(;j')'

. .\ . ~-. . ' '.~ ·~· . :·: :··; . .. . . ·"'. . ..'· . ' .... ,. ,:.,... ; ·. i ,. ,:; . ·.. :.. · /~,; 4-:-~ ... ~-' l '·) , ; .. ,. .. ,.. 1,.:,.~;.,,.,'<.• ·,, >4><\ ..:· •••• ,.:;,.~ ••. ,.,.:->,~J.i... ,: ..~: ... .r, ~ ·.:---~~·,.·~,.,r; ;>. "!~.:;-,_,;;.·.~

. - ,; ' . ' i . '