SR-9-A (8)
e
-
q-A
JUN 4. Ir,Oi
.;;;~. .
i_
LUTM:PB:DKW:SLjEasement.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: May 28, 1991
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Request for Use of the Subsurface of Adelaide Drive for
a private Subterranean Garage by the Owners of 345
Adelaide Drive
INTRODUCTION
This report presents information regarding the preliminary
request to permit the subsurface use of Adelaide Drive abutting
345 Adelaide Drive for the construction of a private subterranean
garage.
BACKGROUND
The property owners, Terry Sanders and Frieda Mock, are
requesting that the City Council review and grant preliminary
approval of their request to use a subsurface portion of the
public street, Adelaide Drive, abutting the property at 345
Adelaide Drive for construction of a subterranean garage. The
proposed garage would provide required parking for completion of
a partially constructed, single family residence at 345 Adelaide
Drive.
The preliminary design provides the driveway access on
345 Adelaide Drive with the driveway ramping across and down the
property towards the west, leading into the subterranean garage,
proposed to be located beneath the street approximately ten feet
below grade.
9--A
- 1 -
JiJN
., ~~r'.\
.
.
The subject site is located on the border of Santa Monica and Los
Angeles on the north side of Adelaide Drive at the terminus of
Fourth street. The front 12.65 feet of the property is within
the ci ty of Santa Monica wi th the remainder of the property
falling within the city of Los Angeles. The parcel currently has
a partially constructed, single family residence on it, the
framing of which rises approximately twenty (20) feet above the
street level. This development has been the subject of various
city of Los Angeles actions, as well as litigation between
neighbors. The outcome of these actions is unclear as relates to
development at 345 Adelaide Drive because, although the current
code does not allow buildings above the level of Adelaide Drive,
the existing, partially completed residence did have building
permits (now expired). It has been suggested that only
litigation will clarify whether the new code provisions would
apply to the height limit of the parcel. It has been proposed by
the current owners of 345 Adelaide Drive that, if allowed to
locate the garage below the street, they will remove the portions
of the building which are now higher than the street level and
would agree to maintain a height limit consistent with the
current code (no higher than the level of the centerline of
Adelaide Drive) with the recordation of a deed restriction on the
property.
- 2 -
.
.
ANALYSIS
city of Los Angeles Zoning
The city of Los Angeles building permits for the remodel and
expansion of the residence were issued in 1985 and 1986. The
property currently has a Los Angeles zoning of RI-l-Q with a "0"
overlay which restricts the maximum height to the level of the
centerline of Adelaide Drive (see Attachment F, City of Los
Angles Ordinance No. 165328). The City of Los Angeles zoning
Code permits certain elements to exceed the building height
restrictions. These elements include elevator and stair
penthouses, skylights, chimneys, parapets, exhaust ducts and
solar energy devices, all of which may exceed the specified
height limit by five feet (see Attachment G, excerpt from city of
Los Angeles Code).
staff has consulted with the Los Angeles Department of Building
and safety regarding the grand fathered rights of the existing,
partially completed house. without specific plans to examine, a
specific answer could not be given. However, it was determined
that if the existing structure does not meet current code and the
building permits to build what has been built have expired (as it
is believed they have for the unfinished residence), the Building
and Safety Department would not typically approve permits to
complete the building. Thus, as the situation is understood I
since the building permits have expired and the City of Los
Angeles has added a height restriction which limits the height of
buildings to no higher than the level of the centerline of
- 3 -
.
.
Adelaide Drive, the Building and Safety Department would not
issue a permit to complete the house as designed.
City of Santa Monica Zoning
The front portion of the property at 345 Adelaide Drive within
the city of Santa Monica is zoned RI. The proposal as revised by
the applicants' representative on May 10, 1991 (see Attachment H)
does not comply with the City's Rl development standards in three
regards. First, Code Section 9010.6(h) requires that no more than
50% of the required front yard area, including driveways, shall
be paved. The proposed plan would result in the majority of the
front yard area within City boundaries being paved, thus
exceeding the 50% limit.
Second, on April 16, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance
Number 1581 (CCS), extending by two years the moratorium
prohibiting any subterranean garages or basements in the Rl zone
to project beyond the footprint of any structure into required
front, side or rear yard setbacks. The proposed subterranean
garage would be in clear violation of this ordinance.
The third manner in which the proposed subterranean garage fails
to meet Code requirements is that it is an accessory building
located within (and beyond) the front yard. Code Section
9040.10(a) requires that an accessory building be located within
the rear half of the parcel.
The current zoning code does not provide an avenue for the
application of a variance of any of the above restrictions.
- 4 -
.
.
Discussion
The proposal involves the use of approximately 600 square feet of
land underneath Adelaide Drive at the end of Fourth street. The
property owners would access their driveway via an existing
easement along the frontage of the lot adjoining 345 Adelaide
which the applicants also own. The applicants state that they
want to satisfy neighbors I view concerns while maintaining the
square footage of the proposed house by eliminating the at-grade
garage.
General Services staff has performed a preliminary review of the
proposal and has found it may be feasible to allow the property
owner to use land under the street. If the easement is granted,
some utilities will need to be relocated at the applicants' cost.
There are precedents for both subterranean, as well as surface
easements, for adjoining use by property owners. The parking for
Champagne Towers on Ocean Avenue is one such subterranean
easement on Ocean Avenue. There are numerous surface easements
on Ocean Avenue and the Third street Promenade. However, if
granted, staff would recommend that the City Council stipulate
that the granting of this easement does not set a precedent for
future development which could be construed to allow a greater
level of development because of the added utility of the space
below a public street.
As originally presented, the proposed subterranean garage was
designed to extend across the centerline of Adelaide Drive onto
property apparently owned by the fee O\vner of the lot on the
- 5 -
.
.'
southwest corner of Adelaide Drive and Fourth street. Assuming
that the subsurface use of the street does not interfere with
requirements for public utilities or the pUblic I s rights, an
appropriate agreement would need to be reached with the fee owner
of this property under such a design scenario. A more thorough
discussion of the legal ramifications of the proposal is provided
in the attached city Attorney Memorandum Opinion Number 91-6
(Attachment B).
Al though the applicants have not submitted a revised design to
City staff, their representative has submitted a letter
specifying a change in concept limiting the extent of the
excavation to the centerline of Adelaide Drive (Attachment H),
thus eliminating the concern described in the preceding
paragraph.
Neighborhood Input
The construction of a subterranean garage rather than one at
grade has received the apparent support of some surrounding
neighbors. Residents of thirteen properties, ranging from the
200 to 600 block of Adelaide Drive, in addition to the
applicants, have signed a petition favoring the proposed
construction beneath the public right-of-way (Attachment C) .
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no bUdget/financial impact.
- 6 -
.
.
CONCLUSION
staff believes that, in general, development should meet its
parking and other ancillary needs on-site and not rely on
solutions such as is proposed. Further, staff has been led to
believe that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the owners of
345 Adelaide Drive would have to submit plans conforming to
current Los Angeles City code in order to complete the residence.
Therefore, it is expected that the height will ultimately have to
be reduced to no more than the level of the centerline of
Adelaide Drive, excepting certain height projections such as
parapet walls, chimneys, skylights and stair enclosures which
could foreseeably extend an additional five feet in height.
RECOMMENDATION
For the aforementioned reasons, staff does not recommend that the
Council approve the request to utilize the area below Adelaide
Drive for private use, due to conflicts with the City zoning
ordinance. Should the council wish to approve the request, it
must first direct staff to prepare amendments to the Code to
allow for a variance of the appropriate zoning sections and the
ordinance restr icting subterranean garages in the Rl zone. In
addition, staff recommends that, if approved, a deed restriction
be placed on the property as a condition of the sale of the
easement, stipulating that no portion of the building or its
projections be allowed above the level of the centerline of
Adelaide Drive and that no roof deck or roof parking be
permitted.
- 7 -
e
.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, LUTH Director
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Shari Laham, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments: A. Preliminary Plan of Subterranean Garage
B. Memorandum Opinion No. 91-6
C. Petition from Neighbors
D. Article from L.A. Times, dated 11/29/90
E. Photographs of Project Model
F. City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 165328
G. City of Los Angeles Zoning Code Excerpt
H. Letter from Applicants' Representative,
dated May 10, 1991
SL
PC/Easement
05/15/91
- 8 -
-- -:~ == ==-1 i.
I~ --~f~~ :
:A It ~JQx>r
p ~ -
11 \.~
I. \.'" i
:1 ~.
II
]I
I
I
I
.-
-
~f.n
- :-: I" ".- -.- :
I
I
J (
.{ ,
~ It'';'
..; . ~ u)
...
I -;..I-~
;~}
_--: ~-:--Il
'''., ~I
--~'- --. ~
I
'""
........ t..tII(! \
- ~il
" 1
--:-.
/
\.. .~
~!
1 f'
; 1
I. i
, I
'I ii) I - j ~I
I ~i -I
i I . I
~ -~1 ~r
}.! ,~r! Ii
I'<<O'&L - - ! il.
. - ~ I It
t1~ 1 H
/,r~ .) Ii
J :\
I'
j !I
tl
I
I
i
1
;
i
--+-
..
'j
d-tl
-.QI
. .
- ,
'(
\r.f
~l
-ok
~"
....."......"'~JI'/ -c.-
.10__ .". ~ _. __
..-:....~~Jo.l'__
...:..-- -- -""
~
'J:14-
1110
_.
,
/
I
I
, .
II
I"
II.
i
,
I
J>
V
m
~
-
v
III
rl
'.J
ro
-
<...
rn
..L3~~J.. $-\-\.1... t
-":---l
/
.~~ f
~ -
~ . (i r
I
l' I
, I
~
!II,
~~
,
~,
....
.
. ~~,a.Jt H B {'
MEMORANDUM OPINION NUMBER 91-6
DATE:
March 12, 1991
TO:
Mayor and city council
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Use of Subsurface of Adelaide Drive for Private
Garage by Owners of 339 Adelaide Drive
The owners of property at 339 Adelaide Drive have requested
City approval for the construction of a private garage under a
portion of the public street abutting their property. This
memorandum discusses the legal issues raised by such a request.
1. Property Interests in Subsurface of Adelaide Drive.
Most public streets in the City of Santa Monica are not owned
in fee title by the City. Generally, the City only has an
"easement for right-of-way purposes of travel, with such incidents
as were appurtenant or necessary for reasonable enjoyment,
construction, or maintenance." 37 Cal. Jur. 3d S 61, at 167
(1977). The property owner abutting the street generally owns the
fee title to the centerline of the street. (Civil Code Sections
831; 1112.)
The rights of property owners abutting a pUblic street were
described by the California supreme Court in Coleqrove Water Co.
v. City of Hollywood, 151 Cal. 425, 90 P. 1053 (1907):
The right of the abutting property owner is,
of course, always subordinate to the rights of
the public. . .. In cities it is customary
to devote not only the surface of the street
and the space above the street to public use,
but the municipality may, and frequently does,
occupy the soil beneath the surface for the
accommodat1on of sewers, gas and water pipes,
electric wire, and conduits for railroads.
Where the city undertakes to occupy the space
above or below the surface of the street for
any purpose wi thin the scope of the public
uses to which highways may be put, the use by
the owner of the fee must yield to the public
use. Id. at 429-30, 90 P. at 1055.
~ Hayes v. Handlev, 182 Cal. 273, 187 P. 952 (1920); Abar v.
1
.
.
. ~
.
~ .... ~
.
.
,
Rogers, 23 Cal. App. 3d 506, 100 Cal. Rptr. 344 (1972).
California cases have held that abutting property owners may
continue to use the surface below public str.eets so long as their
use does not interfere with the public's paramount rights.
Coleqrove Water Co. v. city of Hollywood, 151 Cal. 425, 90 P. 1053
(1907) (constructing private water pipe under street); Wriqht v.
Austin, 143 Cal. 236, 76 P. 1023 (1904) (private property owner
retains water rights to water under public street); Hirsch v. James
S. Rem1ck co., 38 Cal. App. 764, 177 P. 876 (1918) (abutting
property owner may construct vault under public sidewalk). As the
court stated in Abar v. Roqers, 23 Cal. App. 3d 506, 100 Cal. Rptr.
344 (1972):
As the owner of the fee to the street's
center, the abutting owner may make any use of
the street consistent with the public right.
It is said that subject to the public
easement, he [or she] may exercise all "rights
of dominion over his (or her) land," and he
[or she] is entitled to "all profit or
advantage which may be derived therefrom." Id.
at 512, 100 Cal. Rptr. at 348, citing Santa
Barbara County v. More, 175 Cal. 6, 10, 164 P.
895, 897 (1917), and Gurnsey v. Northern cal.
power Co., 160 Cal. 699, 705, 117 P. 906, 908
(1911) (citations omitted).
From a property law perspective (as distinguished from a
z oning perspective), an abutting property owner would have the
right to use the subsurface of the street for a private garage so
long as the garage did not interfere with the paramount rights of
the public. Assuming that the City determines that there is no
interference with public rights and assuming there were no zoning
restrictions, the abutting property owner would have the right to
construct the garage without conditions being imposed by the city
such as the payment of money or imposition of other restrictions.
n[T]he owner is not seeking a privilege, to be granted or withheld
by the city. He [or she] is merely exercising one of the incidents
of the ownership which, in dedicating the highway, he [or she] has
retained to himself [or herself].lt Coleqrove Water Co. v. City of
Hollywood, 151 Cal. 425, 90 P. 1053 (1907).
Assuming that the use of the subsurface of the street for a
garage does not interfere with the pUblic's rights, the plans show
that the proposed garage extends across the centerline of Adelaide
and onto property apparently owned by the fee owner of the lot on
the southwest corner of Adela ide and Fourth street. Thus, were the
garage to be built as planned, an appropriate agreement would have
to be reached with the owner of this property.
..
2
,,",--
,
.
.
If the garage is constructed under Adelaide, the property
owner runs the risk that the City will determine at some future
date that the property is req~1red-for public purposes. If such
circumstances arise, the City could require the relocation of the
garage without compensation.to the property owner. We are unable
to find any authority that would allow the City to contract away
the public's rights in this street.
In Fallon v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal. App. 2d
404, 112 P. 2d 718 ( 1941), San Francisco reduced the width of
certain side~alks on Market Street. The plaintiff owned a private
hotel which had a basement that extended to the curb line of the
street. San Francisco ordered the property owner to reduce the
size of the basement to conform to the new curb line resulting from
narrowing the sidewalk. The court rejected the property owners
challenge to the reduction of the sidewalk:
[A]ny right of abutting owners to use the area
beneath the surface of the streets is
subordinate to the paramount right of the
public to make any reasonable use of such
area. There could therefore be no taking of
property of the abutting owners resulting from
the reduction of the width of the sidewalk as
provided in said ordinance. 112 P.2d at 719.
2. The zoninq Ordinance Prohibits the Construction of a
Garaqe Under a PUblic street in a Residential District.
Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, a garage cannot be
constructed in a residential district under a public street.
Accordingly, the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended in order
to permit the construction of the garage.
Municipal Code section 9040.10 provides in relevant part:
No accessory building in a residential
district shall be erected, structurally
altered, converted, enlarged, moved, or
maintained unless such accessory building is
located on the parcel in conformance with the
fOllowing regulations. Accessory buildings
shall include greenhouses, storage sheds,
workshops, garages, and other structures that
are detached from the main building.
(a) The accessory building shall be
located on the rear half of the parcel and
shall not extend into the required side yards.
(b) The accessory building may be
.
3
.
.
,-
~
located in a required rear yard, but shall be
at least 5 feet from any parcel line.
(f) Where the elevation of the ground at
a point 50 feet from the front parcel line of
a parcel and midway between the side parcel
lines d1ffers 12 feet or more for the curb
level, a private garage, not exceeding one-
story nor 14 feet in height, may be located
within the required front yard, provided every
portion of the garage building is at least
five feet from the front property line and
does not occupy more than 50% of the width of
the front yard.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9040.10, an accessory
building must be located at least five feet from any parcel line.
For purposes of the ZonJ..ng Ordinance, a "parcel line" is defined
as ., [t]he line of record bounding a parcel which divides one parcel
from another parcel or from a public or pr1vate street or any other
public space." Municipal Code Section 9000.3. Thus, since the
public street is beyond the parcel line, no accessory building can
be located under a public street in a resident1al district.
In addition to an amendment to the Zoning ordinance, other
land use approvals may be required in order to build the garage as
planned. In order for the property south of the centerline of
Adelaide to be used for the garage, a fee interest in the property
may have to be conveyed to the owners of 339 Adelaide. (The Zoning
ordinance generally permits development on two separate properties
only if the properties are under common ownership. Mun1cipal Code
Section 9002.1(g).) This may require action under the Subdivision
Ordinance, such as a lot line adjustment. We have not fully
analyzed the legal implications of attempting to transfer a portion
of the fee interest underlying a City street.
4
.
'...... .
:. . . --.
, ,
.
n r~ rlC..nMs.;i 'C
~
l.;'e are res~dents of i"\dela.:.de Dr~ve. :';e sU9pcr"C :.:.e
~~OCK/S;:..t;;DE?S appl:1..cat~o:1 to the C:l.ty cf Sa:-.tn ~~on~ca ';:'0
place the garage =c~ 345 Adcl~~de under~eath the
J.:;tersect:.1.0:1 o'f 4th Street.. c.~d Adelal.de, as per tre aaached draW1nsz.
ADDRESS
t-JAl1E /~
/-11 (~
;I!I. II//'- \/\\7J
.:" j -o./\.V v- - \
tf:t~~
'fJ~>n. &JjL~Jd .1~h /J~dJ ))A. Sat.
. -:])~-:p~ /~A.~0)~~F5-b-~,
_~J&4~ :136 ~~.~. SfV(
~ ~ d ~lO -t\ ~ 1;)_ .J. (\. ~
----~ ~3;r~;o=-""
$~ ~ ~ .33'1 ~\a~dt'JJr'v~
~~^,/jj~C1AA-t (,/2-- ~~~
f-~~~~ 4-0~ fPrrL,b~~A ~~~.
/r&A~:;'~ <-.J ,62+J (;J41u~.i/0 -P< 501
Altfl.1C,^ '7 "7 '> MJ h( )).In ft. f7 f1..- \~ f...J
(~~!~AA ~Zl II n,
Z:~~~~JW~(.R),{jdo~e mile d
~ 1(/1L~~A-- _ s-lto tJW,,~ .
- ,-v"- ~
C&- -rc /~ ft;r(, -1_ /\1X~~ j1J'f1-'(~~
;;z;:z.;;2.. 0 ~~LA
-
" J4. 'ICR~('Y) ".. ',\ I "'Ill '{ .'1 I")
.
Homeowners'
Santa Monica
View Prevails
.
~,,~1a..rt "D
. Housing: Neighbors srop an
Adelaide Dflvc remodeling project
thac would h.lVC blocked their vIsta.
By JGLlO ~10Ri\N
T/\l CS STMF W~l rl ~
After nearly Four YCJr~, a group of homeowners
can offu:'aHy declare vlctory m \.helr ilg'lt to stop a
ne'ghbor's remodehnll' project ~hat would have
blocked ocean and canyon Views on scenic Ade-
[;llde Dflve 011 the :::JJ.nta :vtomca. Los Angeles
border
A Santa MOnica Superlor (ourt Judge carher thIs
momh released a S5:i,OOO bond put UP by the
Adelaide Drive Homeowners Assn m 1986. when It
flIed SUIt to ~top Peler Olmstead from remodeling
:11S home at 315 Adelaide Drive The grouD was
reqUlrcd to post the bond to cover damages In case
It lost the SUit
The release of the money W.JS the last legal step
In the fIght. whIch began Dee 10, 1986
Roger Jail DIamond. an attorney repiesentmg
the homeowf'erS, saId th~ :>ucccsstul fIght was
SIgnifIcant because If Olmstead had been allowed
La enlarge hlS house so as to block hlS neIghbors'
VLews, It may have opened the way for others to do
1t
The house tS next to a publiC stairway of nearly
200 steps connecting Adelaide DrIVe to Entrada
Dnve, and both the stairway and Adelaide Dnve
Jre used by many loggers In the area because of
ti1.c panoramic view of the PaCifiC Ocean and Santa
~tomca Canyon
"The btg worry was that If one hOUbe went up
above what IS now conSidered one of the
most beautiful streets In Los Angeles-not only lor
reSIdents but for VIsltors- thIS scemc drtve would
have turned mto an alley," DIamond saId "Resl-
dems would have had to face the rear por~lons of
people:~ houses. and It would have rumed die
.., treet.
Olmstead received bUlldmg perml18 from the
Clly of Los Angeles on Oct. I, 1986 NeIghbors
complamed when they realized that he planned to
bUIld above the Slreet1evel. whIch they said was
prOhIbIted by a 1961 zonmg ruling that limited the
height of some hlllslde houses to no more than five
feet below Adelaide Drive
The frame of Olmstead's house IS bUilt mto the
hillSIde betwcen AdelaIde Drive and Entrada
Dnve Althou~h most of the wood frame IS below
AdelaIde Dnve, a steel girder rises about 20 feet
ilbove the street
City offiCials ISSUed a stop-work order on OeL 21.
1986. but Olmstead Ignored It ReSIdents filed SUlt,
CASSY COllEN I Loll Ansele:l r,mN
Attorney Roger Diamond In front ot Adelalde-
Dnve remodeling Job he helped brmg to a halt
and the courts lssued a t-cmporary restrammg
order blockmg constructIOn until a Clt)' zarung
admmstrator heard the case
The heanng was held Dee 16. 1986, and on Jan
8, 1987, the adminIstrator ruled that the height
limit was valid. Olmstead appealed the deCISIon to
the cIty Board of Zonmg Appeals, and the
neIghbors receIved a prellmmary injunct'on to
prevent Olmstead from gOing forward wllh the
remodeling durmg hiS appeals. all of which he lo,>t.
Olmstead. who could not be reached for com-
ment. was also flghtmg a separate laWSUIt filed by
a couple who live next-door to the house Terry
Sanders and hIS WIfe, Frelda Mock. had filed SUIt In
August, 1986. ehargme Olmstead With encroachmg
on a drIVeway easement they needed to get to thelr
home,
In 1987. the Court ruled 10 favor of Sanders and
Mock. Olm:stead appealed the deCISIon, but lost
Tnal for damages was scheduled for October of
thIS year. but a settlement was re,,"ched 1'1
September.
As part of the settlement. Olmstead agreed to
sell hiS unfinIshed house to hiS neighbors Accord-
ng to property records, the unfinished hou~e sold
for $900.000
'" feel great," said Sanders "ThiS IS like
recovenng from an affliction."
Sanders said he plans to flO1Sh the house an-d sell
It, but has agreed not to bUild above street level
I
. t,f...
,J
-... ~"
., '.i
...if
, ,
;5
,\€)
?() -
V ~~
o "
~ .lJ -;../
",\l , ;;v
\J'- .\......
,\l"
\\)(,
r
. . ' ~
~........~
'-;,,:........
-....__..o_.
A
;;.
(Ii V'
~" '^'
~J I ;)
-'J '\
\ <'
~
/', ,<
.~,
..
II r"
ORDINANCE NO N77.:;5Z~_
A11ACtifYll;~
"'1F"~
. .
An ordlnanc. ~...nding Section 12 D. of the Los Ange1u Municipal Code
by ~m.ndl"g th. .onlng map
THE PEOPLE OF TilE CITY OF LOS .....NCElES DO ORO^IN AS FOLLOWS
S.ct]on L S.ctJan 11 D~ of the Lo, Angeles ~\uniclp.1 Code Js henby
amended ~y changing the zonlts and Ion. boundarlu shown upon a portion of
the lone map attached therato and "'~_' a part .' Artlcl. 2 Chapter 1. of the
Los "nqalu Munlcfpal Coda so that luch portion of Ihe zoning map IhaH be
al follow.
o
NW'lY UNE a' LOT C,
THE PAl.ISADES II LOT VAC
R8 14- 3!1Z, 11-351 OFiO 144
SANTA t.4ONICA CL TV
.
~
SC"'L!
~~.ET No. 521 10'
ITlt m !I~?: I
tjlO
IN
noz
7218
4?O
,ur
Icpc
68.0719 110 I
9 689
cnT FLA" CASE NO. 8P '719-80
PAGE 2
"II" D!'lELOFH.&lIT LIMITATIONS (COllIHtlOllS ~F APPItOVAL'
s.c:.+ 2.. 'u~.uarU: to Seet:ion 12.32-L
Ced.. t.... fo11ov1na llrdt.d.on.. aye neTt b J
th.r p rop.~ty .. ho.. n 1n S ect10n 1 h..rllof
"O"IJ..,tlop..nt L1.tt.tfon Cla..::I.fk,.ad.on...
the Lo. A nlelt. K unlclFaJ
bllpolitld upa'l the use of
v h1ch 1.8 ... .je~t to the
The hdlht of .n,. hulLUng Olf 8r.ructUf'fJ .h&11 not axe:e-ed th. lIa:xt..u_ eLlv.tt.on
of the ee..te~ J1n.. of that po~W.n of Aof~e Drive adjacent to each lot.
See J The City Clerk shall certify 10 the pusa,e of thll
ordinance and cause Ille 5ame 10 be published In some dally newspaper ptLnLec! and
publllhed In lh. CIl, of Lo. Anl.lel
I hereby unify Ihal .he foreloml ordinance was passed by the CounCl] of the
City of LOI Anleles,ll liS meeuna of iJaV 211989-
ELIAS MARTINEZ. Clry Cleric,
_-Pv ~ rl" {!
-Ul!.u"t:.4{ L-_;" LLI. z..k~.____
Deputy
By
.... ~D'Dved
NOV 28 1989
~Ar-a2-'91 THL 1~'1~ I~S PM ~60-~ TEL NO.~13 ~3~639
~.":;;;:"P;;;;;;M;;J~ -$-~'~-""~. - A~~~~~~
prz.-,' e",a.8S tu,u1dln51 ;1" It:-yct\,l rl I.~..dt th 1"1' ,torl61 .,. .45 f..t In height SlId yardl shill bl \n
aaOltlO" to "flV other yardl 0" utblckl req"irla by 9t"'.. provl.;on. of thl, artiel..
3, Whln tn. .l'YIlion of the rUQhllt IdJoJnln. ,Idew-Ilk 0,. 'l'Owncl IUrl.C' wlthift .
flv! foot hOrllQntl1 chltlnu of tn. ...terIO.. wall of . bulldln; nettd. Ind' by morl thin
20 fI.t. I tHlIldu'lSl 0" Itruc:tur. mlV ellc:eecl tl'\' height In numb... of feet pr.serlb.d '"
this IIl;tlO" by not mClre thin 14 f,.t. HOWlv.r, 110 11.11;h lodltional h.lght 'hill c:.~..
Iny "!"tlon of the building or .tructLlr. to exc..d I h.lght of ..~ f..t, .1 "'...u..ed fNlft
tn. niSh.,t point of tk. roof atructu'" 0" P''''P.t w'lI to the .I.v.tior'l of the i1l"Ound
IU riae. wl\ich 'I vlnlc.lll' !:I.low 'I,d ~il'll of lI'Ituurem.nt. (Am.ncl'cl by 0... No.
11O,G7, Iff. 2/1711&. O~I", 1/17/11.)
--- ~
; ....
11(;'1
~.....
v'
.,
3. CI) "ocf .t"uctl.lre. fo.. tl-., hQ~.lnl of ,llvltorl. ftlltwlYS, tankl, v,"tIlUlng
fan, 0" ,i",il.,. *"uip",.nt r'QlJl,..d to op....ta .nd m./nt.'n the bulldl".< Ikyl.,htl.
tOWI"'. at..;. I,., 'lagpole., ~t\imn.y'< smoktaue.kl, wit.lau malta, Wit." tlnln. 11101,
10111' energy devlc". or slmUIr structur.. mlY bl ,rec,t,d lbov. the heiSlht liMit IPlc.flC
In the ciiltri;t in whl,h the proptl"ty I' locatlcS If. fo,. IICt! foot luch ItructlH'1 "Cltd.
the ~.i.ht limit. In .quII IItbtOk from the roof pI"lm't... II pl"Ovld.d, tIlC.IPt thlt
,t'lrwly., c.tumn.y. tnd ventilltion Inlftl Ihlll not be I',Qul".ct to be .et b.ek from thl
,.....1' 1lI1,.I",ete,.. No por110fl of any rfWtf It..ucture I' Dl"Ovidld for ebov. ,hili e.e.," the
.pacif'ld helpM hmlt by /1IDf'W th.n f,..,e fNt. an'lIt thlt wn.... ""lQht II limited t::l
uv.nty.flve (75) fNt, rGCIf Itl'ucture. for the halJll~g of altveto!'1 .nd I'IIP'WIYI Ihlll
not l.elN tWIl'lty (20) f"t In h.lght. tnd wh.... "'tl,ht II Umited ta ttllrty (:10) f"l Dr'
farty.flv. (45) f..t. luch r-oof It..uctur.. for the ho".lng of II,vuD'" ll'ld ItalrwaYI Ihlll
not "CUd ten (10) t..t 'I'I h.~.ht.
(b) No portlDn af tny roof 1t"II~tU,.. II previdtd fol' In '.tI"lS!rlph . of thll
lubdiyi,io", oth." tn.n atlll'w'VI. chlmneYI Of" uh.".t du~ta, Ih.1l be loetted wlthi... five
(S) f.,t of the ,.tl"lMetel' of tne roof, .nd no &uGh Itructu.., Dr Iny ot~er IpIC' Ibov. thl
Ipaelfled height limit .hall b. IlIowed for tn. Iliu,.polt of pr'OvldinSl .c1dltional floor 'p'~,
(~) I" ,II 101'1". exc,,.t the A. R. CR, C1. .nd C1.5, . ro.of 11,1'1 ""Y .110 be
....ct.d abo". thl spMlfled height lindt.
CAmend" ~y Ort!. No. 180,857. !ff 2/11/88, O;.el'. tlnlll.)
4. In ,II hel,ht districts parklnliJ floo.. 'Plca With "laIU.f'y Il'It...lor drl~twlV' ,nd
P""'P' ,,,.,.Mo, 'pue within . ",w: .tructu,.. or p,nthDut. for the howlln, Qf !,wllel"'
operltlng equipment 01" mlcnin.ry, IPln "'f"OYld~ fo" 1bt ll"dlr,,, '"d .torlgl of
helicorttlra ."d bU'rIIent atorlge Iplee ,I'IIU not be CIInlidered In d.tarmin Ins the total
floor ..... within I ~ulldlna. (Am.ndl~ ~ Ora. No. 14C.7OC. 12/117'4)
5. ,".,..,''' by 0.... Ht. 132."1, En. 8121/")
6. N~lth",ndlnl thl pf'OVl.I..... of S.ction 12.11.1 A 10, bun;lnll on . lot In .
C or M %0"1 In H.illht Oi.triet No. 1 IhlU not " Astrlctla I" hl'ght .. pf'Ovidtcl ~.,.
S.~tlon 12.31. 1 A 10, """ar ,Ither of the following eil'CumltulI!!":
(I) Where 0"'1 at' mar. of the foUow'"g dllcretion.f"\I' IPPI'DVI11. lnttl.tltd b'f
appllcttlon bV "'l'Ope,-ty own.... or thllr reprulnntl"... wu ,nntecl on Of' If',..
JI"uary 1. 1813. and lpaclflcally Idd,....d the h,'.ht for en. 0" rno.... blolllclingl: ch.ng.
of 10"', ",.igM diltl"" Chi"", Ixe.,tion fl'Offt . 8toS1r'lIhl~JlV .peclflc pll", condltionel
UI_, vnl.nG'. t~lCt ,",P, INn.1 ...., 'r' c:N.t.t dnoelo",.."t """It. If .",en IPpnw.'
proV'.M fo.. . Ip.,ifie h.l.,ht, thin I.,eh "ltriC'll'" 1"'-11 1'llI'ly to the bulldlngt .nd
,t"udY'" Oft the loti or
.'
(bl Wn.,. .,.chltectu,..l and ,ttLletur.' pll"l lufflci.nt for I ~plet. p',n
ell.ok forr , bulldin, ",.mit 10r a building or .tructvl'l wtrt .ccapt~ by the O.p.rtm..,t
of BullChftl .nd S.fltv and for whl~ , ,left chHk fe. wit coUeetM on 0" b.fore the
effletivl dlte of tkl. lubdi"illon. end fol' which n. lub'.......n" chen,.. I'. me", to tho..
pllnl "hlcft In'r.... the h'l,ht. Howeve", any luch bulldi"1I PI "",It shell btcomt l"vlneS
If GOn.'......tl." '\I..,,,.nt to luch ,1""lt I. not COlIIlMnced wlthl" 1e months of th. ..t.
tn. pl.n ctl." f.. w.. aoU.ct....
(,4mend-o by OHl. No. 113.127, Eff. "20/M.)
SEC. 12.21.2 .- HEIGHT OF BUILDiNGS 01\ STRUCTURES IN C!NTUIlY CITY.
(Added ...,. 01'4. Ne. llD.1I57. Eff. att1lM'
WithIn the bolllt"...I.. ef the c.ntul"f City North .nd Cent"ry City South S,",c.lflC: P11"1
(Ordinance NOI. lM,1U and 1H.121, ...lptctt".ly), thl foUOYflnl dllflftlt\Dnl and
~1""tIO"1 11'1,11 .,,,IV;
.
. A1\AC..H J.Ar;~ "H'l
'C1TY :CuiJ&'U1 T AIJ'JfS
1333 Ocean A venue, Santa MOnIca, CA 90401
(213) 394-9831
Nay 10, 1991
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1685 Ma1n Street
Santa Nonica, CA 90401
Attent1on: Sharidon Laham
RE: 345 Adelaide
Dear Ms. Laham:
Enclosed please find the Cook Survey Wh1Ch shows
dlmenSlons of lot D, 345 Adelalde Dr1ve. As dlscussed with
you before, the applicants Mock & Sanders request to bUlld
the garage under Adelalde only to the center llne of the
street. I have measured Ade1alde at this location and it is
26 feet wlde. Lot D 1S 121 wlde and there lS 1.5' between
the curb and lot liD". Our Garage would come lnto Lot D by
approximately 4 feet.
As to the house Mock & Sanders lntend to bUlla, they
are wll11ng to restrict any part of the structure of the new
house to below Adelalde Street level. The approxlmate
helght of Adelalde is 1001 feet. This 1ncludes any type of
parapet wall, stalr way enclosure, etc. I which would be
perml tted under the L.A. code to exceed Adelalde height.
They ,-vould insure compliance of this restrlctlon for all
future owners with a deed restrictlon recorded on their
property.
Because of the wldth of Adelalde, there would be no
interference wlth traff1c flow durlng garage construction.
The beneflt of a deed restrictlon lS that the Vlew
from Fourth and Adelalde would be protected forever. It
would not depend on future City Zoning Codes, or the current
status of the proJect vis-a-vis past Iltlgatlon.
Thank you for your he lp ,
please contact me.
ou have any questlons
i u::/J~
n1e POlfll'
&J1/S-10-9l
//
.
.
c~('" \ if\e 0\ S"\vee"t
--
~ - ~ fr:;oseh. Ga.rD.1e. -
~I
\... o. D
LoT
c.
~OM"€- l Q,.
OUR PROPOSAL
345 Adelaide property owners will deed restr~ct so that nothing
~s constructed above Adelaide Dr~ve. thus preserv1ng valuable public
view shed.
WE REQUEST:
Approval 1n concept. Public hear~ng once staff has prepared
necessary documents.
q/l
J
.
~tJtJ -tfJ05 - O?-
e
~-B:.
CA:RMM:lld575jhpc
city council Meeting 1-9-90
Jl'\i't V 1;)",\1
Santa Monica, California
LJ _"!.~ .r :: '.<~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
city Attorney
SUBJECT:
Emergency Ordinance Extending the Moratorium on
construction of Basements and Underground Garages
Beneath Required Yards in the R-1 Zone District for
10 Months and 15 Days Pending Revisions to the
zoning Ordinance to Establish Standards for Such
Construction
At its meeting on November 28, 1989, the City Council
adopted an emergency ordinance that prohibits for 45 days the
construction of basements and underground garages that extend
beyond the footprint of any structure into required front, side
or rear yards in the R-1 Zone District.
In adopting this
ordinance, the City Council scheduled a public hearing on whether
it should be extended beyond the 45 day period.
The accompanying ordinance establishes a ten month and
fifteen day extension of the moratorium on construction of
basements and underground garages beneath required yards in the
R-l District.
The ordinance also directs city staff to
disapprove all applications filed after November 14, 1989, for
approval of planning, building, or other city perml.ts for the
construction of underground garages and basements that ext-.nd
beyond the footprint of any structure into required front, side,
or rear yards in the R-1 Zone District.
~-B
- 1 -
JAN
Ii 1fl r:l
J ~ -! ~ ;i
.
.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced and adopted.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney
- 2 -
e
.
,
CA:RMM:11561/hpc
City Council Meeting 1-9-90
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1508 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM
ON CONSTRUCTION OF BASEMENTS AND UNDERGROUND
GARAGES BENEATH REQUIRED YARDS IN THE R-1 ZONE
DISTRICT FOR TEN MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS PENDING
REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION AND
DECLARING THE PRESENCE OF AN EMERGENCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds
and declares:
(a) The Zoning Ordinance does not contain development
standards for subterranean garages and basements in the R-1 Zone
District.
(b) On more than one recent occasion, basements or
subterranean garages have been excavated to within eighteen
inches of the sidewalk.
( c)
The
construction
of
subterranean
garages
and
basements that extend beyond the footprint of structures into
required front, side and rear yards creates an inability to
realize groundwater recharge from rain and garden watering.
( d)
The
construct1on
of
subterranean
garages
and
basements that extend beyond the footprint of structures into
- 1 -
-
.
.
required front, side and rear yards will also have the effect of
creating more groundwater run-off.
(e) The construction of subterranean garages and
basements that extend beyond the footprint of structures into
required front, side and rear yards will intensify the use of
land in the R-1 Zone District beyond the level of intensity that
was intended.
(f) The Zoning Ordinance contains development standards
which govern the construction of subterranean garages and
basements in multi-family residential zones.
(g) The zoning Ordinance requires review and revision as
it pertains to the construction of subterranean garages and
basements in the R-1 Zone District.
(h) In light of the above-mentioned concerns, the City
council adopted Ordinance Number 1504 (CCS) on November 28, 1989,
which ordinance established a 45 day moratorium and set a public
hearing on whether to extend such moratorium for January 9, 1989.
(i) Pending completion of review and revision of the
Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to construction of subterranean
garages and basements in the R-1 Zone District, lt is necessary
to establish an interim control measure that will prevent further
construction of subterranean garages and basements that extend
into required front, side and rear yards in the R-l Zone
District.
SECTION 2. Moratorium.
(a) A moratorium is hereby placed on the acceptance for
processing of any applications for approval of planning, building
- 2 -
r
....
.
.
or other city permits in the R-l Zone District for the
construction of subterranean garages and basements that extend
beyond the footprint of any structure into required front, side
or rear yards.
(b) City staff is hereby directed to disapprove all
applications filed after November 14, 1989, for approval of
planning, building or other city permits for the construction of
subterranean garages and basements that extend beyond the
footprint of any structure into required front, side or rear
yards in the R-l Zone District.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be of no further force and
effect ten months and fifteen days from its adoption, unless
extended in the manner required by law.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance is declared to be an urgency
measure adopted pursuant to the provis1ons of Section 9120.6 of
the Santa Monica Munic1pal Code and Section 615 of the Santa
Monica City Charter. It 1S necessary for preservlng the public
peace, health and safety, and the urgency for its adoption is set
forth in the findings above.
SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
- 3 -
~
r
.
.
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The city Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance.
The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective upon adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ \.-.. ~- -e---
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
- 4 -
t'
t
.
.
Adopted and approved this 9th day of January, 1990.
f)9t.
1~
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance No. lS08(CCS)
was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the Ci ty
Council on the 9th day of January 1990; that the said Ordinance
was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the City council on
the 9th day of January 1990 by the following Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Finkel, Genser, Jennings,
Katz, Reed, Mayor Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Council1t\embers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
.MM-p~
-------- - City-Clerk f
r