Code Section: 121.2

Subject: Use exceeding use size limit, subdivision of

Effective Date: 3/97

Interpretation:

   This Section states that a conditional use authorization is required for a proposed use to exceed a certain size in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Where a single use exceeding that limit was proposed to be divided into two uses, one use continuing to exceed the limit and the other being under it, no conditional use is required. However, if a single use exceeding the limit were to be divided into two uses, BOTH OF WHICH CONTINUED TO EXCEED THE LIMIT, a conditional use authorization would be required because the number of noncomplying uses would be increased. Planning Code Subsection 178(c) states that an existing conditional use cannot be significantly altered, enlarged, or intensified without another conditional use authorization. Subsection 178(e) states that a conditional use can change to another conditional use only with a CU authorization but that it can change to a permitted principal use without a CU authorization. A previous interpretation [178 3/86] indicated that the splitting of a conditional use into two conditional uses constituted intensification, however splitting off a use that is not a conditional use does not require a conditional use authorization.

Code Section: 124 (f) and 415

Subject: Exemption of affordable units required per Sec. 415 from base floor area ratio limits

Effective Date: 11/04 (Clerically revised 1/14)

Interpretation:

   Section 124(f) permits additional square footage above the base floor area ratio limits in C-3-G and C-3-S districts for construction of dwellings on the site of the building affordable for 20 years to households whose incomes are within 150% of the city's median income. Section 415 requires that a certain percentage of all units constructed on a project site be affordable for fifty years to qualifying households earning 110% of the city's median income for ownership projects, and 55% of the city's median income for rental projects. In C-3-G and C-3-S districts, units required under Sec. 415 technically qualify for the floor area exemption provided under Sec. 124(f), because they meet the minimum affordability requirement of 150% of the city's median income. Thus, affordable units provided to meet the requirements of Sec. 415 are exempted from the base floor area ratio limit in C-3-G and C-3-S districts.

Code Section: 124.1 (d)

Subject: FAR and use size limit, Chinatown Mixed Use Districts

Effective Date: 10/93

Interpretation:

   This paragraph says that the floor area ratios normally applying to the Chinatown Mixed Use Districts shall not apply to uses which must relocate as a result of acquisition by the City. This exemption shall apply as well to the use size limit imposed by Section 121.4 so that no conditional use authorization would be needed for such use with a floor area normally requiring a CU and such use with a floor area exceeding the amount that would normally be allowed by CU would be allowed as a permitted use pursuant to the conditions of this paragraph.

Code Section: 130

Subject: Yards and setbacks, general

Effective Date: 1/86

Interpretation:

   A lot fronts on two streets which intersect at an angle of less than 90 degrees.

   The lot also has a property line adjoining another lot; this property line is at 90 degrees to one of the streets. In this case, one of the streets can be chosen as the frontage and the other street and the property line adjoining the next lot are considered to be side property lines. This creates a triangular lot for which one must apply the rules in Section 130(d).

Code Section: 130 (c)

Subject: Frontage

Effective Date: 11/85

Interpretation:

   This Section allows an owner to choose a frontage when a lot fronts on two or more streets. However, Section 173(b) limits the exercise of this option if the lot is already developed. The owner of a house having vehicular and pedestrian access only from Raycliff Terrace wanted to add to the end of the building that faces Broadway. For rear yard purposes, Section 173(b) would require us to determine that the building fronts on Broadway since the greater yard area faces Raycliff Terrace. However, since Broadway is so much lower than the lot, choosing Broadway as the frontage would put even a portion of the first story of the building over the height limit. Variances cannot be granted for height limits but they can be granted for rear yard purposes. Therefore, since the building is noncomplying whichever frontage is chosen, we decided to choose the frontage which would permit the discrepancy to be rectified with a variance. Therefore, Raycliff Terrace was chosen as the frontage and a variance can be sought to construct an addition to the "rear" of the building facing Broadway. (See 85.664V)

Code Section: 130 (c)

Subject: Optional frontage, frontage on two or more streets

Effective Date: 3/87

Interpretation:

   This subsection states that in the case of multiple frontage, the owner may elect a frontage for purposes of yards and setbacks. However, this option may have to be modified in some circumstances. Section 101.1 states that before any permit for any demolition, conversion or change of use is issued, findings of compliance with the Priority Policies of the General Plan shall be made. One of these Priority Policies [Paragraph 101.1(b)(2)] states that existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected. Subsections 172(b) and 173(b) state that no structure or lot shall be built, created or modified in such a way as to create a violation of the Code or increase an existing discrepancy. Section 307 states that the Zoning Administrator shall enforce the Code and gives the Zoning Administrator the authority to adopt such rules, regulations and interpretations and to take appropriate actions as are necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Code. Therefore, the owner's option provided by this subsection must occasionally be overridden. Examples of such occasions are noted below.

3/87:A through lot extended from a street to an alley. There was a large house on the street end and a smaller house on the alley end of this lot. Surrounding lots contained only one house built near the major street or also had a larger house near the major street and a smaller house near the alley. The owner wanted to choose the alley as the frontage in order to allow the smaller house to be expanded but was not allowed to do so as this would have run counter to the established building pattern of the block and would jeopardize the neighborhood character protected by the Priority Policies. It also would have placed the required rear yard under the larger house which, since it covered more ground, would have increased the rear yard deficiency. Further, it would have made the larger house nonconforming, making improvements to it more difficult. This would have jeopardized the viability of the larger house which offers greater housing potential than the smaller house in its less desirable location.

8/88:When one end of a lot is higher or lower than the other end, the Planning Commission would prefer new development to occur at the lower end in order to preserve the views of the existing residents of the area.

Code Section: 130 (c)

Subject: Frontage of lot abutting two streets

Effective Date: 1987

Interpretation:

   A lot is shaped nearly like a quarter pie slice with two interior lot lines meeting at a 90-degree angle and the street line curving from one of these lines toward the other.

   Before the curving street line can intersect the other interior line to complete the exterior corner, it is intersected by another street. The lot frontage created by the street which truncates this potential corner is only six feet. Since this six-foot frontage does not meet the minimum frontage standard, it cannot be chosen as the frontage for purposes of determining the location and size of the rear yard. Therefore the lot is treated like a triangular lot.