468 TURK ST

2019-020740 · 468 TURK STREET

45comments

21in person

24emails

4hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 4 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Campaign emails (15)

please support bringing new homes at 468 turk street — 15 emails (15 / 0)

Taylor Hines · email · 2021-04-01 · support · campaign email · source packet

Please support bringing new homes at 468 Turk Street
Commission Secretary, I'm writing to express my support for a creative new project that would bring 101 much- needed affordable new homes to 468 Turk Street in the Tenderloin and urge you to approve this worthy project. Here are a few of the many reasons that make these thoughtfully-designed new residences uniquely well-suited for this particular location: 1. All homes are affordable by design in a nine-story bu… show more

Townsend Walker · email · 2021-04-01 · support · campaign email · source packet

Tomas Janik · email · 2021-04-15 · support · campaign email · source packet

Dj Capobianco · email · 2021-04-15 · support · campaign email · source packet

We need new homes in SF - please support 468 Turk Street
Commission Secretary, I'm writing to express my support for a creative new project that would bring 101 much- needed affordable new homes to 468 Turk Street in the Tenderloin and urge you to approve this worthy project. Here are a few of the many reasons that make these thoughtfully-designed new residences uniquely well-suited for this particular location: 1. All homes are affordable by design in a nine-story bu… show more

Joseph Dowell · email · 2021-04-15 · support · campaign email · source packet

Aaron Conner · email · 2021-04-15 · support · campaign email · source packet

Please support bringing new homes at 468 Turk Street
Commission Secretary, As a resident in the area... I'm writing to express my support for a creative new project that would bring 101 much- needed affordable new homes to 468 Turk Street in the Tenderloin and urge you to approve this worthy project. Here are a few of the many reasons that make these thoughtfully-designed new residences uniquely well-suited for this particular location: 1. All homes are affordable… show more

… and 9 more

Comments by hearing (30)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2021-03-25 · 4 comments · 2 / 2

Madeline Snyder · email · 2021-03-25 · oppose · source packet

comments re proposed building project no. 2019-020740CUA
Please take this comment from a resident of 430 Turk St. into account at the hearing today re proposed building project no. 2019-020740CUA. I already sent in my comment on the proposal last month (2/24/21) but I have attached it here again. The social services and property management staff at 430 Turk strongly oppose this development as it will be detrimental for the quality of life of our vulnerable senior and disab… show more

Jeff Pawlak · email · 2021-03-25 · support · source packet

Re: Public Comment Eligibility
Hi Ada, Thank you for the quick and helpful response. On that note, I would like to clarify the process of submission of public comment through videos. I'm the co-founder of Streetlight, a community engagement platform for real estate. We've collected a video comment from SF residents in support of 468 Turk Street, which is being reviewed at a public meeting this Thursday. The project attorney, Brett Glads… show more

Polly Hommel · email · 2021-03-25 · oppose · source packet

Commentary toward proposed project, Record Number 2019-020740CUA [for hearing on 3-
25-2021] Commentary toward proposed project, Record Number 2019-020740CUA [for hearing on 3-25-2021] Dear Planner, Alexandra Kirby; Environmental Reviewer, Florentina Craicun; Architect, Mark Macy; and Planning Commissioners, In the past month since this project<U+2019>s hearing was continued, I have done my best to learn as much as I can about this proposed project. It has been barely enough time to gat… 25-2021] Commentary toward proposed project, Record Number 2019-020740CUA [for hearing on 3-25-2021] Dear Planner, Alexandra Kirby; Environmental Reviewer, Florentina Craicun; Architect, Mark Macy; and Planning Commissioners, In the past month since this project<U+2019>s hearing was continued, I have done my best to learn as much as I can about this proposed project. It has been barely enough time to gather and begin to understand the material provided online. The matters that I find to be the most disturbing about this proposed project are as follows: 1) Information has not been provided to the impacted community in a way that it would be possible for the impacted community to absorb. I live in the building at 430 Turk Street, adjacent to the lot at 468 Turk Street where this project is proposed to occur. Those of us who live in this building are either seniors or disabled. There are numerous ethnicities represented, and a variety of disabilities that are experienced here. A great deal, I would say a robust majority, of the population living here is unable to read the information that was sent out by the San Francisco Planning commission about this hearing. This is due to literacy issues, vision issues, language barriers, lack of technical means to gather information, lack of ability to navigate online, and often an inability to collect mail at all due to mobility issues. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the manner in which these notices were prepared and mailed out is grossly insufficient given the sheer magnitude of potential impact that each resident should know is being discussed. I firmly believe there has been a negligence of effort to inform the neighborhood about what is being proposed, and what I now see has been <U+201C>recommended for approval<U+201D> per the current agenda for the Planning Commission<U+2019>s hearing on March 25th, 2021. To the very best of my awareness there has been no information whatsoever provided to the community about the change of date of the hearing. I am appalled at the lack of communication and very much so about the lack of appropriate communication to the potentially impacted community overall. Given the lack of proper informing, I recommend the hearing be further postponed until such a time when the entire community will have been told about this proposed project in a manner that can be parsed by each individual. Were it not a health risk due to COVID-19, I would have insisted that an informational meeting be given at our building, with other potentially impacted neighbors invited, to help people know what is being proposed. As it became, to the very best of my knowledge, I am the only person in my building who had the conditions to read, understand, and research the proposed plan. Every neighbor I was able to speak to had no idea at all about the proposed project. After educating myself as best I could, I prepared a brief summary of what I have learned about the proposal, to circulate in large print within my building. Sadly, I think this is still insufficient means of notice about this hearing and about the proposed project, for the reasons listed above, and the time I had to take this action was also insufficient given the steep learning curve of figuring out what a planning proposal includes. To be vulnerable and open, I don<U+2019>t know what my options are as a concerned citizen, beyond writing this letter, and taking a risk to call in for 3 minutes during the hearing on the 25th. I was dismayed to see the new agenda for this Planning Commission hearing has a recommendation for approval of this project. I strongly object to the project itself, and as I<U+2019>ve written above, to the utter lack of information that has been provided to the potentially impacted community in a way that they can understand. I wonder what options are available? What compromises can happen? There has been no communication from the architecture firm. While I imagine there may be some financial return for those involved in funding the project, I urge the commission to consider, what does this project bring to the neighborhood? I only see drawback after drawback. On a personal level, I object to the proposed plan because it would take away the little sun and airflow that I receive in my apartment, both of which are quite important to my wellbeing, as I<U+2019>m sure it is for each of my neighbors as well. The proposed demolition and construction of an oversized building so close to my window is staggeringly upsetting. What about those of us with PTSD who are affected by loud noise and building vibration? What about those of us who need a peaceful environment? This project would devastate us. We have nowhere else to go. I have seen no offer of concession or promise to work within certain hours only, to promise days of quietness. And even if such a promise had been extended, where could we go during construction hours, and how would we get there? Finally, I strongly question the appropriateness of this project at all. Why would anyone think to place a brand new for-profit, privately-funded, market-rate, high-tech <U+201C>micro-pad<U+201D> building at this location? I feel this is a pure power grab, where the architecture firm and those who are funding the project are explicitly looking to take advantage of the vulnerable surrounding population who barely have the conditions to support themselves, and who have not been provided with sufficient resources to understand what may be coming. Even the architectural firm<U+2019>s website is misleading, featuring pictures of homeless people and claiming to be helping solve the homelessness crisis. What an offensive lie. I strongly oppose this project, I am offended at the lacking manner in which it has come to the point it is at, and it is a destructive proposition to the residents it would impact so horribly. Sincerely, Polly Hommelshow more

Ben Libbey · email · 2021-03-25 · support · source packet

468 Turk Street - 2019-020740CUA
3/24/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Via Email Re: 468 Turk Street 2019-020740CUA Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housin… 3/24/2021 San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Via Email Re: 468 Turk Street 2019-020740CUA Dear San Francisco Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality<U+2019>s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. . . . (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story building and to construct a nine-story residential building with 101 group housing units and associated amenities. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Lawshow more

2021-04-15 · 18 comments · 5 / 13

M. Brett Gladstone · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

468 Turk Street Hearing This Thursday
Dear Liz and Jonas. See below email to Claudine. She appears to be out today. Because of that, I wonder if you or someone there can put the attached on the Commission website. I am about to email it to all Commissioners. I understand from Liz that the letter on the website that had some issues, corrected by the attached, did not get into the Commission packet. The issues involved a missing Exhi… show more

North Market · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

468 Turk St project
RE: Public Comment Dear Commissioners, Again another project with over 100 units for the neighborhood. These unit sizes are similar in size to some of the SROs in the neighborhood. We again don't need more people in this densest neighborhood. The project did not have feedback from the neighborhood and the project should not be granted any conditional use permits until proper engagement of the community is do… show more

Corey Smith · email · 2021-04-15 · support · source packet

Re: 468 Turk Street Supporters
Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, I've attached an updated list with additional signers in support of the housing proposal at 468 Turk Street. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Deputy Director, HAC On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:03 PM Corey Smith [email removed]> wrote: Members of the San Francisco Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coa… show more

Michael Nulty · email · 2021-04-15 · oppose · source packet

468 Turk Street Project Public Comment
Subject: 468 Turk Street Project Public Comment April 14, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Alliance for a Better District 6 (ABD6), we write to express grave concerns about the proposed project at 468 Turk St. Since 1999, ABD6 has served as a planning and land use entity within the central city neighborhoods. Our membership includes a cross-section of working-class, very low-income resi… Subject: 468 Turk Street Project Public Comment April 14, 2021 Planning Commission Members/Commission Staff: On behalf of Alliance for a Better District 6 (ABD6), we write to express grave concerns about the proposed project at 468 Turk St. Since 1999, ABD6 has served as a planning and land use entity within the central city neighborhoods. Our membership includes a cross-section of working-class, very low-income residents, seniors, disabled, and families. We try to balance their current and future needs. We work with stakeholders, decision- makers, and elected officials to raise public awareness on issues that impact their quality of life. This development proposes 101 group housing units. Concerns are: ABD6 is tired of developers asserting that they know what is best for our neighborhood If we truly want to center race and social equity in our city's planning work, then we must address the inequity that exists when it comes to community process and development in sensitive communities like the Tenderloin It is disappointing to see a project like 468 Turk St., streamline its way through the planning process without even a good neighbor agreement to ensure that our most vulnerable are protected For these reasons, ABD6 cannot support this project There is no need for a proposal of 101 units averaging 220 square feet - this is not what community residents have expressed as desirable for our neighborhood Also wish to point out the Alliance for a Better District 6 is on the San Francisco Planning Department's community contact list for all new projects and permits. ABD6 has not had any direct outreach from the project sponsor. Some of our members wish to see a continuance, to address so of the community concerns that will be mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing on April 15th. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at [email removed]. Thank you for your consideration PS. The Alliance for a Better District 6 wishes to point out that two months ago we created an online petition dealing with the exact same issue of group housing in the Tenderloin as to not confuse people we did not create a second online petition for 468 Turk Street which is even far more lacking community input and enough space for residents. Please consider the 538 signatures gathered when deciding on this project's merits. Michael Nulty Executive Director Alliance for a Better District 6 Michael Nulty P.O. Box 420782 San Francisco, CA 94142-0782 [phone removed] - Alliance for a Better District 6 http://abd6.cfsites.org/show more

Mark Macy · spoken · 2021-04-15 · support

Project sponsor

John Nulty · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Inequity

Brett Gladstone · spoken · 2021-04-15 · support

Project sponsor

Kathy Vaughn · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Community input, family housing

Gabriela Ruiz · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Take community concerns into consideration

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Asking for continuance

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-04-15 · support

Support

Sue Hestor · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Outreach, racial and social equity

Sara Ogilvie · spoken · 2021-04-15 · support

Support

Anastasia Yovanopoulos · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Work it out

Michael Nulty · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Continuance

Curtis Bradford · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Postpone

Gail Seagraves · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Community engagement

David Elliott Lewis · spoken · 2021-04-15 · oppose

Health impacts, needs rethinking

2021-05-06 · 7 comments · 3 / 4

Mark Macy · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Project sponsor

Brett Gladstone · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

Project sponsor

Eric Arguello · spoken · 2021-05-06 · oppose

Social equity, accessibility for the disabled public

Corey Smith · spoken · 2021-05-06 · support

SB330, State density bonus law

Curtis Bradford · spoken · 2021-05-06 · oppose

Group housing

David Elliott Lewis · spoken · 2021-05-06 · oppose

Project will harm neighborhood, units inadequate

Michael Nulty · spoken · 2021-05-06 · oppose

Not equitable way to treat the neighborhood

2022-12-15 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Mark Macy · email · 2022-12-15 · oppose · source packet

2022 SF Housing Element - "Group Housing Definition Revision" Ordinance 50-22 is a
violation of SB-330 Shelley, Please see attached PDF with my comments on the 2022 Housing Element Update (Draft released to the public on 10/06/22.) They are in specific regard to "group housing" and the "Group Housing Definition Revision" Ordinance 50-22 that went into effect on March 31, 2022. Please confirm receipt. Best, Mark -- Mark Macy, AIA, LEED AP Principal Macy Architecture 315 Lind… violation of SB-330 Shelley, Please see attached PDF with my comments on the 2022 Housing Element Update (Draft released to the public on 10/06/22.) They are in specific regard to "group housing" and the "Group Housing Definition Revision" Ordinance 50-22 that went into effect on March 31, 2022. Please confirm receipt. Best, Mark -- Mark Macy, AIA, LEED AP Principal Macy Architecture 315 Linden Street San Francisco, CA 94102 USA direct [phone removed] tel [phone removed], ext. 233 email [email removed] web http://www.macyarchitecture.com 13 October 2022 Shelley Caltagirone Interim Project Manager <U+2013> Housing Element 2022 Update San Francisco Planning Department Email: [email removed] Tel: [phone removed] Re: Housing Element 2022 Update: October 6 Release & Public Comment Period Ms. Caltagirone, This comment letter is regarding the 2022 Housing Element Update (Draft 4 dated 10/06/22) -- specifically with respect to all references in the Draft to "group housing".i After the <U+201C>March 2022 Release<U+201D> of the draft Housing Element, San Francisco<U+2019>s <U+201C>Group Housing Definition Revision<U+201D> Ordinance 50-22 went into effect on March 31, 2022. ORDINANCE 50-22 IS A VIOLATION OF SB-330 Ordinance 50-22 reduces housing density and, therefore, is in violation of State Law SB-330. It does this in an oblique fashion by redefining group housing in the Planning Code. This redefinition imposes a new <U+201C>common space<U+201D> requirement which, along with a new <U+201C>shared kitchen<U+201D> requirement, has the net effect of reducing the number of group housing units that can be accommodated on a development site. Group housing is currently allowed in 82 zoning districts throughout the City (Exhibit A, attached.) Ordinance 50-22, counter to state law, is downzoning a significant portion of San Francisco. By using the development site located at 468 Turk Street (Block 0366 Lot 006) as an example, I<U+2019>ve prepared a simple 1-page "explainer" (Exhibit B, attached) on how the Ordinance, through the imposition of these new requirements, reduces housing density and, thus, violates state law. 468 Turk Street is located on a 4667-sf lot in the RC-4 <U+201C>Residential Commercial High Density<U+201D> Zoning District which allows 1 group housing unit per 70 sf of lot area. The property has an 80-foot height limit and 25% rear yard requirement. Accordingly, the allowable group housing density is 67 units. (4667 / 70 = 66.67; round up to 67.) Prior to the passage of the Ordinance, one could accommodate 67 Units (@ 300 sf each) within the allowable 80-foot high (8-story) envelope. After the passage of the Ordinance, density is reduced by over 31% to 46 units (@ 300 sf each) within the allowable envelope. This is due to the Ordinance's new requirement of 0.5 sf of "common space" per every 1 sf of "private space". This means that for each 300-sf unit, the Ordinance now requires 150 sf of "common space" <U+2013> which eliminates 3 units per floor <U+2013> resulting in 21 fewer units. The Ordinance also mandates that within the newly-required <U+201C>common space<U+201D>, a shared kitchen must be provided for every 15 units. So, in the 468 Turk example -- since there are now 46 units -- at least 4 shared kitchens must be provided (46 units / 1 kitchen per 15 units = 3.1; round up to 4.) ORDINANCE 50-22 ELIMINATES AN APPEALING AND COST-EFFECTIVE HOUSING OPTION Prior to the passage of the Ordinance, an individual group housing unit was allowed to have "limited cooking facilities" -- basically a kitchenette with 2-burner cooktop, convection microwave, small sink and undercounter refrigerator/freezer (Per Zoning Administrator Interpretation - Planning Code Sec. 209.2(a) dated 10/05.) Accordingly, each unit -- having its own bathroom and kitchenette -- could function as a very efficient and cost-effective "mini-studio". At 300 sf, this (group housing) mini-studio, since it is 33% smaller in size than a more typical 450 sf studio dwelling unit, could also rent (or be sold) for 33% less. However, since the passage of the Ordinance, a group housing unit is no longer allowed to have its own kitchenette and the residents are now forced to use shared kitchen facilities in order to prepare their meals. This dramatically reduces resident autonomy and, of course, makes living in such a unit substantially less appealing. Per the most recent estimates, 45% of the population of San Francisco consists of single/unmarried/unrelated persons (e.g. one person living alone or singles living together as roommates.) Accordingly, singles comprise a significant portion of the population and San Francisco should be increasing -- not decreasing <U+2013> cost-effective housing options with appealing features supporting independent living for this population. Prior to the passage of the Ordinance, the (group housing) mini-studio typology provided an attractive, self-sufficient and cost-effective housing option for singles that could not afford the price of a typical studio; but preferred to live alone rather than being compelled to share a <U+201C>family-sized<U+201D> unit with others. Ordinance 50-22 has eliminated the option of the cost-effective (group housing) mini-studio for this demographic. ii Additionally, the Ordinance no longer allows "for-sale" group housing units; all units must be rental. This unnecessarily and unfairly reduces homeownership opportunities -- especially a more naturally affordable one -- that can provide individuals of modest means access to the City<U+2019>s increasingly daunting <U+201C>homeownership ladder.<U+201D> This is contrary to where housing policy should be heading in San Francisco. ORDINANCE 50-22 INCREASES UNCERTAINTY IN THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS It also must to be noted that recent housing/land-use legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors (e.g. Ordinance 50-22, Resolution 10-21, etc.) does not contain <U+201C>grandfathering clauses.<U+201D> This means that housing project applications currently under review are being subjected to a sudden mid-stream changing of the rules. This, of course, runs counter to the policies that the latest draft of the Housing Element is claiming to espouse with regard to reducing uncertainty in the entitlement process.iii ORDINANCE 50-22 SHOULD BE REPEALED IN ORDER TO HAVE A COMPLIANT HOUSING ELEMENT In summary, Ordinance 50-22 reduces housing density and, therefore, is in violation of State Law SB-330. Furthermore, it inhibits more naturally-affordable housing options <U+2013> both rental and ownership tenures. Accordingly, a compliant Housing Element should be conditioned on the repeal of Ordinance 50-22 and a return to the previous definition of group housing. This would facilitate the creation of more housing units, with more attractive features, at a more affordable <U+201C>middle-income<U+201D> price point -- and actually help the City meet its RHNA goals rather than work against achieving them.iv Regards, Mark Macy Principal [email removed] [phone removed] cc. Lisa Frank, Senior Housing Policy Specialist, CA Housing & Community Development Malena Leon Farrera, Policy Analyst and Outreach Coordinator, SF Planning Department Rich Hillis, Planning Director, SF Planning Department Rafa Sonnenfeld, Director of Legal Advocacy, Yimby Law Corey Smith, Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition i <U+201C>Analysis of Governmental & Non-Governmental Constraints<U+201D> Pages: 14, 15, 30, 31, 65, 79, 222. ii Ordinance 50-22 conflicts with <U+201C>Housing Element Goals, Objectives, Polices and Actions<U+201D>: Goal 4 <U+201C>Provide sufficient housing for existing residents and future generations for a city with diverse cultures, family structures, and abilities.<U+201D> (Page 31) Objective 4.B <U+201C>Expand small and mid-rise multi-family housing production to serve our workforce, prioritizing middle- income households iii <U+201C>Analysis of Governmental & Non-Governmental Constraints<U+201D> regarding the problem of pervasive uncertainty in San Francisco<U+2019>s entitlement process -- see Pages 6, 9, 36, 39, 60, 69, 106, 133, 234, 243, etc. iv Accordingly, rescinding Ordinance 50-22 would support the following <U+201C>Housing Element Goals, Objectives, Polices and Actions<U+201D>: Objective 4.B <U+201C>Expand Small and Mid-rise Multi-family Housing Production to Serve our Workforce, Prioritizing Middle-income Households. (Also see Policies 23, 25 , 31 & 34*.) * Note: The additional proposal to eliminate of the definition of group housing altogether and the attempt to replace it with the yet-to-be-defined /nebulous <U+201C>co-living<U+201D> or <U+201C>co-housing<U+201D> alternative, as proposed in Policy 34, Action (a) and Appendix A: Glossary (Page 113) should be rejected since, as presently proposed, it would further consolidate <U+2013> and attempt to obscure -- the underlying illegal downzoning effected by Ordinance 50-22.) Objective 4.C <U+201C>Expand and Diversify Housing Types for All<U+201D> Whereas, retaining the Ordinance would undermine the Objectives by reducing housing production for middle- income households and restricting diverse housing options. Furthermore, Ordinance 50-22 is in direct conflict with Policy 28 as it not in compliance with State housing law. EXHIBIT A October 13, 2022 ZONING DISTRICTS IN SAN FRANCISCO WHERE GROUP HOUSING IS PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED NOTES: (1) Density potentially further constrained by envelope controls (e.g. height, bulk, setbacks, exposure, open space, etc.) (2) Density limited exclusively by envelope controls. (3) Group Housing not permitted within Central SoMa Special Use District overlay. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 209.2 RM-1 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 209.2 RM-2 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 209.2 RM-2 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 209.2 RM-4 1 Bedroom per 70 sf of Lot Area (1) RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 209.3 RC-3 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 209.3 RC-4 1 Bedroom per 70 sf of Lot Area (1) RESIDENTIAL-TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 209.4 RTO Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 209.4 RTO-M Not Limited by Lot Area (2) COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 210.1 C-2 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 210.2 C-3-O Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 210.2 C-3-O (SD) Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 210.2 C-3-R Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 210.2 C-3-G Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 210.2 C-3-S Not Limited by Lot Area (2) EXHIBIT A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 710 NC-1 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 711 NC-2 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 712 NC-3 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 713 NC-S 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 714 NCD-Broadway 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 715 NCD-Castro 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 716 NCD-Inner Clement 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 717 NCD-Outer Clement 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 718 NCD-Upper Fillmore 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 719 NCD-Haight 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 720 NCD-Excelsior 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 721 NCD-Japantown 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 722 NCD-North Beach 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 723 NCD-Polk 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 724 NCD-Sacramento 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 725 NCD-Union 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 726 NCD-Pacific 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 727 NCD-Lakeside 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 728 NCD-24th St. /Noe Valley 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 729 NCD-West Portal 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 730 NCD-Inner Sunset 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 731 NCD-Noriega 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 732 NCD-Irving 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 733 NCD-Taraval 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 734 NCD-Judah 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 735 NCD-Inner Balboa 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 736 NCD-Outer Balboa 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 737 NCD-Bayview 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 738 NCD-Cortland 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 739 NCD-Geary 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 740 NCD-Mission Bernal 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 741 NCD-San Bruno 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 742 NCD-Cole Valley 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 743 NCD-Lower Haight 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) 744 NCD-Lower Polk 1 Bedroom per 210 sf of Lot Area (1) 745 NCD-Inner Taraval 1 Bedroom per 275 sf of Lot Area (1) EXHIBIT A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TRANSIT DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 750 NCT-1 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 751 NCT-2 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 752 NCT-3 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 753 NCT-SoMa Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 754 NCT-Mission Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 755 NCT-Ocean Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 756 NCT-Glen Park Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 758 NCT-Regional Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 759 NCT-Divisadero Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 760 NCT-Fillmore Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 761 NCT-Hayes/Gough Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 762 NCT-Valencia Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 763 NCT-24th St. /Mission Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 764 NCT-Upper Market Not Limited by Lot Area (2) MIXED USE DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 810 CBD-Chinatown 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 811 VRD-Chinatown 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 812 NCD-Chinatown 1 Bedroom per 140 sf of Lot Area (1) 813 RED Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 827 RH-DTR Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 828 TB-DTR Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 829 SB-DTR Not Limited by Lot Area (2), (3) 840 MUG Not Limited by Lot Area (2), (3) 841 MUR Not Limited by Lot Area (2), (3) 842 MUO Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 843 UMU Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 844 WMUG Not Limited by Lot Area (2) MISSION BAY USE DISTRICTS PLANNING CODE SECTION ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED DENSITY NOTES 906 MB-R-1 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 907 MB-R-2 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 908 MB-R-3 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 909 MB-NC-2 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 910 MB-NC-3 Not Limited by Lot Area (2) 9811 MB-CN-S Not Limited by Lot Area (2) OPEN TO BELOW UNIT 300 SF 58.33' 80.00' 80.00' 58.33' UNIT 300 SF REQ'D COMMON 900 SF ELEVATOR UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF THRU 8 FLOORS 2 OPEN TO BELOW UNIT 300 SF 58.33' 80.00' 80.00' 58.33' UNIT 300 SF ELEVATOR UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF THRU 8 FLOORS 2 UNIT 300 SF 58.33' 80.00' 80.00' 58.33' UNIT 300 SF TRC REQ'D COMMON 600 SF REAR YARD (25%) ELEVATOR UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF ENTRY FLOOR 1 T H E E F F E C T O F S A N F R A N C I S C O ' S " N E W G R O U P H O U S I N G ( R E ) D E F I N I T I O N " O R D I N A N C E 5 0 - 2 2 A P P R O V E D M A R C H 3 1 , 2 0 2 2 E X A M P L E H O U S I N G D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E ADDRESS: 468 TURK ST. 94102 BLOCK / LOT: 0336 / 006 LOT AREA: 4667 SF ZONING: RC-4 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: 80 FEET ALLOWABLE DENSITY: 67 UNITS B E F O R E O R D I N A N C E A F T E R O R D I N A N C E 6 7 U N I T S 4 6 U N I T S C O N C L U S I O N SAN FRANCISCO'S NEW "GROUP HOUSING (RE) DEFINITION" ORDINANCE 50-22 REDUCES HOUSING DENSITY BY UP TO 31% (67 UNITS DOWN TO 46 UNITS) AND IS, THEREFORE, IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA'S "HOUSING CRISIS ACT" SB-330. A R E A S U M M A R Y S F A R E A S U M M A R Y S F 67 UNITS @ 300 SF EA. C I R C U L A T I O N COMMON SPACE (OPTIONAL) T O T A L 46 UNITS @ 300 SF EA. C I R C U L A T I O N COMMON SPACE (REQUIRED) T O T A L 7,300 20,100 600 28,000 7,300 13,800 6,900 28,000 UNIT 300 SF 58.33' 80.00' 80.00' 58.33' UNIT 300 SF TRC OPTIONAL COMMON 600 SF ELEVATOR UNIT 300 SF UNIT 300 SF REAR YARD (25%) ENTRY FLOOR 1 V S (1 UNIT PER 70 SF OF LOT AREA) (RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY) MACY ARCHITECTURE C 2022 EXHIBIT Bshow more