Planning staff outlines housing element to meet tripled RHNA target; shortage of ~34,000 units means rezoning and new funding are required

Planning Department staff presented the Housing Element Update 2022 to the San Francisco Planning Commission on Nov. 3, saying the city faces a dramatically higher Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and needs widespread rezoning, funding and implementation changes to comply with state law.

"We had, approximately 82,000 unit RHNA total," James Pappas, a senior planner leading the site‑inventory work, told the commission. To meet state requirements and to provide a no‑net‑loss buffer under SB 166, staff recommended planning for about 94,000 units — the 82,000 target plus a 15% buffer.

Staff said the sites inventory and pipeline analysis identifies roughly 59,000 units of realistic capacity today, leaving a shortfall of about 34,000–35,000 units that would need to be accommodated through rezoning and other actions. To achieve that, staff described three illustrative rezoning scenarios that concentrate greater height and density along major commercial corridors and allow modest increases (three‑ to six‑unit buildings) in some residential neighborhoods.

Rhianna Tong, who presented the constraints analysis, said the department reviewed governmental constraints (lengthy approvals, general‑plan referrals, conditional‑use requirements) and non‑governmental constraints (high land and especially construction costs). The department’s feasibility work found construction costs to be the single largest barrier: "a 10% reduction in construction costs could improve the feasibility of 3‑ to 4‑unit buildings by 300 to $380,000," Tong said.

Staff outlined an implementation program organized into nine program areas that will bundle the plan’s more than 300 actions by responsible agencies, timeframes and measurable outcomes (for example, units to be produced by income category). Proposed tools to accelerate housing include ministerial approvals for some qualifying projects in "well‑resourced" neighborhoods, housing sustainability districts to encourage small multifamily housing and measures intended to streamline permitting and increase transparency.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about how the EIR treats height and the state density‑bonus, how technical advisory work on inclusionary rates and fees will be coordinated (the Technical Advisory Committee is advising the City Controller’s feasibility study), and whether a so‑called "circuit breaker" — a mechanism that would trigger mandatory actions if production lags — should be included in the element. Staff said the circuit‑breaker concept is being studied but is not yet part of the housing element’s actions.

Public commenters urged the commission and staff to make funding commitments, adopt legally enforceable accountability measures and pursue neighborhood planning as rezoning proceeds. Tom Radulovich of Livable City emphasized stronger integration of health and climate policies into the element; the Housing Action Coalition, labor and tenant advocates pressed for enforceable metrics, funding strategies and protections against displacement.

Staff said next steps include publication of the initiation packet, an initiation hearing (Nov. 17) to certify the EIR and begin rezoning, the formation of an interagency implementation committee in 2023, and a city‑led funding convening aimed at a funding strategy by January 2024.

What’s next: the commission will consider initiation and EIR certification at the Nov. 17 hearing and will continue technical work on TAC findings, rezoning scenarios and the implementation program.