Land Use Committee forwards 2014 Housing Element to full Board amid litigation concerns and public calls for more action

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee on March 24 voted to forward the proposed 2014 Housing Element and related ordinance to the full Board as a committee report with a recommendation, after a lengthy staff presentation and public comment that included concerns about ongoing appellate litigation and missing packet materials.

Planning Department staff described the housing element as the data-driven guiding document for the city's housing strategy. Planning staff member Audrey Desmuec said, “As you are all probably aware of, San Francisco is growing and will only continue to grow into the future. Today, some 818,000 people call the city home,” and cited regional plans and RHNA targets that set a new 2015–2022 target of nearly 29,000 units alongside a cited pipeline of roughly 38,000 entitled units. Staff said the element includes updated policies and implementing programs on short-term rentals, displacement, homelessness and changes tied to Proposition K to expand permanently affordable housing in specified plans and districts.

Supervisors pressed staff for more granular information about the affordability mix in the pipeline (very low, low, moderate, market-rate). Staff said the chart presented targets rather than a detailed pipeline breakdown and that quarterly reports would provide further detail. The planning presentation also noted San Francisco ranked third out of nine Bay Area counties in meeting affordable housing targets in the previous planning period, with Alameda County ranked first.

Several public commenters urged caution or changes before adoption. Patricia Vohrey of Marina/Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants urged supervisors not to vote and said earlier housing promises had not been fulfilled; an unidentified commenter and Roshi Fekuda of the Coalition for Central Neighborhoods urged postponement until appellate proceedings over earlier EIRs conclude, arguing the city ‘‘acts at its own risk’’ if it approves the housing element while litigation is pending. John Bartosz criticized staff materials as ‘‘deficient’’ and said an important statement had been omitted from the packet.

A representative of the City Attorney's Office told the committee there is ongoing litigation in the Court of Appeal regarding the EIR for the previous housing element but stated the city can rely on an addendum to that EIR and may vote today. The committee ultimately agreed to move the ordinance and housing element forward as a committee report with a recommendation to the full Board.

Supporters including Alyssa Keyes of SPUR told the committee adoption would allow mayoral working-group initiatives and implementation measures to proceed, but urged additional steps — restarting neighborhood planning, easing accessory dwelling unit production, pilot projects for middle-income housing, and process reforms to reduce cost and risk for housing approvals.

The committee's action forwards the housing element to the full Board for final consideration; supervisors and staff said more detailed pipeline and affordability breakdowns will be provided in follow-up reports.