Supervisors keep group-housing inclusionary rules after public outcry; Wiener withdraws AMI amendment

The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted Tuesday to move the city’s group-housing inclusionary ordinance to the full Board with a favorable recommendation after Supervisor Scott Wiener said he would withdraw an amendment he had proposed to raise the AMI eligibility level for inclusionary units.

Why it matters: The change would affect which income brackets qualify for below-market-rate units produced as part of new group-housing developments. Advocates and neighborhood groups pressed the committee to apply the inclusionary ordinance to group housing at the ordinance’s existing standard — 55 percent of area median income (AMI) for on-site units — arguing that raising the AMI cap would benefit higher-earning renters and fail to protect lower-income Tenderloin residents and SRO occupants.

Supervisor Wiener told the committee he had initially proposed allowing on-site inclusionary units to qualify up to 90 percent of AMI and that he believed the policy would help produce more middle-income housing. After consulting the City Attorney’s office following last week’s meeting, Wiener said the office advised the amendment would conflict with voter-approved Prop C and that he would retract it. “We will, of course, honor that advice,” Wiener said.

Public commenters filled the chamber and urged the Board to keep group housing subject to the existing inclusionary rules. Speakers included residents and advocates from the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, Faithful Fools, Mission SRO Collaborative, Hospitality House and several neighborhood and tenant associations. Catherine Wolf, president of the SOMA Residents Community Association, told the committee she had been homeless two-and-a-half years earlier and urged protections that preserve dignity for renters. Other speakers stressed that on-site units set at 55 percent AMI better target the city’s most vulnerable residents.

Supervisor Jane Kim, the ordinance’s author, emphasized the history and intent of the inclusionary program and argued that group-housing developers should be held to the same requirement of 12 percent on-site units at 55 percent AMI. She noted that many micro-unit projects now being financed are being targeted at incomes near 90 percent AMI and said the committee should not rewrite the city’s inclusionary framework in this subcommittee. After public comment, Kim said she would move the item forward to the full Board.

What the committee did: After public testimony, Supervisor Wiener formally withdrew his amendment and the committee accepted that motion; the item was forwarded to the full Board as a committee report with a positive recommendation.

What’s next: The item will be considered by the full Board; members and advocates said they expect continued scrutiny over how AMI thresholds and on-site versus off-site compliance interact with larger housing goals.