Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee moves to close inclusionary-housing loophole for group housing, debates AMI levels
Summary
The committee voted to apply San Francisco's inclusionary housing requirements to group-housing projects (micro units/SRO-style private-bedroom buildings), adopted Planning Commission technical changes, and continued the ordinance one week to finalize AMI and drafting details after debate about whether rental affordable units should be set at deeper levels (55% AMI) or allowed at higher AMI (90% rental / 120% ownership) for middle-income targeting.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee advanced an ordinance clarifying that group housing projects are subject to the city's inclusionary affordable-housing program and adopted multiple technical amendments recommended by the Planning Commission.
Supervisors John Avalos and Kim coauthored the cleanup to close an interpretation gap the Planning Department flagged: while the original 2002 inclusionary ordinance included group housing in intent, later interpretations left some group-housing projects outside inclusionary requirements. Planning staff told the committee the change corrects conflicting code language so that market-rate group housing will carry the same inclusionary obligations as other housing types.
Planning Commission-recommended amendments adopted by the committee would apply certain quality-of-life requirements to group housing (for example, light and open-space standards similar to accessory dwelling units), provide an incentive by exempting on-site affordable inclusionary units from density calculations to improve project feasibility, and set pricing guidance for small bedrooms (group-housing bedrooms under 350 square feet priced at 75 percent of a studio for inclusionary affordability calculations).
Public comment and housing advocates urged maintaining deep affordability levels (the planning standard at present for on-site BMR units is 55 percent of area median income, AMI). Several speakers, including Tenderloin and housing-advocacy organizations, opposed a proposal by Supervisor Scott Wiener to allow group-housing inclusionary units to be targeted at a higher AMI (he proposed up to 90% AMI for rentals and 120% for ownership) without further policy review. Supporters of Weiner's suggestion said higher AMI could help projects pencil out and expand moderate-income housing supply; opponents warned it would reduce housing available to the lowest-income residents.
The committee adopted the Avalos and Christensen amendments and then took an oral amendment from Supervisor Wiener on AMI levels; the item was continued one week so city attorneys and staff can draft language and return the item with final ordinance text.
Next steps: Staff will prepare final ordinance language including the AMI specification and return to the committee for the scheduled continuation; after committee action the item will go to the full Board.
