Land use committee continues debate on RH1→RH2 rezoning; adopts 5‑year look‑back language and pauses vote

The Land Use and Transportation Committee continued deliberation on three linked housing rezoning proposals that would rezone most Residential 1‑family (RH1) districts to Residential 2‑family (RH2) districts and establish a density‑limit exception to enable duplexes and small multiplexes.

Chair Supervisor Mirna Melgar read a proposed amendment that would make property owners eligible for a density exception only if they had owned the property for at least five years; the amendment also included a provision allowing heirs to aggregate the ownership duration of a person or entity from whom they inherited the lot. Melgar said the change aimed to "discourage such speculation" while enabling intergenerational transfer of wealth.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin and other supervisors flagged feasibility and displacement concerns, noting planning's feasibility analysis shows gaps and that developers — not owner‑occupants — are likely to pursue many projects without robust anti‑speculation protections. Peskin urged careful drafting of inheritance language to avoid loopholes that could enable non‑family developers to benefit.

Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson advised the committee that, as written, inheritance language would apply to any type of inheritance and that the city attorney could redraft the amendment to narrow eligibility to family transfers if the committee wanted that narrower outcome.

Public commenters — including community and housing advocates — repeatedly urged anti‑speculation guardrails, technical and financial assistance for existing homeowners, and a five‑year look‑back to target homeowner participants instead of speculators. Joseph Smith of the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition warned that without strong anti‑speculation measures "this will become a destructive program for communities," and several speakers criticized assumptions in the feasibility study, including an assumed 18% developer profit.

Committee members agreed to accept the read‑in amendments to item 3 as articulated on the record and to pause final votes. The committee voted unanimously to continue item 2 to next week's meeting, to accept the read‑in amendment to item 3 and continue the amended file to next week, and to continue item 4 to the call of the chair so staff can finalize wordsmithing and ensure proper notice if republishing is necessary.

Supervisors and public commenters asked for additional feasibility analysis and suggested the City Controller could provide an independent review to examine how any incentives and affordability tools could be structured to reliably produce middle‑income and affordable housing while protecting current residents from displacement.

The actions leave the core policy choices — scope of the look‑back, whether inheritance aggregation is limited to family members, specific anti‑speculation enforcement measures, and any affordability requirements — unresolved and pending revised language and additional feasibility work.