Supervisors debate three upzoning proposals, adopt chair's amendments and continue fourplex items

Supervisors spent the second half of the March 7 hearing debating three proposals to increase residential density in RH (residential house) districts. Supervisor Rafael Mandelmann presented a fourplex ordinance allowing up to four units per RH lot and up to six units on corner lots (with design and historic protections), emphasizing a local SB 9/SB 10‑aware approach. Supervisor Ahsha Safaee and Supervisor Gordon Mar each offered alternative proposals that would tie density gains to affordability or other conditions.

Audrey Marloney of the Planning Department summarized the Planning Commission's endorsement of Mandelmann's ordinance with modifications and the commission's recommendation to pursue a local SB 9 alternative, corner‑lot increases and other technical fixes. Planning staff repeatedly flagged feasibility concerns for mandatory inclusionary (below‑market) requirements on very small projects given current construction costs.

Supervisors questioned tradeoffs: whether streamlining and ministerial approval are necessary to generate volume, or whether affordability requirements should be mandated and subsidized. Several spoke of demolition protections, owner-occupancy pathways, and mechanisms to prioritize long-term owners and limit speculation.

The committee heard extensive remote and in-person public comment from housing advocates, architects, neighborhood groups, tenants' unions and development coalitions; some urged the Mandelmann/Haney approach as the most likely to produce units, others urged stronger affordability and tenant protections.

Chair Melgar circulated amendments that would (among other changes) create an RH2D option preserving characteristic setbacks, apply rent‑control to additional units created through the waiver, require a Planning Department report on residential design standards, and require an owner‑attestation for residency when using the density waiver (the residency clause was held for later action). The committee voted to adopt the chair's amendments to item 4 and then voted to continue items 4, 5 and 6 to the call of the chair so supervisors can reconcile the three proposals. The motions carried on recorded ayes from Peskin, Preston and Melgar.