South City tables upzoning

The decision arrived at the early part of a meeting Wednesday, March 10, during a discussion regarding Senate Bill 9, which essentially stands to achieve the same goals of South City councilmembers who voted last month to study the effects of removing single-family zoning standards. SB 9 would allow lot splits and duplexes by right in single-family residential zones.

Noting that the city’s zoning regulations could be amended by the state Legislature, and that county officials are planning to delve into affordability issues through the forthcoming 21 Elements study, South City officials agreed to table local zoning considerations.

“Let’s take a step back, reassess after receiving the county data and let’s see how the county study affects South San Francisco and the region,” said Vice Mayor Mark Nagales.

The move effectively pauses the upzoning discussion in South San Francisco until the fall, when the state and regional officials are expected to have made more progress on their separate initiatives. Prior to the Wednesday decision, South San Francisco officials were slated to discuss the matter locally through the pending general plan update.

The proposal to look into allowing construction of duplexes, triplexes and other moderately dense development in neighborhoods traditionally reserved solely for single-family homes was to be brought to an advisory committee guiding the update. Consultants hired to facilitate the general plan update anticipated discussions around the issue will cost about $100,000 and delay the process by about four months.

Community outreach was to be sought by the advisory committee before any formal policy amendments were considered by councilmembers, but word spread quickly among residents that the potentially transformative policy was on the table.

Dozens of residents virtually ascended on the meeting Wednesday, expressing strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Housing advocates urged officials to stay the course and pursue upzoning as a means of addressing affordability concerns, while residents of single-family neighborhoods with quality of life concerns sought to preserve the status quo.

Divergent opinions among elected officials were apparent as well, especially during terse exchanges between Mayor Mark Addiego and Councilman James Coleman. The two stand on opposite sides of the issue, as evidenced by their initial votes regarding whether to explore upzoning, and the rift was further exposed during the meeting.

In advance of the decision to table the issue, Coleman said that he had heard concerns raised by residents that he was the councilman responsible for asking that the issue initially be placed on the agenda for consideration.

He attempted to dispel that notion, and distanced himself from the issue by claiming that simply he favored exploring all available options that could yield construction of affordable units in South San Francisco.

“I was not the first individual who brought this to the agenda,” said Coleman. “I think it was an unfortunate misunderstanding.”

Clearly suspicious of his colleague’s claims, Addiego accused Coleman of backpedaling. Further, he contended that an unidentified councilmember had requested the item be agendized and asked City Manager Mike Futrell for clarity. When Futrell deferred, saying the request came during a confidential meeting, tempers flared.

A vexed Addiego insisted that his colleagues send an email if they wish for an item to be agendized, directing his attention to Coleman. When Coleman said he would be happy to do it, Addiego snarled.

“You are going to do it, whether you are happy to or not,” Addiego said.

After a couple community members commented on the conduct displayed by elected officials during the meeting, Addiego apologized to Coleman for his comments.

Looking ahead, officials agreed that they would continue watching the discussion at the state and local level and will consider a future resolution opposing Senate Bill 9.

austin@smdailyjournal.com