HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-02 e-packet@6:00Tuesday, November 2, 2021
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING
1
November 2, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City
staff may participate via Teleconference.
Pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953, all votes shall be by roll call due to
council members participating by teleconference.
This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor ’s Executive Orders N-29-20,
N-63-20 and N-08-21 allowing for deviation of Teleconference Rules required by the Brown Act & pursuant
to the order of San Mateo County Department of Public Health regarding gatherings during the coronavirus
(COVID-19) outbreak, and recommendations to follow social distancing procedures, the City of South San
Francisco will hold the meeting through a hybrid of in -person attendance with the City Council, designated staff,
and limited members of the public at the City Council Chambers and through the virtual platform, Zoom .
In-person attendance by members of the public will be subject to maximum capacity and current health and
safety protocols.
American Disability Act:
The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief
description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the
meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the
City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/26/2022
2
November 2, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88642722415
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,88642722415# or +13462487799,,88642722415#
Join by Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 886 4272 2415
How to observe the Meeting (no public comment):
1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting:
Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by
visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application
used by City Council and staff.
How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is 886 4272 2415. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to
unmute when called.
By One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,88642722415# or +13462487799,,88642722415#
2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88642722415
a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your
turn to speak.
b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak.
c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
IN-PERSON: Please complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. Be
sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name
is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS
ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/26/2022
3
November 2, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report regarding a study session to review potential redevelopment scenarios for the
Municipal Services Building property at 33 Arroyo Drive. (Mike Lappen, Economic
Development Coordinator)
1.
Report regarding a study session on new commercial and office construction reach
codes. (Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer and Melanie Jacobson,
Integrated Design 360)
2.
Report regarding Utilization of Stationary Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR)
Cameras. (Maryjo Nuñez, Lead for America Fellow, City Manager’s Office)
3.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/26/2022
4
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-606 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding a study session to review potential redevelopment scenarios for the Municipal Services
Building property at 33 Arroyo Drive.(Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council receive a study session to discuss three potential redevelopment scenarios
for the Municipal Services Building (MSB) property at 33 Arroyo Drive:
·Scenario 1: solicit a developer or developers for a market rate residential project on the MSB site;
·Scenario 2:solicit a developer or developers for a fully-affordable residential project on the MSB site;
and
·Scenario 3:consideration of a joint project and a joint developer solicitation with the Buri Buri
Shopping Center ownership.
BACKGROUND
Introduction
In preparation for this study session,staff engaged BAE Urban Economics,Inc.(“BAE”)to prepare a financial
analysis of two disposition options for the MSB site alone and the potential for developing a larger project that
would include the MSB site and the adjacent Buri Buri Shopping Center located at 1057 El Camino Real
(“BSC Site”).The purpose of the analysis is to inform City Council of the potential value of the MSB Site
offered alone for redevelopment or offered for redevelopment jointly with the owner of the BSC Site.
Based on the analysis,Staff identified three potential development scenarios for discussion and City Council
direction:
1)Solicit a developer for a market rate residential project on the MSB Site;
2)Solicit developer for a fully-affordable residential project on the MSB Site; or
3)Negotiate with the owners of the Buri Buri Shopping Center to develop a joint project with a joint
developer solicitation;
Property Description
The MSB Site is comprised of two parcels (33 and 81 Arroyo Drive)that together measure approximately 2.23
acres or 97,139 square feet of land area.The rectangular site is located at the intersection of Arroyo Drive and
El Camino Real,with approximately 160 frontage feet along El Camino Real and approximately 560 frontage
feet along Arroyo Drive.The site topography is sloped downwards towards Camaritas Avenue to the south and
the northwest portion of the site near Arroyo Drive and El Camino Real has very good visibility.The MSB
Building is approximately 115,870 square feet and would need to be demolished for redevelopment.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™5
File #:21-606 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Planning Context
Construction of the South San Francisco BART Station created new opportunities for innovative planning along
El Camino Real.With the adoption of the South San Francisco General Plan in 1999,the City Council
recognized that the SSF BART Station area could be a new activity node serving local residents and attracting
visitors.Specific to planning for the development of the El Camino Real Corridor,the City took the following
actions:1)adopted the City’s General Plan in 1999,which specifically encourages transit oriented development
along the El Camino Real corridor;2)adopted the BART Transit Village Plan;3);constructed Centennial Way,
a shared bike and pedestrian path over the BART-SFO right-of-way;and 4)adopted the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (2011 and 2017).
Consistent with these planning efforts,the most recently built and approved projects in the area include the
Community Civic Campus,Park Station at 1200 El Camino Real (99 units),the Mid-Peninsula Housing Project
at 636 El Camino Real (109 affordable units and 5,700 square feet of commercial space),the Mission &
McLellan project at 1309 Mission Road (20 units and 6,000 square feet of commercial),the City Ventures
project at 1256 Mission Road (31 units),Summerhill Housing Group’s project at 998 El Camino Real (172
units and 12,000 square feet of commercial),and L37/KASA’s PUC project facing Mission Road (800 units and
13,000 square feet of commercial space).
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
In 2011,the City Council and Redevelopment Agency adopted the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real Area Plan,
which aims to transform the area south of the South San Francisco BART Station into a new walkable,
distinctive,mixed-use district at the geographic center.The Plan envisions a new neighborhood of up to 4,400
residents housed in low-to high-rise buildings,providing a range of commercial uses,walking access to
everyday amenities,a new Community Civic Campus with library,recreation and police services,plazas,and
gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community.
In 2017,anticipating the eventual redevelopment of the MSB Site once the Civic Campus was completed,the
City changed the MSB Site’s land use designation from Public to El Camino Real Mixed Use North,High
Intensity.This land use designation is consistent with that of the adjacent Buri Buri Shopping Center site.The
base density permitted on both sites is 80 units per acre,with a maximum of 110 units per acre with incentives,
such as a Transportation Demand Management program,high quality or innovative design,and pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure.This does not account for the density that could be achieved by utilizing the State
Density Bonus.
DISCUSSION
Development Scenarios
City staff,with help from BAE,investigated three development scenarios to estimate the potential value of the
MSB Site alone and a combined project.To evaluate the market-rate scenario,BAE formulated a development
program for the MSB Site and BSC Site as separate development and then evaluated the two sites together.For
the MSB Site,BAE evaluated how the development yield might change if the site were offered only for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™6
File #:21-606 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
the MSB Site,BAE evaluated how the development yield might change if the site were offered only for
affordable housing development,which could impact the total residential yield of the site and the amount of
revenue the City could obtain for the MSB Site if priced at the site’s fair market value.
Scenarios 1&2: Market Rate and Fully-Affordable on the MSB Site
BAE prepared a development yield analysis that assumed development would occur on only the MSB site.The
analysis considered a market rate development (meeting the City’s 15%inclusionary requirement)as well as
considering a fully-affordable development on the MSB Site.While the site has a capacity for 245 -400 units
depending on whether the developer utilizes existing zoning (110 dwelling units/acre)or maximizes density on
the site (likely 180 dwelling units/acre). The density on the site would be at Council’s discretion.
Based on the density allowed,the MSB Site has a potential value of $5.2 million (110 du/a)to $10 million (180
du/a).The value of this site,on a per unit basis,is lower than the value for the combined site discussed below
due to slightly higher development costs associated with smaller economies of scale.These value estimates are
based upon a total per unit development cost of approximately $496,400,exclusive of land,and assuming a
market rate development with a 15%inclusionary requirement.It is likely that the site would fetch a
substantially lower price for a fully-affordable housing development.
If an affordable housing developer or developers are sought,they may seek to phase the development to best
leverage Low Income Housing Tax Credits.This would also allow the various phases to be targeted to different
household types such as family housing,senior housing,or special needs housing,each of which have different
program and design requirements and varying needs for space for services as well as open space and amenities.
To account for these circumstances,BAE estimates that the MSB Site would be likely split into three separate
projects if developed fully-affordable.These three projects are hypothetical and simply illustrate one of several
potential affordable housing programs that could be accommodated on the MSB Site.
Scenario 3: Market-Rate Development Program on the Combined MSB and BSC Sites
The BSC Site is comprised of three parcels (1015 and 1057 El Camino Real,and 74 Camaritas Avenue)totaling
approximately 3.96 acres or 172,654 square feet of land area at the southwest corner or El Camino Real and
Westborough Boulevard.The site has approximately 447 frontage feet along El Camino Real.The BSC Site has
approximately 66,175 gross square feet of retail improvements,including the Pacific Market,O’Reilly Auto
Parts,Gunter’s Restaurant,and DeVita at Home.Combined with the MSB Site,the two Sites can accommodate
681 - 1,115 units. Like the above scenarios, this range is based on 110 du/a and 180 du/a, respectively.
The combined MSB and BSC Sites have a maximum potential value of $27.4 million (110 du/a)to $45 million
(180 du/a).These value estimates are based upon a total per unit development cost of approximately $490,300,
exclusive of land,and assuming a market rate development with a 15%inclusionary requirement.Application
of the inclusionary requirement would result in 102 -167 affordable units across the two sites.Due to the large
scale of the sites (whether separately or combined)residential development would likely be in phases with the
market rate in phases of 200 to 250 units and the affordable units in smaller phases of 80 to 150 units.
Pursuing a combined site development would require participation by the BSC Site ownership in a joint
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™7
File #:21-606 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Pursuing a combined site development would require participation by the BSC Site ownership in a joint
developer solicitation.Staff believe that the BSC Site ownership would be more interested in participating if all
of the affordable units were located on the MSB Site,maximizing the value of the privately owned site.With a
market rate development meeting the inclusionary requirement,the BSC Site alone would be valued at roughly
$17 million (110 du/a)to $27 million (180 du/a).By absorbing the affordable units (and their corresponding
reduction in land value)on the MSB Site,the value of the BSC Site would increase and perhaps make a joint
development more attractive to the BSC Site ownership.
CONCLUSION
While,the size of the combined site would offer a major redevelopment opportunity in the City for residential
mixed-use development along El Camino Real at its intersection with Westborough Boulevard,there is no
guarantee that the adjacent property owner would be willing to undertake a joint development with the City.
Even if the adjacent property owner would be interested in a joint development,negotiations would take longer
to complete and potentially delay the delivery of housing on the MSB Site.The City owns and controls the
MSB site and could move more quickly to solicit interested developers.
Next Steps
If Council would like to move forward with market rate development on the combined site or the MSB Site
alone,the City Council would first need to surplus the MSB Site in accordance with the State Surplus Land
Act.This would add roughly six months to any developer selection timeline.If Council opted to move forward
with a fully-affordable housing development on the MSB Site,the City could move immediately to developer
solicitation.In this case,staff would release a Request for Qualifications in early 2022,followed by a Request
for Proposals in summer 2022.
Staff recommends that City Council:
1.Direct staff to solicit affordable housing developers early next year and
2.Designate the Housing Standing Committee to review developer solicitation documents and process,
participate in developer interviews, and make a recommendation to City Council on developer selection.
Attachment:
1.Location Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™8
9
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2021
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 11/02/2021 SP CC
Item #1
10
Subject Sites
2 11
Redevelopment Scenarios
Three scenarios were explored:
1.Market rate residential program on the MSB site alone;
2.Affordable residential program on the MSB site alone; or
3.Market rate development program on the combined MSB and Buri Buri
Shopping Center site
3 12
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council:
1.Direct staff to solicit affordable housing
developers early next year; and
2.Designate the Housing Standing Committee to
review and recommend to Council a preferred
developer.
4 13
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-791 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding a study session on new commercial and office construction reach codes.(Christina
Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer and Melanie Jacobson, Integrated Design 360)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on the outreach process relating to reach codes for
new commercial and office construction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Local reach codes are local enhancements to the state code and can be adopted at any time. Reach codes
address building electrification and require the reduced use of natural gas as well as an increase in Electric
Vehicle charging. The proposed reach codes improve economic and energy performance for new construction.
On May 26, 2021, Council adopted reach codes for new residential buildings requiring all-electric appliances in
buildings and higher standards for EV charging stations. Subsequently, Council directed staff to continue to
receive input from the business community on potential nonresidential reach codes. City staff convened
multiple stakeholder outreach efforts to gain knowledge and suggestions for consideration into the upcoming
local municipal code changes. Stakeholders for the nonresidential reach code development include property
owners, contractors, manufacturers, architects, and commercial tenants (e.g., office, retail).
The City of South San Francisco hosted a meeting with local biotechnology businesses to discuss the proposed
reach codes and to gather feedback on September 1, 2021. City staff held an additional Reach Codes Town Hall
for the community on September 16, 2021. During these meetings, community members gathered to learn
about the potential reach code requirements (building electrification and electric vehicle charging stations) the
City is exploring and to provide comments for staff to consider during policy development.
City staff also held one-on-one meetings with several representatives from the business development
community to better understand each businesses’ individual needs. To date, staff have met with local business
community leaders including representatives from Scavengers, BioCom California, California Life Sciences
Association (CLSA), Amoura Restaurant, South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, HealthPeak Properties
(formerly known as HCP), BioMed Realty, Kilroy Realty, and Genentech. During one-on-one meetings staff
shared details on the proposed nonresidential reach codes and recorded concerns on particular requirements.
Additionally, staff has surveyed local businesses to learn more about their dependence on natural gas and
electricity. Interestingly, a local concrete plant, Granite Rock does not use natural gas for their operations, only
propane to power their forklifts. However, all ten local restaurants surveyed depend on gas in their operations.
Local restaurants surveyed include Curry Corner, Café Bunn Mi, Fil-Am 2, Hing Lung Café, Thai Satay, AC
Hotel Waterfront Lounge, Café 382, Grand Palace Restaurant, Amani San, and Ben Tre.
City staff is continuing outreach efforts within the business development community to support the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™14
File #:21-791 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
nonresidential reach code development process.
Business Development Feedback
Over 50 members of the community responded to the public “Commercial Reach Code Poll” on the City’s
Economic & Community Development webpage. Additionally, community members that attended the
biotechnology meeting and the town hall meeting were given opportunities to share questions or concerns with
City staff. Concerns raised during the one-on-one business development meetings also contributed to the
feedback staff encountered during the outreach process. The most common, high-level challenges raised by the
business development community are summarized below.
Staff received the following comments on the proposed all-electric requirements for new construction. A
challenge frequently discussed during the outreach meetings and analyzed in the survey results relates to
concerns about the reliability and resiliency of the grid to handle the increase in electricity demand resulting
from an all-electric reach code. Property owners and developers expressed concern over PG&E’s ability to
maintain predictable and adequate supply to a site. A few community members requested studies to demonstrate
grid capability to handle the potential increased load. The unpredictable frequency of power outages and the
increased use of diesel generators are two concerns also relayed to staff during the outreach efforts.
A second main concern was on the impact to natural gas end uses commonly used in restaurants (e.g., industrial
sized gas ovens) and laundromats (e.g., commercial washers and dryers). Many business community
representatives stated that it is not feasible to achieve business goals using existing electric power technology.
For example, a developer raised concern over the operations of heat pump systems and the need to replace heat
pump systems more frequently than a boiler system. Other general concerns over the all-electric reach code
include concerns on impact to cost, efficiency, and effectiveness of business operations.
Staff also received feedback on the proposed electric vehicle infrastructure reach code requirements for
nonresidential new construction. The most common concern relates to increased cost to business owners to
provide the electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Commercial tenants and property owners also shared
concern over a decrease in regular vehicle parking capacity for customers and service parking due to increased
presence of EVCS. A local manufacturer voiced concern over the burden on businesses to remove individuals
who use charging stations installed on private property. Another concern raised in the public survey was over
power outages and how increased installation of EVCS will impact outages.
A commercial developer who participated in the survey shared one of the challenges they face is matching the
predicted demand for electric vehicles, which typically exceeds code. The developer suggested that the City
coordinate with the California Air Resources Board and the County to identify minimum requirements that
helps meet predicted regional electric vehicle demand.
Another frequent challenge conveyed during the community outreach process is clarity around the time frame
of implementation and predictability of the effective date of the proposed reach codes. Numerous stakeholders
indicated they require adequate time to adapt to the new regulations and suggested specific exemptions for
projects that already submitted a planning application. Property developers shared concern over the cost to
redesign a project that typically takes two years to plan and design prior to submitting plans to the City for
review.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™15
File #:21-791 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Requests to PG&E to bring power to a new area can also take up to two years, therefore, having an adequate
amount of lead time to prepare for nonresidential reach codes is critical for a project’s success. Many
businesses were open to adapting to the new reach codes if the requirements were phased in over an extended
period of time (e.g., two or more years).
As a result of feedback received from the business community, staff learned of the following preferences for
potential all-electric reach codes:
·All-electric codes to apply to only new construction
·Provide a long enough implementation period
·A “grace period” after effective date
·Align with next building code cycle (effective January 1, 2023)
·Validation of energy infrastructure and capacity
Recommended Next Steps
Staff and the city’s consultant continue to meet with individual businesses to better understand the potential
impacts an all-electric building code may have on new commercial and office construction. Dependent on
Council direction, staff may continue these conversations with local businesses to learn more about the
challenges that exist in implementing an all-electric reach code.
Much of the feedback provided by the business community is feasible in crafting an all-electric building code.
However, “validation of energy infrastructure and capacity,” may be more difficult as it requires additional
information from PG&E and further study by technical experts in the energy field. Staff recommends further
study of the energy grid’s infrastructure and its ability to handle increased demands should an all-electric
commercial building code be implemented.
The State of California adopts new building standards every three years, also known as a “code cycle”. The
current 2019 code cycle ends on December 31, 2022, and the next code cycle (2022) begins on January 1, 2023.
Council may consider directing staff to align the proposed commercial reach code requirements with the
adoption of the 2022 building code cycle.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no known fiscal impact to continue business outreach. There may be a cost to proceed with an energy
infrastructure and capacity study. Staff is working to learn more about the potential scope and receive
estimates.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This update meets the strategic plan goals of building, maintaining, and planning for a sustainable city.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on the outreach process relating to reach
codes for new commercial and office construction.
Attachments -
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™16
File #:21-791 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
1.Matrix of Outreach
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™17
Page 1 of 1
A. Potential Policy Measures B. Technical Summary C. Challenges¹D. Strategy to Address Each Challenge E. Other Notes
1) Reliability and resiliency of the grid.1)
2) Concern for impact to restaurant and laundromat end
uses (e.g., industrial sized gas ovens).
2)
3) Business would never be able to adapt to new laws
that rely on electricity only.
3)
4) Can't achieve business goals using existing electric
power technology.
4)
5) Clarity around timeframe of implementation and
predictability (e.g., adequate time to adapt).
5)
6) Concern on impact to cost, efficiency, and
effectiveness of business.
6)
1b. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System Installed: Mandate
installation of a solar photovoltaic system on all new
all-electric nonresidential, high-rise residential, and
hotel/motel buildings.
(PCE All-Electric Model Code, Section 140(b))
Policy Changes:
This policy change would require installation of a solar
PV system in new all-electric non-residential
construction in South San Francisco and would change
the language in 15.26 of the municipal code.
1) N/A 1)
2. Mixed-Fuel Non-Residential New Construction:
Mandate mixed-fuel pathway for new non-residential,
high-rise residential, and hotel/motel buildings.
(PCE Electric Preferred Model Code, Section 140.0)
Policy Changes:
The policy change would require enhanced efficiency
based on building type and electric-readiness measures
in new non-residential construction in South San
Francisco and would change the language in 15.26 of
the municipal code.
1) Concern for impact to restaurant and laundromat end
uses (e.g., industrial sized gas ovens).
1)
2b. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System Installed: Mandate
installation of a solar photovoltaic system on all new-
nonresidential, high-rise residential, and hotel/motel
buildings.
(PCE Electric Preferred Model Code, Section 140.0)
Potential Policy Changes:
This policy change would require installation of a solar
PV system in new all-electric or mixed-fuel non-
residential construction in South San Francisco and
would change the language in 15.26 of the municipal
code.
1) N/A 1)
2c. Electric-Readiness Requirements: Mandate
electric-readiness requirements in all new mixed-use
non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel/motel
buildings.
(PCE Electric Preferred Model Code, Section 140.0,
Part 1)
Potential Policy Changes:
This policy change would require electric-readiness for
water heating, clothes drying, and cooking appliances in
new non-residential construction in South San Francisco
and would change the language in 15.26 of the
municipal code.
1) N/A 1)
1) Concern over decrease in vehicle parking capacity for
customers and service parking due to increased EVCS.
1)
2) Burden on business to "evict" the public from using
charging stations installed on private property.
2)
3) Increased cost to business owners to provide EV
charging stations.
3)
4) Concern over power outages and EV charging stations
exacerbating outages.
4)
5) Amount of electricity required to charge electric
vehicles.
5)
6) Predicted demand for EVs typically exceed code
requirements.
1) Concern on increased costs to operate and increased
costs to tenants who rent spaces.
1)
2) Concern of relocation due to increased costs to
business and regulations.
2)
3) Provide applicability exemption for projects that have
submitted a planning application.
3)
4) Concern over increased use of diesel generators.4)
5) Requests to PG&E for power to a new area can take 2
years
5)
6) Provide studies that demonstrate grid capability to
handle the increased load from increased electricity use.
6)
1a. All-Electric Non-Residential New Construction:
Mandate all-electric pathway for new non-residential,
high-rise residential, and hotel/motel buildings.
(PCE All-Electric Model Code, Section 100.0)
Policy Changes:
The policy change would require the installation of only
all-electric appliances in new non-residential
construction in South San Francisco and would change
the language in 15.26 of the municipal code.
2022 Energy Reach Code & EV Reach Code Ordinances - City of South San Francisco
Policy Direction Summary
Oct-21
Energy Reach Code
3. Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements: Mandate
installation of electric vehicle charging stations
(EVCS) in all new non-residential and hotel/motel
buildings.
(PCE Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Reach Code)
Potential Policy Changes:
This policy change would require installation of electric
vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and EV Ready Spaces
based on building type in new non-residential
construction in South San Francisco and would change
the language in 15.22 of the municipal code.
General
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Reach Code
¹Common concerns are the result of the following: Property Owners, Manufacturers, Contractors, Architects, Commercial Tenants (Office/Retail)
General comments on proposed energy reach code and EV reach code regulations.
18
Energy Reach Code &
EV Ordinances
New Non-residential Construction
South San Francisco City Council Study Session
November 2, 2022
19
Background
•Statewide Energy Code updated every three years.
Next code (2022) will be in effect 1/1/23.
•Reach Code is a voluntary code that “reaches”
beyond baseline requirements.
•Residential Reach Codes Ordinance –May 2021
20
SSF GHG
Emissions
21
Energy Reach Code Pathways
Electric-Preferred
Energy Code Ordinance
•Requires buildings
to perform at a
higher level when
natural gas is
installed to any
end-use.
All-Electric
Energy Code Ordinance
•Requires specific
end-uses to
install electric
appliances, with
exceptions.
Natural Gas Ban
Municipal Code Ordinance
•Natural Gas
Prohibitions are
more aggressive
than the all-
electric and
electric-preferred
model reach
codes.
22
Electric
Vehicle
Code
Options
23
Outreach
•Reach Code Town Halls
•Reach Code Survey
•Individual Meetings
•Restaurant Surveys
24
Feedback
Reliability & Resiliency of the Grid
25
Feedback
Impact of Natural Gas end uses
26
Feedback
Increased Costs to business owners to
provide EV charging stations & impacts of
power outages
27
Feedback
Clarity around time frame of
implementation & effective dates of
reach codes
28
Business
Community
Feedback
Summary
Apply only to new construction
Provide a long enough
implementation period
A “grace period” after effective date
Align with next building code cycle
(effective January 1, 2023)
Validation of energy infrastructure
and capacity
29
Potential Next Steps
1.Continue outreach
2.Energy Infrastructure and Capacity Study
3. Align with adoption of new building code cycle
30
Thank You
31
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-818 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding Utilization of Stationary Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR)Cameras.(Maryjo Nuñez,
Lead for America Fellow, City Manager’s Office)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the request of the South San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce to implement stationary Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR)cameras at the
entrance/exit ramps of Highways 101 and 380.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Citing increased crime,particularly burglaries along the hotel corridor,the South San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce has requested that City Council consider the implementation of Automatic License Plate Reader
(ALPR)cameras along Highways 101 and 380.The ALPR Camera system is employed in many cities in San
Mateo County,and the Chamber of Commerce and hoteliers believe such a system will help to reduce crime
and prevent their guests and employees from being victimized.
The South Airport Boulevard corridor primarily services the hotel industry and other local businesses.Crimes
occurring throughout our hotel corridor remain a concern and it is believed that the installation of ALPR
cameras would allow law enforcement to use actionable intelligence to build a safer community by solving,
reducing, and preventing crime.
Along the hotel corridor,crime statistics were collected utilizing geocodes built into the Police Department’s
Records Information Management System (RIMS),and during a one-year period,the Police Department
investigated the following:
Vehicle Burglaries - 62
General Thefts - 77
Commercial Burglaries - 20
Stolen Vehicles - 27
Recovered Stolen Vehicles - 6
Hit & Run Collisions - 22
Robberies - 10
Warrant Arrests - 102
Furthermore,a snapshot of the hotel corridor east of HWY 101 from South Airport Boulevard to Veterans
Boulevard showed the following statistics:
Number of Incidents - 3,863
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™32
File #:21-818 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Number of Cases - 797
Number of Total Arrests - 266
Number of Officer Initiated Arrests - 137
Number of Cases Involving Firearms(s) or Other Weapons - 16
Number of Victims of Violent Crime - 25
With this data in mind,the Chamber of Commerce and the 15 hotel general managers have asked the City to
deploy stationary ALPR cameras in these vulnerable areas to property crime and other serious crimes.
ALPR Camera technology is a public safety operating system that helps communities and law enforcement in
over 1,200 cities nationwide work together to assist in solving crime while protecting privacy.ALPR Camera
systems capture objective evidence-specifically make,color,and license plate number (or if not readable,the
condition of the license plate,such as whether it’s missing,covered,paper,etc.)This visual data is then turned
into alphanumeric data and uses machine learning to create and deliver investigative leads to law enforcement.
ALPR Cameras can be either be mobile or stationary.Mobile ALPR devices are typically cameras affixed to
mobile objects,such as patrol cars.In fact,the South San Francisco Police Department has utilized mobile
automated license plate reader (ALPR)technology to solve crime and provide evidence to prosecutors since
2015.In contrast,stationary ALPR devices are currently designed and limited to operate from fixed locations,
such as a light pole or a utility pole.ALPR cameras can also be installed on traffic speed feedback and
changeable message boards for rapid deployment from location to location.
ALPR data is essentially a picture of a vehicle,its license plate,a date,and time stamp as to when the picture
was captured,and the location of the ALPR device.Identifying information regarding the vehicle’s license is
accessed through other official law enforcement databases,such as the California Department of Motor
Vehicles.
Raw,unprocessed ALPR data is not stored or retained by SSFPD.The City has a records-sharing agreement
with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC),along with all of the other allied County
law enforcement agencies,to ensure adherence to strict standards concerning data collection,data review and
data deletion.Many private companies,such as Flock Systems,do not have access to identifying information
for the ALPR image data they are collecting through their devices.This raw ALPR data is retained on their
servers for up to 30 days.The raw ALPR data is uploaded directly to the NCRIC in San Francisco within 30
days,where it is stored and managed based on stringent federally constructed policies.Access to the NCRIC
data is strictly regulated and is for law enforcement personnel only.The ALPR data stored on NCRIC servers is
automatically deleted after one year per federal guidelines unless it is part of an ongoing investigation.Once the
ALPR data is deleted,it cannot be retrieved.SSFPD maintains security procedures as well as usage and privacy
policies to protect the ALPR data collected.SSFPD posts our ALPR policy and NCRIC agreement on our
department webpage.
Privacy and equity are of general concern.The cameras do not capture faces of those in the vehicles,although if
a person walked by the area (very near the vehicle driving by)at the time a picture was taken of the vehicle,it
is possible the person may appear in the picture.However,the camera is set to focus on the vehicle and the
license plate, so if it happens to capture a face, it would be very hard to recognize.
There are privacy concerns with accruing data and long-term data on individuals’whereabouts.To mitigate
these,the ALPR data in South San Francisco will only be used in reaction to reported crimes.As noted above,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™33
File #:21-818 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
these,the ALPR data in South San Francisco will only be used in reaction to reported crimes.As noted above,
all ALPR data will be erased after one year,per federal guidelines.In terms of data,ALPR cameras only record
the vehicle make,model and license plate numbers.It is not a “live camera”such that it can be used for
surveillance or for any other purpose.If approved,use of stationary ALPR camera data will be limited to
solving or deterring property and serious crimes and not used for traffic offenses.The data will also not be used
for any type of immigration enforcement.The police department currently does not enforce administrative
immigration violations or cooperate with ICE in these matters,and this policy will not change unless directed
by City Council.
State law (SB 34),passed in 2015,requires agencies that collect data using ALPRs or access ALPR data to
publish their privacy and usage policies.Specifically,such policies shall be available to the public in writing
and posted conspicuously on their web site.
The following cities in San Mateo County are currently known to utilize ALPR technology:
·Atherton
·Brisbane
·Daly City
·Hillsborough
·Menlo Park
·Portola Valley
·Redwood City
·San Bruno
·San Carlos
·San Mateo
·Colma (deploying now)
·Millbrae (deploying now)
·Woodside (Town Council on July 27, 2021, gave direction to deploy)
The Town of Atherton,as an example,currently has 43 ALPR units deployed (about one-half of which have
been privately funded)and recently considered adding four additional units.Atherton utilizes technology
developed by Flock Safety.The use of ALPR technology has become an industry standard and a best practice
for criminal investigations.
Overall,strategic deployment of ALPR cameras in fixed locations may allow the Police Department to react
more quickly to real-time events and research captured data to discover the responsible individuals who have
committed such crimes using a vehicle.A key strength of ALPR technology is that police investigators can
access near real-time information to rapidly deploy officers in the field to locate and apprehend criminals.
Having more locations with ALPR technology enhances this capability.With the affordability of the ALPR
devices,the City can reasonably scale up or down equipment as needed.Lastly,it is anticipated that the
presence of this technology may deter those seeking to participate in criminal activity as ALPR systems can aid
in the police department’s efficiency to solve crime,thus hopefully allaying concerns of crime along the hotel
corridor.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff can provide City Council with a more detailed analysis of the costs at a later time,should Council
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™34
File #:21-818 Agenda Date:11/2/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
consider moving forward.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Consideration of this information relates to Strategic Plan Priority:Public Safety-Skilled Police, Fire,
Emergency Medical Service and Emergency Management, by demonstrating possibility in crime deterrence and
aiding SSFPD solve crime.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the request of the South San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce to implement stationary Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR)cameras at the entrance/exit
ramps of Highways 101 and 380.
Attachment 1: Letter from the Chamber of Commerce
Attachment 2: GIS Map Location
Attachment 3: ALPR Cameras PowerPoint
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/29/2021Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™35
36
37
6
4
3
5
8
7
9
2
1
2321
19
11
10
12
15 14
13
18 25
22161720
24
ALPR Camera Locations
ID Location1NB 101 - Sierra Pt Pkwy2NB 101 - Bayshore Blvd3SB 101 - Airport Bl vd4Airport Blvd - SB 1015SB 101 - Oyster Point Blvd6Oyster Point Bl vd - NB 1017SB 101 - Dubuque Ave8NB 101 - Dubuque Ave9E Grand Ave - NB 10110SB 101 - Airport Bl vd11NB 101 - E Grand Ave12SB 101 - Produce Ave13S Airport Blvd - NB 10114NB 101 - S Airport Bl vd15Produce Ave - SB 10116SB 101 - WB I-38017EB I-380 - NB 10118N Access Rd - SB 10119N Access Rd - WB I-38020N Access Rd - NB 10121Airport Blvd - NB 10122EB I-380 - S Ai rport Blvd23EB I-380 - N Access Rd24NB 101 - N Access Rd25N Access Rd - WB I-380 38
Automatic License Plate
Reader Cameras
39
San Mateo County Cities with ALPR Cameras
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
40
How ALPR Systems Work
IMAGE CAPTURED
IMAGE STORED AND
COMPARED TO
“HOT LIST”
LAW ENFORCEMENT
ALERTED
(IF IDENTIFIED AS
WANTED VEHICLE)
DATA RETAINED ON
ENCRYPTED SERVERS
MAXIMUM OF 30 DAYS
PENDING UPLOAD TO
NCRIC
DATA STORED ON NCRIC
SERVERS AND DELETED
AFTER ONE YEAR PER
FEDERAL GUIDELINES
(UNLESS ONGOING
INVESTIGATION)
41
Law Enforcement Transparency
PUBLIC
OUTREACH
POLICY AND
PROCEDURES
AUDITS TO
ENSURE PROPER
USE AND
OUTCOMES
TECHNOLOGY
AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC
TRANSPARENCY
PORTAL
42
43
Agenda Item
3. 21-818 Report regarding Utilization of Stationary Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) Cameras.
(Maryjo Nuñez, Lead for America Fellow, City Manager's Office)
Legislation Text Attachment 1: Chamber - Flock Safety License Plate Cameras 9.14.21 Attachment 2: GIS Map
1 for ALPR Attachment 3: ALPR Camera.ppt
1 Public Comment
Guest User at November 01, 2021 at 7:54pm PDT
Oppose
Hon. Mayor Addiego and Council, in reading Mr. Jim McGuire's letter from the Chamber of Commerce, I
can understand concern of "smash and grab" from his and other hotel patron's vehicles. What I cannot
comprehend is his and Chamber of SSF's request in the use of PUBLIC funds. There are many community
needs, especially for our most vulnerable, children and seniors, that lack appropriate funding throughout
all of So. San Francisco. To request that So. San Francisco residents and our community needs be placed
over personally owned hotel needs is outrageous, and even more so, in the use of public funds. Mr.
McGuire states, "I personally have had to take on the expense of adding more exterior cameras at my
hotel." I believe this is part of doing business in making sure hotel owners are ensuring the safety of their
guests. Public funds SHOULD not be used to fund PRIVATE businesses nor to be used for their personal
business expenses. Thank you.
44