Wed, Feb 4, 2026·South San Francisco, California·City Council

South San Francisco City Council Special Meeting — February 4, 2026

Discussion Breakdown

Public Safety40%
Community Engagement20%
Racial Equity18%
Procedural6%
Homelessness5%
Youth Programs4%
Technology and Innovation4%
Affordable Housing2%
Mental Health Awareness1%

Summary

South San Francisco City Council Special Meeting — February 4, 2026

The City Council held a special meeting featuring Black History Month recognition, a presentation on 2025 crime statistics, approval of several consent items (including grant and donation funding for police programs), and adoption of a resolution reaffirming the City’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and clarifying the City’s response to certain federal immigration enforcement actions. The meeting concluded by entering closed session for real property negotiations.

Consent Calendar

  • Canceled the February 11, 2026 regular City Council meeting.
  • Accepted $157,722 from the California Department of Justice for the Tobacco Grant Program (FY 2025–2028) for personnel overtime, equipment, and training; approved Budget Amendment 26.051.
  • Accepted $157,573.79 from an anonymous donor via the 100 Club of San Mateo County to support/enhance the Police Department’s drone program; approved Budget Amendment 26.055.
  • Vote: Approved unanimously (5–0) by roll call.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • HIP Housing (Laura Fenucki) with student Kaya: Presented HIP Housing’s 2026 calendar and highlighted local participation/support (including the Elks Club and Fire Department’s holiday adopt-a-family involvement). The Mayor requested a future update on the City’s prior investment and program outcomes.
  • Lorraine Yin (student): Expressed strong opposition to ICE practices, cited deaths and detention conditions, urged Council to approve the upcoming resolution, and advocated for an ordinance preventing ICE officers from using City property.
  • Isabella Tolentino (El Camino High School student): Expressed concern about ICE detentions and detention conditions; emphasized solidarity with migrants (including Filipino migrants) and described support as a moral obligation.

Presentations

  • Proclamation: Black History Month (February 2026): Vice Mayor Nogales presented the proclamation to Charles Stewart, who accepted and provided historical context for Black History Month.
  • 2025 Annual Crime Statistics (Police Chief Scott Campbell):
    • Calls/dispatch activity (SSFPD): 124,974 telephone calls; 22,801 were 911 calls; nearly 50,000 documented incidents; nearly 5,000 formal investigations.
    • Reported multi-year declines in several categories (noted as key indicators “moving in the right direction”):
      • Crimes against property down 17% (2025).
      • Crimes against persons down 14%.
      • Crimes against society down 23%.
      • Violent assaults down 24%.
      • Robberies down 32%; residential burglaries down 42% (Chief clarified fewer than 10 were entries into an actual domicile; many involved hotels or common areas/attached structures).
    • Sexual assaults: Chief stated a 50% increase over the past three years, adding that victims knew assailants in all cases (no stranger attacks) and that increased reporting may be a factor.
    • Firearms: Illegally possessed firearms up 100%, attributed to proactive policing; 48 firearms seized.
    • Mental health clinician program: Chief described coverage typically 8 a.m.–6 p.m. (varying days), with county resources available after hours; program saw a 36% decrease in mental health commitments between 2022 and 2024, with 2024–2025 consistent.
    • Traffic safety: Pedestrian/bicyclist collisions down 20% overall; small decrease in 2025 from 2024.
    • Council requested broader dissemination of commercial/public safety stats (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, hotel managers). Council discussed drones/ALPR and the drone-first-responder program as impactful tools.

Discussion Items

  • DOJ Tobacco Grant implementation (pulled from consent for discussion): Police staff outlined planned activities including code enforcement support, retailer education, student education, decoy operations, and compliance checks. Staff stated “90% 96% of high school students who vape in California have used flavored tobacco,” and that 8.7% of San Mateo County high school students have tried flavored tobacco.
  • Drone program donation (pulled for discussion): Chief described the 100 Club of San Mateo County as supporting officer education and assistance to families of fallen officers. Staff confirmed the City’s drones can be dispatched to a location autonomously once an address is entered.

Federal Immigration Enforcement Response Resolution (Item 6)

  • Staff report/presentation (Deputy City Manager Megan Woolley Osstall): Presented a resolution intended to be implementable, legal, and focused on community safety, with three main components:
    1. Use of City property: If any person/organization (including federal agencies) uses City property without authorization, staff may instruct them to stop and leave; if they do not, the City would inform City departments, the community, and the press about what is happening and where.
    2. Entry into restricted City areas: If a federal agent attempts to enter restricted areas without a judicial warrant, staff may ask them to leave; if they do not leave—or if they are present with a valid judicial warrant—the City would inform City departments, the community, and the press about what is happening and where.
    3. Facial coverings/identification: Staff would request compliance with state laws generally restricting law enforcement face coverings and requiring identification for non-uniformed officers; if officers decline, the City would report the incident and location to City departments, the community, and the press.
  • Legal context (City Attorney Skye Woodworth): Explained the California Values Act (SB 54) limits use of state/local resources for civil immigration enforcement (with criminal enforcement exceptions). Clarified:
    • City already has authority as property owner to control access/use of City facilities.
    • Difference between administrative warrants (issued by ICE, do not provide constitutional authority to enter restricted private areas without consent) and judicial warrants (issued by a judge).
  • Faith in Action update (shared by staff): Reported no ICE detentions in San Mateo County so far in 2026 and no evidence of a planned operation related to the upcoming Super Bowl beyond typical federal presence at large events. Encouraged sharing verified information and avoiding panic.
  • Rapid Response Hotline: Council and staff emphasized the hotline for verified reports and assistance: 203-666-4472 (Council added callers should be ready with first/last name and date of birth, if applicable).
  • Council positions:
    • Councilmembers and Mayor expressed support for youth civic engagement, opposition/concern regarding harmful impacts of immigration enforcement fear on community life, and support for communication (including Spanish-language outreach) to prevent rumors and panic.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved consent calendar (including meeting cancellation, DOJ tobacco grant acceptance, and drone program donation acceptance).
    • Vote: 5–0.
  • Adopted Resolution (Item 6A) reaffirming the City’s commitment to diversity/inclusion, expressing concern over federal immigration enforcement actions and civil liberties impacts, calling for accountability/transparency/due process, and clarifying City response regarding City property access/use and officer identification.
    • Vote: 5–0.
  • Entered closed session for real property negotiations (220 Linden Avenue and 226–246 Grand Avenue; negotiating price and terms with Synergy Community Development Corporation and 220 Linden Ave LLC).

Closed Session

  • Conference with real property negotiators (Gov. Code 54956.8) for 220 Linden Ave and 226–246 Grand Ave (price and terms).

Meeting Transcript

Should we begin? Okay. So I'll go ahead and call this special meeting of the South San Francisco City Council to order for this uh February the fourth. And we'll begin with a roll call. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Coleman. Here. Councilmember Flores? Present. Councilmember Nicholas. Present. Vice Mayor Nogales. Mayor Adiego. Here. And it's uh nice to have Councilman Coleman um beaming in all the way from New York City tonight. I understand. Um maybe dinner later. Oh, you're in Baltimore? Yeah. Oh, you're just you're moving so fast. Yeah, okay. Um, cold over here. All right. Um so let's um let's go ahead uh with uh the next item of business. Moving on to pledge of allegiance, mayor. That's right. Um so I'm I'm asking um, I think the next up would be the vice mayor to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. You can't get over your heart. I think my pledge of allegiance to the United States, and so we're looking at decision stance or the liberty. Thank you, Mark. Moving along to agenda review mayor. Do we have any changes to tonight's brief agenda? Madam City Manager, any changes to the agenda? No, mayor. We're gonna we're gonna actually take a little recess. I'm gonna step off the dice for a moment. Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Okay, we'll uh resume the meeting and um we've conferred with the city attorney who would like to answer some comments into the record. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um just wanted to clarify that um council member Coleman will be participating under the uh remotely under the just cause provisions of the Brown Act, which allow for um remote attendance um uh for reasons that are specified there for um for a variety of reasons. Um we had previously noticed on the um on the agenda that Councilmember Coleman would be at a location in New York. We understand from his comments that he's um participating from another location. Uh but the Brown Act does allow for remote participation um under the just cause provisions, and so I just wanted to clarify for the record that he will be doing that. Um as a result, he will need to um uh for any vote. Um I specify whether anyone over the age of eighteen is in the room with him at the time of the vote, and we will um have to allow for remote public comments via Zoom as part of following the protocols that are in the Brown Act. Okay, all right. Um, and for members of the public to um know their the option to raise your hand online is now available. Okay, all right.