Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-11 e-packet@6:30Monday, September 11, 2017 6:30 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda September 11, 2017Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, September 11, 2017, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Study Session: Gateway Signage Design Discussion. (Leslie Arroyo, Communications Director) 1. Study Session: Cannabis - cultivation and distribution businesses. (Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner and Deborah Gill, Special Projects Manager) 2. Adjournment. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/20/2017 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-920 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:1. Study Session: Gateway Signage Design Discussion.(Leslie Arroyo, Communications Director) Staff asks that the City Council receive this report and provide staff with direction on the overall look and concept of the Gateway Signage Program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In 2013, the City undertook an analysis of the overall condition of gateway signage citywide, the results of which are contained within the South San Francisco Gateway Study, dated July 1, 2013 (please see attachment 1). The process for this study consisted of several staff meetings, and the establishment of an advisory committee, which met three times (1/11/13, 1/24/13, and 2/14/13) to discuss the information compiled by the consultant, Callander Associates of San Mateo, California. The Advisory Committee consisted of: ·City Council - Karyl Matsumoto ·Parks and Recreation Commission - Doug Reynolds, Sean Garrone ·Beautification Committee - Sean Garrone ·City Planning Department - Susy Kalkin, Billy Gross, Linda Ajello ·City Parks and Recreation Department - Sharon Ranals, Greg Mediati, Drew Arzaga The Draft Gateway Study was subsequently brought before the City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Commission in March 2013. The commission voted to recommend approval and adoption of the study to City Council. The plan came before City Council in July 2013, when it was approved and adopted. This study provided for a citywide approach to gateway signage which would establish consistent design standards for signage and landscaping, and over time establish attractive, distinctive, and recognizable identification for “South San Francisco” as people enter the city. Twelve potential gateway locations were agreed upon: 1.Northbound El Camino Real 2.Southbound El Camino Real 3.Northbound 280 off ramp at Avalon Drive 4.Northbound 280 off ramp at Westborough Blvd. 5.Mission Road at McLellan Drive* 6.Junipero Serra Blvd. at Hickey Blvd. 7.Skyline Blvd. at Westborough Blvd.* 8.Airport Blvd. at Sister Cities Blvd.* 9.Northbound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave. 10.Airport Blvd. at Grand Ave. 11.North bound 101 off ramp for Oyster Point Blvd. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-920 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:1. 12.North bound off ramp for South Airport Blvd. *The three locations to begin work immediately, upon design approval based on the September 11, 2017 study session discussion, are: 1.Mission Road at McLellan Drive 2.Skyline Blvd. at Westborough Blvd. 3.Airport Blvd. at Sister Cities Blvd. FISCAL IMPACT The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 CIP plan allocated a total of $400,000 for the Gateway Signage project. In an effort to prioritize, City staff chose projects on city land that could be quickly executed. With the amount allocated in the CIP, the team was able to get complete designs for all 11 signs, and development/installation of the three signs noted above. Please note, the cost to come up with new designs based on the September 11, 2017 study session, may impact the amount of money allocated for the Gateway Project. CONCLUSION Based on direction provided by the City Council, staff will prepare an additional memo outlining the costs to move forward with an approved design direction, should City Council look to start the design process over. Attachment: South San Francisco Gateway Study City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Draft Gateway Master Plan SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAY STUDY PrePared for City of South San Francisco July 1, 2013 Callander Associates urban design landscape architecture community outreach Draft Gateway Master Plan I I. IntroductIon....................................... 1 Background and Purpose Overview II. SIte SettIng.......................................... 3 Regional Context Gateway Locations III. deSIgn deVeLoPMent.............................5 Project Goals Program Advisory Committee IV. deSIgn ProceSS.....................................7 Site Analysis Preliminary Design Alternatives Gateway Modeling Preferred Alternatives Plans Sign Manipulation V. IMPLeMentAtIon.................................13 Phasing Permitting and Property Rights Costs VI. APPendIx..............................................15 tABLe oF contentS South San Francisco Gateways Study 1 2 3 4 7 9 8 10 5 6 1. Location: North Bound El Camino Real Cross Streets: El Camino Real & Noor Ave. 2. Location: South Bound El Camino Real Cross Streets: El Camino Real & Hickey Blvd. 3. Location: 280 Exit to Westborough Blvd. Cross Streets: Westborough Blvd. & Junipero Serra Blvd. 4. Location: McLellan Dr. and Mission Rd, Cross Streets: McLellan Dr. & Mission Rd, 5. Location: Hickey and Junipero Serra Blvds. Cross Streets: Hickey Blvd. & Junipero Serra Blvd. 6. Location: Skyline and Westborough Blvds. Cross Streets: Skyline Blvd. & Westborough Blvd. 7. Location: Airport and Sister Cities Blvds. Cross Streets: Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities Blvd. 8. Location: Grand Ave. Off Ramp Cross Streets: Grand Ave. & East Grand Ave. 9. Location: South Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Cross Streets: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 10. Location: Oyster Point Blvd. Off Ramp Cross Streets: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Refer to map on page 4 for locations. Draft Gateway Master Plan I 1 1111 6 Background The City of South San Francisco (SSF) is a community full of history and character, defined by a variety of cultures, neighborhoods, and emerging and historic businesses enterprises. The City’s location - just south of San Francisco and surrounded by a number of other communities including Colma, San Bruno, Daly City, Brisbane, and Pacifica - means that there are a lot of access points into the City. As the City developed and grew from it’s incorporation in 1908 to present day, so did the identifying features of the City at these access points and within the City itself. Among the most well known and visible features of the City is historic Sign Hill - the “The Industrial City” sign. Other identifying gateway features emerged over the years including the “The Birthplace of Biotechnology” sign on East Grand Avenue, the more traditional wood median sign entering the City on El Camino Real from the south, and the low retaining wall on the west side of El Camino Real as you approach Colma and Daly City. With the number of access points into the City, combined with the lack of a unifying theme or character amongst its gateway feature, the City determined that they needed to develop a “gateway” master plan. Purpose This Master Plan will serve as a roadmap for the design and construction of all future “gateway” features. The intent of the master plan is to take the character and culture of the City and it’s existing features and unify them into a complementary design theme for all gateways into the City. The plan addresses gateways at major roads, including the 101 freeway, the 280 freeway, and El Camino Real, as well as other locations such as at Skyline Blvd. and Mission Road. The plan also INTRODUCTION I recommends a framework for design, materials, plant palette, approximate size, and location of each gateway. overview The recommendations outlined in this master plan are meant to provide the City with a tool for prioritizing the various proposed gateway improvements based on existing conditions, cost, and importance. Based on the City’s priorities, funding sources would be pursued or funds would be set aside from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This report outlines the process that the City went through to identify the gateway locations, develop project goals, evaluate design alternatives, and finally summarize the implementation strategy. The master plan addresses the following: - the site setting and gateway locations, - the design development, including project goals and the role that the advisory committee played throughout the planning process, - the design process, including the initial rough concepts and how they progressed to the final designs, and - what the strategies for implementation are. 11. Location: 101 Exit to S. Airport Blvd. Cross Streets: S. Airport Blvd. and 101 Off Ramp Refer to map on page 4 for locations. 2 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd SoutH SAn FrAncISco Regional Map NTS 14 South San Francisco Gateways Study Draft Gateway Master Plan I 3 regional context The City of South San Francisco is located in San Mateo County a few miles south of San Francisco at the northern edge of the Peninsula between the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and the Coastal Range. The total area of the City consists of 30.2 square miles, with 9.1 of those square miles being land (according to the United States Census Bureau). The population of 63,632 people (per the 2010 census) is made up of mostly working class families and consists of a variety of age groups and ethnicities, including Hispanic, White, and Asian. There are also a number of emerging technology companies based out of South San Francisco, such as Genentech, and more traditional companies, such as See’s Candies. With the City’s close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport and access to two major freeways, the 101 and 280, the City is a very convenient and centrally located place to live with a lot of business traffic, both foreign and domestic, coming to or passing through the City everyday. Gateway Locations The City initially identified ten (10) potential gateway locations. Based upon input from the Advisory Committee, created for the specific SITE SETTING II reason of developing a gateway master plan, some locations were changed, relocated, or added to the list. Twelve (12) potential gateway locations were agreed upon and include the following: - north bound El Camino Real - south bound El Camino Real - north bound 280 off ramp at Avalon Drive - north bound 280 off ramp at Westborough Blvd. - Mission Road at McLellan Drive - Junipero Serra Blvd. at Hickey Blvd. - Skyline Blvd. at Westborough Blvd. - Airport Blvd. at Sister Cities Blvd. - north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave. - Airport Blvd. at Grand Ave. - north bound 101 off ramp for Oyster Point Blvd. - north bound off ramp for South Airport Blvd. As each location presents a different situation with different conditions and jurisdictions, project goals and a program for achieving those goals were developed. Project Area NTS 15 Opposite page. Regional Map Below. Project Area Map 4 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd SSF GATEWAYS STUDY South San Francisco, California February 14, 2013 12059 SiteAnalysis 11x17 (2013 1-31).indd LOCATION MAP NTS 1 2 4 3 3 11 6 5 7 9 8 10 1 NORTH BOUND EL CAMINO REAL 2 SOUTH BOUND EL CAMINO REAL 3 280 EXIT TO WESTBOROUGH BLVD. 4 MCLELLAN DR. & MISSION RD. 5 HICKEY & JUNIPERO SERRA BLVDS. 6 SKYLINE & WESTBOROUGH BLVDS. 7 AIRPORT & SISTER CITIES BLVD. 8 GRAND AVE. OFF RAMP 9 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD. OFF RAMP 10 11 OYSTER POINT OFF RAMP 101 EXIT TO S. AIRPORT BLVD. SSF GATEWAYS STUDY South San Francisco, California February 14, 2013 12059 SiteAnalysis 11x17 (2013 1-31).indd LOCATION MAP NTS 1 2 4 3 3 11 6 5 7 9 8 10 1 NORTH BOUND EL CAMINO REAL 2 SOUTH BOUND EL CAMINO REAL 3 280 EXIT TO WESTBOROUGH BLVD. 4 MCLELLAN DR. & MISSION RD. 5 HICKEY & JUNIPERO SERRA BLVDS. 6 SKYLINE & WESTBOROUGH BLVDS. 7 AIRPORT & SISTER CITIES BLVD. 8 GRAND AVE. OFF RAMP 9 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD. OFF RAMP 10 11 OYSTER POINT OFF RAMP 101 EXIT TO S. AIRPORT BLVD. South San Francisco Gateways Study 14 NTS 16 17 18 19 Draft Gateway Master Plan I 5 Project goals The primary goals of this project are fourfold: 1. identify the main gateways to the City 2. provide unique gateways specific to South San Francisco that emanate the character of the City 3. establish consistent design parameters for all gateways 4. provide a strategy/roadmap for implementing construction of the gateways Supplementary goals of this project include: 1. respect both the history and the future of the City 2. design gateways that withstand the test of time and change 3. factor into account the SSF Downtown Strategy Plan 4. design gateways to accommodate driving speeds 5. be consistent with City sign guidelines 6. establish guidelines for materials and plants 7. create a total of three (3) gateway categories that could be used as the basis for design for all sites Program To implement the project goals a design program was created. The program consisted of: - identifying potential sites, - working with the City and Advisory Committee (AC) to refine the sites, - developing preliminary designs, - developing gateway categories - working with the City and AC to refine the designs and determine the gateway plants and materials, - presenting the plans for public review and feedback at a Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council Meeting, - and then developing a final master plan to implement the gateway program. DESIGN DEvElOpmENT Advisory Committee An integral component to the design process was the development of an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee (AC) was created to provide a forum for representatives of key city staff from a variety of departments and commissions to review all plans and voice their opinions. This committee functioned as a sounding board for design ideas, project challenges, funding opportunities, and implementation strategies before development of this plan. Three AC meetings were held throughout the process at key plan development milestones. The AC members included the following: City Council - Karyl Matsumoto Parks and Recreation Commission - Doug Reynolds, Sean Garrone Beautification Committee - Sean Garrone City Planning Department - Susy Kalkin, Billy Gross, Linda Ajello City Parks and Recreation Department - Sharon Ranals, Greg Mediati, Drew Arzaga The purpose of each AC Meeting was as follows AC Meeting #1 review project goals and objectives and discuss gateway sites and categories AC Meeting #2 review the project scope and site selection criteria, discuss the schedule, and further refine the process AC Meeting #3 review refined designs and draft master plan A copy of all meeting summaries is included in Appendix B. III Opposite top. Location map Opposite bottom. Example of site location map and existing conditions 6 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study 22 23 24 20 21 Draft Gateway Master Plan I 7 DESIGN pROCESS Site Analysis After going through the design development process and identifying all the potential gateway sites, each site was analyzed to determine: - the approximate location of gateway signs, - which of the gateway categories would be appropriate for each site, - what the extent of improvements would be, - and which site would be most appropriate to highlight each category for the purpose of this master plan. The sites were photographed to be used for further design review and to help determine potential costs of each site. Other factors taken into account were the speed at which vehicles traveled, property ownership, Caltrans jurisdiction, how electrical and irrigation would connect to the City’s existing systems, and how existing plant materials were performing, amongst other factors. This analysis was then incorporated into the preliminary design. IV 20-21. Views to South Airport Blvd. 22-23. Initial concept sketches of 101 off ramp 24-27. Initial concept sketches of gateway signs Preliminary Design Alternatives The preliminary designs were developed utilizing the information gathered during the site analysis, discussions with the City and Advisory Committee, and the Primary and Supplementary goals of the project. In order to gain feedback from the Advisory Committee the initial concepts were drawn in pen and ink (as shown in Exhibits 22- 27). These designs established the basis for the character of the signs - subtly encapsulating the character of the City and incorporating the City’s mission blue butterfly in color and subtle nods to the biotech community. Based upon input, the preliminary designs were further developed using a 3-D modeling tool (Sketch-Up) to help refine and better visualize the design. 25 2726 8 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study 28 29 30 31 32 gateway Modeling The aim for the 3D modeling of gateway features was to convey the magnitude and vision for each concept. A simple model was used, as seen in exhibits 28 to 31 to the right, to get further direction on which concepts captured the character of South San Francisco. The models also allowed for quick and effective communication of what type of impact different materials would have on the gateway signs. This helped determine what worked with the design and what didn’t, as different neighborhoods would potentially use different materials to complement the character of the neighborhood. In the case of exhibit 28, the metal panels of the BART station were replicated in the design of the sign. Exhibit 29 shows a more traditional sign for some of the more historical areas of South San Francisco. And exhibits 30 and 31 show a variation of what the large gateways could look like. Upon review of the initial gateway options the Advisory Committee chose to move forward with a family of three (3) sign types, allowing for different options depending on location: 1. large gateway - for major transit areas such as freeways and intersections (see exhibits 31 and 32) 2. standard gateway, vertical - for medians or intersections (see exhibit 30) Draft Gateway Master Plan I 9 DESIGN pROCESS 3. standard gateway, horizontal - for medians or intersections (see exhibits 28 and 29) Preferred Alternative Plans Once designs and locations were set, the next step was to identify three (3) priority locations and develop concepts for each, reflective of the input to date, that could then be used as models for the other gateway locations. The locations selected include, 1. north bound 101 off ramp for South Airport Blvd. 2. north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave. 3. north bound El Camino Real The north bound 101 off ramp for South Airport Blvd. was chosen 28-32. Sketchup models of various gateway sign concepts 33. Rendered plan of preferred north bound 101 off ramp for South Airport Blvd. concept 33 because, if improved, it would have a major impact to the impression that visitors, near and far, coming to the City, and specifically the Convention Center, would have. It also will require extensive coordination since the areas to be improved would require agreements with both Caltrans (this is a freeway off ramp) and the adjacent property owner where this sign would be located. The triangular shaped area between the off and on ramps would be paved with a “signature” treatment consistent with all other gateways, thus achieving an aesthetic low maintenance solution that could accommodate wide swinging freight trucks. The large gateway sign would be located just outside the Caltrans right-of-way. The north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave was chosen due to its proximity to the biotechnology community, proximity to downtown, S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d . 1 0 1 F r e e w a y 10 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study 34 35 East G r a n d A v e n u e Gra n d A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Draft Gateway Master Plan I 11 DESIGN pROCESS 36 37 38 39 34. Rendered plan of preferred north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave.. concept 35. Rendered plan of preferred north bound El Camino Real concept 36-39. Sketchup models of preferred gateway sign concepts and amount of traffic it receives. The gateway treatment is typical of a major gateway to South San Francisco, with a pavement and planting scheme to complement the signage. The north bound El Camino Real location was chosen as a model because it is a typical median situation that is also under Caltrans jurisdiction. Sign Manipulation The intent of the preferred signage designs is to develop a general framework for design intent, look and feel. There are several factors that can be manipulated in the final design to affect appearance and neighborhood integration; Font: style, size, and capitalization can all be changed to effect character and emotional response. Materials: cast stone, brick, concrete, metal and other materials can be incorporated to better reflect neighborhood character and historical references. Welcome statements “climate best by government test” and “The City of Good Living” are both examples of community slogans in the area. How does the City want to welcome visitors can be reflected in what the sign says. 12 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study 3534 INT E N T I O N A llY lEFT B lANK Draft Gateway Master Plan I 13 ImplEmENTATION V Phasing The construction of the 12 potential gateway locations will be implemented over a period of time as funding becomes available and the various permitting processes are completed. The ultimate goal is to establish a roadmap for which the City can implement the gateways in order of priority. This order will be determined upon the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council input. Permitting and Property Rights Four (4) of the twelve gateway locations are within Caltrans jurisdiction, which will play a significant role in the final design of the gateways. The City’s goal is to work closely with Caltrans to create gateways that are mutually beneficial to both Caltrans and the City and that meet Caltrans requirements. This is a process that will take time, which is why some of the first gateways that the City moves forward with will likely be within Caltrans jurisdiction. The projects within Caltrans jurisdiction will require coordination with the District Gateway Monument Coordinator. The design of the gateway monuments shall meet Caltrans standards as detailed in the State document titled “Caltrans Gateway Monuments”, dated 11/16/2011. The plan submittal shall include a site plan with the location of the proposed monument, including dimensions, offsets, and topography. All gateway monuments require a Standard Encroachment Permit Application. In addition to permitting the City will be working closely with adjacent property owners so that the gateways, and improvements for them, are agreed upon and complementary to the adjacent landscape. 38 costs Probable project costs were identified for each of the (3) concepts chosen as the priority gateway locations. The projected costs for each of these gateways are: 1. north bound 101 off ramp for South Airport Blvd. - $315- 335,000 2. north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave. - $180-200,000 3. north bound El Camino Real - $105-125,000 For a more detailed breakdown of costs refer to Appendix C. 14 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study INT E N T I O N A llY lEFT B lANK Draft Gateway Master Plan I 15 AppENDIX VI Appendix A: Site Location Context Maps - north bound El Camino Real - south bound El Camino Real - north bound 280 off ramp at Avalon Drive - north bound 280 off ramp at Westborough Blvd. - Mission Road at McLellan Drive - Junipero Serra Blvd. at Hickey Blvd. - Skyline Blvd. at Westborough Blvd. - Airport Blvd. at Sister Cities Blvd. - north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave. - Airport Blvd. at Grand Ave. - north bound 101 off ramp for Oyster Point Blvd. - north bound off ramp for South Airport Blvd. Information to be included in final master plan. 16 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study INT E N T I O N A llY lEFT B lANK Draft Gateway Master Plan I 17 AppENDIX VI Appendix B: Meeting Summaries Meeting Name Date Staff Meeting 01/11/2013 Advisory Committee (AC) Meeting #1 01/24/2013 AC Meeting #2 02/14/2013 AC Meeting #3 03/18/2013 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting t.b.d City Council Meeting t.b.d INT E N T I O N A llY lEFT B lANK 18 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401-4259 T 650 375 1313 F 650 344 3290 www.callanderassociates.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land Planning Park and Recreation Planning Environmental Planning Peter E. Callander, ASLA, Principal A. Mark Slichter, ASLA, Principal Brian G. Fletcher, ASLA, Principal Erik Smith, ASLA, Principal Benjamin W. Woodside, ASLA, Principal 11180 Sun Center Drive, Suite 104 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6167 T 916 631 1312 F 916 635 9153 www.callanderassociates.com Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Via E-mail Only January 14, 2013 Meeting Summary Staff Meeting RE: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAYS STUDY Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Friday, January 11, 2013 Page 1 Attendees: City Sharon Ranals (SR), Director of Rec. and Community Services, [email protected] Susy Kalkin (SK), Chief Planner, [email protected] Art Rosales (AR), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Marie Patea (MP), Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Greg Mediati (GM), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Drew Arzaga (DA), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Callander Associates Brian Fletcher (CA), Principal, [email protected] Matt Gruber (CA), Project Manager, [email protected] The purpose of this meeting was to review the project scope, site selection criteria, discuss the schedule, and further refine the process. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting: Item Person and date to follow up 1.A major goal for the project is to establish consistent design parameters for all gateways to South San Francisco. Noted. 2.The City has already created some design parameters for the downtown area that should be considered when working on the gateway designs. CA to review SSF Downtown Strategy prior to meeting with Advisory Draft Gateway Master Plan I 19 AppENDIX Meeting Summary Staff Meeting RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Friday, January 11, 2013 Page 2 12.059MeetingSummary2013 1-11.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Committee. 3.The gateways program should take into account flexibility in the design to accommodate the variations in neighborhoods, as different gateway locations are markedly different in character. Noted. 4.The sites and program objectives should be identified before going to the greater public with the project. 1st Advisory Committee (AC) meeting to focus on sites and objectives. 5.The gateways should be unique and stand out from the signage for housing developments. Noted. 6.The advisory committee will likely consist of 1-2 Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Karyl Matsumoto, Sharon Ranals, a member of the planning staff, and potentially a Cultural Arts Commission member City to contact AC members and set up 1st AC meeting prior to 1/25. 7.A budget or funding source for the gateways has yet to be identified. Component of study will be to identify potential funding. 8.A potential mechanism for funding the gateways are development agreements for new construction. Noted. 9.The gateway treatments need to be consistent with the City’s sign guidelines. Noted. 10.AR would like to concentrate on the more prominent gateway locations. Noted. 11.The gateways need to take into account driving speeds and maintenance costs. Noted. 12.The focus of the gateways study should be on design, location, maintenance and costs. Noted. 13.Update the schedule to allow a few weeks between CA to update schedule by 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401-4259 T 650 375 1313 F 650 344 3290 www.callanderassociates.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land Planning Park and Recreation Planning Environmental Planning Peter E. Callander, ASLA, Principal A. Mark Slichter, ASLA, Principal Brian G. Fletcher, ASLA, Principal Erik Smith, ASLA, Principal Benjamin W. Woodside, ASLA, Principal 11180 Sun Center Drive, Suite 104 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6167 T 916 631 1312 F 916 635 9153 www.callanderassociates.com Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Via E-mail Only January 14, 2013 Meeting Summary Staff Meeting RE: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAYS STUDY Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Friday, January 11, 2013 Page 1 Attendees: City Sharon Ranals (SR), Director of Rec. and Community Services, [email protected] Susy Kalkin (SK), Chief Planner, [email protected] Art Rosales (AR), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Marie Patea (MP), Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Greg Mediati (GM), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Drew Arzaga (DA), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Callander Associates Brian Fletcher (CA), Principal, [email protected] Matt Gruber (CA), Project Manager, [email protected] The purpose of this meeting was to review the project scope, site selection criteria, discuss the schedule, and further refine the process. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting: Item Person and date to follow up 1.A major goal for the project is to establish consistent design parameters for all gateways to South San Francisco. Noted. 2.The City has already created some design parameters for the downtown area that should be considered when working on the gateway designs. CA to review SSF Downtown Strategy prior to meeting with Advisory 20 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Meeting Summary Staff Meeting RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Friday, January 11, 2013 Page 3 12.059MeetingSummary2013 1-11.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. the Parks and Rec. Meeting and Council Meeting. 1/18. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Matt Gruber, Project Manager Callander Associates Draft Gateway Master Plan I 21 AppENDIX 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401-4259 T 650 375 1313 F 650 344 3290 www.callanderassociates.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land Planning Park and Recreation Planning Environmental Planning Peter E. Callander, ASLA, Principal A. Mark Slichter, ASLA, Principal Brian G. Fletcher, ASLA, Principal Erik Smith, ASLA, Principal Benjamin W. Woodside, ASLA, Principal 11180 Sun Center Drive, Suite 104 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6167 T 916 631 1312 F 916 635 9153 www.callanderassociates.com Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Via E-mail Only January 28, 2013 Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #1 RE: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAYS STUDY Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Thursday, January 24, 2013 Page 1 Attendees: Advisory Committee (AC) Sharon Ranals (SR), Director of Rec. and Community Services, [email protected] Karyl Matsumoto (KM), Council Member,[email protected] Doug Reynolds (DR), Parks and Recreation Commissioner, [email protected] Sean Garrone (SG), Parks and Recreation Commissioner, [email protected] Linda Ajello (LA), [email protected] Drew Arzaga (DA), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Callander Associates Brian Fletcher (CA), Principal, [email protected] Matt Gruber (CA), Project Manager, [email protected] The purpose of this meeting was to review the project goals and objectives as well as discuss gateway sites and categories. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting: Item Person and date to follow up 1.KM stated that there are a variety of Districts in SSF, all with their own identity, and suggested that the 3 different sign types represent the different Districts. Potentially biotech, downtown, and Residential or El Camino. CA to send out email with suggested categories by 1/25. AC members to respond by 1/30. 2.There should be a unifying element to the signs tying Noted. CA to review 22 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #1 RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Thursday, January 24, 2013 Page 2 12.059MeetingSummary2013 1-24.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. them together, whether it is color, materials, planting, a logo, etc. options during concept development. 3.The AC stated that a gateway was an arrival and that SSF Gateways should be something that will stand out in peoples mind as arriving in SSF. The AC mentioned the arch in Redwood City and the Millbrae sign at the Millbrae Ave/Rollins Rd intersection. Noted. 4.DR stated that the gateway program should identify a hierarchy of sizes based on the situation and location of the gateway. Noted. 5.The Helix, Mission Blue Butterfly, and Iris are icons of the City of South San Francisco Noted. 6.The gateway program should also apply to the mass transit gateways, not just vehicular gateways. CA to review possible mass transit gateway locations prior to next AC mtg. 7.The priority gateway locations for KM are El Camino Real and Junipero Serra. Noted. 8.The gateways should be reflective of the community and/or neighborhood that the gateways are located. Noted. 9.Out of town visitors often comment that SSF is a family oriented town. Noted. 10.A gateway should include more than just the gateway structure itself. It should include the landscape and both should be well maintained. CA to design gateways to include landscape as key feature. 11.The AC would like to work with Caltrans to improve the area at the Grand/Airport Blvd intersection adjacent to the 101. CA to update gateway map accordingly by 1/31. 12.The AC would like to provide the City Council members an opportunity to comment on the potential SR to write memo about gateway and email it and Draft Gateway Master Plan I 23 AppENDIX Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #1 RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Thursday, January 24, 2013 Page 3 12.059MeetingSummary2013 1-24.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. gateway sites. leave it in the council office by 2/1. 13.The gateway at the northern city limit on El Camino Real should be located at Hickey. CA to update gateway map accordingly by 1/31. 14.There should be a gateway located at the 280 off- ramp, either at Junipero Serra/Avalon, Junipero Serra/Westborough, or at both intersections. CA to update gateway map accordingly by 1/31. 15.There should be a gateway at Skyline. Gateway to be located at Skyline. 16.The AC felt that 101 off-ramp to Airport Blvd/the Conference Center is seen by many visitors to SSF and therefore a critical area that needs some sort of improvement despite the challenges associated with it. CA to update gateway map accordingly by 1/31. 17.A gateway at McLellan and Mission would make sense on the BART property adjacent to the Centennial Way trail. CA to update gateway map accordingly by 1/31. 18.The proposed gateway along Bayshore Blvd should be moved closer to Sister Cities Blvd to capture more traffic/views. CA to update gateway map accordingly by 1/31. 19.The next AC meeting will be 2/14 from 3pm to 4:30pm Noted, CA to prepare concepts by 2/13. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Matt Gruber, Project Manager Callander Associates 24 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401-4259 T 650 375 1313 F 650 344 3290 www.callanderassociates.com Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land Planning Park and Recreation Planning Environmental Planning Peter E. Callander, ASLA, Principal A. Mark Slichter, ASLA, Principal Brian G. Fletcher, ASLA, Principal Erik Smith, ASLA, Principal Benjamin W. Woodside, ASLA, Principal 11180 Sun Center Drive, Suite 104 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6167 T 916 631 1312 F 916 635 9153 www.callanderassociates.com Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Via E-mail Only February 18, 2013 Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #2 RE: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAYS STUDY Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Page 1 Attendees: Advisory Committee (AC) Sharon Ranals (SR), Director of Rec. and Community Services, [email protected] Karyl Matsumoto (KM), Council Member,[email protected] Doug Reynolds (DR), Parks and Recreation Commissioner, [email protected] Linda Ajello (LA), [email protected] Drew Arzaga (DA), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Callander Associates Brian Fletcher (CA), Principal, [email protected] Matt Gruber (CA), Project Manager, [email protected] The purpose of this meeting was to review the gateway concepts, locations, and categories to develop a direction for moving forward. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting: Item Person and date to follow up 1.The AC would like a copy of the powerpoint presentation showing the locations each category of sign would be located. CA to provide a copy of the ppt presentation to AC by 2/18. 2.The idea of breaking down the sign categories by District didn’t quite work because of the locations of the gateways at the entries to the City. Noted. 3.The AC’s preference is to move forward with and refine CA to explore materials and Draft Gateway Master Plan I 25 AppENDIX Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #2 RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Page 2 12.059MeetingSummary2013 2-14.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. the family of signs with a similar design – Large Corner Gateway Option B, median option A, and median option B (see attached powerpoint). font refinements and update concepts for next AC mtg. 4.KM likes the idea of having a vertical gateway option included with the more horizontal options. This would allow some of the gateways to relate more to the proposed Westborough Plaza. Noted, see item 3 response above. 5.All categories should be based on the above family with the materials switched out to relate more closely to the character of the specific gateway locations. Noted, see item 3 response above. 6.The AC liked the idea of the internally lit bands shown in the concepts listed in item 3 as they are different than the traditional uplighting on gateway signs. They would set the City apart and provide a beacon indicating your arrival in SSF. CA to incorporate backlit aspect into concepts moving forward. 7.KM likes the industrial look of the gateway signs with the modern influence. Noted. 8.The AC liked the idea of having “south san francisco” in all lower case letters. CA to utilize lower case text for future concepts. 9.The AC would like to explore using the “machine age” font used on San Bruno Mountain or a similar, modernized version of that font, to tie in the proposed gateway signs with the existing. CA to explore font options on concepts to present to AC at next mtg. 10.The secondary level of text on the signs is a topic under much debate. More discussion needs to take place before determining what that is or showing any specific text on the conceptual signs. CA to provide non-specific placeholder in concepts until City decides on text. 11.The secondary level of text does not need to be an aspect of every gateway. Noted. 12.The secondary level of text does not need to be a slogan, but can be something as simple as “welcome”, “you’re here” or something with some humor. Noted. 13.The City of SSF has evolved over the years from agricultural to industrial to biotechnology and is now Noted. 26 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #2 RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Page 3 12.059MeetingSummary2013 2-14.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. evolving more into life sciences. The gateways should not have any literal representations of any single evolution, but instead should have subtle references that can apply to all evolutions. 14.KM does not believe that plantings within the median at the South Airport Blvd exit off 101 would survive because of the many occurrences where big rigs drive over the median. Noted. 15.The AC likes the idea of establishing a signature paving pattern/style for the gateways. Noted, CA to incorporate paving pattern into future concepts. 16.The AC’s priority gateway locations are at the 280 off- ramp (either Avalon or Westborough), at the South Airport Blvd exit to the Conference Center, at El Camino Real, and at Skyline. CA to prioritize the gateways for presentation at next AC mtg. 17.The goal of this project is to provide a road map and concepts for the City Council to review and prioritize the gateways. Budget permitting, a portion of the CIP would be allocated for construction of the priority gateways. The other gateways would be constructed over the next 5-20 years as funding allows. Noted. 18.The next AC meeting will be held on Monday, March 8 at 3:00pm City to send out invitation by 2/18. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Matt Gruber, Project Manager Callander Associates attached: 12059 Advisory Committee Meeting #2 powerpoint presentation, dated February 14, 2013, 42 pages total. Draft Gateway Master Plan I 27 AppENDIX Via E-mail Only March 29, 2013 Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #3 RE: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GATEWAYS STUDY Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Monday, March 18, 2013 Page 1 Attendees: Advisory Committee (AC) Sharon Ranals (SR), Director of Rec. and Community Services, [email protected] Karyl Matsumoto (KM), Council Member,[email protected] Linda Ajello (LA), Associate Planner [email protected] Drew Arzaga (DA), Parks Supervisor, [email protected] Sean Garrone (SG), Parks and Recreation Commissioner, [email protected] Callander Associates Brian Fletcher (CA), Principal, [email protected] Zach Katz (CA), Project Assistant, [email protected] The purpose of this meeting was to review the revised gateway concepts to develop a direction for moving forward with the gateway master plan. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting: Item Person and date to follow up 1. The AC liked the idea of having “south san francisco” in all lower case letters. They prefer the font style in the preliminary sign concepts. Noted. 2. The AC would like to see the lettering more spread out and moved over to the right. CA to revise sign lettering in draft master plan by 3/29. 3. AC would like to see the word “south” larger and “san francisco” smaller on the tall median sign. They would CA to revise sign lettering in draft master plan by 3/29. 28 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Meeting Summary Advisory Committee Meeting #2 RE: South San Francisco Gateways Study Location of Meeting: 550 Canal, South San Francisco, CA Date of Meeting: Monday, March 18, 2013 Page 2 12.059MeetingSummary2013 3-18.doc © copyrighted 2013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. like the 2nd line of text removed as well. 4. AC suggested the planting at Ralston Avenue Medians in Belmont as a good example of successful gateway planting. Noted. 5. The City’s in house engineering costs and maintenance costs should be included in the cost estimate. CA to incorporate into master plan by 3/29 6. KM recommended adding boulders with the plantings. Noted. 7. KM feels the 101 exit to south Airport Blvd. should have the highest priority since it is the primary exit into South San Francisco. Noted. 8. The AC would like the final master plan complete for the parks and rec meeting on April 25th. CA to provide draft master plan by 3/29. AC to provide comments by 4/8. CA to provide revised master plan by 4/12. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Zach Katz, Project Assistant Callander Associates cc: Billy Gross, [email protected] Draft Gateway Master Plan I 29 AppENDIX Appendix C: Estimate of Probable Construction Costs Gateway Location north bound 101 off ramp for South Airport Blvd. north bound 101 off ramp for Grand Ave. north bound El Camino Real 30 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the SSF Gateway Study City of South San Francisco 101 Exit to South Airport Conceptual Plan prepared on: 3/15/2013 prepared by: ZK checked by: MG Item #Description Qty UnitCostItem TotalSubtotal A Project Start-up 1.Bonding and mobilization Allow4%$8,562.40$8,562. 2.Construction staking AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. 3.Traffic Control AllowLS$15,000.00$15,000. $24,560. BDemolition 1.Clear and grub 18,000SF $1.50$27,000. 2.Lightpole and signal relocation AllowLS$5,000.00$5,000. 3.Miscellaneous removals AllowLS$500.00$500. $32,500. CGrading 1.Rough Grading, 3" average depth 18,000SF $0.50$9,000.00 $9,000. DSite Construction 1.Colored concrete pavement 8,300SF$12.00$99,600.00 2.Major gateway sign 1EA$20,000.00$20,000.00 3.Miscellaneous AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. $120,600. EIrrigation 1.Irrigation system modification AllowLS$7,000.00$7,000.00 $7,000. FElectrical 1.Point of connection 1EA$3,000.00$3,000.00 2.Trenching AllowLS$5,000.00$5,000. 3.Wires and conduit AllowLS$2,000.00$2,000. 4.Sign lighting AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. $11,000. GPlanting and Soil Preparation 1.Soil preparation and fine grading 9,500SF $1.00$9,500.00 3.Shrub, 5 gallon @ 4' o.c.297EA$25.00$7,425.00 4.Groundcover, 1 gallon @ 3' o.c.528EA$10.00$5,280.00 5.Mulch 9,500SF $1.00$9,500.00 $31,710. HLandscape Maintenance 1.Maintenance period 3MO$750.00$2,250.00 $2,250. ISubtotal Construction Costs $238,620. JProfessional Services 1.Design development Allow5%$11,931.00$11,931.00 2.Construction documents Allow5%$11,931.00$11,931.00 3.contsruction administration Allow3%$7,158.60$7,158.60 $31,020. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 12059 101 Exit to S. Airport CostEstimate 2013 3-15.xls © copyrighted 20013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Draft Gateway Master Plan I 31 AppENDIX Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the SSF Gateway Study City of South San Francisco 101 Exit to South Airport Conceptual Plan prepared on: 3/15/2013 prepared by: ZK checked by: MG Item #Description Qty UnitCostItem TotalSubtotal K Contingencies 1.Design contingency Allow10%$23,862.00$23,862.00 2.Construction contingency Allow10%$23,862.00$23,862.00 3.Inflation contingency Allow2%$4,772.40$4,772.40 $52,500. LPermitting 1.Caltrans encroachment permit AllowLS$3,000.00$3,000.00 $3,000. MTotal Project Costs $315,000-335,000 Based on drawing entitled "101 Exit to South Airport Blvd" dated 03/14/13. The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 12059 101 Exit to S. Airport CostEstimate 2013 3-15.xls © copyrighted 20013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Page 2 of 2 32 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the SSF Gateway Study City of South San Francisco Grand Ave. Off Ramp Conceptual Plan prepared on: 3/15/2013 prepared by: ZK checked by: MG Item #Description Qty UnitCostItem TotalSubtotal A Project Start-up 1.Bonding and mobilization Allow4%$4,883.20$4,883. 2.Construction staking AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. 3.Traffic Control AllowLS$15,000.00$15,000. $20,880. BDemolition 1.River cobble pavement 700SF $5.00$3,500. 2.Brick pavement 1,300SF $3.00$3,900. 3.Clear and grub 7,100SF $1.50$10,650. 4.Tree removal 6EA$500.00$3,000. 5.Relocate signage AllowLS$250.00 $250. 6.Miscellaneous removals AllowLS$500.00 $500. $21,800. CGrading 1.Rough Grading, 6" average depth 9,050SF $0.50$4,525.00 $4,530. DSite Construction 1.Colored concrete pavement 1,000SF$12.00$12,000.00 2.Sand blast and stain concrete 1,350SF $4.00$5,400.00 3.Major gateway sign 1EA$20,000.00$20,000.00 4.Miscellaneous AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. $38,400. EIrrigation 1.Irrigation system modification AllowLS$1,100.00$1,100.00 2.Point of connection AllowLS$3,000.00$3,000.00 3.Quick coupling valve 2EA$200.00$400.00 4.Gate valve 2EA$400.00$800.00 5.Remote control valve 2EA$500.00$1,000.00 6.Tree bubbler 7EA$50.00$350.00 7.Drip irrigation system 3,000SF $2.00$6,000.00 8.Directional boring AllowLS$6,000.00$6,000.00 $12,650. FElectrical 1.Point of connection 1EA$3,000.00$3,000.00 2.Trenching AllowLS$5,000.00$5,000. 3.Wires and conduit AllowLS$2,000.00$2,000. 4.Sign lighting AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. $11,000. GPlanting and Soil Preparation 1.Soil preparation and fine grading 8,100SF $1.00$8,100.00 2.Tree, 24" box 7EA$400.00$2,800.00 3.Shrub, 5 gallon @ 4' o.c.360EA$25.00$9,000.00 4.Groundcover, 1 gallon @ 3' o.c.270EA$10.00$2,700.00 5.Mulch 8,100SF $1.00$8,100.00 $30,700. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 12059 Grand Ave CostEstimate 2013 3-15.xls © copyrighted 20013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Draft Gateway Master Plan I 33 AppENDIX Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the SSF Gateway Study City of South San Francisco Grand Ave. Off Ramp Conceptual Plan prepared on: 3/15/2013 prepared by: ZK checked by: MG Item #Description Qty UnitCostItem TotalSubtotal HLandscape Maintenance 1.Maintenance period 3MO$1,000.00$3,000.00 $3,000. ISubtotal Construction Costs $142,960. JProfessional Services 1.Design development Allow5%$7,148.00$7,148.00 2.Construction documents Allow5%$7,148.00$7,148.00 3.contsruction administration Allow3%$4,288.80$4,288.80 $18,580. KContingencies 1.Design contingency Allow10%$14,296.00$14,296.00 2.Construction contingency Allow10%$14,296.00$14,296.00 3.Inflation contingency Allow2%$2,859.20$2,859.20 $31,450. LTotal Project Costs $180,000-200,000 Based on drawing entitled "Grand Ave Off Ramp" dated 3/14/13 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 12059 Grand Ave CostEstimate 2013 3-15.xls © copyrighted 20013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Page 2 of 2 34 I City of South San Francisco 12059 Master Plan Report 2013 3-11.indd South San Francisco Gateways Study Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the SSF Gateway Study City of South San Francisco North Bound El Camino Real Conceptual Plan prepared on: 3/15/2013 prepared by: ZK checked by: MG Item #Description Qty UnitCostItem TotalSubtotal A Project Start-up 1.Bonding and mobilization Allow4%$2,452.40$2,452. 2.Construction staking AllowLS$500.00 $500. 3.Traffic Control AllowLS$20,000.00$20,000. $22,950. BDemolition 1.Concrete pavement 550SF $5.00$2,750. 2.Brick pavement 1,750SF $3.00$5,250. 3.Clear and grub 1,200SF $1.50$1,800. 4.Tree removal 1EA$500.00 $500. 5.Sawcut 180LF $6.00$1,080. 6.Signage 1EA$250.00 $250. 7.Miscellaneous removals AllowLS$500.00 $500. $12,130. CGrading 1.Rough Grading, 3" average depth 3,500SF $0.50$1,750.00 $1,750. DSite Construction 1.Colored concrete pavement 600SF$12.00$7,200.00 2.Minor gateway sign 1EA$12,000.00$12,000.00 3.Miscellaneous AllowLS$750.00 $750. $19,950. EIrrigation 1.Irrigation system modification AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000.00 2.Point of connection 1EA$1,500.00$1,500.00 3.Quick coupling valve 1EA$200.00$200.00 4.Gate valve 1EA$400.00$400.00 5.Remote control valve 1EA$500.00$500.00 6.Tree bubbler 3EA$50.00$150.00 7.Drip irrigation system 1,100SF $2.00$2,200.00 $5,950. FElectrical 1.Point of connection 1EA$3,000.00$3,000.00 2.Trenching AllowLS$5,000.00$5,000. 3.Wires and conduit AllowLS$2,000.00$2,000. 4.Sign lighting AllowLS$1,000.00$1,000. $11,000. GPlanting and Soil Preparation 1.Soil preparation and fine grading 1,600SF $1.00$1,600.00 2.Tree, 24" box 3EA$400.00$1,200.00 3.Shrub, 5 gallon @ 4' o.c.106EA$25.00$2,650.00 4.Groundcover, 1 gallon @ 3' o.c.123EA$10.00$1,230.00 5.Mulch 1,600SF $1.00$1,600.00 $8,280. HLandscape Maintenance Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 12059 Northbound El Camino CostEstimate 2013 3-15.xls © copyrighted 20013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Draft Gateway Master Plan I 35 AppENDIX Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the SSF Gateway Study City of South San Francisco North Bound El Camino Real Conceptual Plan prepared on: 3/15/2013 prepared by: ZK checked by: MG Item #Description Qty UnitCostItem TotalSubtotal 1.Maintenance period 3MO$750.00$2,250.00 $2,250. ISubtotal Construction Costs $84,260. JProfessional Services 1.Design development Allow5%$4,213.00$4,213.00 2.Construction documents Allow5%$4,213.00$4,213.00 3.contsruction administration Allow3%$2,527.80$2,527.80 $10,950. K Contingencies 1.Design contingency Allow10%$8,426.00$8,426.00 2.Construction contingency Allow10%$8,426.00$8,426.00 3.Inflation contingency Allow2%$1,685.20$1,685.20 $18,540. LPermitting 1.Caltrans encroachment permit AllowLS$3,000.00$3,000.00 $3,000. MTotal Project Costs $105,000-125,000 Based on drawing entitled "North Bound El Camino Real Concept" dated 03/14/13. The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 12059 Northbound El Camino CostEstimate 2013 3-15.xls © copyrighted 20013 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Page 2 of 2 1CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office GatewaySignageProgram StudySession September11,2017 2CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office GatewaySignageProgram 3CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office InitialConcept 4CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office ModifiedConcepts ORIGINAL OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 5CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office ModifiedConcepts ORIGINAL OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 6CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office AdditionalConceptsforDiscussion 7CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office AdditionalConceptsforDiscussion 8CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office AdditionalConceptsforDiscussion 9CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office AdditionalConceptsforDiscussion 10CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office AdditionalConceptsforDiscussion 11CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO| City Manager’s Office Discussion City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. Study Session: Cannabis - cultivation and distribution businesses.(Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner and Deborah Gill, Special Projects Manager) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hold a study session on potential cultivation and distribution cannabis businesses within the City, and provide direction to staff regarding next steps. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, which is the initiative known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Subject to local and state restrictions and regulations, AUMA generally legalizes the nonmedical, recreational use of cannabis by persons 21 years of age and over. AUMA created a comprehensive state regulatory and licensing structure governing commercial nonmedical cannabis activities, including the commercial cultivation, testing, manufacturing, distribution, and retail sale of nonmedical cannabis. On April 4, 2017, Governor Brown released a budget trailer bill (“Trailer Bill”) that aimed to reconcile the existing medical marijuana statutory framework under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) and the recreational statutory framework adopted under the AUMA. After some revision, the state Senate and Assembly passed a modified version of the original proposal in the form of AB 110/SB 94 on June 15, 2017 and the Governor signed it into law. On January 25, 2017, the City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on all commercial cannabis activity within the City of South San Francisco in order to comprehensively study the issue. On March 8, 2017, the City Council extended the moratorium for an additional ten months and 15 days. Unless it is further extended, the moratorium will expire on January 23, 2018. On January 11, 2017 City Council held a study session on an overview and update on cannabis laws. Retailer dispensary licenses (Type 10) were discussed at the April 12, 2017 City Council study session. On July 26, 2017 City Council held a study session regarding the potential regulation of testing and manufacturing cannabis businesses, state license types 6, 7, and 8. Today’s study session focuses on cannabis cultivation licenses (Types 1-5), distribution (Type 11), and includes microbusinesses (Type 12). There is no Type 9 license. Local Regulation The Trailer Bill allows local jurisdictions the authority to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to second hand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction. If a local jurisdiction fails to adopt local ordinances, cannabis businesses will fall under state law by default and can obtain state licenses starting January 1, 2018. However, the state cannot issue licenses in the City while the City’s moratorium is in effect. Consequently, staff would recommend that the City either adopt an ordinance to regulate or prohibit commercial cannabis uses before the end of City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 1 of 7 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. December 2017 to ensure that the ordinances are in effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium or adopt an ordinance to further extend the moratorium. Staff is requesting direction from City Council on developing regulations applicable to commercial cannabis businesses. The focus of this study session is the potential regulation of cultivation and distribution cannabis businesses. If the City Council determines to regulate rather than prohibit cannabis businesses, the following are some topics staff recommends for City Council consideration: 1.Is there any potential for outdoor commercial cultivation within city limits?Would cannabis cultivation be permitted in warehouses? And if so, in which zones? 2.Would cannabis distribution be permitted? 3.Would the city require businesses locate at a minimum distance from each other, or from sensitive uses? 4.Would the City impose limits to the size of operations? 5.What ventilation,noise,odor,lighting,electrical,water,security and other operational standards should be imposed to address fire and safety concerns? Cannabis Cultivation - State License Types and Zoning According to the Trailer Bill,cannabis “cultivation”is defined as “any activity involving the planting,growing, harvesting,drying,curing,grading,or trimming of cannabis”.(Cal.Bus.and Prof.Code §26001(l)).Of the 20 cannabis licenses created under the Trailer Bill,11 types of cultivation licenses will be available from the state starting January 1, 2018. The proposed state licensing scheme further divides “cultivation” into “outdoor cultivation”, “indoor cultivation”, and “mixed light cultivation” sub classifications. “Outdoor cultivation” is “cultivation using no artificial lighting”, “indoor cultivation” is “cultivation using exclusively artificial lighting, and “mixed-light,” is “cultivation using a combination of natural and supplemental artificial lighting at a maximum threshold to be determined by the licensing authority” (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code §26061(a)-(b)), such as in greenhouses. Cultivation types are grouped by size, as described below. 1.Type 1 = Cultivation; Specialty outdoor; Small (up to 5,000 sq ft) 2.Type 1A = Cultivation; Specialty indoor; Small (up to 5,000 sq ft) 3.Type 1B = Cultivation; Specialty mixed-light; Small (up to 5,000 sq ft) 4.Type 1C =Cultivation;Specialty cottage -only one cultivation site,no bigger than 2,500 square feet of mixed-light grows with 25 plants used for outdoor cultivation,or no larger than 500 square feet of indoor operations 5.Type 2 = Cultivation; Outdoor; Small (5,001 - 10,000 sq ft) 6.Type 2A = Cultivation; Indoor; Small (5,001 - 10,000 sq ft) 7.Type 2B = Cultivation; Mixed-light; Small (5,001 - 10,000 sq ft) 8.Type 3 = Cultivation; Outdoor; Medium (10,001 sq ft - 1 acre) 9.Type 3A = Cultivation; Indoor; Medium (10,001 - 22,000 sq ft) 10.Type 3B = Cultivation; Mixed-light; Medium (10,001 - 22,000 sq ft) 11.Type 4 =Cultivation;Nursery -up to one acre;allows the growth of cannabis only as a nursery,license holders may also transport live plants City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 2 of 7 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. Type 5 through Type 5B licenses includes any indoor or mixed light cultivation over 22,000 square feet and any outdoor cultivation over an acre: ·Type 5 = Cultivation; Outdoor; Large, ·Type 5A =Cultivation; Indoor; Large, ·Type 5B = Cultivation; Mixed-light; Large Type 5 licenses will not be issued to anyone before January 1, 2023; in effect, there will be no large scale cultivation licenses for the first five years of legalization. The definition of cannabis “cultivation” under state law is similar to the definition of “Crop Production, Limited” in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which is the “[u]se of land for agricultural production, vine or tree farm, truck garden, apiary, horticulture, vineyard, hopyard, and associated crop preparation and harvesting activities or any other type of agriculture determined to be substantially similar to the above.” Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code excludes “nurseries, greenhouses, processing, or retail sales of agricultural products” from the “Crop Production, Limited” use classification. “Crop Production, Limited” uses are permitted in the Low Density Residential (RL), Medium Density Residential (RM), High Density Residential (RH), Mixed Industrial (MI), Open Space (OS), and Parks and Recreation (PR) zoning districts. Due to the potential environmental impacts from use of pesticides and other chemicals in runoff, strong odors emitted from mature plants which can interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties by their occupants, and security concerns caused by marijuana plants grown outdoors, staff does not recommend permitting outdoor commercial marijuana cultivation. Even though outdoor commercial marijuana cultivation uses could be located within a greenhouse, greenhouse structures are easily identifiable and concerns of theft and the ability to secure cannabis crops remain prevalent. Moreover, staff suggests allowing indoor cannabis cultivation facilities in zoning districts that do not contain residential areas and are not in close proximity to sensitive receptors, which is the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning district, subject to a conditional use permit. Please see Attachment 1, which shows a map of the city indicating which zoned areas are suggested, with areas excluded according to the Trailer Bill. Cannabis Distribution - State License Type and Zoning The Trailer Bill states "Distribution" (Type 11 = Distributor) is defined as “the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between licensees.” Cannabis distribution facilities typically receive cannabis from cultivators, transport cannabis to quality assurance and batch testing, distribute to and from manufacturing operations, and then distribute cannabis to a licensed dispensary. No retail sales can take place from a cannabis distribution facility. Sale of cannabis or cannabis products to the public via a delivery service is regulated under the Type 10 retail license. A cannabis “distribution” use is akin to “Wholesaling and Distribution” uses in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code defines “Wholesaling and Distribution” uses as “[i]ndoor storage and sale of goods to other firms for resale; storage of goods for transfer to retail outlets of the same firm; or storage and sale of materials and supplies used in production or operation, including janitorial and restaurant supplies.” Furthermore, “Wholesaling and Distribution” uses involve transfer of products between businesses and do not offer merchandise for retail. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 3 of 7 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. “Wholesaling and Distribution” uses are currently allowed in the Business Professional Office (BPO), Business Technology Park (BTP), Gateway Specific Plan (GSPD), and Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning districts. Given that distribution uses have historically operated in the BPO, BTP, GSPD, and MI zoning districts and that residential uses are not allowed in those districts, staff recommends that cannabis distribution uses be permitted in the BPO, BTP, GSPD, and MI zoning districts, subject to conditional use permit. Please see Attachment 2, which shows a map of the city indicating which zoned areas are suggested, with areas excluded according to the Trailer Bill. Cannabis Microbusiness - State License Type and Zoning The Trailer Bill defines “Microbusiness” (Type 12 = Microbusiness) as a business which cultivates cannabis on an area less than 10,000 square feet and can also be a licensed distributor, Level 1 manufacturer, and retailer. Given that a microbusiness may distribute, manufacture, and sell cannabis in addition to cultivation operations, it is recommended that microbusinesses be only allowed in zones that allow all such uses. The only zoning district that allows such uses is the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning district. Please see Attachment 3, which shows a map of the city indicating which zoned areas are suggested, with areas excluded according to the Trailer Bill. Vertical integration, or having more than one license, is allowed under state law with the exception of testing. As discussed in previous study sessions, testing facilities cannot hold any other license under the Trailer Bill. Space and Distance Requirements The Trailer Bill requires that commercial marijuana businesses locate at least 600 feet from K-12 schools, day care centers, or youth centers that are in existence at the time the license is issued. In addition to this requirement, a minimum distance requirement between cannabis businesses may be considered. Size of Operations With respect to cannabis cultivation uses, of the cities surveyed, several limited the size of operations for cannabis cultivation uses by limiting the canopy area and the cultivation area. Several canopy area limits were based on the limits in the proposed state licensing structure, which are divided into three tiers. The first tier limits indoor canopy area from 0 to 5,000 square feet, the second tier limits indoor canopy area from 5,001 to 10,000 square feet, and the third tier limits indoor canopy area from 10,000 to 22,000. In addition to canopy area limits, several jurisdictions imposed limits on cultivation area, which is the space that is need for drying, curing, and processing as well as immature young plants, walkways, storage, and bathrooms. Approximately 1/3 of commercial cultivation space is needed for drying, curing, processing, immature young plants, walkways, storage, and bathrooms. As for distribution uses, none of the cities surveyed have a size limit for cannabis distribution uses. It is unclear how much square footage each cultivation and distribution facility will need, because of the wide variety of cannabis products that can be stored and transported, with each having different space requirements. Rather than set a limit on the square footage, staff recommends that the square footage for each distribution facility should be determined through the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and a discretionary review process. Applicants will be required to submit a business plan as well as a detailed floor plan that outlines their space needs, including, storage, kitchen, packaging, shipping, equipment, and office areas. Operational Standards Indoor cultivation requires a high input of electricity. Requiring LED lights is one way to reduce the demand of electricity. Another requirement which the City Council could consider is requiring all energy use from the City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 4 of 7 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. cannabis industry be 100 percent renewable in order to be eligible for a permit. The City of Richmond is one city which has adopted this requirement. The California Water Resources Control Board is currently accepting comments on a draft Cannabis Cultivation Policy and General Order including addressing water quality, water diversion, waste discharge requirements, and environmental management plans, and will hold public hearings in October 2017. Staff would recommend any cannabis cultivation business be required to adhere to the future adopted state Cannabis Cultivation Policy. Fire/Building Codes Any cannabis cultivation businesses would need to meet theventilation,egress,and electrical requirements of the California Building Code.Building permits with plans will be required for any modification to framing, electrical,mechanical or plumbing as it relates to the indoor cultivation of cannabis.Plans will be reviewed by the Building Division and Planning department, and may be subject to a third party peer review. As cannabis distribution businesses are of a similar use to warehouses in the building code, they would need to comply with the related building and fire codes. Security The City could require these businesses to submit a security plan for review by the Police Chief as part of the permitting process. Security measures that could be considered are the following: ·Video cameras, both on site and in vehicles ·Alarms ·Lighting ·Safes ·Hired on and off-site security, including a minimum number of security officers ·Updated window, door, and skylight standards ·Limiting amount of product As these are not public facing businesses, staff recommends prohibiting physical and online signage advertising the location of a cannabis cultivation or distribution facility to the general public. Discouraging public facing signage for cannabis businesses would be possible through performance standards adopted by ordinance. Examples include: -No on-street signage or other building markings, -No signage on vehicles, and -No physical addresses on websites,business cards,and promotional materials (could say something like “located in South San Francisco,serving South San Francisco…”,or list a P.O Box) Cannabis licenses would be valid for one year. The City can add performance standards, when if not met would justify revocation or prevent re-issuing of a license. The Trailer Bill also requires licensees to implement a track and trace program, which includes an electronic seed to sale software tracking system with data points for the different stages of commercial activity including, but not limited to, cultivation, harvest, processing, distribution, inventory, and sale. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 5 of 7 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. FUNDING Effective January 1, 2018, all retail sales, medical and non-medical, will be subject to a 15 percent California state excise tax. The Trailer Bill also imposes a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce dry-weight for flowers or $2.75 for leaves. The cultivation tax will be imposed when the cannabis or cannabis products enter the commercial marketplace. The distributor is required to collect and remit the cultivation tax at the time of distribution and create a tax liability for the excise tax at the same time. Tax revenues will be allocated to the California Marijuana Tax Fund where proceeds will be directed towards repaying State agencies for regulatory costs not covered by license fees, and providing grants to California public universities to study and evaluate the implementation of the act. Remaining tax revenues will be distributed: ·60 percent to youth programs, substance abuse education, prevention and treatment ·20 percent to environmental cleanup and remediation; and ·20 percent to programs to reduce DUIs and negative health impacts resulting from cannabis legislation. State cannabis tax revenue will be distributed to those localities where cannabis businesses are permitted, even though effects of legalization may occur in other localities as well. There is an opportunity for additional taxes to be levied at the county and/or local level. A local cannabis general tax would require a public hearing of the ordinance and voter approval in order to comply with Proposition 218, requiring 2/3 approval from City Council and 50 percent plus one of a ballot vote. Jurisdictions also have the opportunity to impose a special cannabis business permit fee, which would help to alleviate the cost burden on the jurisdiction for audits, inspections, and processing licenses. Cultivation or Distribution Tax Several counties have already imposed taxes for cultivation of cannabis: ·Monterey County assesses a cultivation tax of $15 per square foot,$2 per square foot in unincorporated land ·Lake County imposes a $1,$2,and $3 per square foot tax on outdoor,mixed-light and indoor cultivation respectively ·Sonoma county -$1-2 for outdoor,$3.75 -$11.25 for indoor,and $2.25 -$6.50 for mixed light cultivation, depending on square footage ·Humboldt County - $1 to $3 per-square-foot cultivation tax ·Salinas - $15 per square foot cultivation tax ·San Leandro - 10 percent tax on gross receipts ·Hayward - up to 15 percent tax on gross receipts ·Santa Cruz - a range of 7 - 10 percent tax on gross receipts ·Watsonville - a maximum rate of $20 per square foot Staff recommends commissioning a study in order to calculate a fair tax rate that would not promote the black market. Council may consider a cannabis business license fee to be more appropriate than a local cannabis tax that would be in addition to the local sales tax; in which case, staff would City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 6 of 7 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-468 Agenda Date:9/11/2017 Version:1 Item #:2. recommend a fee study to determine the appropriate amount of the fee. Cultivation or Distribution Business License Fee The California Department of Food and Agriculture will offer 14 different cultivation licenses, ranging in cost from $60 - $4,260 depending on the type. The City has the option to create a business license fee for cultivation and distribution cannabis businesses. A local cannabis business license permit fee would require City Council approval, public noticing of the fees, and supportive documentation outlining the City costs justifying imposition of the fee. If the City were to move forward, staff would recommend commissioning a study in order to calculate the total cost burden of providing legal, building inspection, code enforcement, finance, fire, and police support in the City for all potential cannabis businesses before a final cost allocation recommendation per license type. Other jurisdictions have also imposed a cannabis business license fee: ·Sacramento -$9,700 -$24,630 for cultivation depending on size,as well as a conditional use permit,the cost of which ranges from $16,640 to $33,610 ·San Francisco -has established an Office of Cannabis and is planning to have an ordinance set in place by September 1, 2017, with fees set in place by December 1, 2017. ·Denver - $4,000 for cultivation, $4,900 for distribution ·Las Vegas -$20,000 -$30,000 cultivation permit depending on size,plus an additional $5,000 compliance permit ·Monterey County has assessed a permit fee of $8,200 -$9,000,to be distributed to various agencies according to cost burden (Public Works, Planning, Environmental Services, etc.) Attachments ·Attachment 1 - Map, suggested cannabis cultivation zones ·Attachment 2 - Map, suggested cannabis distribution zones ·Attachment 3 - Map, suggested cannabis microbusiness zones ·Attachment 4 - Powerpoint presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/7/2017Page 7 of 7 powered by Legistar™ S H A W U T A H CANAL SISTER CITIES DNA E GRAND S MAPLE GATEWAY S A I R P O R T G R A N D V I E W S LINDEN ALLE RTO N E C C L E S F O R B E S A R R O Y O GRAND S S P R U C E M I S S I O N ORANGE L I T T L E F I E L D MITCHELL AIRPORT RAILROAD H I L L S I D E MILLER OYSTER POINT MAPLE Suggested Cannabis Cultivation Zones (Indoor Only) E L C A M I N O R E A L Areas within zones more than 600 feet from Schools, Day Cares, and Youth CentersSchools, Day Cares, and Youth Centers H I G H W A Y 1 0 1 I N T E R S TATE 380 WESTBOROUG H S H AW U T A H CANAL SISTER CITIES DNA E GRAND S MAPLE GATEWAY S A I R P O R T G R A N D V I E W S LINDEN ALLE RT O N E C C L E S F O R B E S A R R O Y O GRAND S S P R U C E M I S S I O N ORANGE L I T T L E F I E L D MITCHELL AIRPORT RAILROAD H I L L S I D E MILLER OYSTER POINT MAPLE Suggested Cannabis Distribution Zones E L C A M I N O R E A L Areas within zones more than 600 feet from Schools, Day Cares, and Youth CentersSchools, Day Cares, and Youth Centers H I G H W A Y 1 0 1 I N T E R S TATE 380 S H A W U T A H CANAL SISTER CITIES DNA E GRAND S MAPLE GATEWAY S A I R P O R T G R A N D V I E W S LINDEN ALLE RTO N E C C L E S F O R B E S A R R O Y O GRAND S S P R U C E M I S S I O N ORANGE L I T T L E F I E L D MITCHELL AIRPORT RAILROAD H I L L S I D E MILLER OYSTER POINT MAPLE Suggested Cannabis Microbusiness Zones E L C A M I N O R E A L Areas within zones more than 600 feet from Schools, Day Cares, and Youth CentersSchools, Day Cares, and Youth Centers H I G H W A Y 1 0 1 I N T E R S TATE 380 Study Session: Regulating Cultivation and Distribution Cannabis Businesses Citywide Rozalynne Thompson, Planning Division Deborah Gill, Office of the City Manager Timeline 2017 •January – General Overview •March – Moratorium •April – Retail Study Session •July – Manufacturing and Testing Study Session •September – Cultivation and Distribution Study Session •October – Planning Commission •November – Consider ordinances Cannabis Cultivation Planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis Cannabis Distribution Procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between licensees Local Cannabis Regulation Topics to consider in City cultivation and distribution regulation: •Land Use Controls •Fire/Building codes •Security •Taxation and Fees Land Use Controls Land Use Controls Zoning •Allows cultivation and distributors •Remote from residential Distance - At least 600 feet from schools, day care centers, youth centers Size - Can regulate through Conditional Use Permit Map showing cultivation zones excluding AUMA exluded areas, with suggested zones Map showing distribution areas excluding AUMA excluded areas Map showing microbusiness areas excluding AUMA excluded areas Land Use Controls - Operational Standards •Background checks •Ventilation systems •Energy from 100% renewable sources Fire & Building Codes Operational Standards Fire/Building Codes Cultivation •Adhere to City’s building codes •Any modifications require building permit, and may have third party peer review Distribution – similar to warehouse use, meet codes Security Operational Standards Security •Alarms •Safes •Lighting •Video cameras •On-site security •Vehicle security •Limited amount of product •Updated window, door and skylight standards •No public facing signage Distribution •City can’t prevent distribution •Allowed by state law •If businesses allowed in City, can regulate operational and security standards Next Steps & Big Questions Next Steps •City Council direction and feedback •Staff preparing ordinances •Planning Commission next month Big Questions •Do we allow cannabis businesses: •Storefront retail •Delivery-only •Manufacturing •Testing •Cultivation •Distribution •If yes, in which zones? Map showing testing zones Map showing distribution and delivery only areas excluding AUMA excluded areas, with suggested areas Suggested Areas – distribution or delivery-only retail Suggested Areas – cultivation, manufacturing, or microbusiness If permitted: •Who will approve: •All approved by Fire, Police, Design Review Board, final approval by Planning Director •If denied, appeal to Planning Commission •If 2 Councilmembers request to hear appeal, Council can hear it