zo changes to allow cannabis cultivation

Item 10 May 18, 2016

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 2016 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Continued Discussion: Medical Cannabis Cultivation outside the

Manufacturing (M) District

BACKGROUND At the November 18, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission considered a Council referral (11/18/14) regarding expansion of cultivation businesses. At that meeting, questions and concerns were raised regarding the conditions in the various manufacturing districts and possible impacts of medical cannabis cultivation on the surrounding businesses and community. This report will provide some responses to those questions. Council referral regarding location of cultivation sites: At the November 18, 2014 meeting, the Council sent a referral (Attachment 1) to the Planning Commission. The referral has an attachment from the Medical Cannabis Commission (MCC) that outlines the MCC’s study of the M district, the uses currently permitted in the M District, and the estimated business taxes from medical cannabis cultivation. The attachment recommends expanding cultivation into portions of the MM and MU-LI Districts. This Council referral was made at the suggestion of the MCC. The rationale for the referral focuses on two points:

The M District is a geographically small area within Berkeley; and

Because of the size of the M District and shortage of available space within it, opportunities to find sites for cultivation, particularly the amount of cultivation allowed by Measure T, are very limited.

Medical cannabis cultivation businesses are currently permitted only in the Manufacturing (M) District. Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Section 23E.72.040 allows medical cannabis cultivation with a Zoning Certificate. No such businesses have located in the district because the Council has not approved standards for use or a licensing process for these uses, as required by ZO Subsection 23E.72.040.C. The

Medical Cannabis Cultivation Outside M District Item 10 May 18, 2016

of 4

Medical Cannabis Commission has forwarded standards to the Council: these will be considered by the Council at a later date.

Information regarding current city and state regulations and the rationale for the referral is included in the November 18th staff report (Attachment 2). DISCUSSION The discussion section addresses the Planning Commission’s questions from the 11/18/15 PC meeting. Staff has done additional research into the experiences of other jurisdictions where Medical Cannabis Cultivation is taking place. Questions to prompt discussion are provided at the end of this section. Responses to Planning Commission

Vacancy Rates in Berkeley’s Manufacturing Districts According to a May 26, 2015 Council work session report, the vacancy rate in Berkeley’s manufacturing districts is 0.92% (see Attachment 3). Staff was not able to break out these rates by manufacturing district. Representatives of the Office of Economic Development will be at the May 18th meeting and may have additional information.

Size of properties in the manufacturing districts Staff has collected information on the number and size of lots in the M, MM and MU-LI Districts; see Attachment 4. This does not reflect the number of tenant spaces in each district.

Medical Cannabis versus Recreational Cannabis Currently, only medical cannabis is legal in California. All of the local and state regulations, including the new state law signed by the Governor in October 2015, are specific to medical cannabis. In November 2016, there will be at least one measure on the State ballot to legalize recreational cannabis. If that measure passes, the State would develop regulations for recreational cannabis based on the language in the measure. The ballot measure language allows for local jurisdictions to develop their own regulations for recreational cannabis including not allowing recreational cannabis businesses. There has been no discussion yet by Council or the MCC about possible regulations for recreational cannabis; any comparisons of the two types of cannabis would be speculative at this point.

Possibility of Overlay Districts for Medical Cannabis Cultivation During the November 18, 2015 meeting, members of the Planning Commission asked about the similarities between the M and MU-LI Districts, and possibility of an overlay district for medical cannabis cultivation. A map of Berkeley’s manufacturing districts is included with this report (Attachment 5). The West Berkeley Plan descriptions of the four manufacturing districts are included in Attachment 6.


of 4

Questions than should be considered in order to develop an overlay district are listed in the Questions for Discussion section of this report.

Consistency with General Plan and West Berkeley Plan Consistency with these two plans would be considered once there is direction given by the Planning Commission. Generally, medical cannabis cultivation would be considered a light manufacturing use, an agricultural use or some other manufacturing uses, all of which are appropriate uses in manufacturing districts.

Additional Information from Staff

Other Medical Cannabis Businesses in the Manufacturing Districts According to ZO Section 23E.16.070.C, businesses that involve medical cannabis but

are not dispensing or cultivating it, are treated like similar businesses that do not involve cannabis.

Section 23E.16.070.C: “Uses such as, but not limited to, testing, processing, and food preparation, that involve medical cannabis as defined in Chapter 12.26 but do not involve dispensing, client, patient or member services, or cultivation (other than for testing), shall be evaluated and regulated under this Title without regard to the fact that they involve medical cannabis, except that no commercial facility used for medical cannabis food preparation may be used for the preparation of any other type of food.”

According to the Finance Department, there are two manufacturing businesses and one R&D business established in the MU-LI District, and at least one additional manufacturing business proposed for that district. Additional medical cannabis businesses are likely to locate in the manufacturing districts.

Experience of Other Jurisdictions There are questions about how medical cannabis cultivation might affect other uses, either economically through increased rents or lower vacancies, or environmentally, through odors and security concerns. Staff contacted other jurisdictions to determine what impact cultivation or other medical cannabis businesses were having on existing businesses. Because this is a relatively new industry, there is little empirical information available. Most of the jurisdictions did not express concerns with the medical cannabis cultivation located within their communities. Attachment 7 outlines staff’s findings.

Questions for Discussion The Planning Commission should review the information below and consider the following questions in guiding their discussion:

1. Should cultivation be considered in districts other than the M District? If so, then: a. Which districts should be considered?

2. Should overlay districts be considered? If so, then:

a. What features of medical cannabis cultivation could have adverse impacts on businesses or residents?


of 4

b. Can these impacts only be addressed by location restrictions, or could performance or operational standards reduce the impacts?

c. What characteristics would be desirable in an area that permits medical cannabis cultivation?

d. What types of groups or uses should be protected from medical cannabis cultivation?

3. Are there performance or operational standards which should be considered in order to address possible negative impacts?

CONCLUSION Commission input will be incorporated into a future agenda item on this subject.

Attachments: 1. November 18, 2014 Council Referral (Expansion of Medical Cannabis Cultivation

Beyond the Manufacturing (M) District) 1. MCC Report to Council regarding need for cultivation outside the M District

a. Attachment A to MCC report: Matrix of M Zone Uses b. Attachment B to MCC report: Estimated Berkeley Business Taxes

2. November 18, 2015 Planning Commission staff report 3. May 26, 2015 report on vacancy rates in manufacturing districts (partial) 4. Number of size of parcels in Berkeley’s Manufacturing Districts 5. Map of West Berkeley with M, MM and MU-LI Districts 6. West Berkeley Plan descriptions of manufacturing districts 7. Medical Cannabis Cultivation Experience of Other Jurisdictions

Medical Cannabis Commission

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR November 18, 2014

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Medical Cannabis Commission

Submitted by: Rick Pfrommer, Chairperson, Medical Cannabis Commission

Subject: Expansion of Medical Cannabis Cultivation Beyond the Manufacturing (M) District

RECOMMENDATION Request the Planning Commission consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow for medical cannabis cultivation in zoning districts beyond the Manufacturing (M) District.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The direct financial impacts of referring this item to the Planning Commission would be relatively small and limited to existing staff time to draft a staff report and attend Planning Commission meetings.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At its regular meeting on June 5, 2014, the MCC approved the attached communication to the City Council regarding expansion of the medical cannabis cultivation beyond the Manufacturing (M) District.

M/S/C: (Tims/Rush)

Ayes: Cooper, Ferguson-Riffe, Jones, Pappas, Pfrommer, Rush, Tims

Noes: None

Abstain: Viveros-Banderas

Absent: Rice

BACKGROUND In November 2010, voters approved Measure T, which was designed to regulate and license the cultivation and dispensing of medical cannabis. The measure amended existing regulations for medical cannabis dispensaries found in BMC Chapter 12.26 by modifying medical cannabis definitions, increasing the number of dispensaries permitted in the City from three to four and redesigning the Medical Cannabis Commission.

Item 10 - Attachment 1 Planning Commission

May 18, 2016

rthomsen

Typewritten Text

23

Expansion of Medical Cannabis Cultivation CONSENT CALENDAR Beyond the Manufacturing (M) District November 18, 2014

In addition to modifying the regulations for dispensaries, the measure also added Zoning Ordinance Section 23E.72.040, allowing up to six medical cannabis cultivation facilities to locate in the M District, allowing each site to be up to 30,000 square feet in area, and requiring the development of cultivation regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY There are no direct environmental effects or opportunities associated with the decision to refer. If referred, the Planning Commission would discuss environmental impacts of medical cannabis cultivation outside of the M District as part of their deliberations.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The M District is a small portion of the City of Berkeley and has limited available rental space. The MCC is concerned that the M District will not provide adequate opportunity for up to 180,000 square feet of medical cannabis cultivation, the maximum amount permitted in Zoning Ordinance Section 23E.72.with Measure T. See attached report for a detailed rationale.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED The Council could refer this item to the Planning Commission for consideration and a recommendation.

The Council could also refer this item to other Commissions to consider issues related to expanding medical cannabis cultivation outside the M District that are unrelated to land use issues.

Or, the Council could not refer this item to the Planning Commission.

CITY MANAGER The City Manager concurs with the Commission regarding the request to refer this item to the Planning Commission. The City Manager also believes that this issue raises other policy questions beyond land use regulations, and recommends that the Council consider both those issues and what other commissions may need to be involved as it decides whether or not to refer this item to the Planning Commission.

CONTACT PERSON Elizabeth Greene, Secretary to the Medical Cannabis Commission, Planning and Development Department, 981-7484

Attachment: 1: MCC Report to Council

1

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Medical Cannabis Commission

Submitted by: Rick Pfrommer, Chair

Subject: Cultivation of Medical Cannabis Beyond the M Zone

RECOMMENDATIONS

Refer to the Planning Department a request to study opportunities for medical cannabis

cultivation expansion beyond the current M District restriction. Examples of such opportunities,

supported by the MCC, include:

the Mixed Manufacturing (MM) District

the Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MULI) District

block-by-block Overlay Multiple Zoning designations

exceptions for cultivation of medical cannabis, on a case-by-case basis, in distressed

properties in Manufacturing Districts.

SUMMARY

In 2010, Berkeley voters passed Measure T, a measure which created zoning language to permit

medical cannabis uses. A portion of Measure T was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance as

23E.76.040, and allows for medical cannabis cultivation at six locations in the M District, with no

single space exceeding 30,000 square feet.1 The city of Berkeley has thus designated a total of

180,000 square feet that can be used for cultivation. The difference between a dispensary and

cultivation operation is that cultivators only grow to produce in a non-commercial environment;

they do not have retail sales or public access.2

Shortage of M District Space: per Cannabis Community

For three years, public at Medical Cannabis Commission (MCC) meetings have been reporting that

there are extremely limited rental opportunities in the M District. Several members of the MCC have

walked the M District and, as a result, understand this concern. One MCC commissioner has

personally experienced the frustration of unsuccessfully searching for a viable space for medical

cannabis cultivation in the M District.

“Soon after Measure T was written and passed, there was excitement in the cannabis

community about large-scale cultivation. People were optimistic that the city had permitted

space for such an endeavor. However, once I was able to explore the M District by foot and

vehicle, I quickly learned that space was not only ridiculously limited, but with a lot of

building owner flexibility in rental agreements and lease contracts - which added extra

1 Undoubtedly, many cultivators will have operations much smaller than 30,000 square feet. 2 Approximately two-thirds of a cultivator’s space is devoted to growing plants, representing the first two phases of cultivation – vegetation and flowering. The final and third phase of cultivating is devoted to harvesting and processing – researching, trimming, drying, sorting, packaging, office management.

Attachment 1 - MCC Report to Council Page 1 of 7

2

expenses. This was during the economic downturn when real estate was at an all-time low,

and it was still very hard to find a space that was feasible for large-scale cultivation or worth

the investment. If the city expanded beyond the M District for cultivation, more

opportunities would be created for viable space options to accommodate serious large-scale

cultivation.”

From a slightly different perspective, as recent as the MCC November 2013 meeting, a three-year

small-scale manufacturer of non-psychoactive cannabis products for pain (e.g., infused medicine

into topicals, tinctures) reported his inability to find space in the M District.

“In trying to relocate to expand our operations, we encountered scarcity of suitable space in

the M District, compounded by apprehension from Berkeley landlords to lease to cannabis-

related businesses. We hope the City will approve increased options for rental space for

such businesses. Such action will allow us to expand and thereby provide increased

employment opportunities and revenue for the City of Berkeley, and ensure that Berkeley

remains a welcome home for safe, pain relieving, healing medicines and products from the

cannabis plant.”

The MCC could obtain additional testimonials if the Council so desires.

Shortage of M District Space: Confirmed from Broader Perspective

The MCC investigated from yet a different perspective leasing opportunities in the M District, by

conferring with people knowledgeable of the M District who were not affiliated with the medical

cannabis business.

A lumber business owner noted that, unlike many other districts in Berkeley, one rarely sees a

For Rent sign in the M District. And if there is a For Rent sign, it is invariably for very small,

restricted sections of very large spaces.

A realtor reported that there are a lot of owner-users and it is unusually difficult to find a

vacancy in the M District. He pointed out that because of very low turnover, there has been so

far no benefit from the 2009 West Berkeley Project zoning amendment that allows large spaces

to be demised into smaller tenant spaces (BMC Section 23E.72.050.C).

“Very limited M District space, period” is this realtor’s statement that was echoed throughout

other interviews.

Another realtor reported in December 2013, there is a “tight market” in the M District, and “at

the moment, there are not any vacancies.”

In January 2014, an Economic Development Office city official said, “I agree, very little space”

when told what realtors had reported regarding the shortage of leasing opportunities in the M

District.

In addition, this research also confirmed that many landlords are understandably apprehensive to

rent to cannabis businesses because of the federal government’s stance against medical and


3

recreational cannabis. Realtor opinions on the advantages of expanding beyond the M District for

medical cannabis cultivation varied widely.

Importantly, we were given very specific examples of landlords in other manufacturing districts

open to leasing for cannabis cultivation.

Quite the opposite, however, we were also told by some realtors there is universal landlord

refusal to consider medical cannabis businesses.

Significantly, MCC research with sources outside the cannabis community, and our independent

observation of the M District, confirmed statements already heard from within the cannabis

community; the complete scarcity of available leasing space in the M District for any kind of

business.

Cannabis Cultivation/Farming the Only Use Solely Restricted to the M District

In addition, it must be noted that while medical cannabis cultivation is currently limited solely to

the M District, all other categories of businesses that have uses permitted in the M District (City of

Berkeley 23E.72.030 Uses Permitted) also have the possibility of finding leasing space in one or, in

most cases, several of the city’s other three manufacturing districts.3 (See Attachment A for this

comparative analysis.) A good example is the Light Manufacturing category. This category includes

large-scale indoor farming (e.g., broccoli, orchids), per planning staff. Indoor farming is allowed in

all four manufacturing districts (M, MM, MULI, MU-R) and the West Berkeley Commercial (CW)

District – indoor farming, that is, except for the cannabis plant. The current zoning restriction on

the cultivation/farming of medical cannabis, therefore, means that if there is in fact no adequate

leasing space available in the M District, the cultivation/farming of medical cannabis is not possible

within the city of Berkeley.

Characteristics of the M District

The M District represents less than one percent (0.77%) of the city size.4 This district is 17-square

blocks, although a railroad right-of-way runs through the district for six blocks and reduces the

overall area by approximately two square blocks. The M District has long-time, established

businesses, several of which utilize entire blocks (e.g., Pacific Steel Casting, PS Public Storage, Extra

Space Storage, Berkeley Forge and Tool, City of Berkeley Transfer Station, Hertz Equipment Rental,

All Import Auto Salvage). It also includes huge, hulking buildings that historically present

extremely difficult environmental concerns and therefore economic challenges to

cultivating/farming in this area. Perhaps the best symbol of the M District is the formidable string

of silos from Crystal Amber Industrial. The M District borders the Berkeley Skate Park, Gabe Catalfo

Fields, and Harrison Homeless Shelter that includes children; while Berkeley does not have buffers

around parks and schools, the federal government does have buffers and that fact may discourage

3 Automobile sales are not allowed in the other three manufacturing zones; auto sale are allowed, however, in other non-manufacturing zones. 4 94-acre M District (West Berkeley City Plan, 1993) divided by 12,161-acre City of Berkeley (Quick Index to Origin of Berkeley Names, Berkeley Historical Society) equals 0.0077


4

potential landlords. All of these impediments contribute to severely limited rental opportunities for

cultivation.

Advantages of Local-Grown Medical Cannabis

The MCC believes the permitting of locally grown medical cannabis, voter mandated in Measure T,

which the mayor and Berkeley City Council placed on the ballot and was approved by the voters in

2010initiated in 2010, can provide several advantages to local patients, dispensary operators, and

Berkeley citizens and community. By significantly reducing the distance between the actual

cultivation of medical cannabis and its distribution to qualified patients, the quality of medicine

produced will improve, and the likelihood of contaminants will decrease. Greener and more

environmentally-friendly techniques and practices can be encouraged and implemented. Local

gardens can be observed and monitored more easily throughout the growing cycle. If more City

oversight was needed or required, local cultivation sites could be accessed and assessed more

efficiently and faster. Likewise, without a great distance between cultivation and patients' access to

medicine, communication regarding strains, effectiveness, and experience is facilitated. Feedback

and "comparing notes" between patients, dispensary operators, and cultivators can only benefit

production methods and results.

Primarily, the price of patients' medicine should be reduced through lower transportation costs.

Having security of an established local market, and therefore certainty for regular payment and

distribution of medicine produced, will be convenient and lower costs for local cultivators, further

benefitting patients. Additional price reduction in medicine could occur with adoption of a Best

Practices regime regarding testing of contaminants, which currently add significantly to the price of

medicine. The establishment of a local cultivation industry, besides providing cheaper and better

medicine to patients, will develop a local economy, bringing a significant number of green jobs with

sustainability to Berkeley, also increasing tax revenues as well and therefore citizen and community

improvement. According to Northwest Earth Institute’s “Choices for Sustainable Living” discussion

course book “A dollar spent at a locally-owned store is usually spent 6-15 times before it leaves the

community. From $1, you create $5 - $14 in value within that community.”

In conclusion, the regulation of medical cannabis is most significant to ensure the best quality and

lowest cost for qualified patients. With proper structure and permitting, a safe supply of taxable

medicine can be locally produced and more readily available. The Commission believes working

through the difficulties involved in beginning medical cannabis cultivation permitting is worth the

effort, and ultimately can be rewarding and successful for the Berkeley community, citizens, local

patients, caretakers, cultivators, and providers.

More Leasing Opportunities Needed to Ensure Cultivation

The MCC recommends that the City maintain the 180,000 square feet limit for city space allowed for

medical cannabis cultivation. The MCC is convinced, however, based upon public testimony and a

survey of a variety of non-cannabis parties knowledgeable with the M District, that the city will not


5

be able to realize a thriving medical cannabis cultivation community without expansion beyond the

M District.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

At maximum capacity, with all 180,000 square feet utilized for medical cannabis cultivation, we

estimate the city would annually collect between $650,000 and $1,322,800 in tax revenue, for an

average of $990,400. The city would annually lose an average of $5,500 for every thousand square

feet under the 180,000 square foot limit that is not utilized for medical cannabis cultivation.

These estimates are based on the cannabis plant’s life cycle and the two types of processes

(flowering and clone production) involved in cannabis cultivation. (See Attachment B for the

detailed analysis of estimated tax revenue.)

The MCC over the next several months will forward to the City Council suggested licensing

processes and usage standards as related to medical cannabis cultivation. The MCC believes it is

counterproductive to draft cultivation rules prior to pursuing adequate space for cultivation

opportunities. The City Manager’s report will provide analysis of the fiscal impacts of the ordinance

and selection process.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS

Medical cannabis is now legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Despite cynicism that

medical cannabis is a beginning attempt to legalize recreational marijuana use, countless respected

scholars and scientists believe strongly in the medical application and study of cannabis. Following

are several examples:

Mayo Clinic Reports. Jane E. Brody in an article entitled “Tapping Medical Marijuana’s Potential”

(The New York Times, 11/5/13) provides a good summary of 40 years of scientific research and

a summary of a report titled “Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical

Marijuana,” published last year in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. According to Brody, there is strong

scientific evidence that cannabis may or can treat a wide range of serious ailments (e.g., chronic

neuropathic pain, spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome, glaucoma,

abnormal heart rhythms, sleep apnea, appetites suppressed by cancer or AIDS, epilepsy,

alcoholism, post-traumatic stress syndrome). Dr. J. Michael Bostwick of the Mayo Clinic is

reported as saying the medical potential for marijuana is “incredibly exciting.”

Dr. Sanjay Endorsement. CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, former high-profile critic of medical cannabis

and now known for publicly apologizing and admitting his earlier 2009 Time Magazine

assessment of marijuana was wrong, in his “Weed” documentary contains examples of seizure

relief in children and adults. Near the documentary’s end, Gupta visits an Israeli hospital where


6

the effects of cannabis on cancer cells are being studied.5

Chemistry Prize. Israel’s acclaimed research program has led to breakthrough science on the

medicinal capacity of the cannabis plant. As reported in Haaretz, 12/19/2013, the studies of

Professor Raphael Mechoulam, chemist from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, have laid the

foundations for the entire field of cannabis and won him the Israel Prize in Chemistry in 2000.

Seizure Relief. Jack Healy in an article entitled “Families See New Frontier on Medical

Marijuana” (The New York Times, 12/6/2013) writes about a movement of families coming to

Colorado seeking relief for their children’s extreme seizures through an oil made from

cannabidiol. Healy reports that Dr. Margaret Gedde, a Colorado physician who has

recommended medical marijuana to dozens of families with severely epileptic children, and Dr.

Edward H. Maa, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Colorado School of

Medicine, presented their research on this treatment to the American Epilepsy Society the week

of 12/9/13.

Cancer Cells Study. "Cannabinoids have a complex action; it hits a number of important

processes that cancers need to survive," reports Dr. Wai Liu, oncologist at St. George's University

of London, and author of “Marijuana Compounds Can Kill Some Cancer Cells: Study.” He goes on

to state: “For this reason, it has really good potential over other drugs that only have one

function. I am impressed by its activity profile, and feel it has a great future, especially with

standard chemotherapies.”6

Apoptosis on Tumor Cells. Locally, across the bay in San Francisco, Michelle Aldrich writes that

daily doses of high-concentrate THC oil available from at least 2 local dispensaries, in

combination with chemotherapy, healthy diet, and great doctors helped cure her of stage 3 lung

cancer. Most of Ms. Aldrich’s doctors were unfamiliar and unaware of cannabis oil and its

potential to cure cancer. They accepted Ms. Aldrich’s use of the oil but were doubtful. Dr. Peter

Anastassiou, Ms. Aldrich’s surgeon at California Pacific Medical Center, wrote in his pre-surgery

report: “homeopathic therapies including hemp oil had putative benefit of directing apoptosis

on the tumor cells.” Apoptosis means reprogramming cancer cells to kill themselves.7

New Medical Insights. PBS.org, introducing a discussion of Michael Pollan’s book The Botany of

Desire, notes that scientific research on the effects of cannabis has led to “a discovery that is

offering new insights into the workings of our memory, emotion and consciousness.”

5https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IMfIQ_K6U 6 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/marijuanacancer_n_4158865.html?utm_hp_ref=marijuana

7 This information is from her moving story documented in O’Shaughnessy's Winter/ Spring 2013

edition http://www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Michelle-BTHC.pdf. A 10 minute video of Michelle is also

availablehttp://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/michelle-aldrich-cancer-free-thanks-to-cannabis-oil/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IMfIQ_K6U

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/marijuanacancer_n_4158865.html?utm_hp_ref=marijuana

http://www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Michelle-BTHC.pdf

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/michelle-aldrich-cancer-free-thanks-to-cannabis-oil/

7

While the evidence supporting medical cannabis grows, the differences in state and federal laws

have yet to be resolved satisfactorily.

CONCLUSION

Berkeley cannabis cultivators will almost certainly be a mix of business people and sophisticated,

dedicated cannabis growers. Over the last three years, attendees at MCC meetings have expressed a

dedication to working the soil and ensuring an end product that is grown with care, very much like

the local, organic, small scale, high quality farmers who are part of the new food movement.

Many cultivators also want to be part of the cutting edge of cannabis science and contribute to an

increasingly positive and pivotal role for cannabis in our society. In the words of one aspiring

cultivator: “Producing high quality medical grade cannabis in an indoor environment requires a

combination of scientific knowledge, technical expertise and a craftsman-like approach. As

cannabis cultivation finally becomes a legal and licensed industry, new rules and regulations should

ensure that cultivators adhere to Best Practices, while allowing for experimentation and innovation

in this exciting and emerging field. Berkeley should craft rules that encourage and empower small

local growers to elevate indoor cannabis cultivation to new levels of quality, sustainability and

professionalism.”

Berkeley’s cultivators are passionate about growing medical-grade cannabis that will meet qualified

patients’ needs. Currently cannabis cultivators have minimal immunity from arrest and prosecution

in the provisions of Proposition 215. In anticipation of state legislation, local cultivation regulations

will help resolve their uncertain status. City cultivation regulation will facilitate and legitimize local

cultivators’ efforts to produce medicine for qualified patients.

The MCC recommends that the City expand space allowed for cultivation of medical cannabis

beyond the M District to parts of the MM District and the MU-LI District, as a block-by-block Overlay

Multiple Zoning designation. The 180,000 square feet that Berkeley has set aside for medical

cannabis cultivation represents less than one-tenth of one percent (0.034%) of total City land area.8

An expansion of City land area allowed for cannabis cultivation to parts of the MM District and the

MU-LI District will not increase the 180,000 square-foot zoning restriction. Opening parts of the

MM and the MU-LI will allow expanded opportunities for Cultivators to find space,

strengthen the City’s potential to be a leader in medical cannabis science and farming,

improve patient access to quality and affordable medicine, and maximize the City’s potential

to increase city revenue.

Attachments:

A. Comparative Analysis of Uses Permitted in the M District

B. Estimated Berkeley Business Taxes from Medical Cannabis Cultivation per Measure C

8 4.13 allowable acres for cultivation (180,000 sq. ft. allowed by Measure T divided by 43,560 sq. ft. per acre, according to mathcentral.uregina.ca) divided by 12,161 acres in City of Berkeley equals 0.000339


Attachment A: All M-Zone Permitted Uses Are Allowed In At Least One Other Manufacturing Zone

Except Cultivation/Farming of Medical Cannabis1 (Source: City of Berkeley 23.E.##.030)

All Uses Permitted in the M Zone (often permits required)

Same Use also Allowed in

M (##=72)

MM (##= 76)

MULI (##=80)

MU-R (##=84)

1. Construction Products Manufacturing Yes Yes Yes 2. Light Manufacturing (incl. large-scale indoor farming)* Yes Yes Yes 3. Pharmaceuticals Yes Yes No 4. Primary Production Manufacturing Yes No No 5. Semiconductors Yes No No 6. Warehouses (other than Mini-storage) Yes Yes Yes 7. Warehouse-Based Non-Store Retailers Yes Yes No 8. Wholesale Trade Establishments Yes Yes Yes 9. Art/Craft Studio Yes Yes Yes 10. Bus, cab, truck and public utility Yes Yes Yes 11. Commercial Excavation Yes Yes No 12. Contractors Yes Yes Yes 13. Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plants Yes Yes Yes 14. Media Production Yes Yes Yes 15. Recycled Materials Processing Yes Yes No 16. Repair Service (other than auto repair) Yes Yes No 17. Services to Buildings and Dwellings Yes Yes No 18. Alternate Fuel/Change Stations Yes Yes No 19. Automobile Wrecking Establishments Yes Yes No 20. Automobile Sales No No No 21. Automobile Repair and Service Yes Yes Yes 22. Activities/Storage Outside of a Bldg. not ancillary to use Yes Yes Yes 23. Automatic Teller Machines Yes Yes Yes 24. Outdoor Farms & other Agricultural Uses Yes No No 25. Parking Lots Yes Yes Yes 26. Recycling Redemption Centers Yes No Yes 27. Food Service Establishment Yes/No Yes Yes 28. Incidental Retail Sales of goods manufactured on site Yes Yes Yes 29. Cafeterias for employees only Yes Yes Yes 30. Industrial and mining products Yes Yes No 31. Clubs, lodges (often for persons working in the district) Yes Yes Yes 32. Public Safety and Emergency Services Yes Yes Yes 33. Public Utilities Substations, Buildings and Tanks Yes Yes No 34. Municipal Animal Shelter Yes Yes No 35. Wireless Telecommunications located on site Yes Yes Yes

*A Senior Planner at the Zoning Counter told a Commissioner that large-scale indoor farming businesses (e.g., broccoli, orchids) are included in the Light Manufacturing category, and allowed in all four manufacturing districts and the West Berkeley Commercial (CW) Zone. He gave her the corresponding 23E.## documents.

Prepared by Karen Marie Rice, updated 3/10/14

1 One other exception: automobile sales, which are allowed in other non-manufacturing zones.

Attachment 1-A - Comparison Page 1 of 2

Prepared by Terri Carver

2/17/14 1

Attachment B: Estimated Berkeley Business Taxes from

Medical Cannabis Cultivation per Measure S

City of Berkeley Business Tax Calculations per BMC 9.04.136 (Based on gross receipts)

Note- Total cannabis cultivation square footage will almost certainly combine flowering, clone

production and also possibly topical and edible production facilities. Two separate calculations of

estimated gross receipts are provided: one set for flower production and one set for clone

production)

Proposed Cultivation square footage: 180,000

Less 1/3 office, processing etc -60000

Total sq ft under cultivation 120,000

A. FLOWER CYCLE CALCULATIONS

Assumptions -

1) Four 13-week cycles per year (3 week veg + 10 weeks flower)

2) Two 1000 watt HID lights per standard 4x8 flood tray yields an average of 2 lbs finished

product (1 lb\ light)

3) Each 4x8 tray requires a 6x10 area for plant maintenance (60 sq ft)

Total square footage 120,000

divided by area for one tray 60

# 4x8 trays in total cultivation square foot 2000 # lbs per tray 2

Total lbs finished cannabis flowers\cycle 4000 # cycles per year 4

# lbs per year 16,000

Gross Revenue Calculation: Price per lb Gross Revenue

Business

Taxes @

$25/1000 Low Range $1,500 $24,000,000 $600,000 High Range $3,300 $52,800,000 $1,320,000

Average $2,400 $38,400,000 $960,000

Attachment 1-B - Estimated Business Taxes Page 1 of 2

Prepared by Terri Carver

2/17/14 2

B. CLONE PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS :

Total cultivation square footage (2/3 total 120,000

Square footage devoted to clones - 20%

Square footage devoted to immature moms (30%) Total square footage for moms (50%) 60,000

# 4x8 flood trays possible (60 sq ft each) 1000 # mature moms per tray 8 Total # moms 8000 # cuttings per mom per week 20 Total # cuttings per week 160,000 Total number cuttings per year 8,320,000 Viable clones @ 80% success rate 6,656,000

Clones Gross Revenue Calculation: Price per

stem

Gross

Revenue

Business

Taxes @

$25/1000 Low Range $5.00 $33,280,000 $832,000 High Range $8.00 $53,248,000 $1,331,200

Average $6.50 $43,264,000 $1,081,600

C .BUSINESS TAX CALCULATION BASED ON A COMBINATION OF 75% FLOWERING AND 25%

CLONE PRODUCTION FOR TOTAL CULTIVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE

Flowers Total Clones Total 75/25 Ratio (Flowers +

Clones)

Low Estimate $600,000 $832,000 $658,000

High Estimate $1,320,000 $1,331,200 $1,322,800

Average Combined Business Taxes $990,400

D. SUMMARY

We estimate that the City of Berkeley will collect between $650,000 and $1,300,000 in revenue

from Medical Cannabis cultivation (average of about $1,000,000) if the total allowable

cultivation space under Measure S is available and utilized.

Each 1000 square feet of cultivation space that is not utilized will cost the City approximately

$5500 in potential lost revenue. ($990,400 avg annual business taxes ÷ 180,000 total cultivation

sq ft x 1000 sq ft)

Attachment 1-B - Estimated Business Taxes Page 2 of 2

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

Item 10 - Attachment 2

Planning Commission

May 18, 2016

Item 09 November 18, 2015

STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 18, 2015 TO: Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: Medical Cannabis Cultivation Regulations:

Proposed Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Changes to Section 23E.72.040, in Response to new State Laws

Review of the Council referral Regarding Cultivation beyond the M District

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

Review staff identified issues with new state law regarding medical cannabis and provide direction;

Direct staff to set a public hearing to consider changes to Section 23E.72.040 resolving differences with new State law;

Review the Council referral regarding expansion of medical cannabis cultivation businesses (‘cultivation’) beyond the M District, and provide direction.

BACKGROUND The report will outline two different issues related to medical cannabis cultivation in Berkeley:

A. Changes to Berkeley ZO Section 23E.72.040 (existing cultivation regulations) to conform with recent changes to State law (Attachment A); and

B. Council referral regarding expansion of medical cannabis cultivation beyond the M District (Attachment B).

The proposed changes to the ZO would only involve the M District. Since the regulations would become part of the ZO, the regulations could affect other districts if cultivation is expanded as a response to the Council referral. The Council referral focuses on new allowances for cultivation outside the M District.

The two items are being presented together because they may eventually interact and because they are focused to the same issue of cannabis cultivation. While the expansion of cultivation is the result of a Council referral, the other issues are timely to consider due to the recent changes in State law.

Medical Cannabis Cultivation Regulations Item 09 November 18, 2015

Page 2 of 7

City regulations and conditions related to medical cannabis cultivation:

Medical cannabis cultivation was first added to the Berkeley Municipal Code in 2010 with the passage of Measure T. This ballot measure added Section 23E.72.040 to the Zoning Ordinance, regulating cultivation in Berkeley, and constraining it to the M District. This section allows cultivation in up to six locations in the M District, and limits the size of each site to 30,000 square feet. This section also prevents any approval of cultivation uses until the City Council adopts a licensing process for cultivation and standards for use.

At this time, there are no standards for use or a licensing process for medical cannabis cultivation. For this reason, there are no legally established cultivation uses in Berkeley. The Medical Cannabis Commission (MCC) has developed draft Municipal Code regulations for cultivation which will be forwarded to the Council in spring 2016. Medical cannabis cultivation businesses will be considered once standards are approved, though when a business may actually open will depend on any selection process that is approved.

New state regulations regarding cultivation: On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills which establish new State-wide regulations for medical cannabis. These bills enacted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which establishes the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulations. This bureau will regulate production, transportation and sale of medical cannabis. A summary of the regulations included in these bills is included as Attachment A.

Council referral regarding location of cultivation sites: At the November 18, 2014 meeting, the Council sent a referral (Attachment B) to the Planning Commission. The referral has an attachment from the MCC that outlines the MCC’s study of the M district, the uses currently permitted in the M District, and the estimated business taxes from medical cannabis cultivation. The attachment recommends expanding cultivation into portions of the MM and MU-LI Districts. The Council action on the referral included a comment that the Planning Commission should give consideration to the Mixed Use Residential (MU-R) District and impacts on residential areas (Attachment C).

This referral was made at the suggestion of the MCC. The rationale for the referral focuses on two points:

The M District is a geographically small area within Berkeley (See Attachment D); and

Because of the size of the M District and shortage of available space within it, opportunities to find sites for cultivation, particularly the amount of cultivation allowed by Measure T, are very limited.

These points, as well as others arguments to support the expansion of medical cannabis cultivation developed by the MCC, will be explained in further detail in the Discussion section of this report. The complete report is attached to Attachment B.

Timing of Proposed ZO Changes and the Council Referral: These issues will be on two separate tracks based on their complexity and the timing of other medical cannabis regulations that will go to the Council in spring 2016. The


Page 3 of 7

proposed ZO changes would only affect the M District, unless the Council makes future changes to allow cultivation in other zoning districts.

The Council will consider new and revised Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) regulations in spring 2016:

The MCC has recommended two new BMC chapters to the Council to address definitions and general regulations related to medical cannabis (BMC Chapter 12.25) and medical cannabis cultivation (BMC Chapter 12.28).

Modifications to two other chapters (12.26 and 12.27), which address redundancies and compatibility with the new state law, will also be forwarded to the Council.

Finally, there may be discussion on a selection process for any new cultivation businesses.

If additional changes to medical cannabis ordinances are to be considered in the near future, it would be useful to include them in the same discussion. This is the reason that the Commission is asked to consider the proposed ZO changes.

The changes to ensure conformity with state law will only involve changes to the M District and are fairly limited in scope. Some or all of these ZO changes could be considered with the other changes being forwarded to Council by the MCC.

A change to allow cultivation to expand beyond the M District will necessarily involve other districts, specifically the MM and/or MU-LI. Any potential changes should involve discussion with representatives from neighborhoods and merchant groups, and cannot be expected to be completed for a Spring Council meeting.

DISCUSSION The discussion section is divided into two sections:

A. Changes to Berkeley ZO Section 23E.72.040 (existing cultivation regulations) to conform with recent changes to State law; and

B. Council referral regarding expansion of medical cannabis cultivation beyond the M District.

Changes to existing medical cannabis regulations Section 23E.72.040 within the

M District to conform with State changes: These proposed ZO amendments consist of both changes to existing ordinance language to address new State regulations and the addition of language to cross- reference other City of Berkeley regulations. Below is a list of the proposed changes (see also Attachment E) and the reasoning behind them:

Change 1: Change the maximum size of a cultivation business from 30,000 square feet to 22,000 square feet.

Reasoning: The new State law caps the size of cultivation businesses at 22,000 square feet.

Staff Analysis: Changing to 22,000 square feet would prevent conflicts with State law.


Page 4 of 7

MCC Recommendation: Change to 22,000 square feet maximum.

Change 2: Increase the number of cultivation businesses permitted in the M District from the current limit of six.

Reasoning: Current zoning (based on Measure T language) allows six sites at a maximum size of 30,000 square feet each, totaling 180,000 square feet of cultivation.

With the change in the state law to set the maximum size of an individual site to 22,000 square feet, the maximum area of cultivation would be reduced to 132,000 square feet, assuming only 6 sites per the Berkeley ZO regulations. The number of sites permitted would not be sufficient to accommodate 180,000 square feet of possible cultivation.

In addition, the new state law allows six specific license types for small (under 5,000 sf and between 5,001 sf and 10,000 sf) cultivation businesses, which may increase interest in smaller operations and smaller sites.

Staff Analysis: A numeric limit on the number of sites could restrict the assumed area allowed for cultivation, as calculated above. If the number of cultivation sites are limited, there could be the possibility of reaching the numeric limit before the area limit of 180,000 square feet, especially since the maximum size of a single site would be reduced to 22,000 square feet. Removing the limit could encourage small businesses (under 5,000 square feet), which may be more suited for better suited for Berkeley given lease rates and energy costs associated with indoor growing operations.

MCC Recommendation: At its November 5, 2015 meeting, the MCC recommended removing the numeric limit, and capping the area of cultivation permitted in the City to 180,000 square feet. The current cap would result in the loss of potential space for cultivation if each site is not as large as possible. Removing the limit would allow for smaller sites to be established in the City without reducing the overall area allowed for cultivation. Based on the size of the M District and the availability of tenant space, the 180,000 maximum cultivation area is not be expected to be achieved even if there is no cap on the number of sites. Adding the 180,000 maximum would acknowledge the intent of the existing ordinance. Not limiting the number of sites would allow for a more diverse set of cultivators and would also allow the City to maximize the business taxes from the use.

Change 3: Add a buffer between cultivation sites and schools.

Reasoning: In 2011, a state law was added that implemented 600-foot buffers between K-12 schools and medical cannabis dispensaries and cultivation sites. The 600-foot buffer is already in place for dispensaries, but is currently not required per BMC Section 23E.72.040.

Staff Analysis: The addition of a 600-foot buffer from K-12 schools would match the State requirement.


Page 5 of 7

MCC Recommendation: Change the ZO to match the State requirements.

Change 4: Add references to State law and BMC Chapters 12.25 and 12.28.

Reasoning: To clarify what other regulations also apply to cultivation businesses.

Staff A nalysis: The addition of cross-references would allow business owners, property owners and staff to more easily find other regulations which could impact cultivation uses.

MCC Recommendation: Add references to all relevant local and State regulations.

Change 5: Remove reference to testing, processing, manufacturing and food preparation at cultivation sites.

Reasoning: The new state law will require these uses to be separated.

Staff Analysis: The removal of references to non-cultivation uses at cultivation sites would match the State requirement as it is currently interpreted.

MCC Recommendation: Change to match State requirements.

Issues to Consider: The following issues should be considered with these proposed changes:

Consistency with the West Berkeley Plan:

Reducing the maximum size of dispensaries, adding buffers from schools, removing non-cultivation uses and adding references to other ordinances and laws, would not significantly change the existing regulations in the M District. Staff does not believe that these would be inconsistent with the West Berkeley Plan or the General Plan.

Staff believes that the area available for cultivation in the M district will be limited by the lack of available sites due to small area of the M District, the lack of vacancies and the existence of long-time, established businesses which take up large portions of the district. Allowing more than six dispensaries in the M District is not expected to be inconsistent with the West Berkeley Plan.

Consistency with Measure T:

The changes proposed to the M District would be consistent with state law, which has precedence over any specific local law. These changes would be consistent with the intent of Measure T, which is to regulate and license medical cannabis cultivation, use and possession.

Environmental and General Plan review: Staff does not believe that changing regulations related to the number and size of cultivation sites in the M District would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Additional analysis is required to determine whether these changes would be covered by the West Berkeley Plan EIR or would require supplemental review.


Page 6 of 7

Expanding Medical Cannabis Cultivation Into the MM and/or MU-LI Districts: Currently, medical cannabis cultivation is permitted only in the M District. The MCC requested that the Council consider changes to the limits on medical cannabis cultivation locations based on the following concerns:

Lack of available space in M District for Cultivation to meet need: Per Measure T, medical cannabis cultivation was limited to the M District. This is the only use that is restricted entirely to this district. Based on complaints by the public at MCC meetings regarding the limited rental opportunities, members of the MCC studied opportunities for cultivation businesses to locate in the M District. This report is included with the referral as Attachment B. The members found that: 1) The M District consists of only 17 blocks (94 acres) and represents less than

one percent (0.77%) of the city’s area;

2) Much of the M District is occupied by long-time, established businesses, some of which take up entire blocks;

3) Vacancies in the M District are generally very low and involve small sites (based on conversations with other business owners, realtors and a member of the City’s Office of Economic Development); and

4) Many landlords are apprehensive about leasing to medical cannabis businesses due to the federal government’s prohibition of cannabis.

Based on this information, the MCC is concerned about the ability for cultivation businesses to establish in Berkeley if they are limited to the M District. There may be more opportunities, due to more vacancies and different landlords, for medical cannabis cultivation to locate in districts outside of the M District.

Inconsistency with intent of Measure T: Measure T passed in 2010 with 64% of the vote. Based on the limited space and vacancies in the M District, medical cannabis cultivation is significantly restricted. This does not appear to meet the intent of Measure T, which would have allowed for a maximum of 180,000 square feet of cultivation in the City.

Loss of tax benefit to City: The MCC calculated that the City could generate up to $990,400 in business taxes from medical cannabis cultivation if the total allowable cultivation space permitted by Measure T (180,000 square feet) is available and utilized. Because of the small size of the M District, the lack of available space, and the current limitation on the number of cultivation sites, the City is not expected to realize that figure without allowing cultivation to expand into other districts. See Attachment 1b of the City Council’s referral (Attachment B).

Issues to consider:

Expansion of medical cannabis outside of the M District would require evaluation of the following issues:

Applicability – where else should cultivation businesses be considered? Do other districts have other uses or adjacent uses that could be affected by cultivation businesses? What impacts could affect other uses: lease rates (see Attachment F), business mix, odors, security? Could impacts be adequately mitigated with buffers from sensitive uses?


Page 7 of 7

Discretion – What kind of review should cultivation businesses have in other districts? Measure T only prohibited cultivation uses by right in the M District.

Definitions – Cultivation is currently not defined in the Zoning Ordinance definitions, and is not included in the M District use table. Should a definition, or a classification of this use into another category, be considered if the use expands into other districts?

Other issues, such as consistency with the West Berkeley Plan and the General Plan, and environmental review would be considered by staff once there is direction given by the Planning Commission.

CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission

1) Review the report and attachments; 2) Give direction to staff regarding changes to cultivation within the M District and set

a public hearing; and 3) Give direction to staff regarding expansion of cultivation beyond the M District.

Attachments:

A. Summary of new State laws (from California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws – NORML)

B. 11-18-14 Council Referral (Enable Implementation of Floor Area Ratio by Amending the Zoning Ordinance in the C-T District) 1. MCC Report to Council regarding need for cultivation outside the M District

a. Attachment A to MCC report: Matrix of M Zone Uses b. Attachment B to MCC report: Estimated Berkeley Business Taxes

C. 11-18-14 City Council action on referral D. Map of West Berkeley with M, MM and MU-LI Districts E. Zoning Ordinance Section 23E.72.040, Medical Cannabis Cultivation F. Wall Street Journal article re cultivation experience in Denver CO

Council Worksession Item May 26, 2015 Economic Development Presentation: Berkeley’s Food and Beverage Manufacturing, Wholesaling and Distribution Sector (Excerpt) There is limited inventory of industrial and warehouse space in Berkeley –in terms of both the quantity of spaces and their size. Many – though not all – food and beverage MWD businesses reported it took a great deal of effort to find suitable industrial or warehouse space. They typically attributed this to limited inventory. As one manufacturer phrased it: “There is precious little space available for, and being used by, light manufacturing businesses.” When it came to securing a space, many businesses emphasized the importance of “luck,” networking, and acting quickly. Said one manufacturer: “You have to be ready the day a space becomes available – with paperwork in hand.” Another issue is the typical size of available spaces. There are very few larger spaces in the market. The abovementioned report by Cornish & Carey Commercial report confirms the respondents’ perceptions that there is limited availability of space. It indicates that in the first quarter of 2014, Berkeley had an industrial vacancy rate of less than 1% (see Attachment 18). Its warehouse vacancy rate was just under 2%. All of the spaces that were available were less than 15,000 square feet. Food manufacturers like TCHO Chocolate, which recently moved from San Francisco into a 49,000- square-foot space in Berkeley, are unusual.36 Of course, it is good news that Berkeley’s industrial spaces are being more actively and intensively utilized than in recent years. But the limited inventory of space means that growing businesses sometimes have to look beyond Berkeley.

Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission

May 18, 2016

��! �� "�#�"�

�� !

$�%"��& '�"�(� ) '�"�* '��"�(�!

Item 10 – Attachment 4 Planning Commission May 18, 2016

Parcel information in the M, MM and MU-LI Districts

District Total area # of parcels Parcels under

5,000 SF

Parcels btw 5,001 SF

and 10,000 SF

Parcels over

10,001 SF

M 94 acres 72 61 8 3

MM 79 acres 22 10 3 9

MU-LI Approx. 300 acres

338 296 27 15

7T

H

8T

H

9T

H

10T

H

4T

H

5T

H

6T

H

3R

D

I80 E

AS

TI8

0 W

ES

T

2N

D

SA

N P

AB

LO

CEDAR

PAGE

FR

ON

TA

GE

JONES

PARKER

HEARST

ALLSTON

BO

LIV

AR

CAMELIA

BANCROFT

ASHBY

KA

I NS

DWIGHT

EA

ST

SH

OR

E

CHANNING

BO

NA

R

CU

RT

IS

HEINZ

AC

TO

N

DELAWARE

HARRISON

WARD

FOLGER

BLAKE

MA

TH

EW

S

DERBY

GRAYSON

STA

NN

AG

E

SO

UT

HE

RN

PA

CIF

IC

CH

ES

TN

UT

BR

OW

NIN

G

CARLETON

RA

MP

VIRGINIA

WE

ST

CO

RN

ELL

, A

L

RUSSELL

PA

RK

HOPKINS

BY

RO

N

ROSE

TA

LB

OT

CO

RN

ELL

EV

ELY

N, A

LN

EIL

SO

N

HASKELL

BURNETT

MA

BE

L

BA

Y

FRANCISCO

PARDEE

VA

LLE

Y

MURRAY

SAN

TA F

E

CARRISON

BU

CH

AN

AN

UN

NA

ME

D A

LLE

Y

ANTHONY

DO

HR

DARTMOUTH, AL

CUTTER

UNIVERSITY

STA

NN

AG

E, A

L

OREGON

POTTER

BE

LV

ED

ER

E

GILMAN

MA

SO

NIC

, A

L

ADDISON

WA

LLA

CE

UNIVERSITY OVERPASS

CHAUCER

I80 W

ES

T (

OF

F R

AM

P) A

SH

BY

I 80 E

AS

T (O

FF

RA

MP

) UN

IVE

RS

I TY

RED OAK, AL

MA

SO

NIC

I80 E

AS

T (

ON

RA

MP

) G

ILM

AN

BATAAN

POE

WE

STHEARST

5T

H

ADDISON

ASHBY

AC

TO

N

GILMAN

FR

ON

TA

GE

DELAWARE9T

H

CU

RT

IS

KA

INS

BY

RO

N

POTTER

CARLETON

VIRGINIA

UN

NA

ME

D A

LLE

Y

WE

ST

PARK

ADDISON

U

SP

MM

M

R-1MULI

R-2

C-W

R-2A

MUR

R-1A

R-3

R-4C-1

C-N

U

SP

SP

SP

MM

MM

M

MM

R-1

M

MULI

M M

R-2

M

C-W

MM

R-2

MU

LI

C-W

MM

R-2

MU

LI

R-2

M

MU

R

M

M

M

M

R-2

MULI

MU

LI

U

M

R- 2

MULI

R-2

MULI

R-2

R-2

R-1

MULI

R-1

C-W

R- 2

R-1

MULI

R-2

R- 2

R- 2

R- 2

R- 2

R- 2

R- 2

R- 2

R-1

R- 1

R-2

MULI

R- 1

R-2

M

R-1

R- 1

R-1

R-1

R- 1

R-2

R-2

C-W

R-2

R-2

R- 2

R-2

R-2

R- 2

MU

R

R- 2

R-2

R- 2

R-2

R-2A

MU

RM

UR

MU

R

MU

R

R-1

AR

-1A

R-1

A

MU

R

R-1

AR

-1A

R-2

MU

LI

R-1

R-1

AR

- 1A

R-1

A

R-1

A

R-1

AR

-1A

R- 2

MU

LI

R-1

A

R-1

A

MU

LI

R-1

A

R-1

A

R-2A

R-2

MULI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

R-1

AR

-1A

MU

LI

R-1

A

R-2

MU

LI

R-1

A

R-2R-2

MU

LI

R-2

MULI

C- W

R-2

MU

LI

R-1

R-2

A

R-1

R-3

R-3

M

R- 2

R-1

A

MU

R

MU

LI

R-2M

UR

R-2

R-1

A

R-1

A

MU

LI

MU

LI

R-2

R-2

MU

LI

R-1

MU

LI

R-1

A

C-W

R-2A

R-2A

MU

LI

MU

LI

C-W

C-W

R-2A

R-1

R-1R- 1

R- 1

R-3

MU

LI

R-2

MU

LI

R- 2

C-W

R-1

A

R-3

R-2

R-3

R- 1

C- W

R-1

A

C-W

R-1

AC

- W

R-1

A

C-1

R-1

A

R-4

C-1

R-1

A

R-1

A

R- 1

A

MU

LI

R- 1

A

C-W

R-1

A

R-1

A

MU

LI

R- 1

A

R-2

R- 2

MU

LI

R-1

AR

-1A

R- 1

A

MULI

MU

LI

C-W

C- W

R-2

C-W

C-W

R-1

AR

-1A

C-W

R- 2

C-1

R-1

C-W

C-W

R- 2

R-2

R-1

A

R- 2

R-1

C-W

R-2

MULI

R-3

R-1

A

MU

R

MU

R

R-2

C-W

MU

R

R-3

MU

R

MU

R

R-2A

R- 1

C-W

MU

R

MU

R

R-1

A

MU

R

R-3

R- 1

MU

R

MU

LI

R-2A

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

LI

MUR

MU

LI

R-2

R-2

C-W

C-W

C- W

R-1

A

R-3

MUR

C- W

MUR

R- 2

R-3

R-1

MU

R

MU

LI

R- 1

A

C-W

R-4

C-W

MU

LI

C-W

C-1

R-3

MU

LI

R- 2

R- 1

R-2A

C-1

C- W

C-W

R-2

MU

LI

R- 4

R-1

A

R-1

A

MU

R

C- W

MU

LI

C- W

C- W

MU

RM

UR

MU

LI

C- W

MU

LI

C-W

R- 2

MU

LI

C-W

C-W

C- W

MU

LI

MU

LI

MU

R

C- W

R-2A

MU

LI

C- W

MU

LI

MU

LI

C-W

MU

RR

-3

C-1

C- W

R-4

C-W

C-W

C-W

R-2

A

C- W

C-W

C-WC-W

R-1A

C-W

C-W

R-2A

SP R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2 R-2

R-3

R-2

R-4

C-1

R-1

R-3

R-2

R-2A

R-1R-2

R-2A

R-2

R-2

R-2

C-W

C-W

R-1

R-2

R-2A

R-2A

C-W

MUR

MURMUR

C-W

C-W

R-2R-4

R-2

C-W

R-2

R-2A

MULI

R-1

C-W

C-W

R-2A

R-1A

R-2

MURMUR

MULI

MUR

MUR

MUR

MUR

R-4

R-1A

C-W

MULI

R-1A

R-1

C-W

R-2

C-W

C-W

R-2

C-W

C-W

C-W

C-W

R-1A

C-W

R-2

R-3

C-W

R-1A

R-2

R-1A

M

MULI

C-W

C-W

R-3

R-2

C-W

R-2

R-2

R-1

R-1A

R-1

R-2

R-1A

R-1

R-3

C-W

R-2

R-2A

MULI

R-2

R-2

R-1A

C-W

C-W

C-N

C-N

MUR

R-2A

R-2

R-2

R-1

C-N

C-W

R-1

R-2A

R-1

R-2

R-1A

R-1

R-2

R-2

R-1

R-2

MUR

R-2A

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

C-N

R-2

R-1

R-2

R-2

R-1

R-2

MULI

\\West Berkeley\Zoning Map letter west berkeley.mxd

³0 750 1,500375 Feet

Planning & Development Department2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley CA 94704(510) 981-7400

CITY OF BERKELEY

C-1

C-2

C-N

C-SO

General Commercial

Central Commercial

Elmwood Commercial

Neighborhood Commercial

North Shattuck Commercial

South Area Commercial

Solano Avenue Commercial

Telegraph Avenue Commercial

West Berkeley CommercialC-W

C-E

C-NS

C-SA

C-T

M

MM

MULI

MUR

Manufacturing

Mixed Manufacturing

Mixed Use-Light Industrial

Mixed Use-Residential

ZONING DISTRICTS

ES-R

R-5

R-4

R-3

R-2A

R-2

R-1A

R-1 Single Family Residential

Limited Two-family Residential

Restricted Two-family Residential

Restricted Multiple-family Residential

Multiple-family Residential

High Density Residential

Multi-family Residential

Environmental Safety-Residential

SP

U

Specific Plan

Unclassified

ZONING OVERLAYS

University Ave Strategic Plan

Avenue Mixed Use

UASP Node

Hillside Overlay Boundary

Arts District Overlay

west berkeley

zoning DISTRICTS

Item 10 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission May 18, 2016


Description of Manufacturing Districts in the West Berkeley Plan and Permitted/Prohibited Uses (1993)

General Manufacturing Districts (M and MM) There are 2 small districts in the Plan which allow process intensive, "heavier" manufacturing uses, as well as light industrial uses. These are the Manufacturing District in northwestern West Berkeley (largely west of the railroad tracks), and the Mixed Manufacturing District in southwestern West Berkeley (around the Colgate and Miles sites). These areas are the present home to most West Berkeley "heavy" industries such as steelmaking and ink production. These districts are closely targeted to industrial uses, and generally do not allow residential, live-work, retail, or office uses (except on upper stories in the Mixed Manufacturing District). Office, laboratory, and retail uses which are integral to a manufacturing operation (e.g. a store selling products made on site) are permitted in the district. These small areas--some 94 acres in the Manufacturing zone and 79 acres in the Mixed Manufacturing zone--most closely follow the model of "Protected Manufacturing Districts" that manufacturing advocates sought for West Berkeley. While industrially oriented, the Mixed Manufacturing district is somewhat less tightly targeted than the Manufacturing District, allowing freestanding laboratories and office uses on upper stories, so that multi-story buildings in the district can be more easily used. Mixed Use/Light Industrial District (MU-LI) The district is proposed for most of the areas where light manufacturing and industrial uses predominate in West Berkeley. These include the northern area, north of Camelia St. (home to such companies as Hopkins Screen Printing, Clear Com, and Mousefeathers). There is also the western area--west of 4th between Camelia and Dwight-- (location of A&B Die Casting, De Soto, Peerless Lighting, and Andros Analyzers among others). There is the Parker St. area east of 7th (site of Ion Systems, Nolo Press, and Consolidated Printing). South of Heinz most areas are in the district, except for the north of Ashby commercial corridor (taking in Xoma sites and the "Durkee" project, as well as East Bay Steel). Permitted uses in the district are broadly light industrial in character, with various types of light manufacturing being allowed but not "heavy" manufacturing. Freestanding laboratories (i.e. those not associated with a manufacturing use) would be permitted only in the areas between the railroad track and Aquatic Park, and north of Gilman St, to limit potential exposure to residential neighborhoods. Office uses are permitted in the zone, but not most types of retail. However, office development is limited by the stipulation that only 25% of the area of a manufacturing facility not already used for offices could be converted to office use. Thus the district allows limited office development on current manufacturing sites, and on currently undeveloped sites. Residential uses are not permitted in the district (although "heavier" live-work uses are). There are only a very small number of residential uses in the

district, because the Mixed-Use Residential district was drawn to include all of the major residential enclaves. Mixed Use/Residential District (MU-R) The Mixed Use/Residential zone is the fourth new land use/zoning district developed by the West Berkeley Plan. While the Mixed Use/Light Industrial zone incorporates those areas dominated by a light industrial/office mix without residential uses, the Mixed Use/Residential focuses on those areas where the typical mix is residential and light industrial. The district encompasses the current SI (Special Industrial) district between the 4th/5th midblock line and 6th St., along with an area (currently zoned M) between Carleton and Heinz, 7th St. and the San Pablo commercial strip where there are substantial numbers of residences. The district totals some 120 acres. The district's proposed uses permit residential, live-work, light industrial, and office uses, but only limited, generally neighborhood serving retail. To maintain the district's smaller scale of development, it has a lower height limit and lower allowed Floor Area Ratio (amount of development per square foot of land) than do the manufacturing and light industrial districts.

Generally Permitted and Prohibited Uses

Manufacturing (M) District See also Development Standards, Manufacturing/Residential Buffers for regulations affecting certain sites Permitted Uses (see Development Standards chart for sizes of projects requiring Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit with Public Hearing)

Arts & Crafts Uses (workspaces only, not live-work)

Auto body & painting

Automobile dismantling ("junkyards")

Auto repair

Bus, Cab, truck, and public utility depots

Composting

Construction yards and associated offices

Farms and Agricultural establishments

Industrial Product Sales (Gases & Chemicals)

Manufacturing: Food processing, textiles, apparel, lumber & wood products, furniture, paper & allied products, printing (exclusive of publishing); asphalt products, leather products (exclusive of primary production of leather); stone, clay, and glass products; fabricated metals, industrial machinery, electrical machinery & electronics, transportation equipment, scientific instruments, miscellaneous manufacturing.

Recyclable materials collection points, exclusive of facilities handling primarily hazardous waste

Parking lots (for uses located in the district)

Self-storage ("mini-storage")

Warehouses

Wholesale trade and distribution

Uses always requiring Public Hearing (regardless of project size)

Chemicals, including pharmaceuticals (exclusive of the manufacturing of alkalies, chlorine, chemical warfare gases, DDT, chloroform, fertilizers, and explosives)

Parking structures

Primary metals, including smelting and refining

Ancillary Uses (Uses permitted only as an integral part of manufacturing or wholesale trade site)

Factory Outlets (for products manufactured on site)

Laboratories

Offices

Prohibited Uses

Banks and financial establishments

Gasoline stations

Group quarters residences

Hazardous waste transfer stations & disposal facilities (freestanding facilities)

Hotels and motels

Laboratories (freestanding)

Live-work (Manufacturing District -Prohibited Uses continued)

Manufacturing: Tobacco products, alkalies, chlorine, chemical warfare gases, DDT, pesticides, chloroform, fertilizers, explosives; primary production of leather; petroleum refining, products of petroleum and coal not elsewhere classified; tires, inner tubes, synthetic rubber, asbestos products, ordnance and accessories, reprocessing of nuclear cores & scrap

Offices (freestanding)

Publishing

Residences

Restaurants

Retail establishments, except permitted factory outlets

Schools and day care facilities

Mixed Manufacturing District See also Development Standards, Large Site Development Process; Manufacturing/Residential Buffers (regulations affecting frontage along portions of 7th St., Dwight Way) Permitted Uses (see Development Standards chart for sizes of projects requiring Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit with Public Hearing)

Arts & Crafts Uses (workspaces only, not live-work)

Auto body & painting

Automobile dismantling ("junkyards")

Auto repair


Composting



Industrial Product Sales (Gases & Chemicals

Manufacturing: Food processing, textiles, apparel, lumber & wood products, furniture, paper & allied products, printing (exclusive of publishing); asphalt products, leather products (exclusive of primary production of leather); stone, clay, and glass

products; fabricated metals, industrial machinery, electrical machinery & electronics, transportation equipment, scientific instruments, miscellaneous manufacturing.

Parking Lots (for uses located in the district)


Warehouses


Uses Always Requiring Public Hearing (regardless of project size)

Chemicals, including pharmaceuticals (exclusive of the manufacturing of alkalies, chlorine, chemical warfare gases, DDT, chloroform, fertilizers, and explosives)

Parking structures

Primary metals, including smelting and refining

Ancillary Uses (Uses permitted only as an integral part of manufacturing or wholesale trade site)

Factory Outlets (for products manufactured on site)

Laboratories on the ground floor

Offices on the ground floor

Upper story Uses (Uses permitted on the second story or above)

Laboratories (other than ancillary)

Offices (other than ancillary)

Publishing

Prohibited Uses

Banks and financial establishments

Gasoline stations

Group quarters residences


Hotels and motels

Laboratories (freestanding)

Live-work

Manufacturing: Tobacco products, alkalies, chlorine, chemical warfare gases, DDT, pesticides, chloroform, fertilizers, explosives; primary production of leather; petroleum refining, products of petroleum and coal not elsewhere classified; tires, inner tubes, synthetic rubber, asbestos products, ordnance and accessories, reprocessing of nuclear cores & scrap

Offices (freestanding)

Residences

Restaurants

Retail establishments, except permitted factory outlets

Schools and day care facilities


Mixed Use/Light Industrial District See also Development Standards; Conversions from Manufacturing to Other Uses; Live- Work Development

Permitted Uses (see Development Standards chart for sizes of projects requiring Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit with Public Hearing)

1. Industrial & Agricultural Uses

Arts and Crafts (workspaces only, live-work limited)

Auto repair


Construction yards & associated offices

Farms & agricultural establishments

Manufacturing: Food processing (e.g. bakeries, wineries); textiles, apparel, furniture, lumber & wood products, printing and publishing; stone, clay, and glass products; industrial machinery; electrical machinery & electronics (except production of semiconductors and related devices); scientific instruments; miscellaneous manufacturing

Manufacturing Repair and Service


Vocational Schools (providing training for uses in district)

Warehouses


2. Offices and Services

Offices--General, medical, and professional (see Conversions from manufacturing to other uses)

3. Retail Building Materials and Garden Supplies Business Services (not to exceed 3,000 sq. ft.)

4. Other Uses



Auto body and painting

Day Care

Live-Work (Manufacturing and Arts & Crafts uses only)

Manufacturing of leather products, rubber products, plastic products, paper products, fabricated metals

Parking structures and parking lots (not for uses located in the district)

Restaurants

Schools (other than Vocational Schools described above)

Shelters for Homeless Persons

Uses Permitted in Selected Locations

1. Portions of Mixed Use/Light Industrial district north of Gilman St. and west of 3rd St. (Southern Pacific RR) or south of Heinz St. on parcels which are, in their entirety, at least 500 feet from a Residential or Mixed Use/Residential district

Laboratories (freestanding)*

Manufacture of pharmaceuticals

2. Parks and Recreational Uses, in Outdoor Recreational subzones only

Prohibited Uses

Banks and Financial establishments (public service)

Gasoline stations

Group Quarters other than Shelters for Homeless Persons


Hotels and Motels

Manufacturing--All uses prohibited in Manufacturing zone and Chemicals (except pharmaceuticals in selected locations), petroleum products, primary metals processing (e.g. "foundries"), production of semiconductors and related devices, transportation equipment and primary production of leather, rubber, plastic, or paper

Residences (live/work conditionally permitted, see above)

Retail stores, except as listed above


Mixed Use/Residential District See also Development Standards, Conversions from Manufacturing to Other Uses, Permitted Uses, Live-Work

Permitted Uses (see Development Standards chart for sizes of projects requiring Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit with Public Hearing)

1. Residential

Residences--Single-family, Multi-family, Group Quarters

Day Care

Schools

2. Industrial & Agricultural

Arts and Crafts (workspaces only)


Manufacturing Repair and Service


Warehouses


3. Retail

Building Materials and Garden Supplies

Business Services

Food Stores (not to exceed 5,000 sq. ft.)

Cleaners, laundries, and laundromats

4. Other Uses



Auto body, auto painting, auto repair (with setbacks from residential use)



Live-work (work activities those permitted in district)

Manufacturing-- Food processing (e.g. bakeries, wineries), clothing & textile production, furniture production, wood products, printing and publishing; stone, clay, and glass products; industrial machinery, electrical machinery & electronics (except production of semiconductors and related devices), scientific instruments, miscellaneous manufacturing, leather products, rubber products, plastic products, paper products

Parking lots (not for uses located in the district)

Restaurants

Prohibited Uses

Banks and financial establishments (public service)

Gasoline stations


Hotels and motels

Laboratories*

Manufacturing--All uses prohibited in Manufacturing zone and Chemicals (including pharmaceuticals), lumber milling, petroleum products, primary metals processing, production of semiconductors and related devices, primary production of leather, rubber, plastic, or paper (e.g. pulp mills)

Retail stores, except as listed above


Medical Cannabis business experiences in other jurisdictions City Name Findings

Oakland, CA Communication with City planning staff

Concern about developing a monoculture. There is evidence of businesses being pushed out by illegal grows.

San Francisco, CA Communication with City planning staff

No empirical or qualitative evidence of economic impacts.

Adelanto, CA (LA Times, 5-10-16)

City promoting cultivation. 30 applicants, proposing 1.2 million sf of cultivation (most of sites are vacant lands)

Desert Hot Springs, CA (LA Times, 5-10-16)

City promoting cultivation. Land prices tripling. Need significant infrastructure – could take years to get sufficient energy for these businesses.

Oregon League of Cities Communication with staff

Issues with fires when buildings not properly equipped for energy use. Production is 5x demand – resulting in failing price for cannabis. Expects to see many cannabis businesses fail.

Bend, OR Communication with planning staff

No changes noticed to surrounding businesses. No one notices the businesses are there. Predicts that businesses will move to rural area once Deschutes County changes regulations due to the lower cost of land.

Portland, OR Communication with planning staff

Don’t have a good sense of any impacts yet.

Colorado Municipal League Communication with staff

Bad smell, but otherwise, all good news. Anecdotally, no distressed warehouses in Denver – all are operating as grows and renting for a premium.

Denver, CO WSJ article and communication with OED and Mayor’s staff

No limit on the number of businesses – oer 1,000 licenses. Working to change that now. 35% of warehouse space was rented to MC businesses btw 2009 – 2013. Could stifle business diversity. Anecdotal stories of businesses being forced out. Don’t know what condition warehouses will be in if industry shifts to outdoor grows (over-improved, or damaged by mold, etc. Concerns about overproduction: Since this isn’t a free market, overproduction leads to black market sales. Neighbors coming out against it – poorer neighborhoods that have industrial and residential are experiencing gentrification and higher rents – forcing out businesses and residents. Recommends starting slowly

Illinois Communication with Cannabis lobbyist

Only open since summer 2015. No max size, but only one permitted per State police district (22 in state), primarily in rural counties. Law enforcement has a 24-hour feed to cameras at facilities.

Seattle, WA Communication with planning staff

Not permitted around the port. Businesses tend to take cheap, low uses spaces. Can pay more than average industrial uses. Zero complaints. Thinks most businesses located initially in Seattle because of knowledge base – expects most will relocate soon to cheaper agricultural land.

zo changes to allow cannabis cultivation

Documents