BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 847
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 847 (Correa) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
Policy Committee: HealthVote:16-1
Local Government 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
1)Prohibits a medical marijuana cooperative, collective,
dispensary, operator, establishment or provider who possesses,
cultivates or distributes medical marijuana from being located
within a 600-foot radius of a residential zone or residential
use unless the city council or county board of supervisors
adopts, an ordinance specifically regulating the location of
those establishments in relation to residential zones or
residential use.
2)Allows a local ordinance to be more or less restrictive than
the 600-foot radius state standard.
FISCAL EFFECT
There is no significant fiscal impact from this bill.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, as medical marijuana
dispensaries proliferate, state law provides limited guidance
on the most appropriate locations for these establishments.
Some local officials worry that medical marijuana
establishments located near private residences may create
public safety and health problems. Last year, AB 2650
(Buchanan), Chapter 603, Statutes of 2010, set a precedent for
creating a buffer-zone between specific land uses and medical
marijuana establishments. State law also prohibits anyone
from smoking medical marijuana outside of a residence or
within 1,000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth
center. SB 847 is a similar measure that ensures that medical
SB 847
Page 2
marijuana dispensaries are located a reasonable distance away
from private residences.
2)Proposition 215 . In November 1996, Californians passed
Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, to ensure the
right of patients to obtain and use marijuana in California to
treat specified serious illnesses. Proposition 215 protects
physicians who appropriately recommend the use of marijuana to
patients for medical purposes from criminal penalties, exempts
qualified patients and their primary caregivers from state
drug laws prohibiting possession and cultivation of marijuana
and directs the state to implement a plan for the safe and
affordable distribution of marijuana.
Following adoption of the act, marijuana dispensaries and
growing facilities proliferated throughout the state.
According to the author, the operators of these facilities
often open without first determining whether the uses are
permitted under local zoning and land use regulations or they
begin operations with full knowledge that the uses are
prohibited. As a result, cities throughout the state continue
to allocate an enormous amount of resources to address land
use and legal issues surrounding medical marijuana.
3)Litigation. There has been a significant amount of litigation
over local governments attempt to regulate dispensaries with
mixed decisions regarding the authority of local governments.
However, a recent decision by a state appeals court held that
Los Angeles County's ordinances restricting the location and
operations of medical marijuana dispensaries were a valid
exercise of local land-use authority.
4)Amendments. The bill is sponsored by the City of Anaheim, a
chartered city, but the bill does not apply to the state's 120
chartered cities, a group which includes almost all the
state's large cities, significantly undercutting the argument
for the bill. The California Constitution lets charter cities
control their municipal affairs. Charter cities must follow
statewide laws only for issues of statewide concern when the
Legislature has fully occupied the field.
If the committee wishes to apply this bill widely, the bill
should be amended to declare that regulating medical marijuana
establishments' proximity to residential zones or uses is an
issue of statewide concern.
SB 847
Page 3
5)Support arguments . Supporters contend that a consequence of
Proposition 215 has been the proliferation of medical
marijuana dispensaries. The City of Anaheim asserts this bill
recognizes the importance of protecting our youth from the
various negative impacts of medical marijuana establishments
by providing local communities with another layer of
protection aimed at keeping these facilities out of
residential neighborhoods. Supporters add that specifying a
600 foot buffer between these entities and residential areas
in a manner that is similar to what already exists for schools
is a reasonable and simple approach to ensure that
neighborhoods are not unduly impacted.
6)Opposition arguments . Representatives of medical marijuana
patients and providers object to this bill, arguing that it
preemptively imposes an arbitrary one-size-fits-all statewide
standard on local governments that have not yet adopted
regulations governing medical marijuana establishments, which
they contend, is a highly unusual usurpation of local land use
policy. Opponents maintain that high density cities would
experience a reduction or outright elimination of lawful
dispensary locations as a result of this bill, which would
then impose an unnecessary and unacceptable burden on
qualified patients accessing medical marijuana.
7)Relevant legislation. AB 1300 (Blumenfield) provides that a
local government entity may enact an ordinance regulating the
location, operation or establishment of a medical marijuana
cooperative or collective. This bill is on the Senate floor.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081