BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 847
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 847 (Correa)
As Amended August 23, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-2
HEALTH 16-1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Logue, Atkins, |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, |
| |Bonilla, Eng, Garrick, | |Hueso, Knight, Norby |
| |Hayashi, | | |
| |Roger Hern�ndez, Bonnie | | |
| |Lowenthal, Mansoor, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nestande, Pan, | | |
| |V. Manuel P�rez, Silva, | | |
| |Smyth | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Ammiano | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 15-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| |Donnelly, Gatto, Hall, |
| |Hill, Mitchell, Nielsen, |
| |Norby, Solorio, Wagner |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits any medical marijuana (MM) entity that
possesses, cultivates, or distributes MM from locating within
600 feet of a residential area unless a local ordinance has been
adopted to specifically regulate the location of these entities
in relation to residential use. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits any medical marijuana (MM) entity that possesses,
cultivates, or distributes MM from locating within a 600-foot
radius of a residential zone or residential use unless the
SB 847
Page 2
local governing body has adopted an ordinance specifically
regulating the location of these entities in relation to
residential use.
2)Permits the local ordinance in 1) above to be more or less
restrictive than the 600-foot radius established by this bill.
3)Declares that regulating MM establishments' proximity to
residential zones or uses is an issue of statewide concern.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there is no significant fiscal impact from this bill.
COMMENTS : According to the author, a growing number of MM
dispensaries have, in some cases, literally opened shop right
under apartments with kids, thus subjecting families to second
hand smoke from marijuana. The author argues that, as these
establishments proliferate, state law provides limited guidance
on the most appropriate locations for these establishments. The
author maintains that some local officials worry that MM
entities located near private residences may create public
safety and health problems. The author points out that last
year, AB 2650 (Buchanan), Chapter 603, Statutes of 2010, set a
precedent for creating a buffer zone between specific land uses,
i.e., schools, and these establishments and this bill is a
similar measure to ensure that MM dispensaries are located a
reasonable distance away from private residences. The author
states that this bill incorporates local government control by
providing for a default buffer zone of 600 feet between MM
establishments and residential areas in the event that a local
government has not yet enacted its own local ordinance
establishing a smaller or larger buffer.
The sponsor of this bill, the City of Anaheim, contends that an
unintended consequence of Proposition 215 has been the
widespread proliferation of MM dispensaries, often within
neighborhoods. The sponsor asserts that this bill recognizes
the importance of protecting our youth from the various negative
impacts of MM 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
SB 847
Page 3
residential areas in a manner that is similar to what already
exists for schools is a reasonable and simple approach to
ensuring that neighborhoods are not negatively and unduly
impacted.
Representatives of MM 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 MM 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 MM.
Analysis Prepared by : Cassie Royce / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
FN: 0001999