16. Review An Ordinance Amending Various Provisions of Title 17 (Planning & Development Code) Relating to Cannabis Land Uses (M25-003) File ID: 2025-00925
On behalf of Capitol Compliance Management (CCM), I submit this comment regarding the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code. These changes will shape the future of cannabis regulation in our city for years to come. The most important policy questions before you are: how sensitive uses are treated, and what type of permit review applies.
Sensitive Uses
Staff proposes expanding the list of sensitive uses and prohibiting cannabis uses outright within those buffers. Yet the City’s 2022 Comprehensive Cannabis Study confirmed that 92% of land is already within a sensitive-use buffer, and 82% of existing dispensaries are located within one. A prohibition would effectively close the door on future opportunities citywide.
The Planning & Design Commission (PDC) recommends an alternative: expanding the list of sensitive uses to include childcare centers, churches, and other dispensaries, but allowing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pathway for projects in those areas. This approach is more balanced. It preserves community input and review without imposing a blanket ban that would disproportionately impact Council Districts 4 and 5, where more than 80% of available land lies within buffers.
Permit Type
On permits, staff recommends shifting most cannabis uses from CUP to Administrative Permit (ministerial) review, with the exception of consumption lounges. This aligns with the Comprehensive Cannabis Study, which concluded that cannabis businesses have not caused increased crime, reduced property values, or unique land-use impacts.
Requiring CUPs has imposed unnecessary costs and delays: $7,000–$14,000 in fees and 4–9 months of processing, even when nearly all applications are approved with no project-specific conditions. By contrast, Administrative Permits would reduce costs to $500–$1,200, shorten processing times to 1–2 months, maintain public notice, and allow conditions where appropriate.
Recommendation
We respectfully urge Council to adopt a hybrid approach:
- Sensitive Uses: Follow PDC’s recommendation — provide a discretionary CUP pathway instead of outright prohibition.
- Permit Types: Follow staff’s recommendation — ministerial permitting for cannabis uses outside of sensitive buffers.
This combination ensures fairness, reduces unnecessary regulatory burden, prevents over-concentration in just two districts, and supports equity for CORE participants. It also reflects the reality that cannabis businesses are now one of Sacramento’s top ten employers and a consistent driver of General Fund and Measure L revenues.
Thank you for your consideration and leadership in ensuring Sacramento’s cannabis regulations are both equitable and practical.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin McCarty
Director of Licensing & Compliance
Capitol Compliance Management
You can’t claim to protect youth and families while opening the door for cannabis businesses to move in next to them. This entire plan contradicts the values of our city. Oppose this proposal.
We talk about equity and inclusion — where is the equity in removing a process that lets neighbors be heard? CUPs are essential. Removing them is a betrayal.
Sacramento should be setting a gold standard for responsible cannabis policy. This proposal is a step backward, not forward. We must protect the public interest.
I live across the street from a park. The thought of people buying weed next door and then hanging out at that park to smoke is terrifying. Our parks deserve better.
This isn’t anti-cannabis. This is pro-safety, pro-youth, and pro-community. Remove the CUP and you remove oversight. That’s a bad idea. Keep safeguards in place.
I work in mental health. We’re trying to help young people stay clean and focused. This kind of policy makes our job harder. Please stop and reconsider. Oppose.
Churches aren’t just places of worship — they’re safe spaces for youth, recovery meetings, and community support. Don’t jeopardize that. Keep them protected.
There’s no justification for putting a cannabis dispensary next to a daycare. Zero. This proposal is dangerous and out of touch with the needs of families. Vote NO.
Conditional use permits aren’t just paperwork — they’re the only way communities can speak up. Removing them means silencing the people most affected. I strongly oppose this.
As a lifelong Sacramento resident, I care about where this city is headed. Taking away protections for children, families, and neighborhoods is not the path forward. Vote no.
The Planning Commission got it right. They listened to the community. Why is city leadership ignoring their expertise and our voices? I stand with the commission. Oppose.
Sensitive use zones exist because not every place is appropriate for every business. The cannabis industry should be no exception. Keep current protections.
If this passes, families will have no say when a dispensary opens next to their home or school. That’s not fair. That’s not right. Keep CUPs in place. Oppose.
Our community has fought to clean up and invest in our parks. Don’t undo that progress by letting cannabis businesses move in next door. Parks must stay protected.
Every parent I’ve talked to is shocked that this is even being considered. Marijuana businesses don’t belong next to places where children are learning, playing, or praying.
eComment received by the Office of the City Clerk
On behalf of the Metro Chamber, please see our letter attached as it was accidentally omitted in our previous e-comment.
Mayor McCarty and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Capitol Compliance Management (CCM), I submit this comment regarding the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code. These changes will shape the future of cannabis regulation in our city for years to come. The most important policy questions before you are: how sensitive uses are treated, and what type of permit review applies.
Sensitive Uses
Staff proposes expanding the list of sensitive uses and prohibiting cannabis uses outright within those buffers. Yet the City’s 2022 Comprehensive Cannabis Study confirmed that 92% of land is already within a sensitive-use buffer, and 82% of existing dispensaries are located within one. A prohibition would effectively close the door on future opportunities citywide.
The Planning & Design Commission (PDC) recommends an alternative: expanding the list of sensitive uses to include childcare centers, churches, and other dispensaries, but allowing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pathway for projects in those areas. This approach is more balanced. It preserves community input and review without imposing a blanket ban that would disproportionately impact Council Districts 4 and 5, where more than 80% of available land lies within buffers.
Permit Type
On permits, staff recommends shifting most cannabis uses from CUP to Administrative Permit (ministerial) review, with the exception of consumption lounges. This aligns with the Comprehensive Cannabis Study, which concluded that cannabis businesses have not caused increased crime, reduced property values, or unique land-use impacts.
Requiring CUPs has imposed unnecessary costs and delays: $7,000–$14,000 in fees and 4–9 months of processing, even when nearly all applications are approved with no project-specific conditions. By contrast, Administrative Permits would reduce costs to $500–$1,200, shorten processing times to 1–2 months, maintain public notice, and allow conditions where appropriate.
Recommendation
We respectfully urge Council to adopt a hybrid approach:
- Sensitive Uses: Follow PDC’s recommendation — provide a discretionary CUP pathway instead of outright prohibition.
- Permit Types: Follow staff’s recommendation — ministerial permitting for cannabis uses outside of sensitive buffers.
This combination ensures fairness, reduces unnecessary regulatory burden, prevents over-concentration in just two districts, and supports equity for CORE participants. It also reflects the reality that cannabis businesses are now one of Sacramento’s top ten employers and a consistent driver of General Fund and Measure L revenues.
Thank you for your consideration and leadership in ensuring Sacramento’s cannabis regulations are both equitable and practical.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin McCarty
Director of Licensing & Compliance
Capitol Compliance Management
You can’t claim to protect youth and families while opening the door for cannabis businesses to move in next to them. This entire plan contradicts the values of our city. Oppose this proposal.
We talk about equity and inclusion — where is the equity in removing a process that lets neighbors be heard? CUPs are essential. Removing them is a betrayal.
Sacramento should be setting a gold standard for responsible cannabis policy. This proposal is a step backward, not forward. We must protect the public interest.
I live across the street from a park. The thought of people buying weed next door and then hanging out at that park to smoke is terrifying. Our parks deserve better.
Sensitive use protections are not obstacles — they’re lifelines. They help ensure that vulnerable areas stay safe and stable. Do not eliminate them.
This isn’t anti-cannabis. This is pro-safety, pro-youth, and pro-community. Remove the CUP and you remove oversight. That’s a bad idea. Keep safeguards in place.
I work in mental health. We’re trying to help young people stay clean and focused. This kind of policy makes our job harder. Please stop and reconsider. Oppose.
Churches aren’t just places of worship — they’re safe spaces for youth, recovery meetings, and community support. Don’t jeopardize that. Keep them protected.
There’s no justification for putting a cannabis dispensary next to a daycare. Zero. This proposal is dangerous and out of touch with the needs of families. Vote NO.
Conditional use permits aren’t just paperwork — they’re the only way communities can speak up. Removing them means silencing the people most affected. I strongly oppose this.
On behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, please view our attached comment letter. Thank you for your consideration.
As a lifelong Sacramento resident, I care about where this city is headed. Taking away protections for children, families, and neighborhoods is not the path forward. Vote no.
The Planning Commission got it right. They listened to the community. Why is city leadership ignoring their expertise and our voices? I stand with the commission. Oppose.
Sensitive use zones exist because not every place is appropriate for every business. The cannabis industry should be no exception. Keep current protections.
If this passes, families will have no say when a dispensary opens next to their home or school. That’s not fair. That’s not right. Keep CUPs in place. Oppose.
Our community has fought to clean up and invest in our parks. Don’t undo that progress by letting cannabis businesses move in next door. Parks must stay protected.
Every parent I’ve talked to is shocked that this is even being considered. Marijuana businesses don’t belong next to places where children are learning, playing, or praying.