36. An Ordinance Amending Various Provisions of Title 17 (Planning & Development Code) Relating to Cannabis Land Uses (M25-003) [In Lieu of Pass for Publication Ordinance to be Published in its Entirety] [Published 11/07/2025] File ID: 2025-01728
I have a very simple request: clarity, honesty, and accountability on the proposed changes to Title 17 because these decisions will shape Sacramento’s youth protections for decades.
State law requires a 600-foot buffer from K–12 schools, daycares, and youth centers. But what’s being left out of the public conversation is this: state law allows cities to increase OR decrease that minimum, and Sacramento currently chooses to go further.
Under today’s local code, cannabis businesses cannot locate next to parks, churches, afterschool programs, youth oriented facilities outside the state’s narrow definition, daycares outside the narrow definition, residential neighborhoods, or rehab centers.
These protections exist for a reason. They keep highly intoxicating, addictive, cancer-causing products with high street value away from children and vulnerable communities. Removing these safeguards is not routine zoning; it’s a major shift in public-safety policy.
I urge the Council to protect our children, our neighborhoods, and our future. These decisions cannot be undone easily, and the impact will be felt long after this vote.
Mayor Kevin McCarty
Councilmember Lisa Kaplan
Councilmember Roger Dickinson
Councilmember Karina Talamantes
Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum
Councilmember Caity Maple
Councilmember Eric Guerra
Councilmember Rick Jennings
Councilmember Mai Vang
RE: Agenda Items 36: An Ordinance Amending Various Provisions of Title 17
We are writing to express my concerns and opposition regarding the City of Sacramento adopting an ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code related to cannabis land uses. I am concerned about the protection of our children, youth, and families, and how the amended ordinance affects them.
We are not opposed to cannabis businesses. We oppose the proposed amendment by the City of Sacramento to adopt an ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code related to cannabis land uses.
California State law requires a 600 ft buffer from K–12 schools, daycares, and youth centers. State law explicitly allows local governments to increase OR decrease the state minimum. Additionally, the City of Sacramento currently has far more protections than the state minimum.
Under existing local code, cannabis businesses cannot locate next to:
• Parks
• Churches
• After-school programs
• Youth-oriented facilities outside the narrow state definition
• Daycares outside the narrow state definition
• Residential neighborhoods
• Rehab centers
We must acknowledge that the Title 17 rewrite eliminates all of these local protections. Please vote to oppose the amendments that protect our children, youth, and families!!
Thank you for your consideration and attention!
Black Parallel School Board (BPSB) and Southeast Village Neighborhood Association (SEVNA)
(info@blackparallelschoolboard.com
I am submitting this anonymously because it’s clear that raising concerns in Sacramento often means being dismissed—especially by Councilmembers Maple, Kaplan, McCarty, and Dickinson, who appear more interested in pushing these amendments through than listening to the people they represent.
Let’s be very direct:
1. Proximity to kids IS a real issue.
Councilmembers Maple and Kaplan keep pretending this is “stigma,” but families know better.
Putting more cannabis activity closer to daycares, parks, churches, and youth corridors is reckless.
Dismissing parents as “misinformed” is insulting.
2. Youth mental-health impacts are not imaginary.
McCarty and Dickinson can keep waving around selective data, but the reality is simple:
Increased visibility normalizes use.
Normalization drives experimentation.
Experimentation harms kids.
Stop pretending this is harmless.
3. Armed guards ARE a concern.
It’s outrageous watching Maple and Kaplan downplay the fact that these businesses require armed guards.
If a business needs guns on site, it shouldn’t be placed near children—period.
4. Cutting CUPs cuts the community out.
Calling this “streamlining” is political spin.
Kaplan and Dickinson know exactly what they’re doing: removing one of the only tools neighborhoods have to voice concerns.
This is not transparency—it’s silencing.
5. Daycare buffers should absolutely be included.
McCarty and Maple fighting against protecting toddlers is shocking.
If adding daycare protections makes half the city off-limits, maybe that means the ordinance is the problem—not the daycares.
6. Cannabis revenue isn’t a moral shield.
Kaplan and Dickinson keep pointing to tax money as if it excuses everything.
Money does not erase long-term risk, and it doesn’t justify weakening protections.
⸻
BOTTOM LINE
Maple, Kaplan, McCarty, and Dickinson are pushing this ordinance too fast, with too little transparency, and with far too much deference to industry interests.
If you want to reshape Sacramento for decades, at least have the integrity to prioritize children, neighborhoods, and public safety before the cannabis lobby.
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.
As a multiple business owner in Sacramento, deeply familiar with the realities of regulated cannabis, I strongly support adoption of the Title 17 amendments.
And I want to address the opposition comments directly, because many of them rely on false assumptions, emotional rhetoric, and selective outrage that is not supported by any data — including the City’s own.
1. “Cannabis businesses next to kids is an abomination.”
Fact: No cannabis business in Sacramento allows minors. No exceptions.
Opponents continue to ignore the most basic truth:
Cannabis storefronts are 21+ secure facilities with ID checks, surveillance, and opaque windows. Children cannot enter, cannot see inside, and cannot be exposed.
Meanwhile:
Alcohol is sold steps from schools.
Vape shops are next to daycares.
Liquor ads are on bus stops used by minors.
Cigarettes are displayed at eye level in convenience stores.
If these commenters were truly worried about youth exposure, they would be calling for restrictions on those industries — the ones with actual visibility and proven youth influence.
This ordinance is not “putting cannabis near kids.”
It is refining regulation for a business that is already completely closed off from minors.
2. “Cannabis increases teen depression, psychosis, and suicide.”
Fact: These studies refer to youth use, not adult-only retail.
The opposition is misusing mental-health research to justify land-use restrictions.
A regulated dispensary:
Does not serve minors
Does not advertise to minors
Does not allow minors inside
Does not show product to the outside public
A storefront dispensary does not create youth consumption, any more than a bar causes underage drinking simply by existing.
Youth use comes from:
Unregulated street markets
Illegal shops
Social access from other youth
Not from licensed storefronts with state inspectors, cameras, ID checks, and heavy compliance.
3. “Armed guards mean cannabis is dangerous.”
Fact: Armed security protects the public — it does not endanger them.
Banks have armed guards.
High-end jewelry stores have armed guards.
Cash-heavy businesses have guards.
No one claims jewelry stores are “too dangerous to be near kids.”
Opposition arguments here are emotional, not logical.
Regulated dispensaries with trained security create safer corridors, not unsafe ones.
4. “Churches, parks, and neighborhoods will be harmed.”
Fact: The City’s comprehensive study — the one opponents keep ignoring — found:
No increases in crime
No harm to home values
No negative effect on nearby retail
No neighborhood decline
If cannabis businesses had caused the problems opponents claim, the data would show it.
It doesn’t — because the problems do not exist.
Churches, parks, community centers, and neighborhoods already sit next to:
Bars
Clubs
Cigar lounges
Breweries
Liquor stores
Gas stations
Convenience stores
Vape shops
Yet opposition comments only target cannabis — the one industry with the strictest rules and the lowest record of harm.
This is not about safety.
This is about stigma.
5. “Removing CUPs removes oversight.”
Fact: The ordinance keeps CUPs exactly where they matter — for lounges and buffer areas.
Opponents have misrepresented what the ordinance does.
The ordinance keeps:
Early notice
Posted on-site notice
Mailers to neighbors
Planning Commission hearings
Appeals
Call-up to Council
Enforcement authority
State and local inspections
Cannabis still has more oversight than almost any other use in the city.
Removing duplicative, unnecessary CUPs is not “removing community voice” — it is eliminating barriers that serve no purpose except to slow down compliant operators while illegal businesses flourish.
6. “Daycares must be added to buffers.”
Fact: Adding daycare centers to buffers is functionally a ban.
Opponents know this — that’s why they’re pushing for it.
Childcare centers exist on nearly every block of the grid.
A 600-foot buffer around each one would eliminate most of the city.
This is not “protecting children.”
It is weaponizing childcare to shut down an entire industry.
The City already chose the rational, evidence-based path:
K–12 schools have strict buffers because they have high-volume youth traffic.
Daycares do not produce the same land-use impacts.
7. “Cannabis threatens youth safety.”
Fact: Cannabis is one of the few industries that directly funds youth safety programs.
Opponents avoid mentioning that:
Cannabis tax revenue exceeds $23 million a year
40% goes to the Sacramento Children’s Fund
This money pays for mental health services, after-school programs, intervention, and support for homeless and foster youth
No bar, brewery, gas station, liquor store, or smoke shop gives 40% of its revenue to children.
Cannabis does.
And opponents still insist cannabis “harms youth.” The numbers say otherwise.
8. “This ordinance puts profit over people.”
Fact: The only people this ordinance disadvantages are illegal operators and those who prefer fear over facts.
This ordinance:
Follows data
Follows expert analysis
Follows the City Council’s own direction
Retains strong youth protection
Maintains oversight
Supports economic development
Increases fairness and predictability
Aligns with General Plan goals
Creates clear rules instead of political gambits
The idea that supporting a tightly regulated, tax-paying, compliant industry is “putting profit over people” is backwards.
Cannabis contributes more to public good than the industries opponents give a free pass.
9. “Cannabis lounges near sensitive uses are dangerous.”
Fact: Lounges still require a CUP, still require strict rules, and still operate entirely inside a 21+ dispensary.
Lounges:
Reduce public consumption
Protect neighborhoods
Improve cleanliness
Improve enforcement
Keep consumption indoors
Add ventilation and filtration requirements
Provide better control and safety
Banning lounges is what creates nuisance activity — not allowing them.
CONCLUSION
This ordinance is not radical.
It is not dangerous.
It is not irresponsible.
It is modern, balanced, evidence-driven regulation that:
✔ Maintains protections for children
✔ Removes only unnecessary barriers
✔ Supports economic vitality
✔ Upholds equity and fairness
✔ Follows the General Plan
✔ Supports public safety
✔ Strengthens oversight where it matters
✔ Reflects years of research and City direction
Opponents are not citing facts — they are reacting to stigma left over from decades past.
Sacramento cannot build policy on fear.
Sacramento must build policy on data, equity, and common sense.
I oppose this nonsense. The fact that the city council is even considering this and on board with putting drug stores near children is an abomination!
Teen marijuana use is strongly linked with:
Anxiety - THC can worsen anxiety and panic, especially at higher doses.
Depression - Heavy use is associated with higher rates of depression in young people.
Psychosis & schizophrenia - Regular use—especially high-potency THC—significantly increases the risk of psychosis in vulnerable individuals.
Risk is much higher if a teen:
• Uses high-THC products (vapes, concentrates)
• Uses frequently
• Has a family history of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or psychosis
Suicidal ideation - Multiple large-scale studies show higher risks of suicidal thoughts and attempts among adolescent users.
Just WOW city council members….don't some of you have reelection campaign’s currently going on right now? Please do the right thing and vote no and keep the status quo buffers.
My name is Maisha Bahati, Co-Founder and CEO of Crystal Nugs, a locally owned cannabis dispensary and delivery service in Sacramento, and a proud participant of the City’s CORE program. I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Title 17 amendments related to on-site cannabis consumption lounges.
These updates are not only timely, they are essential for Sacramento’s cannabis industry to remain competitive, equitable, and community focused. Expanding access to on-site consumption creates opportunities for small and social equity businesses like mine to thrive, while meeting the needs of consumers who cannot safely or legally consume cannabis at home. This is especially important for renters, tourists, and residents living in federally subsidized housing.
As a CORE graduate and a Black woman owned business operating in Sacramento since 2019, I have experienced firsthand both the challenges and the possibilities within this industry. The Title 17 changes reflect fairness, modernization, and a more inclusive approach one that finally opens the door for operators who historically have not had access to generational wealth or outside capital.
Allowing on-site consumption lounges will also increase public safety by providing regulated, controlled environments; support local job creation; and position Sacramento as a leader among cities embracing innovation and equity within the cannabis space.
I respectfully urge the Council to move this policy forward so that Sacramento can continue building a responsible, diverse, and community driven cannabis ecosystem.
Thank you for your time and your commitment to equity in Sacramento.
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.
Additional eComments received by the Office of City Clerk.
Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers.
I have a very simple request: clarity, honesty, and accountability on the proposed changes to Title 17 because these decisions will shape Sacramento’s youth protections for decades.
State law requires a 600-foot buffer from K–12 schools, daycares, and youth centers. But what’s being left out of the public conversation is this: state law allows cities to increase OR decrease that minimum, and Sacramento currently chooses to go further.
Under today’s local code, cannabis businesses cannot locate next to parks, churches, afterschool programs, youth oriented facilities outside the state’s narrow definition, daycares outside the narrow definition, residential neighborhoods, or rehab centers.
These protections exist for a reason. They keep highly intoxicating, addictive, cancer-causing products with high street value away from children and vulnerable communities. Removing these safeguards is not routine zoning; it’s a major shift in public-safety policy.
I urge the Council to protect our children, our neighborhoods, and our future. These decisions cannot be undone easily, and the impact will be felt long after this vote.
Mayor Kevin McCarty
Councilmember Lisa Kaplan
Councilmember Roger Dickinson
Councilmember Karina Talamantes
Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum
Councilmember Caity Maple
Councilmember Eric Guerra
Councilmember Rick Jennings
Councilmember Mai Vang
RE: Agenda Items 36: An Ordinance Amending Various Provisions of Title 17
We are writing to express my concerns and opposition regarding the City of Sacramento adopting an ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code related to cannabis land uses. I am concerned about the protection of our children, youth, and families, and how the amended ordinance affects them.
We are not opposed to cannabis businesses. We oppose the proposed amendment by the City of Sacramento to adopt an ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code related to cannabis land uses.
California State law requires a 600 ft buffer from K–12 schools, daycares, and youth centers. State law explicitly allows local governments to increase OR decrease the state minimum. Additionally, the City of Sacramento currently has far more protections than the state minimum.
Under existing local code, cannabis businesses cannot locate next to:
• Parks
• Churches
• After-school programs
• Youth-oriented facilities outside the narrow state definition
• Daycares outside the narrow state definition
• Residential neighborhoods
• Rehab centers
We must acknowledge that the Title 17 rewrite eliminates all of these local protections. Please vote to oppose the amendments that protect our children, youth, and families!!
Thank you for your consideration and attention!
Black Parallel School Board (BPSB) and Southeast Village Neighborhood Association (SEVNA)
(info@blackparallelschoolboard.com
I am submitting this anonymously because it’s clear that raising concerns in Sacramento often means being dismissed—especially by Councilmembers Maple, Kaplan, McCarty, and Dickinson, who appear more interested in pushing these amendments through than listening to the people they represent.
Let’s be very direct:
1. Proximity to kids IS a real issue.
Councilmembers Maple and Kaplan keep pretending this is “stigma,” but families know better.
Putting more cannabis activity closer to daycares, parks, churches, and youth corridors is reckless.
Dismissing parents as “misinformed” is insulting.
2. Youth mental-health impacts are not imaginary.
McCarty and Dickinson can keep waving around selective data, but the reality is simple:
Increased visibility normalizes use.
Normalization drives experimentation.
Experimentation harms kids.
Stop pretending this is harmless.
3. Armed guards ARE a concern.
It’s outrageous watching Maple and Kaplan downplay the fact that these businesses require armed guards.
If a business needs guns on site, it shouldn’t be placed near children—period.
4. Cutting CUPs cuts the community out.
Calling this “streamlining” is political spin.
Kaplan and Dickinson know exactly what they’re doing: removing one of the only tools neighborhoods have to voice concerns.
This is not transparency—it’s silencing.
5. Daycare buffers should absolutely be included.
McCarty and Maple fighting against protecting toddlers is shocking.
If adding daycare protections makes half the city off-limits, maybe that means the ordinance is the problem—not the daycares.
6. Cannabis revenue isn’t a moral shield.
Kaplan and Dickinson keep pointing to tax money as if it excuses everything.
Money does not erase long-term risk, and it doesn’t justify weakening protections.
⸻
BOTTOM LINE
Maple, Kaplan, McCarty, and Dickinson are pushing this ordinance too fast, with too little transparency, and with far too much deference to industry interests.
If you want to reshape Sacramento for decades, at least have the integrity to prioritize children, neighborhoods, and public safety before the cannabis lobby.
Slow down. Protect families. Do your jobs.
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.
As a multiple business owner in Sacramento, deeply familiar with the realities of regulated cannabis, I strongly support adoption of the Title 17 amendments.
And I want to address the opposition comments directly, because many of them rely on false assumptions, emotional rhetoric, and selective outrage that is not supported by any data — including the City’s own.
1. “Cannabis businesses next to kids is an abomination.”
Fact: No cannabis business in Sacramento allows minors. No exceptions.
Opponents continue to ignore the most basic truth:
Cannabis storefronts are 21+ secure facilities with ID checks, surveillance, and opaque windows. Children cannot enter, cannot see inside, and cannot be exposed.
Meanwhile:
Alcohol is sold steps from schools.
Vape shops are next to daycares.
Liquor ads are on bus stops used by minors.
Cigarettes are displayed at eye level in convenience stores.
If these commenters were truly worried about youth exposure, they would be calling for restrictions on those industries — the ones with actual visibility and proven youth influence.
This ordinance is not “putting cannabis near kids.”
It is refining regulation for a business that is already completely closed off from minors.
2. “Cannabis increases teen depression, psychosis, and suicide.”
Fact: These studies refer to youth use, not adult-only retail.
The opposition is misusing mental-health research to justify land-use restrictions.
A regulated dispensary:
Does not serve minors
Does not advertise to minors
Does not allow minors inside
Does not show product to the outside public
A storefront dispensary does not create youth consumption, any more than a bar causes underage drinking simply by existing.
Youth use comes from:
Unregulated street markets
Illegal shops
Social access from other youth
Not from licensed storefronts with state inspectors, cameras, ID checks, and heavy compliance.
3. “Armed guards mean cannabis is dangerous.”
Fact: Armed security protects the public — it does not endanger them.
Banks have armed guards.
High-end jewelry stores have armed guards.
Cash-heavy businesses have guards.
No one claims jewelry stores are “too dangerous to be near kids.”
Opposition arguments here are emotional, not logical.
Regulated dispensaries with trained security create safer corridors, not unsafe ones.
4. “Churches, parks, and neighborhoods will be harmed.”
Fact: The City’s comprehensive study — the one opponents keep ignoring — found:
No increases in crime
No harm to home values
No negative effect on nearby retail
No neighborhood decline
If cannabis businesses had caused the problems opponents claim, the data would show it.
It doesn’t — because the problems do not exist.
Churches, parks, community centers, and neighborhoods already sit next to:
Bars
Clubs
Cigar lounges
Breweries
Liquor stores
Gas stations
Convenience stores
Vape shops
Yet opposition comments only target cannabis — the one industry with the strictest rules and the lowest record of harm.
This is not about safety.
This is about stigma.
5. “Removing CUPs removes oversight.”
Fact: The ordinance keeps CUPs exactly where they matter — for lounges and buffer areas.
Opponents have misrepresented what the ordinance does.
The ordinance keeps:
Early notice
Posted on-site notice
Mailers to neighbors
Planning Commission hearings
Appeals
Call-up to Council
Enforcement authority
State and local inspections
Cannabis still has more oversight than almost any other use in the city.
Removing duplicative, unnecessary CUPs is not “removing community voice” — it is eliminating barriers that serve no purpose except to slow down compliant operators while illegal businesses flourish.
6. “Daycares must be added to buffers.”
Fact: Adding daycare centers to buffers is functionally a ban.
Opponents know this — that’s why they’re pushing for it.
Childcare centers exist on nearly every block of the grid.
A 600-foot buffer around each one would eliminate most of the city.
This is not “protecting children.”
It is weaponizing childcare to shut down an entire industry.
The City already chose the rational, evidence-based path:
K–12 schools have strict buffers because they have high-volume youth traffic.
Daycares do not produce the same land-use impacts.
7. “Cannabis threatens youth safety.”
Fact: Cannabis is one of the few industries that directly funds youth safety programs.
Opponents avoid mentioning that:
Cannabis tax revenue exceeds $23 million a year
40% goes to the Sacramento Children’s Fund
This money pays for mental health services, after-school programs, intervention, and support for homeless and foster youth
No bar, brewery, gas station, liquor store, or smoke shop gives 40% of its revenue to children.
Cannabis does.
And opponents still insist cannabis “harms youth.” The numbers say otherwise.
8. “This ordinance puts profit over people.”
Fact: The only people this ordinance disadvantages are illegal operators and those who prefer fear over facts.
This ordinance:
Follows data
Follows expert analysis
Follows the City Council’s own direction
Retains strong youth protection
Maintains oversight
Supports economic development
Increases fairness and predictability
Aligns with General Plan goals
Creates clear rules instead of political gambits
The idea that supporting a tightly regulated, tax-paying, compliant industry is “putting profit over people” is backwards.
Cannabis contributes more to public good than the industries opponents give a free pass.
9. “Cannabis lounges near sensitive uses are dangerous.”
Fact: Lounges still require a CUP, still require strict rules, and still operate entirely inside a 21+ dispensary.
Lounges:
Reduce public consumption
Protect neighborhoods
Improve cleanliness
Improve enforcement
Keep consumption indoors
Add ventilation and filtration requirements
Provide better control and safety
Banning lounges is what creates nuisance activity — not allowing them.
CONCLUSION
This ordinance is not radical.
It is not dangerous.
It is not irresponsible.
It is modern, balanced, evidence-driven regulation that:
✔ Maintains protections for children
✔ Removes only unnecessary barriers
✔ Supports economic vitality
✔ Upholds equity and fairness
✔ Follows the General Plan
✔ Supports public safety
✔ Strengthens oversight where it matters
✔ Reflects years of research and City direction
Opponents are not citing facts — they are reacting to stigma left over from decades past.
Sacramento cannot build policy on fear.
Sacramento must build policy on data, equity, and common sense.
I respectfully support a YES vote on Item 36.
eComment received by the City Clerk's Office.
I oppose this nonsense. The fact that the city council is even considering this and on board with putting drug stores near children is an abomination!
Teen marijuana use is strongly linked with:
Anxiety - THC can worsen anxiety and panic, especially at higher doses.
Depression - Heavy use is associated with higher rates of depression in young people.
Psychosis & schizophrenia - Regular use—especially high-potency THC—significantly increases the risk of psychosis in vulnerable individuals.
Risk is much higher if a teen:
• Uses high-THC products (vapes, concentrates)
• Uses frequently
• Has a family history of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or psychosis
Suicidal ideation - Multiple large-scale studies show higher risks of suicidal thoughts and attempts among adolescent users.
Just WOW city council members….don't some of you have reelection campaign’s currently going on right now? Please do the right thing and vote no and keep the status quo buffers.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Maisha Bahati, Co-Founder and CEO of Crystal Nugs, a locally owned cannabis dispensary and delivery service in Sacramento, and a proud participant of the City’s CORE program. I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Title 17 amendments related to on-site cannabis consumption lounges.
These updates are not only timely, they are essential for Sacramento’s cannabis industry to remain competitive, equitable, and community focused. Expanding access to on-site consumption creates opportunities for small and social equity businesses like mine to thrive, while meeting the needs of consumers who cannot safely or legally consume cannabis at home. This is especially important for renters, tourists, and residents living in federally subsidized housing.
As a CORE graduate and a Black woman owned business operating in Sacramento since 2019, I have experienced firsthand both the challenges and the possibilities within this industry. The Title 17 changes reflect fairness, modernization, and a more inclusive approach one that finally opens the door for operators who historically have not had access to generational wealth or outside capital.
Allowing on-site consumption lounges will also increase public safety by providing regulated, controlled environments; support local job creation; and position Sacramento as a leader among cities embracing innovation and equity within the cannabis space.
I respectfully urge the Council to move this policy forward so that Sacramento can continue building a responsible, diverse, and community driven cannabis ecosystem.
Thank you for your time and your commitment to equity in Sacramento.
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.