Meeting Time: November 18, 2025 at 2:00pm PST

Agenda Item

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

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
10000 of 10000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Demi Markson 3 months ago

    Sensitive use zones exist because not every place is appropriate for every business. The cannabis industry should be no exception. Keep current protections.

  • Default_avatar
    Javier Martins 3 months ago

    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.

  • Default_avatar
    Andrew Conner 3 months ago

    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.

  • Default_avatar
    William Reise 3 months ago

    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.

  • Default_avatar
    Janet Harp 3 months ago

    Please don’t sacrifice safety for convenience. CUPs give neighbors a voice. That’s not red tape—it’s democracy. Keep the process in place. Oppose the proposed changes.

  • Default_avatar
    Dean Martinez 3 months ago

    This isn’t just policy—it’s personal. I’ve worked for years mentoring kids in after-school programs. We don’t need them walking past dispensaries on their way to tutoring.

  • Default_avatar
    Gill Frasier 3 months ago

    I live near a park and a church. I’m not okay with a cannabis lounge opening next door. The smell, the traffic, the risk—it’s not what we want in our neighborhood. Opposed.

  • Default_avatar
    James Braten 3 months ago

    If dispensaries are safe enough to be next to homes and youth centers, why do they still need armed guards? Think about that. Keep the CUP. Keep sensitive uses. Oppose this change.

  • Default_avatar
    Greg Madrid 3 months ago

    Every dispensary has armed guards for a reason. That alone should tell you it doesn't belong near a daycare or church. Keep CUP and sensitive use protections.

  • Default_avatar
    Yan Dioti 3 months ago

    Marijuana smoke lounges near places where children gather? That’s a hard NO from me. Stop putting profit over people. Stop putting cannabis over community.

  • Default_avatar
    Lexi Hunter 3 months ago

    What happens when something goes wrong next to an after school program? A break-in, a robbery, a violent incident? You’ll say “we didn’t think this through.” I’m saying it now. Think it through.

  • Default_avatar
    Carrie Reyes 3 months ago

    The fact that parks, youth centers, and daycares are even on the chopping block should tell you everything. Reject this proposal. Our kids come first.

  • Default_avatar
    Luis Pres 3 months ago

    Removing public input and protections near kids is the exact opposite of good policy. These decisions shape Sacramento’s future. Make the right choice. Vote no.

  • Default_avatar
    Dale Watson 3 months ago

    CUPs are there to evaluate unique impacts. Not all locations are the same. Not all neighborhoods are the same. This is why the process exists. Don’t remove it.

  • Default_avatar
    Elvis Parish 3 months ago

    This proposal makes me question who the city is working for — the public or the cannabis industry? This isn’t “streamlining.” It’s eliminating our right to be heard. Opposed.

  • Default_avatar
    Glen Norton 3 months ago

    As a church leader, I’m stunned. How can we hold Sunday school or youth programs next door to a cannabis lounge? That’s not the message we want to send.

  • Default_avatar
    Nathan Kirk 3 months ago

    Sacramento, please do better. I want my children to grow up in a safe, healthy city. Putting dispensaries near youth centers and playgrounds is not the way forward.

  • Default_avatar
    Evan Anderson 3 months ago

    Removing sensitive use protections is a direct threat to children. We’re talking about putting weed shops next to schools and parks. Who approved this idea? Opposed.

  • Default_avatar
    Max Papin 3 months ago

    I’m not anti-cannabis, I’m pro-community. Every business has to play by rules. Removing CUP and sensitive use buffers is giving this industry a free pass. Not okay.

  • Default_avatar
    Brian Snider 3 months ago

    Why is the city manager going against the Planning Commission’s recommendation? They listened to the people. This new proposal completely ignores the community voice. That’s unacceptable.