Dear Sacramento Children’s Fund Planning & Oversight Commissioners,

Today, churches are considered a “sensitive use.” In simple terms, a sensitive use is a place the City has decided deserves extra protection because children, families, and vulnerable people regularly gather there. Schools, parks, daycares, and churches are all examples of sensitive uses.

Right now the City of Sacramento is in the process of eliminating churches again from their sensitive use requirements. Sacramento currently requires marijuana dispensaries and marijuana smoke lounges to stay 600 feet away from churches and places of worship. That 600-foot buffer is a hard rule. It means these businesses cannot be placed immediately next door to a church, across the street, or in the same shopping center.

Mayor Kevin McCartney, Council Member Caity Maple, and Council Member Phil Pluckbaum already voted yes on November 18, 2025, to eliminate churches and faith-based organizations as a sensitive use.

If this change moves forward, a marijuana dispensary or smoke lounge could be approved directly next to a church, youth ministry, preschool, food pantry, counseling center, after-school program, or other faith-based service. It could even be allowed in the same building or shopping center. For example, a church or youth center could be located in Suite A while a marijuana dispensary and smoke lounge could be approved immediately next door in Suite B, sharing the same parking lot, sidewalks, and entrance areas used by children and families.

This matters because churches do far more than hold worship services. Many provide:

* Youth groups and after-school programs
* Preschool and childcare
* Family counseling and recovery support
* Food pantries and community services
* Programs for children, seniors, and vulnerable families

These are exactly the types of environments the Sacramento Children’s Fund is designed to support and protect.

There are also serious public safety concerns. Marijuana dispensaries often operate largely in cash and store valuable products on-site, making them targets for theft, robberies, loitering, and other criminal activity. The City already requires armed security guards because of these risks. Removing the buffer means those risks could move directly next to places where children and families gather, with spillover impacts into surrounding neighborhoods, parking lots, and local streets.

There is also a major public health concern with marijuana smoke lounges. Under state law, these must be connected to a dispensary and allow on-site consumption. If churches lose their buffer protection, these uses could be placed next to youth programs and family services.

This creates concerns about:

* Increased marijuana-impaired driving in surrounding areas
* Secondhand smoke exposure
* Odors affecting programs and outdoor spaces
* Youth exposure to marijuana use
* Normalization of drug use near environments focused on support and recovery

The City has suggested that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will protect the community. However, Sacramento has already shown that it does not prevent incompatible uses. In South Sacramento, despite strong opposition from a rehabilitation center and community members, a dispensary was still approved in the same shopping center. The CUP process resulted only in minor conditions, not denial.

A CUP does not prohibit placement. The existing 600-foot buffer does.

The City is also actively studying expansion of marijuana dispensaries and smoke lounges. If sensitive-use protections are removed now, more of these uses could be approved directly next to youth-serving environments across Sacramento.

This creates a direct contradiction.

The Sacramento Children’s Fund invests in prevention, safety, and youth wellbeing — including mental health, violence prevention, substance use prevention, and safe environments. Yet these policy changes would increase exposure to the very risks those investments are meant to reduce.

Churches, faith-based institutions, and the families they serve support the same populations as schools. They should be treated with the same level of protection.

I respectfully urge the Commission to evaluate this issue through a youth impact lens and recognize the conflict between current policy direction and the mission of the Sacramento Children’s Fund.

Sensitive-use protections should be maintained — and strengthened — not removed.