Sacramento has experienced repeated robberies, burglaries, and violent incidents involving cannabis businesses. These risks are well documented and continue to occur.
Why would the City create a process that could place these businesses closer to parks where children gather every day? Parks should remain protected sensitive uses, not become another loophole in the zoning code.
Please do the same for the elimination of daycare centers, in-home care, centers, and preschools.

The City’s solution appears to be, “Let the community show up and oppose it.” But how is the community supposed to know?
Will every soccer parent receive a notice? Every Little League family? Every youth football player? Every summer camp participant? Every nonprofit using the park? Every nearby resident? Most families will never know an application was filed until it is too late.
That is exactly why sensitive use protections exist in the first place.

Many parks function as outdoor classrooms and extensions of nearby schools. They host after-school programs, youth sports, tutoring, recreation activities, summer programs, and family events every day.
Children at a park deserve the same protection as children sitting inside a classroom. A child is a child whether they are on a playground, soccer field, basketball court, or school campus.

A church has leadership. A school has administrators. A business has an owner. But who speaks for a park?
Who is responsible for monitoring applications, reading legal notices, attending hearings, and hiring attorneys to oppose a dispensary next door? Parks cannot defend themselves. The community depends on the City to maintain clear protections before conflicts arise.

Parks are public spaces used by thousands of families, children, sports leagues, after-school programs, summer camps, and community organizations. If a marijuana dispensary seeks approval next to a park through a Conditional Use Permit, who exactly gets notified?
How will the City notify every parent, every coach, every youth league, every after-school program, and every community organization that uses that park? The answer is simple: they can’t. That is why hard line protections are necessary.

Many residents have no idea this proposal would remove protections for churches and places of worship. The discussion is buried within hundreds of pages of zoning documents and technical language.

If schools deserve hard line protection, why don’t churches? Faith communities serve children, families, seniors, and vulnerable populations every day.
The City should not create a two-tier system where some sensitive uses receive automatic protection while churches are forced to rely on a discretionary permit process. Protect churches. Close the loophole.

Cannabis businesses continue to experience armed robberies, burglaries, and other serious criminal activity. Sacramento has recently experienced violent incidents associated with cannabis businesses, including an armed robbery involving gunfire.
Why would the City create a loophole that allows these uses to move closer to churches and faith-based community programs? Public safety should come first.

Churches serve far more than Sunday worship. They provide youth programs, childcare, counseling, food programs, recovery services, senior programs, and community support.
Why would the City weaken protections for facilities that serve some of our most vulnerable residents? Churches should remain protected sensitive uses.

The City says churches can participate in a public hearing process, but that is not protection. Many congregations are run by volunteers and do not have the time or resources to monitor complex zoning applications.
A loophole that requires churches to fight for protection is not protection at all. Keep churches on the sensitive use list.

Today, churches and places of worship are protected sensitive uses. This proposal creates a loophole that could allow marijuana businesses to locate next to churches through a Conditional Use Permit process.
Why are we removing protections that have existed for years? Places of worship deserve the same respect and protection they receive today.

The proposal sends the message that children at schools deserve protection, but children at daycares, youth centers, after-school programs, churches, and community facilities deserve less.

The City claims Conditional Use Permits will protect neighborhoods, but the Diamond House rehabilitation center example proves otherwise. Once applications are filed, small nonprofits, churches, daycares, and community groups often lack the resources to monitor hearings and hire attorneys.
Sensitive use protections should not depend on who can show up to City Hall. Keep the hard-line protections.

Cannabis businesses continue to be targets for armed robberies, organized crime, burglaries, and violent incidents. Sacramento recently witnessed an armed robbery involving gunfire and a fatal shooting connected to a cannabis business.
Why would the City reduce protections around youth-serving facilities when these public safety risks are well documented? Keep sensitive use protections in place.

A child attending an after-school program, youth center, daycare, church youth group, or community program is no less important than a child sitting in a classroom.

Why is the City creating different levels of protection for the same children? Protect all youth facilities equally and reject this loophole.

The City keeps saying schools are protected, but children do not only exist at schools. This proposal creates a loophole where marijuana businesses can seek approval next to daycares, youth programs, churches, treatment facilities, and other sensitive uses through a Conditional Use Permit process.

If children deserve protection at elementary, middle, and high schools, they deserve protection everywhere else too. Close the loophole and keep all sensitive uses protected.

City Manager, Mayor, and Council Members,

My name is Maisha Bahati, owner of Crystal Nugs in District 4. We were the fourth equity dispensary to open through Sacramento’s equity CORE program.

First, I would like to thank staff for recognizing the importance of protecting existing dispensaries when new sensitive uses move into an area after a business has already been approved and operating. That recommendation provides certainty for businesses that have invested significant time and resources into complying with the City’s process.

I am writing in support of maintaining a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pathway.

Crystal Nugs went through the CUP process. It took approximately six months, required extensive community outreach, public notices, a public hearing, and cost nearly $40,000 before receiving approval.

During that process, we received approximately 33 letters of support and 7 letters of opposition. Concerns were raised that we would increase crime, attract homelessness, lower property values, create nuisance activity, and negatively impact the neighborhood. Those concerns were fully considered through the public hearing process.

Today, Crystal Nugs has over 4,000 Google reviews, employs 22 local residents, serves thousands of customers, and has become a positive part of Midtown. The concerns raised during our CUP process regarding crime, homelessness, property values, and neighborhood impacts simply did not materialize.

The reason I share that is because the CUP process worked. It allowed the planning commission to review the actual facts of our project, hear from the community, and make an informed decision.

If the City already has a process designed to evaluate projects on a case by case basis, why would we remove the ability to use that process when it matters most?

And if a business can demonstrate community support, meet all operating requirements, complete public hearings, and satisfy conditions of approval, shouldn’t there still be a pathway for consideration?

Not every location is the same, and I understand that cannabis businesses may not be appropriate in every community. That is exactly why the CUP process is so important. It allows the City to evaluate each application on its own merits, consider the unique characteristics of a location, hear directly from neighbors, and determine whether a project is a good fit based on facts rather than assumptions.

I respectfully ask the Council to preserve that pathway and continue supporting thoughtful case by case review.

Thank you for your consideration.