respectfully oppose the proposed cannabis zoning amendments.

Supporters continue to point to studies claiming cannabis businesses do not create unique public safety concerns, yet Sacramento residents are watching armed robberies, burglaries, vehicle rammings, gunfire exchanges, and even homicide investigations tied to cannabis businesses occur in real time. These are not hypothetical concerns. They are documented incidents that have required significant law enforcement resources and have placed employees, customers, and surrounding communities at risk.

The issue before the Council is not whether licensed dispensaries check IDs. The issue is whether Sacramento should weaken protections that have existed for years around places where children, families, and vulnerable populations gather. Children do not stop being children when they leave an elementary, middle, or high school campus. Daycare centers, preschools, parks, churches, youth programs, after-school programs, rehabilitation facilities, and residential neighborhoods all serve the very same population the City claims it is trying to protect.

What is most concerning is the creation of a two-tier system of sensitive uses. Schools receive a hard-line protection. Everyone else is pushed into a Conditional Use Permit process that requires residents to discover a proposal, understand complex zoning documents, organize opposition, and attend public hearings. The Diamond House rehabilitation center example demonstrates exactly why this approach fails. Conditional Use Permits are not a substitute for clear protections.

Supporters ask where the evidence is that dispensaries sell directly to minors. That misses the point entirely. Sensitive-use policies have never been based solely on illegal sales. They exist because communities have long recognized that certain locations deserve additional protection from uses involving intoxicating products, smoking activities, public health concerns, and elevated security risks.

The City should also be honest about what these amendments accomplish. They are not simply housekeeping changes. They expand opportunities for cannabis businesses to locate closer to uses that Sacramento has historically recognized as deserving protection. If parks, churches, daycare centers, rehabilitation facilities, youth-serving organizations, and residential neighborhoods remain important community assets today, they should continue receiving meaningful protections tomorrow.

Protect all sensitive uses equally. Do not create loopholes. Do not force children, families, faith communities, daycare providers, recovery programs, and neighborhoods to fight project-by-project battles to preserve protections they already have.

Please reject the proposed amendments and maintain strong, clear buffers for all sensitive uses.

I support the proposed cannabis zoning amendments and appreciate the City's effort to create regulations based on facts, data, and real-world outcomes rather than assumptions.

According to the City's own Comprehensive Cannabis Study, regulated cannabis businesses have not been shown to negatively impact nearby property values, increase crime beyond levels generated by other businesses, or create negative economic effects on surrounding commercial and residential areas. The study also found that cannabis businesses generate significant tax revenue, employment opportunities, and economic activity for the City of Sacramento.

One issue I continue to hear raised is protecting children. We ALL support protecting children. However, I believe an important question should be asked: Where is the evidence that licensed dispensaries are selling cannabis to minors or advertising to minors?

Children cannot legally enter a dispensary sales floor without meeting strict requirements, and licensed dispensaries are required to verify identification before any purchase can occur. These businesses operate under some of the most heavily regulated retail rules in California.

If the concern is youth access to cannabis, we should focus on where underage individuals are actually obtaining cannabis rather than continuing to restrict licensed businesses that follow the law every day. The discussion should be driven by facts and enforcement data, not assumptions.

Along those same lines, I would encourage the City to re-evaluate whether all parks should continue to be classified as sensitive uses. A passive park with no playground, sports fields, youth programming, or regular youth activities does not present the same concerns as a park primarily designed for children and organized youth recreation. The City's regulations should distinguish between parks that are truly youth-oriented and those that are not. Doing so would better align zoning policy with the stated goal of protecting youth while avoiding unnecessary restrictions on legal businesses.

Another concern that is frequently raised is crime. Public safety matters to all of us, and every business owner wants safe neighborhoods for employees, customers, and residents.

However, when discussing land-use policy, we should be careful not to single out one industry without evidence. The City's own Comprehensive Cannabis Study found that regulated cannabis businesses have not created increases in crime beyond the levels generated by other businesses.

Throughout Sacramento, crime impacts many different types of businesses. Restaurants experience burglaries. Retail stores deal with organized retail theft. Jewelry stores are targets of smash-and-grab robberies. Businesses in Old Sacramento have recently reported increases in robberies, stabbings, and property crimes. Yet we do not respond by questioning whether these businesses should be allowed to open or by creating additional location restrictions on them.

Crime is a law enforcement issue, not a land-use issue.

The question before the Council should not be whether crime exists in Sacramento. The question should be whether there is evidence that licensed dispensaries create unique public safety problems that justify additional restrictions. The City's own data suggests they do not.

There is also an inconsistency in the public discussion surrounding cannabis. When the cannabis industry asks for tax relief or tax reform, we are often told that cannabis tax revenue is critical because it funds programs for children and youth through Measure L. Yet when it comes to allowing legal businesses reasonable opportunities to operate, the same argument is frequently used to justify additional restrictions.

If cannabis tax revenue is important because it supports youth programs, then the City should also recognize that those revenues are generated by licensed businesses that need reasonable opportunities to serve adult consumers. We cannot continue to rely on cannabis businesses for millions of dollars in tax revenue while simultaneously making it increasingly difficult for those businesses to exist.

The City's own study found that regulated cannabis businesses contribute significant economic benefits, support thousands of jobs, and generate millions of dollars annually for public services and youth programs. The facts show that regulation works.

Good public policy should be applied consistently. If a business follows the law, complies with regulations, verifies identification, pays taxes, creates jobs, and contributes positively to the community, it should be evaluated based on facts and performance—not perceptions or assumptions.

I encourage the Council to continue making decisions based on evidence, fairness, and the actual performance of Sacramento's regulated cannabis industry.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Chris L.

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.