Attachment 3
March 13, 2025 Planning & Design Commission Meeting Summary At the Planning & Design Commission meeting, there were twenty-one (21) public comments. Discussion and debate generally focused on two main topics. Both are summarized below. The meeting can be viewed at the following website:
https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/6336?view_id=34&redirect=true Permitting Process
Community members (excluding existing cannabis dispensary owners) preferred maintaining the Conditional Use Permit process for cannabis cultivation and cannabis dispensary uses for community participation reasons. o Although the proposed Administrative Permit would provide notice at multiple points in time, concern was expressed that a public hearing was important to allowing the voicing of opinions.
o Although the proposed Administrative Permit includes a reconsideration process, concerns were voiced that limiting that review to an examination of facts and binary standards was too restrictive.
o Since 2019, forty-four (44) dispensary conditional use permit applications have been processed. Three (3) of those applications were appealed and ultimately approved.
Cannabis business stakeholders preferred maintaining the Conditional Use Permit process for cannabis dispensary uses for its effect of reducing business competition (e.g., higher permit fees limit applicant number).
Community members (including existing dispensary owners) expressed support for cannabis industry but stated that Conditional Use Permit process ensures a business operator is responsible to neighborhood concerns.
Sensitive Uses
Based on public speaker comments, there was a significant amount of misunderstanding and/or misinformation on this topic. Many speakers assumed (incorrectly) that staff was recommending cannabis dispensaries to be able to locate near sensitive uses. The staff recommendation was the opposite – mandatory buffers.
Like prior meetings, public speakers presented contrasting viewpoints on the cannabis industry. Many speakers were opposed and ranged from a sentiment of outright ban to
exclusion from certain neighborhoods. Other speakers, including cannabis business owners, spoke to the benefits of the industry to neighbors and the City.
Planning and Design Commission Motion
After hearing all public speakers and debating the issue, the Planning and Design Commission passed a motion recommending the City Council approve staff’s recommendations with the following modifications:
Maintain Conditional Use Permit review for cannabis cultivation, cannabis dispensary, and cannabis consumption;
Add childcare center, church and faith congregation, and other dispensary as sensitive uses; and
Allow the ability to locate within a sensitive use buffer with a Conditional Use Permit reviewed by the Planning and Design Commission.
Cannabis Zoning Amendments
Sep. 16, 2025 City Council - Review, Comment & Provide Direction
Presentation Overview
1. Background
2. City Council Direction
a) Sensitive Uses
b) Permit Type
c) Consumption Lounges at Existing Dispensaries
3. Next Steps
2 ● Reflect on 5 years of operating adult use cannabis
● Cannabis businesses have not:
○ Increased crime
○ Negatively impacted other businesses
○ Negatively impacted home values
● Cannabis businesses are significant economic driver
● Cannabis businesses are important to the City General Fund 3 Cannabis Study: Why & the Findings
Cannabis Study & Zoning: Outreach
Cannabis Stakeholder Group (2,500+ persons)
● August 4, 2021
● September 22, 2021
● October 14, 2021
● January 13, 2022
● February 17, 2022
● April 14, 2022
● May 19, 2022
Law & Legislation Committee
● March 15, 2022
● April 5, 2022
● April 19, 2022
● May 10, 2022
City Council
● May 31, 2022
Community Engagement Meetings
● August 25, 2022 (PDC)
● May 21, 2024 (L&L)
● August 20, 2024 (L&L)
● September 12, 2024 (PDC)
● July 2024 (Stakeholder Groups)
● September 5 & 19, 2024 (Webinars()
Public Hearings
● March 13, 2025 (PDC)
● April 8, 2025 (L&L)
Research & Analysis
Preliminary Recommendations
Community Engagement
Final Recommendations
Public Hearings
Cannabis Zoning
Project
6 Cannabis: Local Regulatory Framework
Title 5 (Business)
Who How
When Which
Whether How many
Title 17 (Zoning)
City of Sacramento – City Code
Where
Request for Council
Direction #1
Should an ordinance
include sensitive use
buffers consistent with:
● Staff (Prohibited);
● Planning & Design
Commission
(Conditional); or
● Another alternative?
7 Sensitive Uses
8 Today
92%
Of land zoned
for cannabis
within buffer
-
Except K-12
School, All
Buffers
Conditional
Dispensaries
9 Today
82%
Of dispensaries
within buffer
K-12 schools
Parks
Community centers
Libraries
Museums
Rehabilitation centers
Youth -oriented facilities
10 Staff
Sensitive Uses
Parcels Located
OUTSIDE
Prohibited Buffer
11 Staff
Sensitive Uses
12 PDC
Sensitive Uses
K-12 schools
Parks
Community centers
Libraries
Museums
Rehabilitation centers
Youth -oriented facilities
Faith -based institutions
Childcare centers
Other dispensary
13 PDC
Sensitive Uses
All Parcels
Conditional Buffer
Purple = PDC
Salmon = Zoning Admin
Dispensaries
Consumption Lounges
Cultivation
14 K-12 schools
Parks
Community centers
Libraries
Museums
Rehabilitation centers
Youth -oriented facilities
Faith -based institutions
Childcare centers
Other dispensary
STAFF PDC
STAFF PDC
Request for Council
Direction #2
Should the ordinance
include permit type(s)
consistent with the:
● Staff (Admin Permit);
● Commission (CUP); or
● Another alternative?
16 Permit Process: Staff Recommendation
17 Dispensary Cultivation Distribution Manufacturing Testi ng Consumption Lounge
By-Right/No
Permit
Ministerial
Permit
Discretionary
Permit
Permit Process: Commission Recommendation
18 Dispensary Cultivation Distribution Manufacturing Testi ng Consumption Lounge
By-Right/No
Permit
Ministerial
Permit
Discretionary
Permit
19 Permit Process: Dispensary & Cultivation
Admin Permit (Staff)
Consistent, predictable standard
Align permit with regulatory purpose
No risk, low cost applications
Recourse = Reconsideration
CUP (Commission)
Inconsistent, unpredictable standard
Maintains status quo
Continued risk, high permit cost
Recourse = Appeal
Request for Council
Direction #3
Should existing
dispensaries within
sensitive use buffers,
including K-12 schools,
have consumption
lounges?
20 Thanks!
Contact:
Kevin Colin, Zoning Administrator
(916) 808-5260
[email protected]
Kirk Skierski, Senior Planner
(916) 808-7933
[email protected]
21 Cannabis Zoning Amendments
November 18, 2025 City Council
2 Sept. 16, 2025
Council Direction
Recommendations
Planning & Design
Commission
vs
Staff
Sensitive Uses
Ordinance includes:
K-12 schools
Parks
Community centers
Libraries
Museums
Rehabilitation centers
Youth -oriented facilities
4 Sensitive Uses
Ordinance includes:
K-12 schools
Parks
Community centers
Libraries
Museums
Rehabilitation centers
Youth -oriented facilities
5 Sensitive Uses
Ordinance includes:
All Sensitive Uses
Apply to
Dispensaries (Lounges)
K-12 schools
Apply to
Production & Testing
6 Sensitive Uses
Ordinance includes:
600- foot Buffer
7 Sensitive Uses
8 Sensitive Uses
Alternative Proposal:
1,000- foot School Buffer
2,2835-acre Reduction
Citywide
(~28%)
Most Reduced: D1, D5, D7
9 Sensitive Uses
Alternative Proposal:
1,000- foot School Buffer
2,2835-acre Reduction
Citywide
(~28%)
Most Reduced: D1, D5, D7
10 Sensitive Uses
Alternative Proposal:
State Uses
K-12 Schools
Daycare Centers
Youth-oriented Facilities
11 Sensitive Uses
Alternative Proposal:
State Uses
K-12 Schools
Daycare Centers
Youth-oriented Facilities
12 Sensitive Uses
Alternative Proposal:
State Uses
758-acre Increase Citywide
(~8%)
Decrease in D5 & D7
Permit Type
Proposed Ordinance: Permit Type
14 Land Uses
Type Dispensary Production Testing Lounge
Admin > 600’
CUP @ PDC < 600’
Proposed Ordinance: Permit Type
15 Type Public Notice Recourse Call-Up
Admin
CUP @ PDC
Review Authority:
Purple = PDC
Salmon = Admin Permit
16 Cannabis
Dispensaries
Alternative Proposal: CUP for All
17 Land Uses
Type Dispensary Production Testing Lounge
CUP @ ZA > 600’
CUP @ PDC < 600’
Consumption Lounges
Location(s)
19 Cannabis
Consumption Lounges
• Lounges must be in storefront dispensary
• Dispensary = potential lounge location
• CUP approval by PDC required
Other Amendments
Storefront Dispensary
C-1
C-3
RMX
21 New Zones
Subcategories
Distribution & Processing
22 Cannabis Production Cannabis Distribution
• Remove from 2.5 million square feet
district cap
• Cultivation still subject to cap
Cannabis Processing
• Add to cannabis production definition
• Consistent with State law
23 First in Time: Lawful Cannabis Uses
Year Event Permit
1 Dispensary Established Admin Permit
2 New Sensitive Use < 600’ -
3 Dispensary Modified Admin Permit
Pass motion:
• Determining the Ordinance exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Environmental Act (CEQA)
• Adopting Ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code relating to cannabis land uses. 24 Recommendation
• Responsive to Cannabis Study findings that cannabis has not:
Had a negative impact on other nearby retail or industrial uses
Created increases in crime beyond the levels generated by other businesses
Had a negative impact on nearby home values
Produced negative economic effects on commercial and
residential districts
25 Proposed Ordinance: Staff Rationale
• Regulations that are equitable, fair, and balance competing viewpoints
• Provide practicable standards that are clear and verifiable • Reduce existing barriers (e.g., permit type and cost) • Provide predictable outcomes for cannabis uses that comply with prescribed standards
26 Proposed Ordinance: Staff Rationale
Thanks!
Contact:
Kevin Colin, Zoning Administrator
(916) 808-5260
[email protected]
Kirk Skierski, Senior Planner
(916) 808-7933
[email protected]
27