Supplemental Packet No. 2 – City Council Meeting Agenda Monday, August 17, 2026 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting will be available in person and LIVE on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofSutterCreek.
You can also watch the meeting on Zoom (please note Zoom participation is only available for viewing. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81391466458?pwd=4jXmBm1AP5bEbiID3iDwuxk4GpreRY.1 Or Dial by phone: 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 816 8589 0182 Passcode: 186036 Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Information and Correspondence
A. County Letter 8-12-26
B. Consideration of Concerns - 8-17-26 - Calmese-SC
C. Gary W. Redman - Amador County Sheriff's Office
D. District Attorney's comment Letter
E. Embarc consolidated response to City Council 08-14-2026 F. Marijuana Convenience or curse
G. Linda Rianda - 08-11-2026
H. Barbara Comnes - 08-12-2026
1 2
Section 1, Item A.
3 Section 1, Item A.
4 Section 1, Item A.
5 Section 1, Item A.
6 Section 1, Item A.
7 Section 1, Item A.
8 Section 1, Item A.
9 Section 1, Item A.
10 Section 1, Item A.
11 Section 1, Item A.
12 Section 1, Item B.
13 Section 1, Item B.
14 Section 1, Item B.
15 Section 1, Item B.
16 Section 1, Item B.
17 Section 1, Item C.
18 Section 1, Item C.
19 Section 1, Item D.
20 Section 1, Item D.
707 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
tel (213) 626-2906
fax (213) 626-0215
www.meyersnave.com
Seena M. Samimi
[email protected]
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO August 14, 2026
Via Email
Honorable Members of the City Council
Mayor Claire Gunselman ([email protected]) Julia Sierk ([email protected])
Susan Feist ([email protected])
Dan Riordan ([email protected])
Jim Swift ([email protected])
City of Sutter Creek
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek, California 95685
Attn: Tom DuBois, City Manager ([email protected]) Re: Comment Letter Regarding Proposed Cannabis Retail Facility at 11 Ridge Road (APN: 044-020-063); August 17, 2026 City Council Hearing -- Consolidated Response to the August 12, 2026 Comment Letters of Amador County and of Drivon Consulting, Inc. (on behalf of Tom Calmese)
Dear Honorable Councilmembers:
This firm has been retained as land use counsel to represent Sutter Creek Responsible and Compliant Retail LLC (“Applicant”) in this matter. This letter responds to two comment letters submitted to the Council on August 12, 2026: the comment letter of Amador County General Services Administration Director Glenn Spitzer (the “County Letter”), and the letter of Zachary Drivon of Drivon Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Tom Calmese (the “Calmese Letter”). Both urge the Council to reject or continue a project that this City’s own Planning Commission approved unanimously, that City staff has recommended for approval, and that the City Attorney has signed off on from a legal perspective. We respond to both here, so that the record before the Council is complete.
County Letter. This is the County’s fifth letter opposing a project located entirely within the City of Sutter Creek’s jurisdiction. Across five letters over four months, the County has not submitted a single compelling argument. The most recent letter instead recycles previously rebutted CEQA arguments, introduces a new traffic methodology engineered to inflate trip counts, and compares Applicant to nineteenth-century morphine and cocaine profiteers. This is a neighboring jurisdiction 21 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO raising policy concerns regarding a land use decision that belongs exclusively to this Council and this community. We respect the County’s right to comment. We do not, however, mistake five months of escalating pressure for substantial evidence of an environmental impact under CEQA.
Calmese Letter. Mr. Calmese is the owner and operator of cannabis dispensaries in San Andreas, Sonora, and Arnold, all located within approximately 22 to 32 miles of Sutter Creek along the Highway 49 corridor. Those dispensaries currently serve Sutter Creek residents who have no local cannabis retail option; every Sutter Creek resident who purchases cannabis today makes a round trip of 44 to 64 miles to do so, generating vehicle miles traveled that leave the City and its tax base and benefit Mr. Calmese’s operations in neighboring counties. The project would capture those trips locally and return the associated revenue to Sutter Creek. Mr. Calmese’s financial interest in the outcome is direct, substantial, and undisclosed. The Calmese Letter is framed as a goodgovernance concern about process, CEQA completeness, and public participation; in substance, it is a competing operator’s effort to delay a project that would reduce his regional market share. The Council is entitled to weigh his arguments with that interest in view.
1. The Science on Cannabis Is More Nuanced Than the County Presents — and the Regulatory Framework Already Accounts for the Risks.
The County’s August letter draws on an extensive collection of medical studies to argue that cannabis commercialization is categorically harmful, particularly to adolescents. Applicant takes public health seriously and does not dismiss the studies the County cites. Cannabis carries real risks, particularly for developing brains, and those risks are precisely why California’s regulatory framework is among the most stringent in the world.
What the County’s presentation omits is the substantial body of evidence that cuts in the other direction, and the critical distinction between regulated and unregulated access. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control, and peer-reviewed research published in journals including JAMA and the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs have consistently found that states with legal, regulated adult-use cannabis markets have not experienced statistically significant increases in adolescent cannabis use rates compared to states where cannabis remains illegal. The most current data from California’s own Department of Public Health shows that teen cannabis use rates in California have remained flat or declined in the years since Proposition 64’s implementation. The mechanism is intuitive: a licensed dispensary with mandatory age verification, state-required track-and-trace inventory systems, and real consequences for compliance failures is a meaningfully higher barrier to adolescent access than an unregulated market with no verification and no accountability.
The County also omits the significant body of evidence on cannabis’s therapeutic benefits. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s comprehensive 2017 report, updated with subsequent research, found conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis and 22 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO cannabinoids are effective for the treatment of chronic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and patient-reported spasticity in multiple sclerosis, and subsequent research has documented beneficial applications for PTSD, anxiety disorders, and palliative care. The County’s characterization of cannabis as a “narcotic” with no legitimate therapeutic application is not consistent with the current scientific consensus or with federal rescheduling proceedings.
None of this is offered to minimize legitimate concerns. It is offered to place the County’s submission in context: it presents one side of a genuinely contested scientific and policy debate that California voters resolved in 2016. The proposed project — a single, heavily regulated retail storefront with mandatory state licensing, real-time law enforcement camera access, employee background checks, and a youth education program funded by the operator — represents exactly the kind of responsible implementation the voters authorized.
As a matter of CEQA law, the County’s health studies do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant environmental effect arising from this specific project at this specific site. (Pub. Res.
Code § 21080(e); CEQA Guidelines § 15384 [“evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence”], emphasis added.) On a challenge to a categorical exemption, the party opposing the exemption bears the burden of producing substantial evidence that an exception applies. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105.) CEQA requires site-specific evidence, not macro-level population studies applied wholesale to a single community retail business. Policy disagreement with cannabis legalization, however sincerely held, does not satisfy CEQA’s substantial-evidence standard.
We also note that the County’s invocation of the Sutter Creek Police Chief’s memorandum, though offered to argue against the project, in fact supports the Development Agreement’s fee structure.
Chief O’Connell’s assessment that a dispensary creates elevated law-enforcement demands documents the very regulatory burden for which the City negotiated its Retail Fee. The Development Agreement’s Fee Payments provisions expressly identify law-enforcement coordination, surveillance-access administration, and ALPR program administration among the City regulatory services for which the fee is consideration. The Chief’s analysis therefore confirms that the negotiated fee bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the City’s regulatory burdens and to the benefits conferred on the operator — evidence that strengthens the record in support of the fee, not the County’s position. To be clear, the conclusion of the Chief’s assessment is that additional law enforcement resources should be funded, and not that the project should be denied.
Applicant agrees.
23 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO
2. The Traffic and VMT Analysis Is Correct; Trip Counts Are Not Reliable Evidence of a Significant Impact.
Both letters attack the project’s transportation analysis: the County with a new trip-count figure, and the Calmese Letter by questioning the “denominator” and the source of the staff estimate.
Neither identifies a significant transportation impact under current California law, and the tripcount criticisms do not withstand scrutiny.
The traffic methodology that is to be used under CEQA is well established, and is what City staff has used for the project. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the CEQA standard that is used relating to traffic impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21099; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3.) In this regard, a “lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3.) Here, relying on sound ITE methodology, the City has concluded that 1) the correct denominator to be used for the VMT analysis is 1,300 square feet of retail floor area, which is the customer-accessible selling space of the project (excluding backoffice, storage areas, and the like), and 2) that the project actually reduces VMT, given the net trips that is saves by providing a local source of cannabis for people who normally drive over 40 miles away.
The County has advanced three different trip-generation figures — first 195, then 517 to 880, and now 606 — using three different methodologies, each produced after the prior one was rebutted, and none a correct application of ITE methodology to this site. The County’s most recent 606 trip figure rests on a single indefensible choice: the engineer applied gross floor area (2,662 square feet) rather than retail floor area (1,300 square feet) as the independent variable in the ITE formula.
This same choice answers the Calmese Letter’s “denominator” question. ITE Land Use Code 882 (Marijuana Dispensary) uses floor area as the independent variable, but “floor area” for tripgeneration purposes means customer-accessible selling space — the space that generates customer visits. The remaining 1,362 square feet of this building is back office, vault, storage, employee restrooms, and utility area; a vault and a back office do not generate customer trips. No transportation engineer applies gross building area when estimating customer trip generation for a retail use — doing so is the equivalent of counting a store’s warehouse square footage when estimating how many customers walk through the front door. When the correct retail floor area (1,300 square feet) is applied to the ITE LU#882 rate, the result is precisely the figure staff calculated: approximately 325 daily trips.
Staff’s analysis has been consistent throughout. A trip count that changes each time it is challenged, by a different method each time, is not reliable evidence of a significant impact. Nor is there any merit to the Calmese Letter’s suggestion that the staff estimate was “provided by the 24 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO applicant.” The trip generation analysis was performed by City Planner Erin Ventura of Hauge Brueck Associates using the ITE Trip Generation Manual; it is an independent professional analysis, and the record reflects as much.
Most importantly, none of the opponents’ trip-count arguments states a significant impact under current law, because since July 1, 2020, transportation significance under CEQA is measured by VMT, not level of service or raw trip counts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21099; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3.) The staff report correctly applies the VMT framework. The Calmese Letter’s argument that Applicant’s materials describe a “broad geographic area” and therefore defeat the localserving presumption, misreads the OPR guidance. The relevant distinction is between uses that capture trips that would occur anyway and uses that generate entirely new regional trips. A dispensary serving Sutter Creek and the surrounding foothill communities is paradigmatically tripcapturing: the residents of Sutter Creek, Amador City, Drytown, and the surrounding areas who now drive 22 to 32 miles to Mr. Calmese’s dispensaries will make those trips regardless; the only question is where they terminate. Terminating them locally is precisely what VMT reduction means, and the County has submitted no VMT analysis of its own.
Finally, the County’s attempt to recast its congestion concern as a “safety” impact does not change the result. The law is clear that “a project's effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3; see also, Pub. Res. Code § 21099(b)(2) [“vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment”].) The County’s reliance on Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(3) is misplaced, as that provision preserves review of genuine transportation-safety impacts, but it does not relax CEQA’s substantial-evidence requirement, and it certainly does not change the clear statement (in the immediately preceding provision, no less) that congestion delays are not a significant environmental impact. An observation that turn lanes “back up” at peak hours describes congestion and level of service, not substantial evidence of a site-specific safety hazard caused by this project, and a report analyzing intersection capacity and level of service addresses the very metric CEQA no longer treats as a significance standard.
3. The § 15301 Class 1 Exemption, Unusual Circumstances, and Common-Sense Exemption Arguments Have Each Been Addressed in the Record.
The County’s CEQA exemption arguments appeared in its June 22 letter and were rebutted in Applicant’s June 30 and July 3 responses, which are in the record; the Calmese Letter’s contention that the exemption analysis is “conclusory” adds nothing new, because the record includes the staff analysis, the ITE methodology, and Applicant’s prior responses. The burden of producing substantial evidence that an exception applies rests on the challenger. We note the essential points.
Under the California Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 Sunflower Alliance decision, addressed in Applicant’s July 7 record correction letter, the “negligible or no expansion of use” standard under 25 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO § 15301 refers to a change in the nature or degree of a facility’s use, not to the risk of environmental harm, and the Court confirmed that the Class 1 exemption can apply to new uses in existing facilities. The former bank and the proposed dispensary are both walk-in commercial retail uses occupying the same storefront during ordinary business hours; the nature of the use is unchanged, and the degree of the use — a single small retail tenant in a commercial building on a commercial corridor — is not more than negligibly changed. The Supreme Court’s framework, correctly applied, supports the exemption.
The unusual-circumstances exception requires both a physical, site-specific characteristic distinguishing the project from others in the exempt class and a reasonable possibility that the characteristic will produce a significant environmental effect. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v.
City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.) Being the first cannabis dispensary in a county is a regulatory fact, not a physical characteristic, and the County has identified no site-specific physical condition distinguishing 11 Ridge Road from any other small commercial building. The exception does not apply.
The County’s attack on the common-sense exemption under § 15061(b)(3), citing Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, does not withstand scrutiny. The project satisfies the very standard the County invokes: the adaptive reuse of an existing commercial building into a regulated retail storefront — with no new construction, no expansion of footprint, and no change to utilities, and with operations governed by the most comprehensive state regulatory framework applicable to any California retail business — is precisely the kind of project about which it can be seen with certainty that no significant physical environmental effect will occur.
4. The 8% Fee Is Lawful Contractual Consideration — Not a Tax, and Not Subject to the Mitigation Fee Act.
The County’s August letter argues that the Development Agreement’s 8% fee violates the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000-66008) for lack of the nexus findings required by § 66001. This confuses two distinct statutory frameworks. Mitigation Fee Act fees are unilateral conditions of approval, and they require nexus findings precisely because the applicant has no choice but to pay them.
Notably, Government Code section 66000 expressly defines a “Fee” under the Mitigation Fee Act as “a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include…fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4.” In 26 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO other words, the argument that the County is relying on is belied by the plain text of the code provision itself.
Development agreements under Gov. Code §§ 65864 et seq. are categorically different. A DA is a voluntary, bilateral contract that neither party is compelled to enter. The 8% fee is not a condition imposed on Applicant — it is consideration Applicant negotiated in exchange for vested rights, entitlement certainty, and a defined operating term it would not otherwise receive. California courts have recognized that a development agreement may secure contributions a city could not obtain through unilateral exaction, precisely because the arrangement is contractual. (See Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Supervisors (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221.) The County cites no authority applying the Mitigation Fee Act’s nexus requirements to a negotiated development-agreement fee, because there is none.
The County’s reliance on Gov. Code § 65865(e) is also misplaced: that provision requires DA fees to “comply with Section 66006” — an accounting and expenditure requirement for collected fees — not § 66001’s substantive nexus test. The City’s staff, Planning Commission, and City Attorney have reviewed and approved of this legally sound structure.
The County’s Proposition 26 argument — that the fee is a tax requiring voter approval — fares no better. It has been addressed in Applicant’s prior submissions and does not withstand scrutiny. The Retail Fee is bargained-for contractual consideration in a voluntary development agreement, not a charge imposed on the public; and to the extent any constitutional exception need be reached, the fee is a charge imposed as a condition of property development within Article XIII C, section 1, subdivision (e)(6), as the Development Agreement’s recitals expressly provide. Equally important, this issue does not affect the project’s approval or continued operation: the Development Agreement provides that the Retail Fee and the Community Fund contribution are severable, that Applicant’s vested rights to develop and operate the Project are supported by independent consideration and are not contingent on the fee, and that any successful challenge to the financial terms would be resolved by negotiating a lawful replacement rather than by disturbing the entitlements. Any incidence of a purported “tax” would fall on future purchasers — not on the County or the appellant — and no such claim would be ripe before any fee is collected.
5. The Single-Operator Ordinance Is a Lawful, Revisable Regulatory Limit, and the EqualProtection Ground Fails.
The Calmese Letter argues that the single-operator ordinance fails the CUP’s public convenience and welfare finding and creates an “exclusive marketplace” that should be opened to competitive applications; the Ryan appeal separately argues that permitting a single dispensary without competitive bidding denies equal protection. Both arguments fail, and for related reasons.
Under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, California municipalities have broad authority to limit or prohibit the number of cannabis retailers within their jurisdiction. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 26200.) A 27 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO numerical cap is a classic exercise of that authority, and the City has adopted it as a general regulatory limit on the number of retail permits — a limit that applies without regard to the identity, residency, or principal place of business of any applicant. The ordinance grants Applicant no exclusive franchise and no permanent monopoly. It authorizes one retail permit at this time and leaves the City free to revisit the authorized number following a defined review period.
Characterizing a revisable regulatory cap as the irreversible creation of a private “exclusive marketplace” is inaccurate.
The staff report documents the public convenience and welfare basis for the choice: authorizing a single, closely regulated dispensary allows the City to concentrate its limited law-enforcement and code-enforcement resources, to monitor community impacts through one accountable operator, to capture associated revenue locally, and to evaluate the operation through the Development Agreement’s compliance, audit, and periodic-review provisions before deciding whether to authorize additional retailers. Those are legitimate findings, grounded in the City’s own circumstances rather than in the qualifications of any particular applicant. Whether instead to run a competitive process for multiple operators is a policy choice the law commits to the City’s discretion; the decision to proceed with a capped, phased approach is not a legal deficiency. The comparison Mr. Drivon draws to San Andreas — a market Mr. Calmese already serves — is, in substance, a request that Sutter Creek adopt a framework more favorable to his commercial interests.
The same principles dispose of the Ryan appeal’s equal-protection ground. A cannabis retail permit is a land use entitlement, not a government contract subject to competitive-bidding requirements. The City’s decision to authorize a single permit is a legislative line-drawing judgment reviewed under the deferential rational-basis standard, and the public-interest bases documented in the record — population size, limited enforcement capacity, and a phased approach with a defined review period — easily satisfy that standard. The equal-protection argument fails as a matter of law.
6. The DA’s Ministerial Blanks Are Not a Legislative Record Deficiency.
The Calmese letter argues that the Development Agreement contains “uncompleted fields for hearing dates, resolution numbers, and planning-area information,” and concludes that the Council should receive a “complete final agreement” before acting. This argument misunderstands how development agreements are processed.
Development agreements routinely contain ministerial blanks — hearing dates, resolution numbers, APN confirmations — that are populated at or after execution. These are administrative details, not substantive terms. The Council has before it the complete, substantive Development Agreement — every material provision, every fee obligation, every covenant, every compliance requirement, and every termination right — in the form approved by the Planning Commission. 28 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO The blank fields are the equivalent of signature blocks waiting for dates: they do not affect the legal sufficiency of the Council’s review or the adequacy of the legislative record under Gov. Code § 65867.5. The suggestion that ministerial blanks render the legislative record legally defective is not supported by the Government Code or California development agreement practice.
7. The Conflict-of-Interest Suggestion Is Unsupported, and the Community Fund Is Subject to City Oversight.
The Calmese Letter suggests — while expressly declining to make any accusation — that City officials may have undisclosed financial interests and that the selection of Applicant reflects a process in which the City “deferred to the will of a private entity.” No evidence of any conflict of interest, improper financial relationship, or procedural irregularity has been identified or submitted to the record. A suggestion that further investigation might reveal something concerning is not substantial evidence, and it is not a basis to continue or deny a project reviewed and processed through the City’s full public entitlement process over more than a year. Applicant does not oppose, and welcomes, the completion of any conflict review and the preservation of project records the Calmese Letter requests; a clean record serves the City and Applicant alike.
The observation that Applicant requested the zoning amendment is routine and carries no implication of impropriety. Development agreement applicants regularly initiate the legislative process by requesting the zoning authorizations a project requires; that is how land use entitlement works throughout California. Anyone could have approached the City with such a proposal — Applicant is the party that did so, through the City’s public process.
The Community Advisory Board and Community Fund, which Mr. Drivon characterizes as a potential conflict, are a governance model Embarc has implemented in 17 communities across California, and the Development Agreement subjects them to meaningful City oversight. Under the agreement, Community Fund allocations must be made for public purposes benefiting the City and its residents in accordance with written criteria provided to the City Manager; Applicant must deliver an annual public report of all Fund receipts and allocations; and the Fund may not be used for the private benefit of Applicant or its owners, officers, or affiliates. The Board must include Sutter Creek residents and meet quarterly, with City representatives invited to participate. This is a structured, transparent community-benefit mechanism the City negotiated and approved, not selfdealing.
8. The Public Records Act Requests Do Not Require a Continuance.
Mr. Drivon notes that his office submitted Public Records Act requests on July 29 and August 11, and characterizes the City’s 14-day extension as potentially “intentionally withholding” records until after the Council vote. The Public Records Act expressly authorizes an agency to extend the initial response period by up to 14 days in “unusual circumstances,” including the need to search for and collect records from separate facilities, to review a voluminous set of records, or to consult 29 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO another agency with a substantial interest in the request. (Gov. Code § 7922.535(b)-(c).) The City’s use of a standard statutory extension is not evidence of bad faith, and a records request submitted days before a long-scheduled Council vote does not, by law, require that vote to be continued. The City remains obligated to respond to the requests on the statutory timeline, and it can do so without delaying a decision on a project that has been pending for more than a year.
9. A Continuance Would Prejudice Applicant and Serves No Legitimate Public Purpose.
The relief the Calmese Letter requests — continuance, competitive rebidding, and independent CEQA review — would require Applicant to restart an entitlement process that has been underway for more than a year, during which Applicant has invested substantial resources in site planning, community outreach, Development Agreement negotiation, and regulatory compliance. The practical effect would be to give a competing operator an opportunity to enter a market he does not currently serve, at the expense of an applicant that has completed the City’s process.
The City’s process has been public and noticed throughout. Two Planning Commission hearings were duly noticed; public comment was accepted at every stage; and the administrative record spans months of submissions, responses, and hearings. The City lawfully elected to authorize a single retailer rather than to run a competitive application process, and it was not required to run one. Within that framework, the opportunity to engage the City was not closed to anyone — any qualified operator could have approached the City and pursued the same public entitlement path Applicant pursued. The suggestion that the process lacked transparency or public participation is contradicted by the record itself.
Conclusion
The City of Sutter Creek has conducted a thorough, deliberate, and legally compliant review of this application. Across five letters, the County has shifted its traffic analysis three times, renewed CEQA arguments rebutted on each prior submission, and introduced a Mitigation Fee Act theory that misreads the governing statutes. The Calmese Letter, for its part, is a competing operator’s effort to delay a project that would return to Sutter Creek the cannabis-retail trips and revenue his own out-of-county dispensaries now capture. The Council should not defer to either, and it should not mistake either for evidence.
Applicant remains committed to being a responsible, community-integrated operator in Sutter Creek. The Development Agreement includes real-time law enforcement camera access, employee background checks, a youth drug education program, local hiring priorities, and a community advisory board, together with the negotiated Retail Fee and community benefit contribution supporting the City and its residents, the same operating model Embarc has implemented in 17 communities across California.
30 Section 1, Item E.
City of Sutter Creek
August 14, 2026
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO Applicant respectfully urges the Council to deny the request for continuance, deny the appeal filed by Teresa Ryan, uphold the Planning Commission’s decisions, and approve all pending entitlements at the August 17, 2026 hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Seena M. Samimi
cc:
Alejandra Zambrano, Interim City Clerk ([email protected]) Erin Ventura, Planning Consultant ([email protected]) Derek Cole, City Attorney ([email protected])
Eric Lightman, Esq., Embarc ([email protected])
Josh Lewis, Embarc ([email protected])
10026530
31 Section 1, Item E.
Cannabis Dispensary: Convenience or Curse?
The word “convenience” has been used many times in sales pitch presentations by Embarc, who wants to open a cannabis dispensary in Sutter Creek, and by the Planning Consultant, in reports to the Sutter Creek City Manager, the City Council, and the City Planning Commission.
The Embarc Cannabis Dispensary is hoping that those of you that have never used cannabis, or have not ingested, smoked or vaped cannabis products in many years, will shop at their “conveniently” located Embarc Cannabis Dispensary on Ridge Road and Highway 49 in Sutter Creek.
Who else will find this to be a “convenient” location? An 18-year-old high school student with a medical marijuana recommendation card that they purchased from an online doctor. The medical marijuana card does not limit the level of THC (the chemical that makes you high) in products they are able to purchase. Some of the Embarc Dispensary products exceed 90% THC. The 18-year-old student would be able to “conveniently” purchase cannabis before, during or after school and sell it for a profit to the junior high and high school students. The Embarc Cannabis Dispensary will be “conveniently” open from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 14 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Our brains are actively developing from birth until around the age of 25. Regularly ingesting, smoking or vaping cannabis in junior high, high school and college hijacks that brain development and can cause long-term problems with thinking and mental health.
Who else would find this Embarc Cannabis Dispensary to be a “convenient” location? The potentially 100 residents at the Danco/Valley View Commons project for the homeless and severely mentally ill, which is currently under construction, and is “conveniently” located within walking distance to the Embarc Cannabis Dispensary.
Increased foot traffic across Highway 49 and Ridge Road , day and night, should be a major concern to the City Council, City Manager, and the City Planning Commission.
They have chosen not to address this concern.
Many of us have given the Sutter Creek City Council, the City Manager, and the Sutter Creek Planning Commission volumes of information pertaining to the potential harm and adverse impacts an Embarc Cannabis Dispensary will potentially have upon our children, citizens, and Amador County. Many have shared their heartbreaking personal experiences of how regular use of cannabis has had devastating mental, physical, and financial impacts upon their lives and those they love. 32 Section 1, Item F.
Please do not be duped by Embarc’s attempts to destigmatize and make “convenient” the sale and use of high-level THC cannabis products. The “inconvenient” truth is the City Council is promoting an Embarc Cannabis dispensary because they want the additional sales tax revenue. And in doing so, the City Council is saying money is more important than our health, safety and welfare.
City Council members, Dan, Claire, and Susan, we are pleading with you to please vote NO to an Embarc cannabis dispensary on August 17th. Teresa Ryan, Sutter Creek 33 Section 1, Item F.
Please make this correspondence part of the administrative record for the August 17, 2026, City Council Meeting.
August 11, 2026
To the City of Sutter Creek City Council, City Manager, and City Planner, I strongly oppose the proposal for a marijuana dispensary in Sutter Creek. I urge you to reject, with a no vote, a zoning ordinance amendment, a development agreement, a site plan, and other proposed changes and recommendations from staff.
Marijuana dispensaries are currently prohibited in Amador County and all five cities in Amador County, which of course includes Sutter Creek. Sutter Creek, the Jewel of the Mother Lode, has always been known for the Gold Rush, its rich history, and its historic charm. While on Sutter Creek’s City Council, and as Mayor of Sutter Creek, residents repeatedly voiced their concerns about any change, anywhere in Sutter Creek, that would impact its history, its uniqueness, and its charm. Sutter Creek is one-of-a-kind, which is why visitors from all over the world come here to our small town.
Do not allow one business to destroy our identity. Calaveras County used to be known for Mark Twain and the Jumping Frog of Calaveras County--now it is known for its pot. Humboldt County used to be known for its beautiful redwoods—now it is known for its pot. Don’t turn Sutter Creek into just another location on the map known for its pot. Do not turn your back on our history, our charm, and our unique culture.
Most concerning about a marijuana dispensary in Sutter Creek, however, is the harmful impact it will have on the youth in our community. Recent studies show the very negative impact on children living near a marijuana dispensary. Additionally, the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis (IASIC) concluded, based on scientific evidence, that the public health effects of high potency cannabis are harmful. The IASIC also notes the significant evidence linking cannabis use and suicide, especially in teens and young adults.
I personally know a number of people who can attest to the harmful effects cannabis has had on their family members, most of them very young, including psychotic episodes, attempted suicide, and attempted harm to family members.
A Resolution Opposing Cannabis Dispensary from the Board of Trustees of the Amador County Unified School District dated July 22, 2026, describes their concerns regarding marijuana use in the schools, and states that they do not believe a cannabis dispensary is in the best interest of the District, its students, or the City. Having a cannabis facility in Sutter Creek will only exacerbate an already bad situation by increasing the availability of very potent cannabis. 34 Section 1, Item G.
At the City’s request for input, you have received correspondence not only from the School District, but from the County, ACTC, and many other agencies, regarding their numerous concerns about the impacts this proposal will have not only on Sutter Creek, but on all of Amador County. The decision you make tonight, will not only effect Sutter Creek, but all of Amador County.
The residents of Sutter Creek, and the County, are depending on you to take your time and carefully review, and address, each of the concerns they have voiced. I believe that if that is done, you will see that there is no option but to deny the proposal for this cannabis facility.
I encourage you to vote NO on adoption of a resolution approving a marijuana dispensary in Sutter Creek. The City of Sutter Creek should not put money ahead of its residents, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable, our children.
Linda Rianda
Sutter Creek
35 Section 1, Item G.
Tom Dubois <[email protected]>
Marijuana dispensary
1 message
Barbara Comnes Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 5:10 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Claire Gunselman <[email protected]>, Dan Riordan <[email protected]> Cc: Tom DuBois <[email protected]>
Please include this email in the administrative record for this issue.
To: Members of the City Council
From: Barbara Comnes, 284 California Drive, Sutter Creek Why do some people think that Sutter Creek will benefit from Embarc's recreational marijuana dispensary?
1. More money for the City budget.
How much more money? This is uncertain. There is no guaranteed amount. California is awash in drugs and dispensary revenues are down. How would the money be used? We don’t know. If there were increased policing costs generated by the dispensary, would there be sufficient revenues from the drug sales to even cover those costs?
2. Convenience for local marijuana users.
The number of these users is unknown. The City has officially heard from very few of them regarding support for a dispensary compared to the number of residents who have officially opposed it. Convenience appeared to be their major concern, since they are still able to legally grow marijuana and purchase marijuana products.
3. Fairness for local marijuana users.
Some supporters said that given the town’s wine tasting rooms, it is only fair that a recreational dispensary be permitted.
They are not equivalent, however. I can’t think of a winery that would place its tasting room at the location selected by Embarc—if Sutter Creek has a grungy zone, that is it. Nevertheless, Embarc finds this location satisfactory. Also, imagine along with Wildflower and Wine and Wine Walk, Sutter Creek had Marijuana Stoned to the Bone Strolls. Imagine Sutter Creek with “marijuana lounges” on Main St. Did you know that some marijuana lounges in California employ medical staff to assist patrons with acute THC reactions and are considered important to manage liability? And where else besides in these lounges can you legally smoke in public buildings in California—marijuana, yes, but smoke is smoke? A recreational dispensary does not reflect or enhance Sutter Creek’s character, so important to its reputation. Embarc has no interest in preserving that character, which derives from its gold rush history and location in a wine growing region of many years.
What price will the City pay for permitting this dispensary?
1. Damage to Sutter Creek’s relationship with Amador County residents.
Like so many other California counties, Amador County did not vote for marijuana recreational legalization. Since then marijuana products of greater concern due to very high THC concentrations have become available in dispensaries like Embarc’s.
2. Damage to Sutter Creek’s relationship to the County government.
The Board of Supervisors made crystal clear their opposition to the dispensary in a resolution, in subsequent letters to the Council, and in verbal testimony to the Planning Commission.
3. Damage to Sutter Creek’s relationship with local law enforcement.
The Sheriff opposes the dispensary. Sutter Creek’s Police Chief, in a Staff Report, concluded that a dispensary would leave the Police Department unable to provide public safety to the City without the addition of three full-time police officers, their necessary personal equipment, and 3 patrol cars .
4. Damage to Sutter Creek’s relationship with the Amador Unified School District.
The School Board has communicated their opposition in a strongly worded resolution.
5. Damage to Sutter Creek’s relationship with the Danco property and Independence High School. 8/13/26, 9:11 AM City of Sutter Creek Mail - Marijuana dispensary https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=72dcd481f9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1873364866176817345&simpl=msg-f:1873364866176817345 1/2 36 Section 1, Item H.
The Danco property will house and manage people with substance abuse problems and severe mental illness. The high school is a continuation high school serving students who may be at risk of not graduating. Locating a dispensary within easy walking distance of these properties is very ill-advised.
6. Damage to the City of Sutter Creek’s reputation for fairness and transparency.
No dispensary operators other than Embarc have been given the opportunity to compete for a dispensary permit. No other business in Sutter Creek has the symbiotic relationship Embarc would have with the City, in which they partner to support sales in this case the sale and increased use of drugs in the community.
7. Most importantly, damage to the City’s relationship with our youth and to their health. In enhancing their budget through these drug sales, the City would send the wrong message to our youth. How many cases of additional cannabisinduced psychosis among our youth are worth any extra money that the City might gain through drug sales? Their brains are still developing until age 25!
I urge you to vote NO on the dispensary. Permitting the dispensary is not worth the price Sutter Creek will likely pay. 8/13/26, 9:11 AM City of Sutter Creek Mail - Marijuana dispensary https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=72dcd481f9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1873364866176817345&simpl=msg-f:1873364866176817345 2/2 37 Section 1, Item H.