Amador County supervisors direct staff to oppose Sutter Creek dispensary, seek county mitigation

The Amador County Board of Supervisors on May 19 directed county staff to draft a formal comment to the City of Sutter Creek opposing a proposed THC retail dispensary at the vacant Umpqua Bank building and seeking mitigation for potential county impacts.

GSA Director Glenn Spitzer told the board the city asked for the county’s input before its June 29 filing deadline. Spitzer summarized feedback from county departments: Social Services Director Ann Watts warned of increased burdens on child welfare if substance use rises among foster youth; Public Health Director Joanne Heison highlighted the store’s walking distance to two high schools and said greater retail access could normalize use among adolescents; law‑enforcement representatives flagged anticipated strains on dispatch, patrol, the jail and probation.

Members of the public reinforced those concerns. Brian Combs of Sutter Creek said the dispensary was poorly located near vulnerable populations and urged supervisors to pressure the city not to approve it. Ron Houck and several other residents described studies and local emergency‑room experiences they said show rising pediatric and adolescent exposures to high‑potency THC products.

City contract planner Erin Ventura clarified that the city will consider a zoning ordinance amendment and a conditional use permit; she said those subsequent steps would allow the city to attach operating conditions and periodic review to a dispensary approval.

Supervisor Arneto moved—and Supervisor Brown seconded—a motion directing GSA Director Spitzer to prepare a comment letter that both lists mitigation requests and states the board’s opposition; the motion carried unanimously.

Spitzer and several supervisors said the county’s letter will focus on county‑level mitigation needs—public‑safety staffing, school‑district outreach through the city’s environmental review process, and measures to address accidental pediatric exposure and impaired driving—so the city’s SEQA/permit record documents the county’s concerns. The board’s direction is advisory to Sutter Creek; the city council retains final land‑use authority.

Next steps: staff will draft and submit the comment letter and include supporting facts from county departments and the speaker record. The board set no binding condition on the city; its action registers the county’s position and mitigation requests ahead of the city’s decision.