Court Ruling on Pledge of Allegiance

Description

This is an example of court ruling on pledge of allegiance. This document is useful for conducting court ruling on pledge of allegiance.

Reviews
Shared by: Pastor Gallo
Stats
views:
83
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
8/13/2008
language:
pages:
0
AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION  SUMMARY MINUTES OF TAPE RECORDED MEETING  MARCH 8, 2005 ­ 7:00 P.M.  The Planning Commission of the County of Amador met at the John C. Begovich Building, 500 Argonaut Lane,  Jackson, California.  The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Byrne.  THOSE PRESENT WERE:  Planning Commissioners: John Gonsalves, District I  Barry Risberg, District II  Erik Christeson, District III  Andy Byrne, Chairman, District IV  Absent:  County Counsel:  Land Use Agency:  Betty Riley, Vice Chairman, District V (Vacation)  Martha Shaver, Deputy County Counsel  Susan Grijalva, Planning Director  Steve Branco, Planner III  Shirley Williams, Recording Secretary  Larry Peterson, Director, Public Works Agency  Public Works:  NOTE:  The Staff Report packet prepared for the Planning Commission is hereby incorporated into these minutes by  reference as though set forth in full.  Any Staff Report, recommended findings, mitigation measures, conditions or  recommendations which  are  referred to by Commissioners in their action motions on project decisions which are  contained  in  the  Staff  Reports  are  part  of  these  minutes.  Any  written  material,  petitions,  packets,  or  comments  received  at  the  hearing  also  become  a  part  of  these  minutes.    The  recording  tapes  of  this  meeting  are  hereby  incorporated into these minutes by reference and are stored in the Amador County Planning Department. A.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.  B.  MINUTES:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves,  and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of February 8, 2005 as presented.  C.  CORRESPONDENCE:  Pertaining to agenda items.  D.  MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  1.  Commissioner Risberg stated there is quite a bit of activity going on in the County and in the  Spheres  of  Influence  of  the  cities,  and  there  are  some  actions  regarding  interagency  cooperation,  and  the  cities  and  towns  in  the  community  as  a  whole  are  looking  at  architectural and design requirements being looked at very strictly.  He recommended the  Commission agendize the discussion and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as  to  whether  the  County should  look  in the  same  direction  so  there  is  a  better  quality  of  commercial development in the County.  Motion:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves,  and carried to agendize a discussion regarding a design review recommendation to the Board  of Supervisors.  Absent:  Commissioner Riley  AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 2  E.  RECENT  BOARD  ACTIONS:  Susan  Grijalva,  Planning  Director,  reviewed  the  Board  of  Supervisors’ decisions on the following projects: Variance for Parcel Map No. 2636 (Rhoades)  (approved); Zone Change for Ronald & Olga Wallace (approved).  F.  MEETING SCHEDULE: Ms. Grijalva discussed the need to have two meetings next month  (Housing Element and a Scoping Session for the Wicklow Subdivision on April 12, 2005), and  then the "regular" agenda items would be heard at the April 26, 2005 meeting.  APPEAL HEARING  Item 1 ­  Appeal of the Planning Department's denial of a 1,700 sq. ft. second family dwelling  which exceeds the 1,200 sq. ft. allowed by County Code Section 19.48.120 D.2. (APN  031­110­009).  Appellant:  Russell Brown  Steve Branco, Planner III, summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these  minutes as though set forth in full.  Russell Brown, Appellant, in response to a letter of opposition to his proposal, stated there would be  minimal removal of trees for the second dwelling, and the amount removed would be the same for  either a 1,200 sq. ft. dwelling as it would be for a 1,700 sq. ft. dwelling.  He indicated his daughter and  her family is living in the existing home and he and his wife want to live in a home larger than 1,200  sq. ft.  Commissioner Christeson stated he visited the property and did not feel the larger home would make  a big visual difference to the neighbors.  Commissioner Risberg stated he was initially inclined to deny  this appeal.  Chairman Byrne stated he was opposed to granting the appeal.  Commissioner Risberg  indicated the property could be divided and there would be no size limitation placed on the dwelling.  Motion: It  was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to grant the appeal by Russell Brown to allow construction of a second family dwelling up to  1,700 sq. ft. in size, which exceeds the 1,200 sq. ft. allowed by County Code, with adoption of the  findings in the Staff Report.  No: Chairman Byrne  Absent: Commissioner Riley  NOTE: Mr. Branco advised if anyone wished to appeal the decision of the Commission they could  do so by submitting in writing to the Board of Supervisors a request for appeal prior to March 18,  2005, at 5 p.m. along with a $75 appeal fee. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 3  PUBLIC HEARINGS  Item 2 ­  Request for Use Permit to allow a caretaker's trailer for security purposes for a two­  year period in an undeveloped area (APN 033­800­020).  Applicant:  Mount Crossman Associates  Mr. Branco summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as though  set forth in full.  Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing.  No one from the public was present to speak on this item.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Risberg, and  unanimously carried to close the public hearing.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  unanimously carried to find the Categorical Exemption to be the appropriate environmental document.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  unanimously  carried  to  approve  the  Use  Permit  with  the  findings  and  mitigation  measures  recommended by staff and contained in the Staff Report.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  NOTE: Mr. Branco advised if anyone wished to appeal the decision of the Commission they could  do so by submitting in writing to the Board of Supervisors a request for appeal prior to March 18,  2005, at 5 p.m. along with a $75 appeal fee.  Item 3 ­  Environmental Document Determination and Possible Project Decision for Tentative  Parcel Map No. 2638, proposing to divide 4.7± acres into two parcels of 1.9 and 2.2  acres (APN 030­170­006).  Subdivider:  Judy Sherrill  Mr. Branco summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as though  set forth in full.  Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing.  Steve Brown, Surveyor representing  Ms. Sherrill, was present and stated they agree to all of the  proposed conditions. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 4  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  unanimously carried to close the public hearing.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  unanimously carried to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental  document.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  unanimously carried to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2638 subject  to the conditions of approval  as presented with the findings and mitigation measures recommended by staff and contained in the  Staff Report.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  NOTE: Mr. Branco advised if anyone wished to appeal the decision of the Commission they could  do so by submitting in writing to the Board of Supervisors a request for appeal prior to March 18,  2005, at 5 p.m. along with a $75 appeal fee.  Item 4 ­  Environmental Document Determination and Possible Project Decision for Tentative  Parcel Map No. 2618, proposing to divide 51.87 acres into 4 parcels 5 acres in size with  a  31.87  acre  remainder  parcel,  and  Zone  Change  from  "R1A,"  Single  Family  Residential  and  Agricultural  District  and  "RE­10,"  Residential  Estates  (10­acre  minimum) District to "RE­5," Residential Estates (5­acre minimum) District (APN  038­130­082).  Subdivider:  Richard & Michelle Rhoades  Chairman Byrne stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest, and appointed Commissioner  Risberg as Acting Chairman.  Mr. Branco summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as though  set forth in full.  Acting Chairman Risberg opened the public hearing.  Matt  Toma,  Toma  &  Anderson  Surveying,  representing  the  subdividers,  requested  changes  in  Conditions 16 and 17 regarding the driveway between Parcel 1 and 2 going to Parcel 4 be reduced to  a common driveway to serve Parcel 4 only; Parcels 1, 2, and 3 will take access off of the lower paved  road, and the remainder parcel will take access off the existing driveway to the existing house.  Larry Peterson, Public Works Agency, stated the Public Works Agency is requiring a 50' easement  due to the fact that three parcels could access the road and the remainder parcel could be divided into  six parcels in the future.  He noted that even if access is restricted to being used only by Parcel 4, there AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 5  is still the question of the potential for six additional lots in the future, so Public Works has asked for  a 50' right­of­way and full county road standard for this area.  Mr. Peterson also pointed out in the  lower part of the map they are showing a proposed location for access to Parcel 3, and it is unknown  where the homeowner would build their driveway, so the entire length is wherever they take access.  He stated due to the fact three parcels and potentially six more parcels would access the road and each  parcel  could  have  a  second  family  dwelling,  Public  Works  feels  the  road  should  be  improved  as  proposed in the conditions.  Mr. Toma stated the subdividers are willing to dedicate a 50' right­of­way instead of the common  driveway 30'; however if there was only a 30' right­of­way it would prevent any further splits in the  future along the road.  The subdividers would construct to common driveway standards within the 50'  right­of­way.  Shana Kilday, adjacent landowner, expressed concern about the gravel road behind their house due  to dust and the road is curvy and has blind curves.  Robert Kilday, adjacent landowner, referenced the letters submitted by he and his wife and stated they  request all parcels take access prior to their property so the traffic from this land division would not  affect their parcel.  Ms. Grijalva stated it came to the Planning Department’s attention that there needs to be an additional  condition that a variance for an easement not following the lot line needs to be obtained.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to close the public hearing.  Absent: Commissioners Byrne and Riley  Absent: Commissioners Byrne and  Riley  Commissioner Christeson asked if Mr. Peterson was satisfied with the offer to dedicate the easement  since Public Works would be able to address it if the remainder parcel was to be subdivided in the  future.  Mr.  Peterson  stated  he  could  only  reflect  on  what  the  code  requires  for  the  potential  development which calls for that extensive of a road, so he does not proposing living with that request.  Commissioner Gonsalves stated he built the Kildays’ home and he checked with Counsel today to  determine if this was a conflict of interest, and was told it was not.  He indicated he read the Kildays’  letters, and the "proposed" encroachment at Parcel 3 could change, and therefore three parcels could  be served up to the end of the Kildays’ driveway.  Acting Chairman Risberg felt the road between Parcel 1 and 2 should be the access to the remainder  parcel, so only access to Parcel 3 and the Kilday parcel would be allowed off of the main road.  As an  alternative, he suggested zoning prohibiting further development of the remainder parcel. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 6  Commissioner Christeson asked if there would be requirements for alternate fire access if there was  further development in the future.  Ms. Grijalva stated there would be secondary access requirements.  In response to the discussion regarding forcing access to the remainder parcel through Parcels 1 and  2, Ms. Grijalva stated the easement exists along Parcels 1, 2, and 3, so that would be asking for an  abandonment  of an easement.  Mr. Toma indicated that easement is a common  driveway for the  Kildays and the Rhodes.  Mr. Toma stated they could limit the access to Parcel 3 to the cul­de­sac area on the Final Map, and  also place on the Final Map that the private drive between Parcels 1 and 2 is a 30' driveway for Parcel  4 and a secondary access for the remainder parcel, and Parcel 1 and 2 cannot use it.  He stated when  someone  applies  for  an encroachment  permit  or  building  permit,  it  is  recorded  on the  map.  Mr.  Peterson stated he had no problem with limiting where Parcel 3 can take access; however, the access  to  Parcel 4 could  be  used by an additional six parcels, which would exceed the private driveway  concept, so Public Works is still requesting a 50' right­of­way and county standard road to serve  Parcel 4 and the potential six more parcels.  Commissioner Gonsalves asked if they had considered aligning the lots so the roadway would follow  the lot line.  Mr. Toma indicated the easement is the existing driveway which is located where it is due  to terrain issues.  He felt it would be difficult to get six more parcels out of the remainder parcel, and  Mrs. Rhodes has indicated they would be willing to put a "­B5" on the remainder parcel to prohibit  further divisions.  Mr. Toma stated they would be willing to dedicate the 50' right­of­way, but not  develop the road to the higher standard.  If the land is developed in the future, a full paved road could  be required at that time.  Commissioner Christeson asked if the "­B5" zoning would alleviate Public  Works’ concerns.  Ms. Grijalva felt the appropriate zoning would be "­B6" (no further divisions due  to  developmental constraints for the  property) and identify in the record what the developmental  constraint is which would be the roads were not constructed to meet the standards for further divisions  and until such time as that developmental constraint is removed, there would be no consideration of  changing the zoning.  Mr. Peterson stated he would agree to a common driveway on a 50' easement  if the "­B6" zoning was applied to the remainder.  Ms. Grijalva suggested review of what the proposed changes to the project would be to determine if  the environmental document is adequate. Acting Chairman Risberg stated a requirement for a variance  for the easement not following the lot line through Parcel 3, and recommend the zoning be changed  on the remainder parcel to "RE­B6," and change Conditions 16 and 17 to require a 50' easement but  construct the driveway to Chapter 15.30 standards, and require the access to Parcel 3 be designated  at the point shown on the map, limit access to Parcels 1 and 2 to the southern boundary and the access  to Parcel 4 only be on the easement going between Parcels 1 and 2.  Since only Parcel 4 will be using  the northerly driveway, it was determined the road maintenance agreement would only need to be  applicable to the access road along the southern boundary of the project.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to find the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be the appropriate environmental document, and  the changes in the conditions do not substantially affect the responses in the environmental document.  Absent: Commissioners Byrne and Riley AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 7  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  unanimously carried to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2618 subject to the conditions of approval  as amended (add a Condition requiring a variance be obtained for the easement not following the lot  line, change Conditions 16 and 17 to require a 50' easement but construct the driveway to Chapter  15.30 standards, and require the access to Parcel 3 designated at the point shown on the map, limit  access to Parcels 1 and 2 to the southern boundary and the access to Parcel 4 only be on the easement  going between Parcels 1 and 2, and change the condition regarding the road maintenance agreement  to be applicable only to the access road along the southern boundary of the project).  Absent: Commissioners Byrne and Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  unanimously carried to recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the Zone Change from "R1A"  and "RE­10" to "RE­5" for Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4, and to "RE­B6" for the Remainder Parcel, with the  findings recommended by staff and contained in the Staff Report.  NOTE: Mr. Branco noted this item will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on April 5, 2005, at  10:30 a.m.  Chairman Byrne returned to his seat at this time.  Item 5 ­  Environmental Document Determination and Possible Project Decision for Timber  Creek  Tentative  Subdivision  Map  No.  129,  proposing  to  divide  153±  acres  into  7  parcels and a large remainder, being 1.12, 1.08, .81, .98, 1.27, 1.30, and 1.66 acres in  size  for  the  purpose  of  sale  for  future  development  of  a  portion  of  the  Kirkwood  Specific Plan) (APN's 026­020­040; 026­270­008, ­008, ­009, ­010, ­011, & ­019).  Subdivider:  Kirkwood Mountain Resort, LLC  Ms. Grijalva summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as though  set forth in full.  Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing.  Ed Morrow, Kirkwood Planning Director, stated he has spoken to the Public Works Agency and felt  they have an agreement to proposed changes in the conditions (change conditions which require a cul­  de­sac to allow construction of either a hammerhead or a cul­de­sac bulb; and in Conditions 32, 33,  and 34 remove language requiring relocation and construction of Timber Creek Lodge and Ski Lift  No. 7).  Mr. Peterson stated he was in agreement with these changes.  Ms. Grijalva requested changes to Conditions 23 and 27 (change "Lot C" to "Easement C" and add  a condition similar to Condition 8, requiring the subdivider to provide a letter of acceptance from  Mountain Utilities to provide power and propane).  Mr. Morrow had no objection to these changes. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 8  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to close the public hearing.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to approve Timber Creek Village Unit No. 1 Tentative Parcel Subdivision Map No.  subject  to the conditions of approval as amended (change conditions which require a cul­de­sac to allow  construction of either a hammerhead or a cul­de­sac bulb; remove language requiring relocation and  construction of Timber Creek Lodge and Ski Lift No. 7 in Conditions 32, 33, and 34; and change  Conditions 23 and 27 [change "Lot C" to "Easement C" and add a condition similar to Condition 8,  requiring the subdivider to provide a letter of acceptance from Mountain Utilities to provide power  and propane]).  Absent: Commissioner Riley  NOTE: Mr. Branco advised if anyone wished to appeal the decision of the Commission they could  do so by submitting in writing to the Board of Supervisors a request for appeal prior to March 18,  2005, at 5 p.m. along with a $75 appeal fee.  Recess:  At 8:42 p.m., Chairman Byrne recessed the meeting until 8:54 p.m., at which time business  was resumed.  Item 6 ­  Request for Use Permit and Reclamation Plan for a mining operation consisting of  crushing, stockpiling, and sales of rock from the Hwy. 49 Bypass project.  The 4± acre  site is a portion of a 48± parcel(APN 008­340­029).  Applicant:  Eland Construction, Inc.  Mr. Branco summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as though  set forth in full.  Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing.  Gary Clark, representing Eland Construction, explained the need for this Use Permit and Reclamation  Plan.  He noted they agree with the proposed conditions and asked that the hours of operation be the  same as the contractors who are working on the bypass.  Susan Bragstad, Amador City resident, had no objection to the project; however, she requested the  crusher not face Amador City and that the hours of operation be limited in the evening. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 9  Thomas Hauhauh, representing the Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, stated he is in support  of the project; however, he is concerned that there are permanent facilities in the area which have  certain requirements that do not apply to this temporary crushing operation. If the crushing operation  was to continue for an extended period of time, they would be given an unfair economic advantage  over the other facilities in the area that are permanent.  Mr. Hauhauh felt this should not be considered  a mining operation because it is directly in conjunction with the construction project.  He stated his  only concern is that this is only to be a temporary use which will end with the construction project.  Tom Blackman, Amador County resident, stated he did not know if this project has anything to do  with the Union, and expressed support of the project because it is saving the taxpayers a lot of money.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  unanimously carried to close the public hearing.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  Commissioner Risberg stated if this was just a construction project instead of a mining project, it  would not require a Reclamation Plan so it should be a temporary mining operation with a specific end  date.  He felt there could be some compromise on the hours of operation.  Commissioner Christeson asked what the current hours of operation are for the bypass construction  company.  Mr. Clark indicated they have set up lights to work at night on the project.  He indicated  Eland Construction has crushed 180,000 tons of rock in four months without any complaints, and if  any complaints are received they could come back to revisit the condition.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  carried to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  carried to approve the Use Permit with the findings and mitigation measures recommended by staff  and contained in the Staff Report.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  MOTION: It  was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  carried to approve the Reclamation Plan.  Absent: Commissioner Riley  NOTE: Mr. Branco advised if anyone wished to appeal the decision of the Commission they could  do so by submitting in writing to the Board of Supervisors a request for appeal prior to March 18,  2005, at 5 p.m. along with a $75 appeal fee. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 10  Item 7 ­  Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the adoption of a proposed  ordinance  amending  Title  19  Zoning  by  adding  Chapter  19.84  which  sets  forth  regulations for the establishment and operation of medical marijuana depositories  within the unincorporated area of Amador County.  Ms. Grijalva summarized the Staff Report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as though  set forth in full.  She noted Tracy Russell from the Health and Human Service Agency is in attendance  and Dr. Hartmann was here, however, he was called away from the meeting.  Commissioner Christeson asked why the requirement that the depository be located at least 1,000'  from any residence was removed.  Ms. Grijalva stated the legislation did not require that and after  looking at the county regarding available sites, there are very few sites and with that restriction they  would be relegated to remote locations and that was not necessarily the best place to have them from  a security/law enforcement standpoint.  Commissioner Gonsalves stated there is concern shown for  schools but not for homes where there are children present.  Ms. Grijalva stated the state law has the  wording in it for 1,000' from sensitive uses.  Commissioner Risberg asked if this ordinance is just to allow a "safety box" type of operation where  medical marijuana could be stored for patients.  Ms. Grijalva stated it was.  Commissioner Risberg  indicated State law prohibits transportation of marijuana, even if it is for medicinal use, so how is the  caregiver or patient going to transport it from where they obtain it to the depository?  Ms. Grijalva  stated Amador County is a pilot county in the implementation of the new law, so Tracy Russell has  been on a task force and she should address that issue.  Tracy Russell, Health and Human Service  Agency Director, stated the law allows cards to be issued which allow patients to possess or grow  medical marijuana, and primary caregivers to do the same thing.  However, the law is silent on how  it is transported, and where and how it is obtained; all the County can do is deal with the issue at hand.  She noted there are seven counties that are piloting the new card system, e.g., Mendocino County’s  program is operated by the Sheriff’s Department and the marijuana is picked up there.  Ms. Russell  stated most counties are waiting until there is a State­wide system.  The issue is in court now due to  the  State  and  Federal  laws  being  in  conflict,  even  though  the  voters  of  California  said  medicinal  marijuana should be legal, but the Federal government does not agree.  Commissioner Christeson asked what the difference between a "depository" and a "dispensary" was.  Ms. Russell explained that a "depository" is like a safety deposit box for patients to store the medical  marijuana to  protect  against  theft,  etc.  A "dispensary" is just like a pharmacy where people can  purchase the marijuana.  Chairman Byrne asked how a "depository" would be of any help.  Ms. Russell  stated that a "depository" was the best that the District Attorney would allow, if any.  His opinion is  to forget it completely.  Ms. Russell stated there are many counties which have decided to wait until  the Supreme Court makes their final decision. Chairman Byrne stated he did not see how this was of  any help.  Commissioner Risberg stated a depository cannot sell any products.  Ms. Russell stated they  can sell their storage space, but they cannot sell T­shirts, paraphernalia, etc.  She felt the public is  going to speak to this, as this is a compromise due to the law enforcement people on the committee  having strong feelings about having this type of facility in the county at all.  She noted the Commission  could recommend changes to the ordinance.  Ms. Grijalva stated the work group tried to formulate AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 11  something which was in compliance with State law; the legislation did not really do what people felt  it was intended to do.  Commissioner  Risberg  asked  about  the  ordinance  which  was  distributed  tonight  with  a  blocked  paragraph.  Ms. Grijalva stated that paragraph is being inserted so there is no misunderstanding about  the disallowance of dispensaries.  Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing.  Jeff Kravitz, Attorney for Mike Koll who has applied to open a dispensary in the county, stated the  transportation problem has been solved both by case law and by legislation ­ Health and Safety Code  Section 11362.765 prohibits prosecution of primary caregivers or medical marijuana identity cards  from transportation.  He noted there is one slight loophole because the Vehicle Code seemed to allow  such prosecution, and he had a case like that in Amador County and the charges were dismissed after  he pointed out the inconsistency with case law and the statutory changes concerning transportation.  Mr. Kravitz stated Section 11362.775 allows qualified patients, persons with medical identity cards,  designated  primary  caregivers,  and  actually  allows  other  people  to  help  them,  to  collectively  or  cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.  This means it is actually true that in any area  of Amador County where regular agricultural activity is allowed, including in a greenhouse, a group  of medical marijuana patients could today open up a greenhouse for the express purpose of growing  medical marijuana.  Commissioner Risberg stated it could happen, but they could not sell it.  Mr.  Kravitz stated primary caregivers are allowed to receive reasonable compensation for their out­of­  pocket expenses.  He stated the law currently allows qualified patients and caregivers to have medical  marijuana so the depository law is not needed.  The County put into effect an ordinance creating  County Code Section 19.84 that explicitly allows for dispensaries to be created; however, according  to the District Attorney, this is somehow impossible.  Mr. Kravitz indicated the District Attorney said  at the meetings the question is one of political will–if a county wants to allow dispensaries to exist  because State law allows localities to pass laws not inconsistent with the act, and several counties have  passed ordinances allowing dispensaries, so there would be no criminal prosecution of people who  operate a dispensary under the ordinance as it exists.  He said the only issue in the ordinance they want  to change is the requirement that dispensaries could not be within 1,000 feet of any residence (Section  19.84.060 b.1.).  Mr. Kravitz stated when the Board of Supervisors extended the urgency ordinance  for eight more months, it was clear that the Board wanted to allow for a dispensary to open in an  appropriate location.  He suggested the Planning Commission re­endorse the urgency ordinance as it  exists now and take out the section requiring dispensaries not be within 1,000 feet of any residence.  Mr. Kravitz stated it would not make sense to open a depository­­the dispensaries are needed for  medical marijuana.  Ross Jennings, Amador County resident, felt the County should be forward thinkers and go along with  what the State has already voted in as what the people need.  He stated there are prescriptions for  dangerous  drugs  which  are  obtained  from  pharmacies  and  they  are  only  proposing  to  obtain  a  prescription to obtain medical marijuana legally instead of having to go to the streets. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 12  John Ambrosini, Amador County resident, stated there is a need for a dispensary in Amador County,  as he normally has to drive to the Bay area to obtain his medicine, which costs a lot due to gas prices.  If there was a dispensary here, people would not have to go to the streets to purchase it, and there is  the chance of not obtaining good medicine and being ripped off.  He did not feel a depository would  be any help.  Mr. Ambrosini stated people are waiting on the Supreme Court case which is a person’s  case where they have done something wrong–it is not a dispensary case.  Diana Crain, Amador County resident, stated there is a need for a dispensary in Amador County.  She  tried marijuana for car sickness and it enables her to drive on the curvy roads.  She stated she went  from there to a medical condition where she wanted to die due to pain in her back, and she does not  want to drive all the way to Oakland for her medicine when she has a prescription for it.  Ms. Crain  stated painkillers can be obtained from the pharmacy which make you not want to get up; if marijuana  is used as medicine you can function and get through what you need to do.  She stated there are a lot  of people who need it in the county.  Mike Koll, Amador County resident, agreed with the other speakers and asked that the ordinance  allow dispensaries, and not limit it to depositories.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Risberg, and  unanimously carried to close the public hearing.  Chairman Byrne felt a depository did not drive this forward at all, and felt this was a political issue,  therefore felt dispensaries were the way to go.  Commissioner Gonsalves stated a depository does not  make sense.  Chairman Byrne felt the permanent ordinance should not be more restrictive than the  interim ordinance, and felt the 1,000 foot restriction was untenable.  Commissioner Christeson asked  if there were parcels in the business parks which were 1,000 feet from residences.  Ms. Grijalva stated  the interior lots are; however, that location was found to be unacceptable by the proponents because  there are no existing structures which meet their needs.  Commissioner Christeson asked if there were  existing structures which meet retailers’ needs.  Ms. Grijalva stated they will have to build their own  buildings. Chairman Byrne stated the initial investment would not be like renting a building, and would  make it pretty much untenable for this type of organization.  He felt in reality is that it should be  available  in  pharmacies  which  are  all  over  the  county,  where  there  are  drugs  more  serious  and  addictive than this.  Commissioner Risberg stated he has seen the value from a medicinal standpoint,  but  felt  there is still the  State law vs. Federal law, therefore someone could still get in trouble in  Amador County even if there are ordinances and laws within the county to facilitate this.  Commissioner  Gonsalves  asked  if the  county could  be  considered  to  be  aiding  and  abetting  in  a  felonious act if the county was to approve an ordinance in the eyes of the Federal government. Deputy  Counsel Shaver stated she would have to refer this issue to the District Attorney.  Mr. Kravitz stated  that issue was brought up in Sacramento and the D.A. said it is not possible because the county is not  actually doing the act.  He noted that any medical marijuana patient in theory could be prosecuted  under  Federal law  and  that  is  why the  case  before  the  Supreme  Court  came  up–patients  sought  declaratory relief to say they were just possessing medical marijuana and the Ninth Circuit said they  could not be prosecuted under Federal law and that is not a dispensary case which is before the court. AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 13  Chairman Byrne felt that whatever the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, it should be  revisited  when  the  Supreme  Court  decision  has  been  made,  and  would  like  to  entertain  a  recommendation  of  using  the  urgency  ordinance  without  the  1,000'  restriction  as  the  permanent  ordinance.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Risberg and seconded by Commissioner Christeson, to  recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt the existing ordinance with the elimination of the 1,000'  restriction.  AYES: Commissioners Risberg and Byrne  NOES: Commissioners Gonsalves and Christeson  ABSENT: Commissioner Riley  Commissioner  Christeson  stated  it  was  unfortunate  the  District  Attorney  was  not  present.  Commissioner Risberg stated the Commission is a recommending body and this will go to the Board  no matter what the Commission recommends.  MOTION:  It was moved by Commissioner Christeson, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and  carried to recommend the existing urgency ordinance be made permanent in its current form.  AYES: Commissioners Christeson, Gonsalves, and Risberg  NOES: Commissioner Byrne  ABSENT: Commissioner Riley  Ms.  Grijalva  stated  this  item would  be  scheduled  for  the  Board  in  the  near  future.    Mr.  Kravitz  requested that this issue be scheduled for the April 5, 2005 Board meeting if possible.  Ms. Grijalva  stated that it may be possible.  Item 8 ­  Recommendation  to  the  Board  of Supervisors  regarding  the  adoption  of the 2004  Housing  Element  Update  to  the  County  General  Plan  which  reviews  existing  and  future  housing  needs  and  promotes  the  construction  of  such  housing  for  a  5­year  period for all economic segments of the community with emphasis on encouraging the  construction of affordable housing to meet the identified regional housing needs.  Ms. Grijalva asked that this item will be continued to the April 12, 2005 meeting because HCD has  another 30 days to review the document.  MOTION: It  was moved by Commissioner Risberg, seconded by Commissioner Christeson, and  carried to continue this item to the April 12, 2005 meeting.  Absent: Commissioner Riley AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ­ MARCH 8, 2005  PAGE 14  Adjournment:  At 10:22 p.m., Chairman Byrne adjourned this meeting of the Planning Commission,  to meet again on April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.  Andy Byrne, Chairman  Amador County Planning Commission  Susan C. Grijalva, Planning Director  Amador County Planning Department  Shirley Williams, Recording Secretary  Amador County Planning Department

Related docs
Other docs by Pastor Gallo
Separations Agreement
Views: 1849  |  Downloads: 64
Property Deed
Views: 4617  |  Downloads: 68
North American Trade Agreement
Views: 879  |  Downloads: 11
Negligence Claim
Views: 1116  |  Downloads: 32
Liability Claims
Views: 1264  |  Downloads: 30
Free Lease Agreements
Views: 27801  |  Downloads: 931
Construction Contract
Views: 9560  |  Downloads: 321
Foreclosure Auctions
Views: 1337  |  Downloads: 16
Laws ofJoint Custody
Views: 1084  |  Downloads: 12
Immigration Lawyers
Views: 734  |  Downloads: 0
Construction Contract Forms
Views: 14861  |  Downloads: 636
Promissory Notes
Views: 4208  |  Downloads: 80
Purchase Agreement
Views: 6847  |  Downloads: 182
Free Real Estate Contracts
Views: 2579  |  Downloads: 48
Movie Location Contract Sample
Views: 733  |  Downloads: 39