Embed
Email

Court Ruling on Pledge of Allegiance

Document Sample
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.

Shared by: Pastor Gallo
Stats
views:
123
posted:
8/13/2008
language:
English
pages:
14
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:  Betty Riley, Vice Chairman, District V (Vacation) 



County Counsel:  Martha Shaver, Deputy County Counsel 

Land Use Agency:  Susan Grijalva, Planning Director 

Steve Branco, Planner III 

Shirley Williams, Recording Secretary 

Public Works:  Larry Peterson, Director, Public Works Agency 

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
Deed in Lieu
Views: 1469  |  Downloads: 70
graffiti letters
Views: 4234  |  Downloads: 44
Employee Right Act
Views: 95  |  Downloads: 0
brief of henderson v. city of new york
Views: 247  |  Downloads: 1
Free Typing Tests
Views: 1746  |  Downloads: 8
heirship affidavit
Views: 7467  |  Downloads: 74
Sample Reference Letter
Views: 10154  |  Downloads: 78
estate planning
Views: 684  |  Downloads: 29
breach of fiduciary a criminal offense
Views: 380  |  Downloads: 4
Simplicity Patterns
Views: 1830  |  Downloads: 25
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!