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