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