AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES OF TAPE RECORDED by CraigR

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 28

									AMADOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY MINUTES OF TAPE RECORDED MEETING
July 8, 2008 – 7:00 P.M.                                                                                                     Page 1 of 10


The Planning Commission of the County of Amador met at the County Administration Center, 810 Court
Street, in Jackson, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Byrne.

THOSE PRESENT WERE:

   Planning Commissioners:                  John Gonsalves, Vice Chairman, District I
                                            Denise Tober, District III
                                            Andy Byrne, Chairman, District IV
                                            Ray Ryan, District V

                            Absent:         Dave Wardall, District II

               County Counsel:              Martha Shaver, County Counsel

            Land Use Agency:                Susan Grijalva, Planning Director
                                            Heather Anderson, Planner II
                                            Cara Agustin, Planner I
                                            Nathan Lishman, Planner I

       Public Works Agency:                 Larry Peterson, Public Works Agency Director

         Recording Secretary:               Heidi Jacobs, Sr. Administrative Assistant

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. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and unani­
mously carried to approve the agenda for May 20, 2008 as presented.
                Absent: Commissioner Wardall

C.	 Minutes: Cara Agustin, Planner I, distributed an email from Martha Shaver, County Counsel regard­
    ing the Draft Conditions of Approval for Mokelumne Bluffs Tentative Map No. 120. Ms. Shaver
    stated that there have been numerous emails to clarify Condition 37a and b. Ms. Shaver read into the
    record the new draft Condition 37a and b:
         37. The subdivider shall:
              a.	 Prior to recordation of any Final Map(s) for any phase, submit construction plans to
                    CalTrans and the Amador County Public Works Agency for review and approval,
                    obtain all CalTrans approvals required for that phase, comply with all permit con­
                    struction requirements for that phase, and construct the improvements, or provide
                    financial assurances acceptable to Amador County Public Works Agency.




K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008 	                                       Page 2 of 10


              b.	 Highway 88/Galya Drive Intersection Mitigation Requirements: Prior to recordation of
                   any Final Map(s), the Developer shall submit construction plans to CalTrans and
                   Amador County Public Works Agency for review and approval, obtain a CalTrans En­
                   croachment Permit, comply with all permit construction requirements, and construct
                   the intersection improvements, or provide financial assurances acceptable to Amador
                   County Public Works Agency. It is understood based on the FEIR that the project is
                   responsible to pay for and construct signalization, road and highway widening, and re­
                   lated improvements deemed necessary to maintain the County’s adopted LOS standard.
    Ms. Shaver clarified for the Commissioners that the new draft Condition 37a and b meets the intent of
    the group meeting held during the Planning Commission meeting on June 24, 2008 and the applicant,
    staff and council all agree that Condition 37a and b are now satisfactory.

    Commissioner Ryan clarified that his statement on page 7 of the draft minutes in response to the com­
    ment made by Tom Infusino needs to include that the Commission was not predetermined nor predis­
    posed as to how the Commission would vote.
MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried to
approve the minutes and project conditions of approval of June 24, 2008 as corrected.
                Absent: Commissioner Wardall

D.	 Correspondence: Relating to Agenda Items 5, 6, 7 and 9 (see attached).

E.	 Public Matters not on the Agenda: Vince DeStigter, Amador Citizens for Responsible Government,
    asked the Planning Commission to put on the agenda for the next meeting an item to hold public
    hearings on the General Plan elements prior to the CEQA proceedings begin. Jim Conklin, Amador
    County Business Council, and Jack Mitchell, publisher of the Ledger Dispatch stated that they agree
    with Mr. DeStigter and reiterated the request to place this item on the agenda for the Planning
    Commission. Commissioner Ryan asked for the request to be agendized as a discussion item at a
    future meeting. Commissioner Gonsalves favored the request. Ms. Shaver stated that the rules of
    procedure state the Chairman is responsible for determining the agenda. Ms. Grijalva stated that the
    commission can give direction to staff. Chairman Byrne stated so given.

F.	 Recent Board Items: Cara Agustin, Planner I, stated the Board of Supervisors approved the request
    for a variance by GR Properties for the monument sign at Jackson Gate Road and Hwy 49.

                                           AGENDA ITEMS

Item 1 -	     Request for extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2572 proposing to divide
              approximately 413 acres into 10 parcels 40 to 46 acres in size on property located on
              both sides of Bell Rd just north of the Shenandoah Road junction in the Shenandoah
              Valley area (APNs 007-040-035-000 and 014-110-002-000).
                    Applicant: H.F.H. Ltd., A Calif. Limited Partnership
Nathan Lishman, Planner I, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes
as though set forth in full.

John Hahn, representative for the applicant, stated he was available for any questions from the
Commission.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, and carried



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008 	                                      Page 3 of 10


unanimously to extend the expiration date for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2572 to May 13, 2011.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

                                        PUBLIC HEARINGS

Item 2 -	     Consideration of denial without prejudice for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2648
              proposing to divide 80 acres into four 20 acre parcels, due to lack of activity; located
              on the east side of Latrobe Road just north of the Highway 16 junction in the
              Plymouth area (APN 008-080-017-000).
                    Applicant:	 Gary and Joan Hawkins

Cara Agustin, Planner I, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as
though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.


MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to deny without prejudice Tentative Parcel Map No. 2648 due to inactivity.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Ms. Agustin, Planner I, announced that the Planning Commission had denied without prejudice
this Tentative Parcel Map. Anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision may do so by
submitting a letter of appeal along with the appropriate appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors no later than 5 p.m. Friday, July 18, 2008.

Item 3 -	     Consideration of denial without prejudice for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2583
              proposing to divide 13.02 acres into 3 parcels 2.0, 3.1 and 7.9 acres in size, due to lack
              of activity; located on the north side of Ampine-Fibreform Road about ½ mile south
              of Hwy 104/Lower Ridge Road in the Martell area (APN 044-010-113-000).
                    Applicant: Martell Industrial Center, LLC
Cara Agustin, Planner I, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as
though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.

Commissioner Gonsalves stated that while he likes to give an applicant every chance to move forward
with a map, given the lack of activity he felt the map should be denied.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to deny without prejudice Tentative Parcel Map No. 2583 due to lack of activity.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008 	                                       Page 4 of 10


NOTE: Ms. Agustin, Planner I, announced that the Planning Commission had denied without prejudice
this Tentative Parcel Map. Anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision may do so by
submitting a letter of appeal along with the appropriate appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors no later than 5 p.m. Friday, July 18, 2008.

Item 4 -	     Environmental Document Determination and possible project decision for the
              Resubmittal of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2636, proposing the division of 10.12 acres
              into Two Residential Parcels of 5.00 and 5.12 acres in size and Variance from County
              Code Section 17.28.064 (3:1 depth to width ratio requirement for lots under 20 acres
              in size) APN 030-410-030-000.
                     Applicant: Michelle Rhoades, Brenda Renee Jackson, and Duane Hoagland
                     Supervisorial District V
                     Location: West side of Aqueduct Rd just south of the Pine Grove-Volcano Rd
                     junction in the Pine Grove area.

Cara Agustin, Planner I, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes as
though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to approve the map as resubmitted and to find that the project is consistent with the
previously adopted mitigated negative declaration in that the resubmitted project is substantially the same
as the previously approved project and there have been no changes to the previously adopted findings or
responses to the previously adopted environmental checklist.
         Absent: Commissioner Wardall

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, and carried
unanimously to recommend approval of the variance to the Board of Supervisors based on the previously
adopted findings and conditions.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Ms. Agustin, Planner I, announced that the Planning Commission has approved this Tentative
Parcel Map and recommended approval of the variance to the Board of Supervisors. Anyone wishing to
appeal the Commission's decision may do so by submitting a letter of appeal along with the appropriate
appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later than 5 p.m. Friday, July 18, 2008.
Additionally, the issue of the variance will be heard at a future Board of Supervisors meeting. Notices
will be sent to surrounding landowners once the meeting has been scheduled.


Item 5 -	     Request for interpretation of Amador County Code Section 19.60.010
              (Nonconforming Uses) to extend the two-year cessation period (sunset on the non­
              conforming use) for the non-conforming uses at the former Kay’s Resort site. This
              request is made to allow continuation of the uses that have historically been conducted
              onsite beyond this sunset period (APN 026-020-034-000).
                    Applicant: El Dorado Irrigation District (EID)



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008                                         Page 5 of 10


                     Supervisorial District: III
                     Location: On both sides of Hwy 88 at the north end of Silver Lake about 48 mi.
                     East of Jackson and approximately 3 ½ miles west of the Kirkwood Meadows Drive
                     / Highway 88 junction in the unincorporated area of Amador County.

Nathan Lishman, Planner I, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these minutes
as though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. Jim Hilton, EID, stated they would like to work
cooperatively with planning staff to keep the uses going during the sunset period. Mr. Hilton clarified for
Commissioner Ryan that mobile vending is no longer a part of the request, it was only a catch-all request
in case the building had to be removed; Mr. Lishman stated staff has made it clear to EID that it would be
extremely difficult to allow mobile vending at the site due to scenic highway requirements. John Plasse,
Jackson area resident, asked for clarification of the replacement of the boat launch facility and paving
activities on the parking lot. Mr. Hilton stated the FERC license requires EID to operate the boat launch.
The improvements of the boat launch and the parking lot are contingent on potential funding. Mr. Plasse
stated he would like to see the use extended and to have FERC be in the loop for all the stages of
operation at the former Kay’s Resort. Mr. Lishman stated that the requirements on the FERC license &
USFS Conditions are already set in stone and EID must adhere to these; furthermore the county has no
ability to further regulate EID relative to the FERC/USFS requirements. Mr. Plasse asked for
clarification regarding the boat launch and parking lot. Barbara Reilly, horse owner, asked if the horse
and hiking trails would be affected. Mr. Lishman stated there is no impact to the trails.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

Commissioner Tober stated that she would be in favor of granting the extension; that the provided
services have been sorely missed. Commissioner Ryan asked staff for clarification regarding the time
limits. Mr. Lishman stated that a time limit would be an equitable solution and he understands EID
would like to resolve the issues as soon as possible. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Hilton if two years
would be enough time to accomplish the goals. Mr. Hilton stated that two years is agreeable to EID.
Commissioner Gonsalves asked if FERC would be notified. Ms. Shaver stated that she would have
Evelyn Spirou contact staff to see if the FERC committee would have any concerns with the extension of
the legal non-conforming uses. Ms. Shaver felt that the term “inactivity” is too vague and felt a
timeframe to comply would be an easier way to regulate the project.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, and carried
unanimously to adopt the findings contained in the staff report and the condition that “This cessation of
the legal non-conforming use shall be permitted until September 15, 2010.”
        Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Mr. Lishman, Planner I, announced that the Planning Commission has approved this appeal of
staff’s interpretation. Anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision may do so by submitting a
letter of appeal along with the appropriate appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later
than 5 p.m. Friday, July 18, 2008.

Item 6 -      Request for a Use Permit to allow replacement of an existing 35’ wireless
              communications monopole with a 60’ monopole.
                  Applicant: T-Mobile USA, Inc.



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008                                           Page 6 of 10


                     Supervisorial District II
                     Location: North side of Highway 88 just west of Blue Sky Drive in the Sunnybrook
                     area.

Heather Anderson, Planner II, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these
minutes as though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened public hearing. Sarah Wilson, representative for the applicant, indicated she
reviewed the staff report and agrees to the conditions of the use permit. Commissioner Ryan asked how
much further the range would be by adding the additional footage. Ms. Wilson stated the coverage would
reach the residential area to the northwest and improve Hwy 88 coverage.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

Chairman Byrne wanted to see the tower camouflaged. Commissioner Gonsalves stated that he’d like to
see the use permit approved because anything to improve cell service along Hwy 88 would be a public
service. Commissioner Ryan stated he’d like to see communication improved in the county; not just for
public communication but also for emergency services.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and carried to
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document.
        Noes: Chairman Byrne
        Absent: Commissioner Wardall

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, and carried to
approve the use permit with the conditions and findings in the staff report.
       Noes: Chairman Byrne
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Ms. Anderson, Planner II, announced that the Planning Commission has approved this use
permit. Anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision may do so by submitting a letter of appeal
along with the appropriate appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later than 5 p.m.
Friday, July 18, 2008.

Item 7 -      Environmental Document Determination and possible project decision for Tentative
              Parcel Map No. 2779 proposing the division of 25.71 acres into 3 approx 5 ac. and one
              10 ac. parcel; and variance from Co. Code Sect. 17.28.060 (Easements to follow lot
              lines) (APN014-220-069).
                     Applicant: Bastiaan Van Der Veer
                     Supervisorial District V
                     Location: North side of Fiddletown Road approximately 2 miles east of Fiddletown.

Heather Anderson, Planner II, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these
minutes as though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. Bastiaan Van Der Veer, applicant, accepted the conditions
proposed by TAC; but proposed two lane gravel roads to each of the parcels instead of the paved roads
due to the fact that it is agricultural land and horseback riding is something that is enjoyed in the area.



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008                                       Page 7 of 10


Larry Peterson, Public Works Director, stated Code Sections 17.90.050 17.92.020 and Chapter 15.30 are
the applicable codes in regards to the request. Mr. Peterson stated that minor deviations may be granted
by Public Works; the roadway construction states that the roads must be paved. Mr. Peterson stated that
consideration for a deviation may be looked at for a specific driveway but not for the entire project.
Commissioner Gonsalves stated that he’s never seen a map approved without road standards; it is not
reasonable for the commission to approve a map without the road standards being a condition. Mr. Van
Der Veer asked about the possibility of a section of road on Parcel 2A be only 20 feet wide. Mr.
Peterson indicated Public Works staff can approve minor deviation requests to the road and driveway
design once all the lot lines and building sites are determined.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

Commissioner Ryan stated that it appears we are on track with the conditions of approval now; that
Public Works would be able to handle any minor deviations; such as Mr. Van Der Veer’s potential
request for a portion of the road on Parcel 2A to be only 20 feet wide.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Ryan, and carried to
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document;


MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan; seconded by Commissioner Tober to approve the
map with the findings and conditions contained in the staff report; and to recommend approval of the
variance to the Board of Supervisors based on the findings contained in the staff report.
        Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Ms. Anderson, Planner II, announced that the Planning Commission has approved this tentative
map. Anyone wishing to appeal the Commission's decision may do so by submitting a letter of appeal
along with the appropriate appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later than 5 p.m.
Friday, July 18, 2008. Additionally, the issue of the variance will be heard at a future Board of
Supervisors meeting. Notices will be sent to surrounding landowners once the meeting has been
scheduled.

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 8:25pm and reconvened at 8:35pm.

Ted Novelli, Supervisor District III, introduced Kristin Bengyel, the new Deputy CAO.

Item 8 -      Appeal of Planning Department interpretation that the proposed boundary line
              adjustment would result in a violation of County Code Sect. 19.48.080.B by allowing
              one Single Family Dwelling and 2 farm labor quarters on a parcel 41.68 acres in size
              and therefore would exceed the total number of farm labor quarters allowed pursuant
              to this section.
                    Applicant: Ken and Jeanne Deaver
                    Supervisorial District V
                    Location: South side of Shenandoah School Road approximately 1/2 mile east of
                    the southern most intersection of Shenandoah Road and Shenandoah School Road, in
                    the Shenandoah Valley.

Heather Anderson, Planner II, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008                                         Page 8 of 10


minutes as though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. Commissioner Gonsalves and Commissioner Ryan both
stated that they had spoken to Ken Deaver regarding his appeal. Ken Deaver, applicant, stated that his
letter requesting the appeal adequately supports his reasoning for the appeal. Mr. Deaver felt that the
Housing Element adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2005 should take precedence over the density
and zoning laws; that one farm labor quarters can be placed on each 20 acre parcel, up to 4 farm labor
quarters. Mr. Deaver confirmed for the Commission that he has one SFD and one farm labor quarter on
one parcel and that parcel would include another farm labor quarter once the boundary line adjustment is
complete.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gonsalves, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

Susan Grijalva, Planning Director, pointed out the section cited in the Housing Element is only a
recommendation; the adoption of the Housing Element does not adopt an ordinance. Commissioner Ryan
asked why the ordinances have not been updated per the recommendations of the Housing Element. Ms.
Grijalva stated that time has been the biggest factor in why staff has not drafted ordinances based on the
Housing Element; staff was directed to update the General Plan shortly after the Housing Element was
adopted. Ms. Grijalva stated that Environmental Analysis would have to be done in order to adopt such
an ordinance. The Housing Element, Land Use Element and General Plan density are all co-equal and
must be internally consistent. Ms. Anderson reminded the Commission that the code currently reads that
one farm labor quarters is allowed per parcel. Commissioner Ryan felt the Housing Element, as
mandated by the state, should be a priority and the ordinances should be updated to reflect what has been
adopted by the Board. Commissioner Ryan felt that the language in the Housing Element would allow
for one farm labor quarters per 20 acres, up to 4 dwellings per parcel if the ordinance were to be adopted;
he questioned why staff is not addressing and clarifying the farm labor quarters issues. Chairman Byrne
stated that it would not be possible to make the finding that this appeal would not be in conflict with the
current General Plan population density. Commissioner Ryan felt that the Housing Element should take
precedence as it is the only element that is required to be updated every five years. Chairman Byrne
stated that all elements must be in balance and cannot be taken out of balance. Commissioner Gonsalves
stated that he agrees with Commissioner Ryan and understands staff’s situation of time; but does not
believe the applicant should be punished due to staff’s lack of time for drafting new ordinances. Ms.
Anderson stated although pg VI–23 of the housing element recommends one dwelling per 20 acres; the
implementation measures refer only to Health & Safety Code; currently staff does not know what the
draft ordinance would look like. Chairman Byrne reiterated the fact that to grant the appeal the
commission would have to find that this would not be in conflict with the General Plan population density
and that is not possible. Commissioner Tober stated that the commission is only able to interpret the
current codes and cannot interpret a recommendation; and that this appeal is before the Commission
only because of Mr. Deaver’s request for a boundary line adjustment. Commissioner Ryan felt that
since the use permits are temporary, he does not see a problem with granting the appeal based on the
Housing Element; based on the recommended language Commissioner Ryan felt that temporary relief
should be provided in order to allow the boundary line adjustment. Ms. Grijalva stated that the appeal
before the Commission today is staff’s interpretation of the current code, not the Boundary Line
Adjustment.

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Tober to deny the appeal and uphold staff’s interpretation
that the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment would result in a violation of County Code
Section19.48.080.B and the General Plan population density in that it would exceed the maximum



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008                                          Page 9 of 10


allowable density by allowing multiple farm labor quarters on one parcel. Chairman Byrne passed the
gavel to Vice Chairman Gonsalves to second the motion. The motion failed by the following vote:
        Ayes: Commissioners Byrne and Tober
        Noes: Commissioner Ryan and acting Chairman Gonsalves
        Absent: Commissioner Wardall

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Gonsalves and carried to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors to direct staff to review the adopted Housing Element and make
necessary changes to the existing Title 19 to reflect those changes.
        Noes: Chairman Byrne
        Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Ms. Anderson, Planner II, announced that the Planning Commission has taken no action on this
appeal. Anyone wishing to appeal this decision may do so by submitting a letter of appeal along with
the appropriate appeal fee to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later than 5 p.m. Friday, July 18,
2008.

Item 9 ­      (Continued) Consideration of amending Title 19 (Zoning) of the Amador Co. Code,
              Chapter 19.48 General Provisions and Exceptions, Sect. 19.48.160, Sea-Land Storage
              Container Regulations related to the permitting requirements, location standards & cri­
              teria for installation for these units.

Heather Anderson, Planner II, summarized the staff report, which is hereby incorporated into these
minutes as though set forth in full.

Chairman Byrne opened the public hearing. Commissioner Gonsalves stepped down from the
Commission because he owns a container and felt there was a possible conflict of interest. Richard
Woolstrum, Century Charities, presented a letter to the Commission (attached) with his requests for the
changes to the proposed draft ordinance. John Gonsalves, resident of Jackson, wanted to see that trailers
be allowed under the new ordinance and have a non-op registration with the DMV; wanted clarification
of the plot plan requirements and wanted to see a flat rate fee rather than a fee per container; wanted to
see “A” and “AG” zoning be exempt from the screening requirement. Jeff Gibson, Grapegrowers
Association, stated that the fees should be part of a scale system not a per container fee; and that distance
should be part of allowable screening. Mike Buck, representative for a manufacturing plant near Ione,
would like to see that Section C be revised from “may” to “shall”; that D2 not require AFPD review for
companies under Federal or State rules and regulations. A.J. Harris, resident, does not see any mention of
grandfathering. Ms. Anderson stated that staff has proposed the amortization clause be removed and that
any container that was legally placed at the time it was placed is grandfathered; if the container was
placed prior to building permit requirements it would be grandfathered. Henry Reilly stated that distance
should be allowable screening. Ken Deaver felt that other agencies should not be allowed to charge fees
if the applicant is getting a planning permit for the container; e.g. AFPD should not charge fees for
container review. Mr. Deaver felt that “A” and “AG” zoning should not have screening requirements; a
flat rate fee would be preferred; and D6 should be removed. Rick Sanders wanted to see a single flat rate
fee and objected to the plot plan so that the container could be moved. Mr. Gonsalves stated that the
Public Records Act allows for the public to access the plot plans and there are concerns that the public
could obtain the plot plans in the effort to steal from the property owners. Rick Vicini, local
businessman, stated that parcels over a certain acreage and zoning should be exempt from the permitting
process. Elden Waite, beekeeper, questioned the grandfather aspect and the use of containers for shipping
and storage; he felt that a flat rate fee would be advantageous for businesses such as his where he has
numerous containers onsite at any one time. Mr. Waite stated he preferred option 3 of the Planning



K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES – JULY 8, 2008                                         Page 10 of 10


Commission Actions which states “Recommend to the Board of Supervisors deletion of all regulations
pertaining to the placement of containers.”

Ms. Grijalva, Planning Director, noted for the record that Commissioner Gonsalves had left the room at
10:39 pm as he had stepped down for this item (see above).

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Tober, and carried
unanimously to close the public hearing.
       Absent: Commissioner Wardall

Commissioner Ryan recommended the following revisions to the draft ordinance:
      1) Section B – delete the requirement for removal of tires.
      2) Section C – modify to allow a 60 day grace period.
      3) Section D3 – include distance as a method of screening.
      4) Section D5 – read “storage of hazardous materials shall be subject to CUPA guidelines and
          regulations established in the Health and Safety Code…”
      5) Section C – replace the word may with shall.
      6) Section D5 – tighten up hazardous material requirements of business versus residential.
      7) Addition – location requirements of this ordinance do not apply to any entity under state or
          federal agency review; must give a description of location within a general area; not a
          specific plot plan.
      8) Addition – one time permit fee to allow n containers per parcel, the fee would be the current
          over the counter permit fee in place. If the number of containers is increased, a new permit
          would be required.
      9) Container while building – adopt the same requirements as a trailer while building as listed
          in the staff report (modifies Sections B and C).

MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Tober and unanimously
carried to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the draft ordinance with the revisions
recommended by Commissioner Ryan as set out above with the findings contained in the staff report.
         Absent: Commissioner Wardall

NOTE: Ms. Anderson, Planner II, announced that the Planning Commission has recommended approval
of the proposed ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. This matter will be scheduled before the Board
of Supervisors at a future date.

Adjournment: Chairman Byrne adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m., to meet again on August 12, 2008.


                                                           _____/s/ John Gonsalves_______
                                                           John Gonsalves, Vice Chairman
                                                           Amador County Planning Commission


___/s/ Heidi Jacobs____                                    __/s/ Susan C.Grijalva___________
Heidi Jacobs, Recording Secretary                          Susan C. Grijalva, Planning Director
Amador County Planning Department




K:\DEPTS\LAND\PLAN\WPDOCS\Minutes\PC 2008\PC_MIN07082008.doc
                                DRAFT
                               MINUTES                                             l\t~~
                                                                                 ~
               TRI-COUNTY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                                                                               JUL - 8 LIJU~
                                     June 13, 2008                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MEMBERS PRESENT:	            Brian Peters            Alpine County
                             Peter Maurer            El Dorado County
                             Nathan Lishman          Amador County

OTHERS PRESENT:	             Zach Wood               Alpine County
                             Nate Whaley             KMR
                             Michael Richter         KMR
                             Reid Bennett            KMA Homeowner


The June 13,2008 meeting was called to order by Chair Brian Peters at 10:08 a.m.

A.	     Correspondence:

        None

B.	     Minutes:

        Draft minutes for May 9,2008 were submitted. Zach Wood noted that he needed
        to add the names of the other attendees. Nathan Lishman moved to approve the
        minutes with the addition of the names. Brian Peters seconded the motion which
        was approved 2-0 with Peter Maurer obstaining.

C.	     Public Matters:

        There were no public comments. Peter Maurer noted that El Dorado County is
        now posting the agendas and will post the minutes dating back to February 2008
        on its web site: http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Planningitri-tac.html.

D.l.	   Review and comment to the Amador County Planning Commission on a
        zoning interpretation for the former Kay's Resort site at Silver Lake.

Nathan Lishman provided background on the request. EID took over the resort when
they purchased Project 184 from PG&E. It has been shut down due to health and safety
concerns. Amador County is trying to have the structure saved since there are concerns
regarding the mobile vendor relating to the scenic highway. Mr. Lishman stated that as
long as EID is working toward resolution of the issues, Amador County staff is willing to
recommend extending the use. There is a lot of public interest in the removal project,
with concern about maintaining the public restroom.
Peter Maurer asked if the building is considered historic. Mr. Lishman replied that what
was the cafe was originally built in the 1860s, but except for some support timbers, it has
been replaced with newer material. They are trying to retain the store building.

Michael Richter asked what the County's role was in the project. Mr. Lishman replied
that the County is requiring EID to remove the fence as it currently is a violation of the
scenic highway requirements. They want to make sure that the health and safety
concerns are addressed, as well as historic preservation issues. Reid Bennett stated that
retaining the restrooms could be a public health issue.

Mr. Maurer stated that there was no permit activity or issues on the EI Dorado County
side of the highway. Nate Whaley stated that he would want to make sure whatever
actions are taken do not preclude future recreational use of the site. Mr. Maurer moved to
recommend to Amador County approval of the extension; seconded by Mr. Lishman.
The motion carried 3-0.
                                                                                    RECEIVED
                                                                                                     lTEM#      b
                                                                                  Amador County

From:                "Marilyn Jones" <88mpj@hughes.net>                          JUL 08 Z006
To:                  <planning@co.amador.ca.us>
Date:                7/8/20088:34 AM                                       PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject:             July 8th meeting -- monopole item

To the Members of the Amador County Planning Commission:

Regarding the proposed change in the monopole near Blue Sky Drive in the Sunnybrook area:

To change the height from 35 feet to 60 feet or more in this rural area is a significant impact on the scenic
beauty of the community and to the scenic Highway 88 corridor. If this is a waiver to the cellular tower
ordinance, it should be rejected. If it does meet ordinance requirements, then the proposed 60 foot pole
should be well camouflaged, not just painted.

I live in the Sunnybrook area and intrusion by huge monopoles is not acceptable.

Marilyn P. Jones

8240 HWY 88
lone, CA 95640
209/223-1231
                                                                                     JUl 08 Z008

                                                                                PLANNING DEPARTMENT



Page 18
XV Transportation/Traffic
Discussion/Conc1usion/Mitigation
"The project would potentially add up to 60 ADT on Fiddletown Road. This would not
exceed the 350 ADT daily threshold level of the Traffic Study Guidelines of the 2004
Regional Transportation Plan Update."

Comment:
This project is indeed small and unlikely to result in the generation oftraffic levels that
will significantly impact the area. However, what other projects are proposedfor the
Fiddletown area or are potentially on the horizon for the Fiddletown area that would
result in a cumulative impact that is significant? This question is forwarded in light of
the Requests for Consideration for General Plan Land Use Designations for which the
comment period closed July 07, 2008 at 5pm.

Are cumulative impacts taken into consideration when issues like traffic are considered?
I would recommend that even small projects like this one be reviewed as part ofthe
bigger picture.


Respectfully submitted,
Elida A. Malick, DVM
I \"UILVVUJ "uyl::1   vlUdll -   I"\UaO   proposal   TOr   parcel map:lf f!;J _                                 Page 1   I


              From:
              To:
              Date:
              Subject:
                                          Bas <oldford@americanengine.net>
                                          <rstuart@co.amador.ca.us>
                                          7/8/20084:04 PM
                                          Road proposal for parcel map 2779
                                                                                                  ITE

                                                                                                                   I
              Attachments:                roadyroposal.JPG; roadyroposal.doc


              Hi Roger,

              We're on the agenda for the planning commission tonight. I have a
              proposal I want to bring up for the road construction. The bottom line             RECENED
              is to construct 2-way traffic onto each parcel, with a 1-way loop around         Amador County
              the building site, in lieu of paving the road. I think this will provide
              an overall much higher level of accessibility than a paved road with           JUL 082008

              single lane driveways will, while not having all the negative features
              of paving - incompatibility with agricultural equipment, high              PLANNING DEPARTMENT

              construction and maintenance cost, and environmental impact of fossil
              fuel usage.

              According to code section 15.30.170 it is possible to make exceptions as
              long as the same practical effect is obtained. I think my proposal will
              have a /better/ practical effect (fire/emergency vehicle access).

             I wrote a letter and also have an aerial photograph with markings
             (attached) to document my proposal. Please review. I can explain /
             discuss my reasoning. If we can agree on this I can have the surveying /
             engineering etc done and have the driveways show on the parcel map. Or,
             feel free to call me at home 209-245-4444 until about 5.30

             Best regards,
             - Bas.
To:

Amador County TAC committee / Public Works / Board of Supervisors


From:

Bastiaan van der Veer                                     Home phone: 209-245-4444

16531 Fiddletown RD                                       Cell phone: 408-202-0502

Fiddletown, CA 95629




Re: Road proposal for Tentative parcel map 2779


To whom it may concern,


Under the current regulations, the road leading to the end of the project site would have to have a 26.5'

wide gravel base with 20' wide pavement. At that point there will be a turnaround, and the remainder

will be at driveway standards (single lane gravel with turnouts).


My proposal is to modify these requirements to a 20' wide gravel road, and to include 2-way traffic onto

each of the parcels, with a one-way circle around the proposed bUilding site. See attached aerial

photograph for illustration.


I believe this will provide a much more effective and practical solution, for the following considerations:


    •	   The hillside adjacent to the road on parcel2A is quite steep. The current shoulder to shoulder
         width measures about 18'. It would take a substantial cut to bring the road up to 26.5' of width .
         ./	 Eliminating the 6.5' of shoulder will alleviate the slope stability issue while still allowing 2­
             way traffic.
    •	   This is an agricultural area, and the road will see occasional use by agricultural/tracked / heavy
         equipment. Gravel roads are much more receptive to such use than paved roads. Vehicular
         (car) traffic is very low and estimated to average 6 round trips per day. In addition, the subsoil is
         mostly granite. Erosion / washboards will not be a problem .
         ./' A gravel road is much more suited for the intended / prospected use than a paved road.
    •	   Asphalt is refined from crude oil- an increasingly scarce commodity. Gravel is a completely
         natural and plentiful material. .
         ./ Asphalt just adds to the cost & environmental impact while providing few benefits.
    •	   Under current regulation, only the road along the western edge of the property would support
         2-way traffic. The driveways leading to the bUilding sites would be l-way traffic with turnouts.
         My proposal is to extend the 20' width onto each of the properties, with a l-way road circling
         the proposed building site, supporting a continuous traffic flow in case of a fire or other
         emergency. It also provides a more effective fire break around the house.
         ./ Enabling 2-way traffic to each of the building sites has substantial benefits current
            regulations do not provide for.




                                                        1

I would like to request the completion of the road be made a requirement prior to completing a
building permit for any of the involved parcels (as opposed to one year after completing the
subdivision). This will allow me more time to complete the work, as well as to do final grading after
most of the construction traffic is gone.




Additional points / information:

•   My proposed road name is "VAN OER VEER RO"
•   The encroachment to Fiddletown Rd is already paved.
•   A "STOP" sign and road name sign will be added.




                                                2

      Single lane one-way
      10' ,/VIde graveI

___ Double lane 2· 'Nay
    2(0" '~'ide gravel

      Approx Home site

      A.pprox Septic site
                             Century Cliarities

              www.centurycharities.org(209)223-3665centurvcharities@Wildblue.net
                 P.O. Box 520 10501 Sutter Creek Ranchos Rd. lone, CA 95640

                                                                                            RECEivED
                                                                                          Amador CountY

                                                                                         JUL - 82008
             Creation's Classroom




        Previously named Century Youth Ranch-farming & environmental-related education




                                                               July 8,2008


Re:    Sea-Land Storage Container Regulations

Dear Commissioners

We applaud your many well-thought out revisions to the regulations in regards to
containers, as of July 8, 2008. The comments I wish to submit for your considerations
are as follows:

I have previously spent approximately $750, due to use permit and building permits by
the Planning Department. If the regulations remain as they are amended, this money
should be applied to any Mure permit fees to be paid by myself. One of our attorneys
demanded a 1D-day demand-of-proof of any pre-May 2006 building permit requirements.
Attached is his written legal opinion that a permit was not required and we were
~grandfathered~ in. His legal opinion was also based on other statements by past
inspectors that building permits were not required for sealland container placement. If
the Planning Department did not send him all of the information legally demanded, then
they face another legal matter. We wrote a detailed description on all use permit
applications that they were submitted under protest. We were told by Code Enforcement
that we were the first ones chosen for the May 2006 regulations.

The new proposed ordinance-under the two headings "Elimination of the Term Use
Permit" and "Fees"-basicaUy places all applicants under the honor code. Therefore, I
propose that all plot plans simply be mailed or personally submitted and no fee or
reduced fee be charged, and they be recorded using this manner.

Addressing the draft ordinance of May 20, 2008, D. Allowed ZOne Districts- 2)
Regarding AFPD for review for compliance with applicable fire regulations, etc.
This portion should be deleted, as it is merely another way for the Planning Department
                                       Page 1 of 2
to accumulate use fees. If there are hazardous and dangerous materials that require
attention, then they should fall under unattached garage requirements. This should be
noted by the applicant and handled subject to the current codes regarding hazardous
materials.

I respectfully submit, since the majority of this falls under the honor code, that the
Planning Commission action be the following:
Under B. Planning Commission Action
    •	 Recommend to the Board of Supervisors deletion of all regulations pertaining to
       the placement of containers.

Sincerely,



Richard Woolstrum
Founder and Consultant




                                    Page 2 of 2
                               Centur;x. Cliarities, inc.

A Multi·Facet Non-Profit Corporation   '·-~:':"·-'---~··-:'·:'\>."·l          Federal ID Tax Exempt # 94-2297667
P.O. Box 520, lone, CA 95640._                 ",       ..             1050 I Sutter Creek Ranchos Road. lone, CA
Phone # 209-223-3665                                                                 Fax II 209-223-3665 (call first)




Richard Wooistrum, Administrator
April 20, 2007

Steve Nicolaou, Attorney At Law
P.O. Box 1051
Tracy, CA 95378

Dear Steve,

The ranch executive & advisory board wants to say thanks for your years of legal
assistance. The enclosed copies are of Amador County's various original letters and their
response to your request for records on March 28,2007. So far, everyone who has read
the old 1975 to May 16,2006 regulations cannot interpret them to require any building
~its or use permits prior to My 16, 2006. However, the county inspectors insist they
prove that everyone who placed a land/sea cargo container on their property was clearly
required to have a building permit, despite previous inspectors saying a permit was not
required.

Please read the regulations ~ due to your request and give us your written
opInlon.

                                                                            Thanks,,-, (.            )
                                                                                   rf'           /
                                                                                   \'.11   -....~
                                   Steve Nicolaou
                                        Attorney At Law

                                      Post Office Box lOSI

                                     Tracy. California 95378


                                         May 4, 2007


Richard Wooistrum
P.O. Box 520
lone. California 95640

Re: Amador County Permit Requirement for LandlSea Cargo Containers

Dear Dick:

        I have had a chance to review the materials you have sent to me pertaining to the
above-:referenced matter with your letter of April 20, 2007. I agree with your assessment
that. prior to the enactment ofOntinance 1647 by the Amador County Board of
Supervisors on May 16, 2006, there was no requirement that a permit be obtained for a
land/sea cargo container on your property.

       I think. you have a very good argument that the containers on your property should
be "grandfathered", and therefore, the provisions of Ordinance 1647 should not apply to
them. This argument would be especially powerful if you could show that other property
owners in the area have multiple containers on their property, and no action has been
taken by the county as to those individuals.

        After you have had a chance to review this matter, please feel free to give me a
call.

                         Very truly yOUTS,



                         ~'TEVE NICOLAOU
SN/sn




                               (209) 832-2501 • Fax (209) 832-0085
                                Century CJiarities
                www.cenlurycharities.org(209)223-3665centurycnarities@wildblue.nel
                   P.O. Box 520 10501 Sutter Creek Ranchos Rd.  lone, CA 95640




               Creation's Classroom





          Previously named Century Youth Ranch-farming & environmental-related education

Richard WoolstfUm. Administrator                                            September 23. 2007

Amador County Planning Commission
810 Court Street
Jackson, CA 95642

Dear Denise Tober,

I note that the Amador County Board of Supervisors is having two public workshops on Tuesday,
September 25,2007. I had intended to address this issue months ago. but many charitable youth­
related activities have absorbed my time and thus slowed my response.

My first statement in regards to placement of land/sea cargo containers on private land and the
past board action of May 16, 2006. is to complement each supervisor involved in the May 16,
2006 vote in regards to this situation as it involves home lots and small parcels in residential
areas. It is my personal opinion that the regulations written at that time were of a good intention,
but lacked clarity. as far as Amador County Planning Department's interpretation was concerned,
especially for containers placed on larger parcels of land.

Firs~ there are many land/sea cargo containers that were placed  with the approval of past
planning department inspectors, such as Tom Garamendi. These various inspectors told others
and us that no permits, permission, or building concepts were required.

A recent letter to one of Century Charities' pro bono attorneys and our personal corporate
attorney, Steve Nicolaou. resulted in his demand to the planning department for all planning
department requirements regarding building permits for land/sea cargo containers from January
1, 1975 to May 15, 2006. Amador County's reply supposedly gave Mr. Nicolaou all of the written
requirements for this period of time. His reply of May 4, 2007 states that no building permits were
required during this time period, so Amador County could not demand a use permit or a building
permit, prior to May 16, 2006. (See list of executive and advisory board members, attached).

In addition to the planning department demanding an engineered plan to place a land/sea cargo
container on ag·related property-please note comments from two engineers implying this
requirement was absurd-« also costs the property owner an additional $250 to $300 for the
engineer to be required to prepare this useless letter. The engineer's charges are on top of the
circa $500 to: for the planning department to prepare a use permit application, review the
finished application, notify all neighbors within 300 feet of the applicant's property line that they
can appeal the approved use permit for $361-a protest tax. J doubt there are too many protests

                                           Page 1 of 2 pages
at that cost, when the outcome would be anything but secure. Then, the property owner wishing

to place the land/sea cargo container must proceed with additional building permits for a pre­ 

made steel or aluminum unit; applications; considerations by the planning department; more

duplications of the use permit materials to use in the building permit; reviews; approvals; more

fees mean more taxes! Then a visit by a building inspector (who must not have anything else to

do), more fees, which I believe really are taxes, then approval or disapproval, etc. All of this

paper work and inspections will result in around $500 total additional taxes.


Now, I understand the planning department has said the land/sea containers are only good for

two years. I am aware of several containers that have existed for 32 years and are as good as

they were originally. One of our containers has been here for about 2D-plus years and does not

show any deterioration. If these containers are maintained, meaning painted, they will have 50 or

more years of usability. If the two years refers to a use permit, since we are "grandfathered in",

per our attorney's legal opinions, I wish to speak on behalf of all new land/sea container

placements. In my opinion, the planning department simply wishes to tax every new placement,

which will bring in an additional amount of money every two years. My thought is that when any

large parcels of land are to be subdivided or turned into residential lots, any land/sea cargo

containers existing must be then be approved or removed, prior to granting such permission to

subdivide. This is simple and does not create any new tax.


Since our attorneys say that all previous ag-property land/sea cargo containers, prior to May 16,

2006, are "grandfathered", I am speaking for fair placement policies from the planning department

for new placement units. All of the requirements of placement, concealment, painting, etc., as of

May 16,2006, are reasonable. Use permits, building permits, engineering, and even the $361 tax

on neighbor's rights to appeal, are unreasonable expenses (or taxes). We have no argument with

the County Planning Department assuring that the Supervisor's instructions are followed. I

personally believe the future containers should be placed on new railroad ties for each 10 feet in

length or on 8-inch deep crushed drain rock for the full length and width of the container. This will

increase the longevity of the unit. Please note two engineers agree with me. (See below).


I respectfully request that all ag-related and zoned landowners be allowed to tastefully place

whatever amount of containers is needed. An issue that needs to be addressed by this board is

the use of land/sea containers for toxic materials used on agricultural land. These containers

should be identified as SUCh, for public safety purposes, such as firefighters. But what safer

storage exists than a steel container? (Note: we have absolutely no intentions of using our two

containers for such purposes). Many ranchers and farmers need this type of secured storage for

their chemicals, rather than haul them repeatedly on public highways to the required location for

their use.


Sincerely,




Richard Woolstrum

Administrator (with Power of Attorney)



Attached:       List of Century Charities, Inc. Board Members

                Letter from Attomey Steve Nicolaou 5/4/2007
                Letter to attomey 3/16/2007
                Letter from Doug Ketron, Professional Engineer 3n12007
                Swarbrick Civil Engineer, 4 pages
                Request for Land/Sea Container behind home
                Photos of same container
                              nd
                Request for 2 Land/Sea Container across lake
                Photos of same container
                Application for Use Permit for existing land/sea container
                                           Page 2 of 2 pages
                                      COUNTY OF AMADOR

                                     PLANNING DEPARTMENT


APPUCATION FOR: DuSE PERMIT                              0       Renewal
                                                         o Amendment
                                                                                           10-12-06   __     UP-06; I0-8
                         OVARIANCE                                                       Date Received     File Number(s)
                                                                                     $66.00                __   448J~_ _
                         OzONE CHANGE
                                                                                         Fee Paid          Receipt Number
                         D                    ~                           _

                                                  Current                                             Current
Supervisorial District  II                        General Plan _..j.A~-G=-- _ _~_                                 !'~A4~Q'_1~_
                                                                                                      Zoning _ ...... .....
Assessor's Parcel Number{s)    ....:0~1~1.....
                                          -3~1~0~...()()~l-OOO...><="-   __~                          ~~                     _
Applicable County Code Section(s) 19.48.160                    Legal Description 20 3-0015200
Location On the west side QfSutter Creek Ranchos Road at the Beaver Loop Road junction about 1.5 miles
north of Hwv. 88 in the Sunmybrook area.

 Property Area (acres or square feet) -,,4O±><=-:a=c~res=~._,~                        .........'          _

  equest for Use Permit for an existing sea/land container used for storage of.per-sonal household items.
Conclusion: Per legBI8dVi~ I sUbmit ,this application. under proteSt. "Cbelieve 1hiS'c8rgO cootainer
falls under the gnmdfatherfactor.1n addition to being grandfadwed in, it meets alI of the new 2006
rcqu.iremeotB. as to not being a sight nuisance, painted pmpafy and placed on I to 10 inches of large
drain rock. This particular oootainer bas been on 1be property for approxinudely 5 years.
                                                                           Representative ~              ~=--.         ~_


                                                                           Address




                                                                                                 ltive's Signature




o    Approved on                            =-=_­                          by        _

o    Denied on                            ~"""""__                         by        _
Expiration Date (if applicable)                                                      _
CondirionsIFindingq                                     ~~                       _




                                                            TItle: Planning Direc



F:\WPDOCSlFORMSlPUND3
Richard and loani Woolstrum           email: Wooistrum@wildblue.net
10501 Sutter Creek Ranchos Rd.        Phone: 223-3665
P.O. Box 520
lone, CA 95640
October 12,2006

Amador County Planning Department
810 Court Street
Jackso~ CA 95642-2132


The land/sea container is used for storage of household goods, corporate and personal
files. We also have a selection of personal antiques and other valuable items stored..in it.
This container is an aluminum refrigerated unit that does not sweat and maintains a.
constant temperature. It is painted a neutral color and sits on an eight-inch thick base of
gravel, with French drains. Swarbrick Engineers first approved this design in 3/27/2003.
Amador County inspector, Tom Garamendi, told us in the late 1980's that no pennit was
required for a land/sea container.

The landIsea container cannot be seen by any neighbor or casual visitor to our property.
You can see by the photographs of the unit that you would have to be right above "the
container or trespassing on one of our 2.7 miles of roads, before you could have a clear
view of the land/sea container.

We respectfully request a·     permit for the container.
July 8,2008


Amador County Planning Commission
810 Court Street                                                                    RECEIVED
                                                                                  Amador County
Jackson, CA 95642
                                                                                JUL - 8 ZOOB
RE: Item 9 - Sea-land Container Regulations                               PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Dear Planning Commissioners,


Thank you for this opportunity to address you this evening regarding the proposed container
regulations and permitting. Below I have listed questions, concerns and recommendations for your
consideration.


   1)	 In Section B, Item 1, it requires tires to be removed from trailers. My guess is that the logic is
       to convert the trailer to a container and eliminate the possibility of it being used for some
       other purpose. In part I understand the logic but I ask you to consider the following. According
       to the DMV, trailers can be registered non-operational. It's also possible in some agricultural
       operations that a farmer may store items in a trailer and desire to move the trailer to different
       areas on the farm/ranch to have these items more readily accessible where needed. I would
       ask you to consider elimination of this requirement.


   2)	 In the staff report under the heading Elimination of the term use permit: It states in the third
       sentence - Additionally a plot plan would be required. This statement conflicts with the draft
       ordinance which in Section D, Item 2, requires containers placed in commercial or
       manufacturing zone districts are required to provide scaled drawings, a description ofthe
       project and be submitted to AFPD for approval. There is no other reference in the draft of plot
       plans being required. I respectfully ask for clarification and also ask you to consider
       eliminating any plot plans from the regulations and rely on existing regulations that determine
       the necessity of such disclosure, Le., CUPA. The elimination of this requirement would also
       satisfy those concerned with confidentiality.



   3)	 Notification. I believe that notification of adjacent land owners is an unnecessary use of
       County resources. Please consider that the County does not, to my knowledge, notify adjacent
       landowners for other types of permits, such as, bUilding, grading, encroachment, septic, etc. I
       would ask you to consider elimination of this requirement.
   4}	 Fees. Staff has recommended a fee of $66.00 per container, as this permit is intended as a
                                                           th
       disclosure document. As I suggested at the May 20 meeting, I ask you to consider having a
       place on the application for the applicant to disclose the number of units being placed on their
       property and charge one fee per application and not per container. In doing so I believe the
       County will achieve a higher percentage of compliance and there is no additional work for
       staff to issue a permit for one container as opposed to 10 containers.



   5}	 Non-Compliance. It is not clear to me in either the staff report or the proposed draft how
       existing non-compliant containers are to be addressed. Please consider adding language to
       the ordinance that would allow applicants to obtain a permit and come into compliance with
       the regulations without penalty.


   6}	 Screening. Please consider exempting lands in the "A" and "AG" zone districts from this
       requirement. This requirement seems unnecessary on large parcels with cattle, barns,
       haystacks, tractors, wineries, etc. In my discussions with grape growers, farmers and ranchers,
       the majority of them feel this requirement would be over burdensome and too costly to
       comply with.


    7)	 Operations regulated by other governmental agencies. Amador County is home to at least
       one manufacturing operation that is regulated by several state and federal agencies, including
       the Department of Homeland Security. This company, MP Associates, manufactures
       pyrotechnics, sold and used all over the world and generates sales tax revenue for Amador
       County. This company also has a large number of well maintained sea-land containers for
       storage purposes. To subject this company and others like it, to this proposed regulation, is at
       the very least, a redundancy of oversight, and could quite possibly jeopardize public safety. I
       ask you to consider language in the proposed regulation to exempt MP Associates and other
       companies/organizations also regulated by other state and federal agencies.



Thank you for your patience and consideration of this very important matter.



Sincerely,




     K. Gonsalves

                                          John K. Gonsalves
                                          10 Smalley Avenue
                                          Jackson, CA 95642

								
To top