How long does it take five planning commissioners and five county supervisors to review the goals and policies for seven elements of a general plan and arrive at a consensus on countywide land use designations? Well, in Amador County, it would be just short of 30 hours.

That is, of course, after the 100-plus hours the 10 members of a General Plan Advisory Committee poured into the same plan alongside 10 alternates, and various county department and agency heads. Prior to that first meeting of the GPAC, on July 20, 2006, Planning Director Susan Grijalva and her planners had already worked on the general plan - a decades-spanning roadmap for growth - on and off for two years.

The joint meeting between planning commissioners and supervisors on Thursday concluded with planning staff and consultants from EDAW being directed to incorporate a lengthy list of updates in time for another three-day session in mid-February. Grijalva has reminded the panel at the beginning of every meeting that this is a preliminary review and no final decisions are being made.

Prior to public comment on Thursday, planning commission Chairman Andy Byrne cautioned his fellow panel members against watering down the general plan with weak language. Doing so, he said, would be an invitation to time consuming challenges in the future, something Byrne has faced during his four years on the panning commission.

"GPAC has already wordsmithed and had consensus on all of these policies," Byrne said. "They were a middle ground group of diverse representation."

District 4 Supervisor Louis Boitano, who appointed Byrne, agreed. "Those members were selected and voted on by the board (of supervisors)," he said.

Removing the GPAC's authority, Byrne warned, put the county at risk of having to accept future outcomes that would fall short or violate the agreed-upon community vision statement: "We the citizens of Amador County envision the County in 2030 as a place known for its high quality of life, historic resources, healthy natural environment, vibrant local economy, scenic resources and vistas and services that meet our peoples needs."

Specific examples of the language changes Byrne was referring to include "require" changed to "review," "will" changed to "encourage," "direct" changed to "promote," "sustainable" changed to "vibrant," "enforce" changed to "promote" and "protect" or "conserve" changed in every instance to "manage."

Whole policy changes were also made in some areas. An example in the Agricultural Land section had policy C-7.3. a and b originally written as: "Study alternative methods of farmland preservation, including conservation easements and transfer of development rights. Encourage the use of alternative methods of farmland preservation, including mitigation measures for farmland conservation, the identification of funding for conservation easements, and establishment of a program for the transfer of development rights."

The panel's suggested version was boiled down to the following: "Educate landowners about alternative methods of farmland preservation, including identification of funding for conservation easements."

A significant point of discussion at the Nov. 12 meeting addressed land located just outside city limits but within recently established LAFCO spheres of influence. The general concern was to not paint both jurisdictions into corners with inadequate land use designations. The other bone of contention was appropriate disclosure of the incorporation earmark to current or new land owners. All six general plans are currently under review.

Planning staff suggested assigning county designations that would mimic the cities' general plans or designating land with a low density classification (40 acre minimums) and developing a new "holding classification," such as Urban Reserve.

Coincidentally, the regularly scheduled planning commission meeting held the week of Thursday's panel session touched on these very issues. Four city planners were in attendance and each backed an Urban Reserve designation.

Sutter Creek Assistant City Manager Sean Rabe spoke of how his municipality only had one direction left to grow - west. "Mimicking what the cities do in their general plans is a challenge because the designators don't currently match," he said. Rabe offered to help with the creation of the new Urban Reserve classification, as did the other three.

Planning commissioners returned to the Nov. 20 joint meeting with the Urban Reserve consensus, only to meet a level of resistance from the board of supervisors. A show of hands show moved the Urban Reserve into the development stages, to the disappointment of District 2 Supervisor Richard Forster.

The final hour of the meeting Thursday allowed for public comment from 15 residents on a wide variety of topics. Art Marinaccio, representing Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, supported the efforts to keep the general plan as general as possible.

Rebecca Brown of Pioneer encouraged creating land use designations that reflect a desire to maintain distinct communities.

Joyce Stone of the Amador Child Care Council requested a separate goal for early care and education, while Foothill Conservancy Executive Director Chris Wright called the adopted vision statement a good assessment of the county's future. He closed with the 1984 Ronald Reagan quote: "What is a conservative, after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live," Wright said. "And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, pour countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadow and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as found it or better than we found it."