Ledger-Dispatch

By Debbie Dunn (ddunn@volcano.net)=20

A joint panel of the Amador County = Board of=20 Supervisors and Planning Commission headed three public meetings = on the=20 general plan last week.

Photo by: Debbie Dunn

Tom Bamert, a former county supervisor = who=20 belongs to the group Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, = offers=20 public testimony last week during a joint workshop on the county's = general=20 plan update.

Photo by: Debbie = Dunn
"This=20 is not the end," said Amador County Planning Director Susan Grijalva at = the=20 opening of Thursday's third half-day session of the Amador County = General Plan=20 update process. "In fact, I'd say we're standing at the very beginning = of the=20 real decision-making process."

Because the state of California = delegates=20 most local land use and development decisions to the cities and = counties,=20 California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general = plan "for=20 the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its = boundaries which bears relation to its planning." Each of the 452 = incorporated=20 cities and 58 counties in the state adopts "a comprehensive, long-term = general=20 plan for its physical development." The general plan lays the groundwork = for=20 community decision-making that will affect the future location of = housing,=20 business, industry, roads, parks and other land uses; protect the public = from=20 noise and other environmental hazards; and conserve natural=20 resources.

After two years of input by 10 appointed members and = 10=20 alternate members of the General Plan Advisory Committee, their efforts = toward a=20 general plan update were presented to the first line of decision-makers. = Appropriately, Tuesday was the day after the national commemoration of a = Italian=20 explorer's first expedition across the Atlantic that resulted in the = accidental=20 discovery of America. Not too dissimilar from Columbus, a panel of five = county=20 supervisors and their appointed planning commissioners embarked on their = maiden=20 voyage into uncharted waters. This crew would attempt to update charts = that had=20 been used to navigate all county planning decisions for the last 20=20 years.

The three sessions last week were agendized to accomplish = four=20 goals in the first of seven general plan elements - land=20 use.

Collecting information

Information and paper = were two=20 items in abundance during the Oct. 14 workshop.

The panel = received a=20 500-page workbook that provided all the backup information - including = maps - on=20 vision, policy, goals and landowner requests. Grijalva conducted a = PowerPoint=20 presentation describing a general plan as a two-part document containing = a map=20 and written text. The required seven elements and adoption updates = ranging from=20 1973 to 2005 were reviewed, noting the two optional elements of scenic = highways=20 and recreation, which was the oldest element, last updated in 1969. = Overviews of=20 the adoption process, amendment procedure and American Indian inclusion = were=20 covered, closing with a strong caution not to confuse land use = designations with=20 property zoning. "A general plan is not zoning," Grijalva = said.

EDAW=20 consultant Jeff Henderson examined the draft Vision 2030, mission, goals = and=20 policies. "A goal is an overall statement describing a need, concern,=20 opportunity or desire addressed within that general plan element," = Henderson=20 explained. Continuing with policy, he added, "Policies are specific = positions or=20 statements that support the achievement of goals. Policies serve as = guides to=20 the board of supervisors, planning commission and county staff when = reviewing=20 development proposals and making other decisions that affect future = development=20 and conservation within the county."

After a review of each of = the seven=20 elements - land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, = noise and=20 safety - Henderson turned the PowerPoint clicker over to his colleague = at EDAW,=20 Drew Sutton, for an explanation of land use designations, both current = and=20 proposed. Of the original 22 proposed for the update, two designations,=20 Agriculture Value Added and Watershed Overlay, had already been removed, = due to=20 GPAC review and public input. The planning department also received 42 = property=20 owner petitions and more than 20 individual letters in opposition to the = new=20 Open High County designation, a classification proposed for properties = east of=20 Dew Drop, called Range 13. Objections to OHC focused on "down zoning" = and use=20 restrictions that could result from the proposed designation.

The = first=20 four-hour session concluded with Grijalva outlining differences among = the four=20 land use alternative maps developed by staff and consultants. Grijalva = said that=20 Alternative A is the closest to the existing general plan, while = incorporating=20 the updated land use classification system. Alternative B introduces new = mixed-use Regional Service Center and Local Town Center concepts, as = well as=20 Watershed Overlays. Alternative C expands B adding RSC and LSC areas = along with=20 headwaters of several streams. Alternative D was developed from GPAC = review and=20 public input received at three public workshops in June. Grijalva closed = with an=20 expression of her desire to receive direction from the supervisors and = the=20 planning commissioners as to her next steps.

The last part of the = first=20 goal was listed as receiving specific landowner requests. This became a = two-day=20 process involving the review of 37 applications by private property = owners. In=20 the beginning of June 2008, a window period from June 5 to July 7 was = offered=20 for property owners to submit requests for consideration for general = plan land=20 use designation. The planning department and the county afforded = property owners=20 with plans for future use of their property the oppotunity to request = inclusion=20 of that use in the general plan update. The requests ranged from general = plan=20 corrections, through re-designation of properties for future = development, to the=20 protection of properties for future family divisions of land among = children.=20 Although the majority of the requests were for family purposes, 10 or 12 = requests indicated that proposed residential development was being = considered=20 for the property.

The process involved a review of each request = by the=20 planning department, resulting in findings under specific categories. = The=20 findings were delivered to the panel for review and questions, including = an=20 audience with each applicant who chose to defend or publicly explain = their=20 request. Local rancher Dick Cooper felt it important enough to bring his = whole=20 family to the podium in presenting his request.

"My heart sank = and my=20 father rolled over in his grave when I heard the girl read 5- to 10-acre = plots,=20 because we are firm believers in 40-acre parcels," he = said.

Future of=20 planning

"For those of you who think that computer modeling = is some=20 type of witchery, be assured that it is based on true data collected = right here=20 in the county," said Charles Field, executive director of the Amador = County=20 Transportation Commission. "Computer models are valuable for predicting = what is=20 to come."

Field shared the importance in linking all of the = elements in=20 trying to create a 2030 vision and that UPlan was the tool currently = being used=20 by the county. Transportation has been key at the state level as a nexus = between=20 housing, air quality and green house gas impacts. Using all of the = latest=20 technology is key to arriving at a successful general plan = update.

Field=20 turned the stage over to county GIS coordinator Keith Johnson, who = offered an=20 overview on how UPlan works and all of the parameters and constraints = used=20 collaboratively by the two departments to create this planning model. = Answering=20 the questions, "How much is likely to occur?" and "Where is it likely to = go?"=20 UPlan is an input/output global imaging tool used for forecasting = counties and=20 communities.

UPlan not only provides mapping technology, but is = also=20 capable of backup spreadsheet data for further analysis. The model will = even=20 deliver post process performance measures that can be used for traffic, = air=20 quality, water quality or habitat impacts.

Input and more=20 input

Public input regarding the proposed general plan was = not=20 addressed until the very end of the extended second day and concluded = after four=20 additional hours on Thursday.

It can never be said that the = residents of=20 Amador County don't show up when it comes to their future. Day 1 hosted = more=20 than a hundred gallery seats filled, day 2, publicized as "Public Input" = day,=20 drew more than 130, and day 3 opened with over 80 residents in the room. = Many of=20 the attendees were there for all three days. Public comment was limited = to eight=20 minutes for those representing groups and four minutes for=20 individuals.

"If you have spoken to an individual project in the = land use=20 designation hearing, please make your comments specific to the general = plan, not=20 referencing your project," requested Richard Forster, chairman of the = board of=20 supervisors.

Fifty-two residents took Forster up on his request = and=20 shared their concerns, ranging from "Why are we even changing the = general plan?"=20 to businesses being designation-changed right out of business. Several=20 well-known groups were represented. Foothill Conservancy President = Katherine=20 Evatt said she was pleased they were included in the GPAC process and = offered=20 that "goals and policies are the road map to achieving your vision. "The = vision=20 is a consensus document developed by people with diverse interests," she = added.=20 "Foothill Conservancy supports it. The vision should be the touchstone = for=20 everything in the plan."

Art Marinaccio, representing Amador = Citizens for=20 Responsible Government, was concerned about "the support for the = designation of=20 the Arroyo Seco property to not be included in the plan. I disagree=20 significantly that there has been no support for including the proposal. = Amador=20 Citizens members I have talked with have been fully supportive with the = idea of=20 a proposal coming forward to be analyzed fully at that time." =

"With the=20 economy in the toilet, the general plan is a tool of economic = strategies,"=20 offered Amador Citizens for Smart Growth President Kathy Allen. "It = creates=20 wealth and keeps that wealth here in the county." Allen didn't believe = that=20 anyone in the county wanted it to become "Elk Grove, The = Sequel."

John=20 Griffin of the Amador Water Agency listed a strong concern for = preserving=20 hydro-storage. Ciro Toma of Toma & Associates, Inc. expressed a = belief that=20 density requirements should be stated as a maximum allowed, not a = minimum=20 required. Toma was also in favor of adding an optional agricultural = element to=20 the plan, while Jim Conklin of the Amador County Business Council = favored an=20 optional economic development element. A third element supported for = inclusion=20 was water, in that water or wastewater were concerns mentioned by 90 = percent of=20 the residents at the podium over two days.

Chris Reeder, son of = Bob=20 Reeder and a member of the U.S. Air Force, shared that he was raised in = this=20 county. What it had taught him, he said, was just how valuable = individual=20 freedom is, to the point he had become willing to go overseas to fight = for it.=20 He understood that laws and plans were necessary, but said they should = be in=20 place to enhance freedoms, not take them away.

Direction=20 delayed

At the end of the third day, overwhelmed with five = hours of=20 educational information and planning department input, followed up by = another=20 eight hours of public input, the panel was at a point to begin goal 4 = and head=20 towards giving some type of direction for EDAW and the planning=20 department.

Yet to determine an agreed mission and vision, for = starters,=20 it was decided that the meeting would have to be continued to another = date. With=20 10 calendars at the ready, after some deliberation, the date of Nov. 5 = was=20 chosen. Public notices will be made through the standard media=20 sources.

Jerry Budrick contributed to this report.

Debbie Dunn
Ledger Dispatch Contributor=20