How, when and where growth is permitted in Amador County in the next 15 to 20 years will be the focus of a new General Plan on which the county embarked this week.

During the three to five years that the county expects to devote to developing the document, the county may consider putting into effect a moratorium on building or rezonings.

In kicking off the process, County Administrative Officer Pat Blacklock told the Amador County Board of Supervisors that he has heard that up to 6,000 new housing units are being proposed for the cities and the county over the next five years.

Blacklock walked the supervisors through a Power Point presentation on the General Plan process Tuesday morning and that evening gave the same information to the county Planning Commission.

The county’s General Plan has not had a comprehensive update since the 1970s, Blacklock said, though it underwent some revisions in the early 1990s.

All cities and counties in California are required to have such documents, he said and the state Supreme Court has called them a “constitution for future development.”

The plan is expected to offer guidance for the future, including an inventory of land available for development, identification of housing needs for all income levels, plans for open space and recreation, conservation of biological resources and habitat, provisions for public safety, setting of standards for air quality and noise, retention of land for agricultural needs, preservation of historic sites and protection and growth of local industries.

First step in the process, Blacklock told the supervisors, is to begin the search for a consultant to help in the process. He said he hopes to hire that consultant by early December.

A steering committee might also be organized, he said, with its members chosen to represent specific regions, organizations, or maybe just by lottery. Because the process will take at least three years it can be difficult to retain the same members, so they need to recognize the potential for change of members during that time, he said.

Elaine Zorbas told the supervisors that she would like to see a moratorium on new development while the General Plan is under consideration.

“Everywhere we look around and see heavy equipment and grading,” she said.

County Counsel John Hahn told the board that a moratorium on zoning changes would not constitute a “taking” of property. “We would not be saying they can’t develop,” he said. “Just that we won’t change the zoning to accommodate it.” If the board were to say there would be no development at all, he said, “then it gets into constitutional issues.”

Noting that a lot of parcels are being broken up into 5-acre lots, Supervisor Louis Boitano suggested that not changing zoning to allow for immediate development “would be a good start until we get a good handle on it.”

Pete Bell of the Foothill Conservancy said “a lot of contentious issues” will come up during the process. He suggested that a steering committee made up of a representative cross-section of the community be developed early in the process so that it can build trust and “talk about true values rather than positions.” Once the General Plan gets to the stage of hearings, he said, people get into “position statements.”

“This is going to affect the county for 10 or 15 years,” Bell said in support of long-term membership on the steering committee. “This is pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime offer.”

While the board did not resolve all the questions about how a steering committee will be selected and how long its members will serve, they did encourage Blacklock to go forward with putting together a request for proposals to search for a consultant.

“This is the single biggest issue that’s facing this county in a long time,” said Boitano. “We have to do it right. There’s a lot at stake for everyone.”

Boitano also said that while he doesn’t mind “talking about a moratorium on zoning and General Plan amendments” to make sure dramatic changes are not made in the midst of the General Plan process, that some “technical corrections” and “cleanup” of the maps may be in order. He also said he did not mind the Board of Supervisors acting as the steering committee until the process can be set up.

Any steering committee should not be so large or convoluted that it stops the process or slows it down, said Supervisor Richard Vinson.

But limited public involvement is not likely to slow it down, Chairman Richard Forster said, adding that “we do pretty well ourselves sometimes at getting stuck in the mud.”

Supervisor Rich Escamilla expressed a touch of caution, noting that while he’s not for a “boom county,” he is for what he called “smart growth” and development of jobs to lure the county’s youth back to the area.

Blacklock summarized the supervisors’ wishes, noting that a steering committee may not be possible until the consultant has been hired and that in the meantime, the board would act in that capacity. He also noted that “We should bring back to you some options which would put everyone on notice that during this process zoning changes and General Plan amendments should be reduced more or less to zero.”