Despite appearances, more than 50 county residents attended an interactive workshop on the Amador County General Plan update process in Jackson to offer their opinions on the still-developing plan.

Photo by: Jerry Budrick

The Amador County General Plan update process took another step forward on Saturday afternoon, as more than 50 county residents attended an interactive workshop.

Three more days of public input are planned at joint planning commission/board of supervisors meetings on Oct. 14, 15 and 16.

Saturday's workshop was hosted by county planning director Susan Grijalva, with Jeff Henderson and Drew Sutton of EDAW environmental consultants, experts in the California Environmental Quality Act regulatory process. According to its Web site, EDAW is an international urban design, planning, landscape architecture, environmental and economic development consultancy.

The process has been going on for more than two years, with the stated objective of updating a county general plan that was last thoroughly revised in 1973. The General Plan Advisory Committee, comprised of members of concerned local groups and citizens at large, held 27 meetings over the course of 18 months, beginning in July 2006, providing public input to the update.

The timeline for the general plan update shows a scheduled completion date for the process in June 2009. The upcoming joint meetings in October are expected to yield a preferred alternative map, the text of a draft general plan and a draft environmental impact report that can be presented for public review in January.

The draft vision statement for the updated general plan has been written. It states: "We, the citizens of Amador County, envision the county in the year 2030 as a place known for its high quality of life, historic resources, healthy natural environment, sustainable local economy, scenic resources and vistas, and services that meet our people's needs."

Each attendee on Saturday was given a remote voting device, which enables participants at public meetings to cast votes that can be quickly tabulated and displayed. These modern replacements for the old-fashioned show of hands have been taking a firm hold in government and quasi-government gatherings.

The first votes on Saturday polled the demographics of the audience. All but one of the voters was over 35 and half had lived in Amador County for longer than 20 years. Forty-nine percent of the audience lived east of Highway 49 and only 12 percent lived in the incorporated cities. Thirty-one percent had not been to any of the previous general plan update meetings or workshops.

E-mail alerts and invitations had enticed 57 percent of the people to attend, while only a few had been drawn through media announcements. Fully 96 percent of those in attendance own the parcel of land on which they live and 40 percent own additional property.

The question, "Do you own property east of Dew Drop?" introduced the first controversial subject of the day. With some consternation evident in the room, explanation of what and where Dew Drop is was explained and shown on one of the maps. As it turned out, 14 percent owned property east of Dew Drop, the CAL FIRE station slightly east of the intersection of Highway 88 and Shake Ridge Road.

Later in the meeting, some of the 14 percent would raise the issue of the validity of votes by people who have no knowledge of the area covered by the questions. "It was very revealing," said Caraleta Plasse, an owner of property east of Dew Drop, "when the group was asked if they knew where Dew Drop is. If they don't know that, they don't know about the high country."

Opposition to new rules about private property east of Dew Drop became evident. "If the county provides no services in that area now," said Paul Johnston, "and we don't want any, what's the problem?"

"It wasn't clear that what was at stake was the nature and extent of future development (east of Dew Drop)," said former county planning commissioner Brian Jobson later, "rather than regulation on existing landowners."

Along one wall of the supervisors chambers were five maps of Amador County. One showed the county under the existing general plan, while the other four depicted the alternatives drawn by planners to reflect the versions of suggested changes to the general plan.

"Alternative D is scheduled to go before the board of supervisors," Grijalva said. "The watershed overlay was deleted, but the low impact development is included."

Grijalva went on to quickly list likely changes to the zoning in spots all around the county, using her laser pointer to clarify the exact locations. Affordable housing is tentatively planned for inclusion in the new general plan in chosen areas around the county, including Ione, Sunset West, Wicklow Way, Jackson Gate Road, Pine Grove and Mt. Zion Road.

A few questions asked of the audience provided some amusement, with votes for "very favorable" balancing exactly against "very unfavorable." These 50-50 votes generally had to do with environmental issues that collided with property rights. Bicycle and pedestrian paths were almost universally favored at 86 percent.

According to the county's Land Use Classification System and Alternatives Workbook Updated to Include Alternative D, dated June 2008, "Evaluation of the alternatives and selection of a preferred alternative may include a mix of elements from the alternatives to achieve a land use plan that most closely matches the vision of the GPAC, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors."

This means that the supervisors will be shown all four alternative maps, then entrusted with the task of choosing either one of the four or picking and choosing bits and pieces to make their own Alternative E.