The Amador County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission considered the vision statement of the county’s draft general plan Wednesday. County Planner Susan Grijalva reminded them that they were not making decisions but only directions for staff on work to be done and brought back to the joint meeting after the first of the year. The board and commission decided to set aside requests for changes to land designations until after deciding on General Plan policy. Grijalva said if not, they would be deciding land use issues and then working policies around the decisions, which is not usually done. The board and commission also voted to stop taking requests for changes, after several more were received, despite the cut-off date of July. They voted to not take any more requests after Tuesday. Supervisor Brian Oneto said he liked the old vision statement better than the new one, saying the latter was too broad. He said “the pie in the sky is nice, but we live in a real world.” Oneto said economics, resources and production were not being addressed in the vision statement, but belonged there. He did not understand the term “sustainable local economy.” Commissioner Andy Byrne said it meant an economy that is viable in the long term. Oneto argued for changing the term to vibrant, and the board and commission agreed. Byrne disagreed, saying he thought vibrant sounded short-term. Oneto asked to change the term “use and protect” to “manage” to describe the handling of the “county’s wealth of natural resources.” He also asked to change the word “conserving” to “managing.” Oneto also wanted to change one goal, C-10, which was to “reduce the environmental effects of farming and ranching activities.” Chairman Richard Forster suggested the goal instead be to “Support the efforts of farmers and ranchers to be environmentally friendly in their business practices.” Oneto also asked why there was a goal to “reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions from automobile travel,” and he wondered why and how they would do that. Forster said “we will do that, otherwise the attorney general will sue us like they did the city of San Bernardino.” The meeting was continued to next Wednesday, November 12th, from 8 am to 1 pm in the supervisors chambers. Story by Jim Reece.
Thursday, 06 November 2008 23:52
Amador General Plan
The Amador County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission considered the vision statement of the county’s draft general plan Wednesday. County Planner Susan Grijalva reminded them that they were not making decisions but only directions for staff on work to be done and brought back to the joint meeting after the first of the year. The board and commission decided to set aside requests for changes to land designations until after deciding on General Plan policy. Grijalva said if not, they would be deciding land use issues and then working policies around the decisions, which is not usually done. The board and commission also voted to stop taking requests for changes, after several more were received, despite the cut-off date of July. They voted to not take any more requests after Tuesday. Supervisor Brian Oneto said he liked the old vision statement better than the new one, saying the latter was too broad. He said “the pie in the sky is nice, but we live in a real world.” Oneto said economics, resources and production were not being addressed in the vision statement, but belonged there. He did not understand the term “sustainable local economy.” Commissioner Andy Byrne said it meant an economy that is viable in the long term. Oneto argued for changing the term to vibrant, and the board and commission agreed. Byrne disagreed, saying he thought vibrant sounded short-term. Oneto asked to change the term “use and protect” to “manage” to describe the handling of the “county’s wealth of natural resources.” He also asked to change the word “conserving” to “managing.” Oneto also wanted to change one goal, C-10, which was to “reduce the environmental effects of farming and ranching activities.” Chairman Richard Forster suggested the goal instead be to “Support the efforts of farmers and ranchers to be environmentally friendly in their business practices.” Oneto also asked why there was a goal to “reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions from automobile travel,” and he wondered why and how they would do that. Forster said “we will do that, otherwise the attorney general will sue us like they did the city of San Bernardino.” The meeting was continued to next Wednesday, November 12th, from 8 am to 1 pm in the supervisors chambers. Story by Jim Reece.
