Amador County – The Amador County Supervisors and Planning Commissioners resumed work on the general plan update Wednesday, and voted 8-1 to remove the “Urban Reserve” designation from the land use project description. A consultant instead will look at the impacts of having an Urban Reserve overlay alternative that would be placed on county unincorporated lands inside city “Spheres of Influence.” Supervisor John Plasse said “my question becomes: Who represents the county residents, who live outside of cities, can’t vote for city council members and yet live in a city sphere of influence, so the city has the say over the land designation.” Plasse said one policy, the “economically viable ag element,” protected timber from encroachments, but he said there was nothing to protect timber or ag land when the sphere-of-influence comes in with “incompatible uses right up against ag” land. Plasse said “we are relinquishing decisions over county property to city people.” He said he has been to city council meetings were people have said unincorporated county residents can have their opinion, but it does not matter because they don’t live in the city. Councilman Brian Oneto agreed, but said it was harsher, with people saying: “They are not in the city, so we don’t care what they say.” County Planner Susan Grijalva said “the Plymouth sphere of influence dates to the 1970s because twice it met with strong objections from land owners,” and twice they were told to come back with something more acceptable. Grijalva said “LAFCO is not in the practice of including people in spheres of influence who do not want to be included.” Supervisor Richard Forster said inclusion against an owner’s does or can happen, if surrounding pieces are added to a city sphere of influence.
Michael Vasquez, a realtor representing Ken Deaver’s interest around Plymouth, said he and the developers have spent thousands of dollars. And if the land is included in the Plymouth sphere, it would be zoned “C-2,” forcing the owner to approach the Plymouth City Council for “more permission.” He asked that the property be excluded from Urban Reserve designation, saying that they “need to have a potential for development.” Plasse said he was concerned with the UR overlay tying land to a “40-acre designation” size, “then if you want to develop, you must go to the city.” Oneto asked if a city could “Open Space-you without representation?” Grijalva said the city could do that. Oneto said “you are basically going from the owner having no representation” to the city having none. Or, added Grijalva, the county having none. Forster suggested separate EIRs for Urban Reserve and without it. But he moved to remove Urban Reserve from the project description, and add it to an alternative, to be studied for impacts. Commissioner Andy Byrne voted no, saying “I think everybody wants to study it because it is a strong tool.” He said Urban Reserve designation was a useful tool though it unfortunately put the land use person at risk. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Thursday, 04 June 2009 00:19
Amador General Plan Update
Amador County – The Amador County Supervisors and Planning Commissioners resumed work on the general plan update Wednesday, and voted 8-1 to remove the “Urban Reserve” designation from the land use project description. A consultant instead will look at the impacts of having an Urban Reserve overlay alternative that would be placed on county unincorporated lands inside city “Spheres of Influence.” Supervisor John Plasse said “my question becomes: Who represents the county residents, who live outside of cities, can’t vote for city council members and yet live in a city sphere of influence, so the city has the say over the land designation.” Plasse said one policy, the “economically viable ag element,” protected timber from encroachments, but he said there was nothing to protect timber or ag land when the sphere-of-influence comes in with “incompatible uses right up against ag” land. Plasse said “we are relinquishing decisions over county property to city people.” He said he has been to city council meetings were people have said unincorporated county residents can have their opinion, but it does not matter because they don’t live in the city. Councilman Brian Oneto agreed, but said it was harsher, with people saying: “They are not in the city, so we don’t care what they say.” County Planner Susan Grijalva said “the Plymouth sphere of influence dates to the 1970s because twice it met with strong objections from land owners,” and twice they were told to come back with something more acceptable. Grijalva said “LAFCO is not in the practice of including people in spheres of influence who do not want to be included.” Supervisor Richard Forster said inclusion against an owner’s does or can happen, if surrounding pieces are added to a city sphere of influence.
Michael Vasquez, a realtor representing Ken Deaver’s interest around Plymouth, said he and the developers have spent thousands of dollars. And if the land is included in the Plymouth sphere, it would be zoned “C-2,” forcing the owner to approach the Plymouth City Council for “more permission.” He asked that the property be excluded from Urban Reserve designation, saying that they “need to have a potential for development.” Plasse said he was concerned with the UR overlay tying land to a “40-acre designation” size, “then if you want to develop, you must go to the city.” Oneto asked if a city could “Open Space-you without representation?” Grijalva said the city could do that. Oneto said “you are basically going from the owner having no representation” to the city having none. Or, added Grijalva, the county having none. Forster suggested separate EIRs for Urban Reserve and without it. But he moved to remove Urban Reserve from the project description, and add it to an alternative, to be studied for impacts. Commissioner Andy Byrne voted no, saying “I think everybody wants to study it because it is a strong tool.” He said Urban Reserve designation was a useful tool though it unfortunately put the land use person at risk. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
