The Foresthill Divide moved closer to having a revised planning blueprint in place.

But controversial Forest Ranch development plans are being kept at arm’s length in recommendations made Thursday by the Placer County Planning Commission.

The planning commission is recommending approval of a plan that will supersede the 27-year-old Foresthill General Plan. It includes a land use and circulation plan for a 109-square-mile area east of Auburn that anticipates an eventual buildout that would accommodate 22,000 people. The population now stands at about 6,000.

The plan will move forward to a tentative Board of Supervisors hearing, with Forest Ranch plans perched on the periphery of discussion.

That didn’t please Ryan family members who own the land and said their attempts over the last 18 years to develop the property have cost more than $1 million. The development, already zoned for 533 homes on 1,500 acres, was seeking inclusion in the general plan at its larger-scaled level.

Instead, wording approved on a 4-1 vote by the planning commission recognizes Forest Ranch as a “future study area” but requires development of a separate specific plan to address land-use issues, traffic circulation, and infrastructure questions on water and waste disposal.

“It derails what we’ve been working on all these years,” said Richard Ryan. “It essentially says that you’re going to put it off into the future and start all over again.”

Forest Ranch calls for 2,213 homes, business and office space, a 100-unit recreational vehicle park, 18-hole golf course and equestrian center on a 2,600-acre wooded property near the downtown.

The language eventually approved for Forest Ranch was presented to the board as a streamlined version of the initial recommendation from staff that spelled out over several pages standards and requirements the development would need to meet to be included in a community plan amendment.

Mike Stafford was the lone planning commissioner to vote against the overall plan moving forward with the streamlined, Forest Ranch recommendation.

Stafford held out for a vote to recommend inclusion or not.

“We’ve been working on this for a really long time and we need to take action because the community is really split,” Stafford said. “I have discomfort with either one but I want to make a decision.”

Commissioner Richard Johnson said he favored planning staff’s direction because it “puts developers on notice” regarding outstanding issues that still need to be addressed. Commissioners Ken Denio, Gerry Brentnall and Larry Farinha also voted for the streamlined recommendation now going forward to the Board of Supervisors.

Planner Lorne Clark told the meeting after the vote that the plan and commission recommendations could go to the Board of Supervisors as early as Oct. 7.

Testimony before Thursday’s vote was sometimes heated, with several speakers noting that the Forest Ranch issue had become a divisive one.

Opponents to the increase in density on the Forest Ranch site have cited concerns about increased traffic, lack of infrastructure to handle the jump in population, and evacuation concerns along Foresthill Road if a forest fire threatened.

Foresthill resident Sherry Wicks said that traffic built in to the current plan will have a significant negative impact on downtown Foresthill.

Foresthill Chamber of Commerce President Sean Salveson made a plea for what he described as the Forest Ranch “retirement community project,” noting that a majority of the residences would be for seniors.

Salveson said that Foresthill’s historical district is in “a state of decay,” the development would be good for the vitality of the community, and the chamber could find no major negative consequences from developing Forest Ranch.

“We know from the experience of others that a retirement community of the size proposed will help ensure that Foresthill can retain its small-town, rural character,” he said.

The Journal’s Gus Thomson can be reached at gust@goldcountrymedia.com.