How do you think Granite Bay should develop?

Perhaps only health-care reform engenders more debate these days among those in the upscale unincorporated community.

And through Nov. 30, that’s the question Placer County planning officials are asking area residents, in the form of 73 pages of surveys.

It’s the latest phase in the long and contentious process of updating Granite Bay’s development bible, known as the Granite Bay Community Plan.

“This is strictly more gathering of public information,” said EJ Ivaldi of the county Planning Department. “What we have to do is use this info and eventually draft up a revised policy document and land-use map.”

The four-part survey – available online (see box) – asks residents to weigh in on the original 1989 Community Plan; proposed policy changes to the plan; the suggested criteria for evaluating land-use requests; and specific land-use requests.

The whole process has been a lightning rod for criticism by some in the community, especially those with longtime ties to the area. They see the update – spearheaded by Granite Bay Supervisor Kirk Uhler – as unnecessary and slanted toward developers.

That criticism includes the survey process.

“There was no question about whether or not you just wanted to leave the current plan the way it is,” said Marlene George, a longtime Granite Bay resident who wants the plan left as-is. “Eighty nine people submitted requests that they wanted no change. I’m just really questioning the process, the legitimacy of it of wanting to get community input, and the basis for the plan.”

The plan is so important because it spells out exactly how and where property in Granite Bay the can develop. It’s currently characterized by larger lot requirements, further road setback restrictions and lower density compared with neighboring cities – features many say contribute to Granite Bay’s rural feel.

Some property owners are requesting use changes that would allow big increases in density, while others are more moderate – for instance, landowners seeking to split their 5.3-acre parcels in half.

If all requests were approved, a total of 392 residential units would be possible that aren’t under the current regulations.

Those opposed to changes are particularly concerned about what would happen to Douglas Boulevard.

For instance, one change request would allow 189 additional single-family residential units on three contiguous parcels off Douglas Boulevard near Woodgrove Way totaling 68 acres currently zoned rural residential

“Do I have a sense that what they’re trying to do is overdevelop Douglas Boulevard? Absolutely,” said Garland Bell, who has lived in Granite Bay for a decade. “You’re talking about putting in a bunch of high-density housing.”

Bell said he left Southern California to get away from rampant development.

“I don’t want to face that again,” he said.

Uhler and county officials, however, say they are still in the assessment process and haven’t taken a position on what to recommend go forward.

Ivaldi said the next step is to compile all the residents’ survey responses. They’re slated to be presented at a Granite Bay Municipal Advisory Council meeting in 2010.

While some residents have questioned how much planners will take the public response into consideration, Ivaldi said the surveys will be “the basis of what we’re going to be discussing when we look at the draft changes to the document.”