A controversial 50-year plan to preserve more than 50,000 acres in western Placer County has reached the Board of Supervisors for a possible vote today.

The plan has been lauded by supporters, who say it would clearly define growth and conservation areas, but attacked by farmers and landowners, who say the proposal would take away their property rights.

Supporters say it would speed up the permitting process between developers and state and federal agencies in charge of protecting the environment. They also say it would create balance between development and open space and provide Placer with a contiguous buffer at its western borders.

But farmers, landowners and developers in the proposed conservation areas claim the Placer County Conservation Plan, or PCCP, will restrict their options on how to use the land.

They also say the conservation area will lead to inequities in land values. Owners of properties with vernal pools or protected trees could sell their acreage to developers who need mitigation land to satisfy federal or state requirements.

"Some of the folks in the (conserved areas) have no vernal pools or blue oaks," said Supervisor Bruce Kranz. "Their land has no high value under this plan."

Kranz also said farmers may encounter restrictions on pesticides because they'd be under new regulations.

"I want to protect farming, not shut it down," he said.

Judging from the reactions of Kranz and two other supervisors, the PCCP could be sent back for revisions after today's meeting.

The three aren't pleased with the preferred map alternatives that set boundaries for the land to be preserved and the areas available for development.

"There's still a ton of questions to be answered," said Kranz, who may ask that the plan be returned to staff for reworking.

Supervisor Robert Weygandt said the plan would eliminate the current "piecemeal approach" used for development because a map would define the preserve and developable areas.

An estimated 54,000 acres are included in the developable portions, the county has stated.

Weygandt said that if no plan is adopted, the approach to development in western Placer would be "fragmented, ad hoc and with no contiguous nature."

Weygandt said he's spoken to state and federal regulatory agencies and that they favor a plan.

They include the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Marine Fisheries.

"They all feel the plan will be helpful in developing compliance contracts with developers," Weygandt said.

Brigit Barnes, a real estate attorney who prefers no PCCP, said some owners in the preserve areas may not want to sell their land for mitigation, skewering the county's goal of raising $1.1 billion needed to purchase the conservation acreage.

She also said two counties that have implemented conservation plans, San Diego and Riverside, have failed to streamline the permit process for developers. Speeding up the process is one of Placer's goals.

Barnes, who debated Weygandt last week in a breakfast meeting hosted by the Lincoln Club of Placer County, said she envisions lawsuits from property owners if the PCCP is initiated.

Weygandt said he feels the plan would survive a court challenge.

The 16 alternative PCCP boundary maps drawn by county staff have been whittled to four. Staffers believe Map 14, endorsed by Weygandt, satisfies the most environmental concerns.

However, neither Map 14 nor the other finalists -- maps 4, 6 and 12 -- have pleased everyone.

Supervisor F.C. "Rocky" Rockholm, although calling the PCCP a "wonderful idea," didn't think any of the finalists would work.

"I think we're going to have to come up with a hybrid that's a combination," he said.

Supervisor Kirk Uhler wasn't ready to proceed with a plan until the state and federal regulatory agencies, the city of Lincoln, the Placer County Water Agency and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency have sat at a negotiating table with the county.

"There's been no negotiations with all of these agencies to this point," he said. "I know that individuals have had conversations with different agencies, but those were as individual supervisors and not on behalf of the county."