Zoning

Historic preservation process

Summary not yet generated for this topic.

Community sentiment

Supportive (1)Concerned (1)Neutral (2)

At a glance

Public comments
4
Last 30 days
0

Last discussed Aug 26, 2026.

Public comments (4)

NeutralDavid ZicovichAug 26, 2026

Asked why the commission doesn't sit down with the local architects and builders who actually work in town to review the feasibility of the proposed historic preservation changes.

Planning Commission — August 26, 2026 · 1:13:08 →
ConcernedBess WiersemaAug 26, 2026

A local residential architect urged specific guidelines for including local architects and builders, cited training resources like the California Preservation Foundation, and warned that guidelines must reflect current building and fire codes to be workable.

Planning Commission — August 26, 2026 · 1:14:55 →
SupportiveLee FagotAug 26, 2026

A 31-year resident encouraged the collaborative dialogue, urged putting the historic findings into municipal code, suggested considering pre-1961 housing, and warned against state mandates overriding local character.

Planning Commission — August 26, 2026 · 1:31:30 →
NeutralLee QuintanaAug 26, 2026

Caught in traffic, she spoke when public comment was reopened, describing her study of the Bloomfield report and explaining how the original survey's integrated rating system differed from National Park Service criteria and that integrity was factored in negatively.

Planning Commission — August 26, 2026 · 2:07:29 →