Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
At a glance
- Public comments
- 8
- Last 30 days
- 0
Last discussed Jan 13, 2026.
Public comments (8)
Cherry Valley-area resident argued the general plan must protect existing rural residents' expectations, water and septic capacity, and opposed the zone changes.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 1:23:00 →Lives across from the project sites; said no one in Cherry Valley wants half-acre parcels, citing traffic, water, drainage and blocked mountain views.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 1:26:18 →Lifelong Cherry Valley resident pleaded with the Board to preserve the rural quality and limited remaining rural land.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 1:32:11 →Project representative argued the unified half-acre proposal is a coherent transition, near schools and freeway ramps, with community workshops planned.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 1:35:33 →The Altum Group planner said the commercial component fits regional grocery/service developers and committed to infrastructure and rural-style design.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 1:46:44 →Moved to Cherry Valley as a child; said losing the rural lifestyle breaks her heart and asked the Board to think carefully.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 1:31:51 →Filed a written protest; argued lot-size decisions should follow the area plan rather than piecemeal rezoning, and suggested residents should vote on the area's future.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 2:27:31 →Cherry Valley community council member and Blue Ribbon Task Force veteran explained the septic moratorium history and decades of resident defense of the rural plan.
Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting — January 13, 2026 · 2:30:37 →