to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates, public comments, and service providers. • Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use, zoning and investment practices, presence of redlining, restrictive covenants, neighborhood investment or disinvestment, federal investment such as transportation infrastructure, demographic trends, factors leading to regional patterns and trends or any other information that supplements the reported data and assists in a complete analysis.
• Contributing Factors: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should re-evaluate and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues as appropriate.
• Goals and Actions: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place- based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. For example, existing programs generally should be revised with metrics and milestones related to AFFH and the City should consider robust actions to promote housing mobility beyond its boundaries and to encourage new housing affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, including within the specific plan areas.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Parcel Listing and Electronic Sites Inventory: The element was not revised to list parcels by anticipated income categories as noted in the prior review. Further, in the prior review, HCD noted the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. As part of the electronic inventory, the City must identify sites by anticipated income category. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels… …including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site 4-271
Jeremy Gleim, Director
improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
Land Use Controls: As noted in the prior review, the element must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls, specifically unit sizes and lot coverage requirements, on cost and supply of housing and ability to achieve maximum densities. In response, the element now notes affordable housing may have reduced unit sizes and maximum densities can be achieved despite the City’s low lot coverage and height requirements. However, the analysis does not address unit sizes for all housing, including market rate and does not consider various other factors when analyzing allowable densities such as relationships with other development standards or net versus gross areas. Without a complete analysis, unit size requirements for smaller bedrooms and lot coverages for multifamily uses appear to be constraints and the element should add or modify programs as appropriate.
4. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
The element now revises various programs to assist in the development of housing for lower-income households. The element also mentions a significant number of farmworkers in the Coachella Valley but then concludes there is no demand for farmworker housing in the City based on what appears to be typical commute times. Providing housing choices for all segments of the community, including special needs and farmworkers, is essential to statutory requirements and affirmatively further fair housing, especially with significant housing needs for farmworkers in the region. As a result, the element should modify policies and programs to include farmworkers, including Policy H6 and Programs H4.C and H6.C.
5. Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).)
The element notes the revised draft was made available to the public for a two- week period and no comments were received. As noted in the prior review, the City should consider additional efforts to include a broad spectrum of individuals and representative organizations and consider language access barriers. In 4-272
Jeremy Gleim, Director
addition, the City must continue to proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including revising the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.
The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements.
The City’s statutory deadline to adopt a housing element was October 15, 2021. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of this statutory deadline, then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD is committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law and appreciates your efforts in the preparation of your revised draft element. If you have any questions, please contact Gerlinde Bernd at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
4-273
ATTACHMENT 12
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(SEE ATTACHED)
4-274
4-275
4-276
4-277
4-278
4-279
4-280
4-281
4-282
4-283
4-284
4-285
4-286
4-287
4-288
4-289
4-290
4-291
4-292
4-293
4-294
4-295
4-296
4-297
4-298
4-299
4-300
4-301
4-302
4-303
4-304
4-305
4-306
4-307
4-308
4-309
4-310
4-311
4-312
4-313
4-314
4-315
4-316
4-317
4-318
4-319
4-320
4-321
4-322
4-323
4-324
4-325
4-326
4-327
4-328
4-329
4-330
4-331
4-332
4-333
4-334
4-335
4-336
4-337
4-338
4-339
4-340
4-341
4-342
4-343
4-344
4-345
4-346
4-347
4-348
4-349
4-350
4-351
4-352
4-353
4-354
4-355
4-356
4-357
4-358
4-359
4-360
4-361
4-362
4-363
4-364
4-365
4-366
4-367
4-368
4-369
4-370
4-371
4-372
4-373
4-374
4-375
4-376
4-377
4-378
4-379
4-380
4-381
ATTACHMENT 10
DRAFT SAFETY ELEMENT
(SEE ATTACHED)
4-382
4-383
4-384
4-385
4-386
4-387
4-388
4-389
4-390
4-391
4-392
4-393
4-394
4-395
4-396
4-397
ATTACHMENT 13
PUBLIC COMMENTS
(SEE ATTACHED)
4-398
4-399
4-400
4-401
4-402
4-403
4-404
4-405
4-406
4-407
4-408
4-409
4-410
4-411
4-412
4-413
4-414
4-415
4-416
4-417
4-418
4-419
4-420
4-421
4-422
4-423
4-424
4-425
4-426
4-427
4-428
4-429
4-430
4-431
4-432
4-433
4-434
4-435
4-436
4-437
4-438
4-439
4-440
4-441
4-442
4-443
4-444
4-445
4-446
4-447
4-448
4-449
4-450
4-451
4-452
4-453
4-454
4-455
4-456
4-457
4-458
4-459
4-460
4-461
4-462
4-463
4-464
4-465
4-466
4-467
4-468
4-469
4-470
4-471
4-472
4-473
4-474
4-475
4-476
4-477
4-478
From:Howard Tabackman
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Ted Weill; Charles Townsend; Steve Downs; Richard W. Kite; Iris Smotrich Subject:Ranch Mirage Housing Element
Date:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 5:35:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We are sending this letter as part of our continued opposition to the draft Housing Element in which the Rancho Mobile Home Park and the Thunder Road area will be designated to have 28 units per acre with the developer having the potential to ask for a 50 % Bonus Density (42 units per acre).
When the City acquired the mobile home park, we were told that the Santa Rosa senior housing development would be expanded in a similar fashion. The Santa Rosa project has a density of 7.2 units per acre. We were told to trust the city’s stewardship of the property, and we did. Now, with different staff and leadership, we are seeing an almost 400% increase in density. This is not in the best interest of the Petersen Ranch neighborhood and the City of Rancho Mirage.
To make matters worse, the Palm to Sands project is proposing 55 units on 4.5 acres and the Thunder Road neighborhood is proposed at 28 units per acre and the bonus. It feels like the city is dropping a low-income density bomb in our backyards. We are not opposed to low-income housing done right, but not at these densities.
In his presentation to the Planning Commission, the Planning Director stated that the Housing Element, without the bonus, was written to include 2,322 units when only 1,741 is being required by the State of California. This surplus of 581 units is excessive. Removing the Rancho Mirage Mobile Home Park and the Thunder Road area will not adversely affect the requirements of the State. In fact, the entire density can be transferred to the 50 acres the city owns in section 30 and/or the high school site/and ot the 12 vacant acres opposite the Motel 6 on Highway 111. Placing it in the Petersen Ranch neighborhood is not necessary.
Omitted from the Planning Director’s presentation was an explanation of SB 166 that clearly states, “The law also prohibits the city from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower density… without making findings.” This means that there must be findings, the density will need to be replaced elsewhere, and the Housing Element changed, the General Plan amended, and the zoning changed… again. Why go through this when we can avoid this now by eliminating the overlay zone from the Rancho Mobile Home Park and the Thunder Road neighborhoods.
We do not believe that the city has looked carefully at other options for meeting the state’s housing requirements. There are other options that must be addressed. As you understand, once this change is in writing and adopted, it is difficult to change. The overlay designation becomes right of zone.
Please review the section of the study that refers to “Public Participation.” You will note that there was not public participation. The attendees at the presentations were representatives from housing groups and housing developers. Although the city 4-479
Caution: This message was sent from outside Choura Events. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
satisfied the legal requirements to notice the public, it was ineffective. The public has now become aware of the change in the Housing Element and is commenting. Listen to them. Send the Housing Element back to staff. Have them work with the public on alternatives and let’s get this right. We are here to work with you. There is no urgency to act on this now. Thank you.
Howard Tabackman & Eric Peterson
10 Ridgeline Way
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
310-606-1491
--
4-480
From:Leonard Steinberg
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Opposition to Peterson Road and Thunder Road increased density.
Date:Friday, January 28, 2022 10:34:45 PM
Attachments:RM Letter - Steinberg.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 4-481
4-482
4-483
4-484
4-485
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Saturday, January 29, 2022 11:09 AM
To:Ted Weill; Iris Smotrich; Charles Townsend; Steve Downs; Richard W. Kite Cc:Isaiah Hagerman, CPA; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Rancho Mirage Housing Element - SB 166 - IMPORTANT Attachments:Rancho Mirage Housing Element SB 16620220129_10573931.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I prefer not to trouble you with this, but it is important to get it right.
I have attached SB 166 for your reference. This was omitted from the staff report and the staff presentation to the Planning Commission. It is important to understand that once the Housing Element is put in place as part of the city’s General Plan, it is difficult to change. SB 166 states “… the law prohibits a city…from reducing … or permitting the reduction… unless the city… makes written findings supported by substantial evidence…” The planning Commission was not given this information. I believe this omission affected their decision.
My point is this: When a parcel is designated as high density, the housing element of the General Plan changed, and the zoning changed, it is very hard to change it back. Why go to the cost and trouble to it and then undo it, if you have other alternatives? We need time to discuss the alternatives.
I would like to have the council consider leaving the density of the Rancho Springs Mobile Home Park and Thunder Road properties at 9 units per acre and remove the overlay zone.
Feel free to call me at 760‐567‐2054 to discuss this further. 4-486
4-487
4-488
4-489
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Saturday, January 29, 2022 11:41 AM
To:Ted Weill; Iris Smotrich; Richard W. Kite; Steve Downs; Charles Townsend Cc:Isaiah Hagerman, CPA; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Rancho Mirage Housing Element - STAFF REPORT
Attachments:RAncho Mirage Housing Element - STAFF Report20220129_11160359.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I know that you received this as part of your 600 plus page packet for the February 3rd meeting. Please forgive me for being redundant.
I think it is important to note:
There is no reference to SB 166 which will make it difficult to change the Housing Element and reduce density once density is attached to any parcel. This was omitted from the presentation staff made to the Planning Commission and may have affected their decision.
Please review the section of the report to see who attended the Public Outreach sessions. Only housing agency advocates and developers attended. No public participation occurred. Why? Because there was no notice to adjacent property owners.
Although you are not required to notify, and staff may have conformed to the minimum requirements, the process lacked transparency. You are now hearing from the public.
Take time to listen to us and instruct staff to work with the neighborhoods affected.
Remove the overlay zone.
Please review the section called : Next Steps.” You will find that it includes changing zoning, adopting and overlay zone which will allow, by right, entitlement to 28 units per acre and potentially allow up to a 50% bonus…42 units per acre. “Next Steps” also outline the time frames to: Establish a Development Strategy, develop an incentive program, secure entitlements, construction and occupancy of City Owned Site D, the former Rancho Mobile Home Park.
Staff has told us that there are no plans for this property, but the Next Steps tell a different story. Once the plan is adopted, it will exist, and the densities will be by right of zone. They will be very difficult to change, if indeed you want to change them.
4-490
2 I am trying to get this right and want to work with staff to make that happen. I think there are other alternatives, but we need time to work with staff to sort things out. Please send this back to staff and give us an opportunity to develop something that meets the state requirements and ours.
Thank you.
4-491
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Saturday, January 29, 2022 5:42 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:FW: Rancho Mirage Housing Element - Housing Quantities Attachments:Rancho Mirage Housing Element - Housing Quantities20220129_11474365.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
For your records
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 12:07 PM
To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ;
'[email protected]' ; '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Rancho Mirage Housing Element ‐ Housing Quantities
I have attached a slide from the presentation that was made to the Planning Commission. It Shows:
A requirement from the State of California of 1,741 housing units A Housing Element as proposed of 2,322 units
A surplus of 581 units
The Rancho Mobile Home Park, with the Overlay Zone of 28 units per acre would supply 309 units. If you remove the overlay from the Ranch Mobile Home Park, the allowed density would be 9 units per acre or 110 units. This would reduce the total number of units by 199 resulting in a net number of units of 2,123. This still meets the States requirements. The same holds true for the Thunder Road area. This doesn’t include the potential to add units through the HY111 Specific Plan, adding density to the 20 acres near the high school, allocation additional acreage to the city owned site B in Section 30 or a host of other alternatives.
My point is this. The City Council can change the Draft Housing Element. Making changes now is easy. Changing it later will be hard and near impossible. There is no rush to approve this.
Now is the time to do this right. Please send this back to staff and have them work with us on making changes that will meet the State’s requirements. Thank you. 4-497
4-498
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Saturday, January 29, 2022 5:42 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:FW: Housing in Coachella
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
For your records.
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 12:15 PM
To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ;
'[email protected]' ; '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: FW: Housing in Coachella
In case you missed this… from KESQ last evening regarding housing in Coachella. To get the density the Housing Element is proposing, you will need to go vertical. Can you imagine this in the Thunder Road area or in the Rancho Mobile Home Park? Just click on the link in blue below and ask yourself…”Is this the right thing to do in these areas? I think not.
Local leaders tour new Coachella affordable apartments, move‐in expected by April ‐ KESQ
One more thing to think about…
Palms to Sands, a development that we are opposed to, is at a density of 12.22 units per acre. I know that there are differences between the projects but the housing element may help his argument with the city. Let’s talk.
4-499
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:jack swenson
Sent:Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:01 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Ted Weill; Charles Townsend; Steve Downs; Richard W. Kite; Iris Smotrich Subject:Rancho Mirage housing Element
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As I have stated in past emails I am opposed to the proposal to increase the density of both the Thunder Road and Rancho Mobile Home Park.
After discussing with many neighbors in the area, it has come to my attention that notification has not been made to those within the 500 foot range which has been the past process for the City. I also understand that because this is a citywide project, a notice in the paper is technically legal.
Although legal, it seems a way of avoiding full disclosure which is not in the spirit of what I have come to know the leadership of Rancho Mirage to stand for.
My wife and I have owned a home in Rancho Mirage for 38 years and on Peterson Road since 2005. During that time, I believe the City has been the best managed City in the Valley.
I ask you to continue this agenda item until all people have been notified and have had adequate time to provide input and discuss with staff.
Thank You for your consideration.
Jack Swenson
38590 Peterson Rd Rancho Mirage
4-500
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Kay Williams
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 12:53 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Ted Weill; Charles Townsend; Steve Downs; Richard W. Kite; Iris Smotrich Subject:Rancho Mirage Housing Element
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to you to express my agreement with many of my neighbors regarding the Rancho Mirage Housing Element that is to be discussed on February 3, 2022. I am in opposition to the draft Housing Element in which the Rancho Mobile Home Park and the Thunder Road area will be designated to have 28 units per acre with the developer having the potential to ask for a 50% Bonus Density ( 42 units per acre).
Our neighborhood was led to believe, when the city acquired the mobile home park, that the Santa Rosa senior housing development would be expanded in a way like it currently is. That is a project with a density of 7.2 units per acre. I trusted the city's stewardship. Now, with different staff and leadership, I am seeing an almost 400% increase in density. I do not want to see this for our Peterson Ranch neighborhood and the City of Rancho Mirage.
I grew up in the Cathedral City cove when my family moved here in 1964. My family would probably be considered low income at that time if there were such a thing. I delivered the Desert Sun in the afternoon with my mother and brother throughout this area from the ages of 3‐13. We delivered 300+ papers every day and my mother made sure that we put it on the doorstep of each home, apartment, and mobile home. I know these roads well and the friendly neighbors that would greet us as we had to go door to door to collect the monthly fees for the paper. This is one of the reasons that my husband and I built our home here 21 years ago.
I am not opposed to low income housing. I'm opposed to the "amount" of units that could be put within these areas. Our mail and packages have been taken many times and this has occurred for our neighbors, too. (Some homes have been broken into.) From viewing our camera, I can see that the people taking the mail appear to be anyone. The problem with MORE individuals in the neighborhood means that MORE people are around to take advantage of NOT KNOWING whether they live in the area or not. I would like to have the density be at an acceptable level. This "overlay" that is the Housing Element increases the population for the area too much. The roads, and corners at the highway, will need to be widened in order to adjust for the extra traffic.
I joined in through ZOOM on the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Director did not advise the commission members of all the facts. It was a neighbor who had diligently read all the fine print to point out the "bonus" density that could occur. Also, once this occurs, the state has more rights over the development than the actual city.
I believe there is still time to work on this and to look at other sites that would be more beneficial to actual families. As you are very much aware, the "general public" within 500 feet WERE NOT informed properly in regards to this decision. I have been told that a public notice was put into The Desert Sun. Since no one hardly reads The Desert Sun anymore in a true "paper" format, I would be surprised if anyone saw the notice. Luckily, we have neighbors who care about our area and communicate with each other.
4-501
2 The City council did the right thing when deciding on the "bike" route through the Coachella Valley cities. I hope that all of you can listen to the citizens, delay any voting until becoming properly informed, and make a decision that is beneficial to the residents who have elected you.
Sincerely,
Kay Williams
38600 Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
760‐413‐5180
4-502
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:LIS VVS1
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 2:22 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:NO ADEQUATE NOTICE - NO TRANSPARENCY
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
The discussion on the parcels proposed for housing element high densities should be continued to future meetings as property owners living within 500 feet of the parcels were not given appropriate notice. This lack of transparency affects all of the residents and will not be tolerated by the citizens of Rancho Mirage. Publishing a notice in the newspaper that few people read is not adequate. What happened to citizens receiving notification in the mail to give us time to plan input and discussion? It appears that the City is not sending out notification so that they can take action behind the backs of the citizens and that is NOT transparent.
Do the right thing and continue the discussion on proposed housing element high densities to later meetings so that the citizens of this community can provide input.
Thank you.
Lisa McFadden
38900 Kelley Lane
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
760-992-6500
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Maya Angelou
4-503
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 1:16 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Ted Weill; Charles Townsend; Steve Downs; Richard W. Kite; Iris Smotrich Subject:Rancho Mirage Housing Element
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Rancho Mirage Council Members,
It has come to my attention that you will be discussing the Rancho Mirage Housing Element and overlay as it pertains to my neighborhood known as Peterson Ranch. My wife and I completed the building of our home in 2001. We watched the property for about 10 years before we were able to afford the land and build. I was born and raised in Palm Springs, but I have always enjoyed what Rancho Mirage has to offer. I have especially been encouraged by the city council over the years. Our city council seems to listen to the residents and take to heart their concerns when expressed.
You are now having to make a decision about the density of low income housing and this affects my neighborhood. I am not opposed to low income housing since it is very close to my home on basically three sides: to the northwest, west, and south. I do have concerns about the density of the proposal before you. In order to fit the number of units that are possible in my area, the buildings would need to be 2-3 stories high. This is unreasonable for the area. Roads would need to be widened with sidewalks put in. It would definitely interrupt the flow of traffic on HWY 111, even with the lights synchronized. I can only imagine the children or young adults who would try to cross the busy intersections because they would get impatient for the lights to change.
Please listen to the neighbors and delay your decision. Community members WERE NOT notified adequately like they should have been. This would have a HUGE IMPACT on the "feel" of our neighborhood. We already have many residents of young or inexperienced age that race down the street or are in a hurry to get to their jobs or other appointments. Adding so many others in such a small space can only lead to disaster.
Please be transparent in your decision making and what is set before you. My wife and I will be listening/watching via zoom. I've always been proud to support you through my voting, and I hope to do so in the future.
Please know that I am OPPOSED to this "overlay" as it currently stands.
Sincerely,
Ronald Williams
38600 Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
760-409-8482
4-504
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 10:09 AM
To:Ted Weill; Iris Smotrich; Richard W. Kite; Charles Townsend; Steve Downs Cc:Isaiah Hagerman, CPA; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:RM Housing Element SB 330
Attachments:RM Housing Element SB 330 20220201_10070751.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Here is a copy of a portion of the minutes in which Planning Commissioner Grey aske the Planning Director about changing the designation. As you can see, the Director emphasized that the city has discretion…
No consider SB 166 (sent earlier) that says that the designation can’t be undone unless there are significant findings and now SB 330 that tells you the same but applies a $10,000 per unit fine for each unit reduced.
My point is this…why go to the trouble to add the overlay zone and then go through all the trouble to undo it. Once you approve this, it will be in black and white. It will be by right of zone.
I have also included the list of attendees to the workshops for your reference…not much of a public process.
Please have your attorney explain this to you. It’s complicated and , although the negations with the state have been strenuous, applying the overlay zone to this parcel is not the answer.
This is your opportunity to do this right. Send this back to staff and have them work with us. 4-505
4-506
4-507
4-508
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:06 PM
To:Ted Weill; Iris Smotrich; Richard W. Kite; Steve Downs; Charles Townsend Cc:Isaiah Hagerman, CPA; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:RM Housing Element State Letter - Public Partricipation Attachments:RM Housing State Letter Public Participation20220201_13592321.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Here is a letter (you packet pp463‐466) from the State to the city. I have highlighted the references to public participation.
This is another reason that you should delay action on this item and notice property owners within 500 feet of the parcels. You need input. We are requesting to have an opportunity to discuss this with you. We need to have a two way dialogue. Please respond. Thank you. 4-510
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:30 PM
To:'[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ;
'[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' ; Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Rancho Mirage Housing Element
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
February 1, 2022
Honorable Mayor Ted Weill
Council members:
Richard Kite
Steve Downs
Iris Smotrich
Charles Townsend
Dear Madam and Sirs:
My name is Roger D. Sack. I am a full time Ranch Mirage resident for the past 22 years.
I have learned that the City Council will be responding to State of California demands for rezoning of certain parcels of land in the City to allow very substantial density of 28 units per acre for low‐income housing.
While I am sympathetic to the goal of increasing available housing for low‐income families, I do think this extraordinary density requires a careful selection of suitable sites.
For example, I understand the Planning Commission, in response to the Staff, has recommended the mobile home park parcel accessible by Peterson Road. I believe this parcel is highly inappropriate for this new density. The streets are wholly insufficient to support the additional traffic that would ensue.
The Planning Commission has neglected to consider other more useful properties such as the 50 acres owned by the City near the Home Depot. Another site should be the 40 acres Adjacent to Rancho Mirage High School and perhaps the 12 acres on Hwy 111 across from the Motel 6.
These three properties would easily satisfy the State’s requirements.
Further, I ask that you defer a decision to a later date to allow for due notice to the interested property owners in the selected areas. Surely, they should have chance to 4-515
2 express their concerns. As I understand it, the only notice so far was published in the Desert Sun, which likely seen by few of our citizens.
I urge you to remove the Peterson Road properties from the “Housing Element” plan.
As to Thunder Road, after examining the property yesterday, it seems to me the existing multifamily buildings are a “head start” for the additional zoning recommended, so long as any construction would be single story.
Respectfully,
Roger D. Sack
70330 Pecos Road in Rancho Mirage.
4-516
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Ted Weill
Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 1:53 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Fwd: Housing project on Peterson and Thunder Rd Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Ted Weill
Mayor
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 202
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
Rancho Mirage City Hall:
Open Monday through Thursday
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Closed daily from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.
Closed to the public on Fridays
ranchomirageca.gov
Rancho Mirage Library & Observatory:
"Library to Go" Services Only
Tuesday – Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
ranchomiragelibrary.org
TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e‐mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq.) Begin forwarded message:
From: dlewis92270
Date: February 2, 2022 at 1:32:21 PM PST
To: Iris Smotrich , Ted Weill , Steve Downs
, [email protected], "Richard W. Kite"
Subject: Housing project on Peterson and Thunder Rd
4-517
2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi All,
Concerned citizen here. I understand that you are all considering a high density housing project for our neighborhood and that this is coming up tomorrow Feb 3 at 1 pm. I'm very concerned there hasn't been enough study of the effect of a large project on our small neighborhood and I'm also concerned that this is the first I've heard about it. I object to the speed of this consideration. Please bring this up at the meeting tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Dominic Lewis
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
4-518
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Lynn Fontana
Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:29 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Rancho Mirage housing element-city council meeting.
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Kristie,
I wish to go on record as opposing the Draft Housing Element and to request that the City Council delay the adoption of this plan. I feel that, in this era of transparency, that the city should notify all property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties and properly solicit public input. Avoid letting this become another COD debacle.
Although I will be attending by Zoom, I will not be speaking. I wish to give my three minutes to Mike Fontana
Lynn Fontana
[email protected]
4-519
From:Raquel Bitton
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC; [email protected]
Subject:Raquel And Gerald Prolman, Peterson Road
Date:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:27:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are the Prolmans, Raquel and Gerald Prolman residing at:
38787 and 38775 Peterson Road in Rancho Mirage , Ca 92270.
This letter is to let you know that we are opposed to the current proposal for High density zoning to the Peterson Road and Thunderbird Road Parcels.
Further, we request that City Council continue this item and send it back to the Planning Department and give notice to all Property Owners within 500 feet of any properties proposed for High Density Zoning.
Warmly,
Gerald and Raquel B Prolman
4-520
From:Ted Weill
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Fwd: Housing project on Peterson and Thunder Rd Date:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:33:21 PM
Attachments:City Seal transparent(2) efef6a3d-46a2-4ae5-8bcb-b3298f02f64d.png FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Ted Weill
Mayor
Phone: 760-324-4511 Ext. 202
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
Rancho Mirage City Hall:
Open Monday through Thursday
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Closed daily from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.
Closed to the public on Fridays
ranchomirageca.gov
Rancho Mirage Library & Observatory:
"Library to Go" Services Only
Tuesday – Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
ranchomiragelibrary.org
TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Some or all of the content of this e-mail and its attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq.) Begin forwarded message:
From: Elaine
Date: February 2, 2022 at 3:31:42 PM PST
To: Iris Smotrich , Ted Weill
, Steve Downs ,
[email protected], "Richard W. Kite"
Cc: Elaine
Subject: Re: Housing project on Peterson and Thunder Rd Reply-To: Elaine
4-521
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To all above-addressed,
I became aware today about the meeting tomorrow with the intention of the city to build a high density housing project in my neighborhood.
Since this is the first time I've heard about it, I am of the opinion that there hasn't been enough study of the impact that this would have on this tiny neighborhood. The traffic would be horrendous. I do object to this decision without making all of us in the neighborhood aware of what is being planned so that we can make our objections at said meeting. I would like to be informed of what is going on that is going to affect "my" neighborhood.
Thank you,
Elaine Childs
70100 Mirage Cove Drive, No. 20
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
4-522
From:Michael Silver
To:Kristie Ramos CMC
Subject:Fwd: notice to residents
Date:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 6 03:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe As a member of the Silver Family Trust ——owners of two duplex units on View Road I DEMAND YOU INCLUDE COMMUNITY IMPUT WHY ARE YOU ALLOOWING FOR LOW INCOME PROPERTY BELOW 15 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES AND CREATE A SLUM AREA WHY DO WE NEED MORE DENSITY…THE CITY DOWNZONED THESE LOTS AND NO ONE IN THE CITY HAS ALLOWED ANYONE TO BUILD…SO NOW FOR OTHER INTEREST YOU WILL UPZONE THE LOTS… NOT IF WE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS BUILD $500K TO $600K CONDOS THAT CONFORM TO THE CURRENT ZONING AND WONT DESTROY THE NEIGHBORHOOD… Michael Silver 760 880-7150
Begin forwarded message:
From: msilvermft
Date: February 2, 2022 at 5:56:49 PM PST
To: Michael Silver
Sent from my Galaxy
4-523
4-524
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Tom Sudinsky
Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:18 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Opposition to Amend the Housing and Safety Element Attachments:Council Letter 1-20-22.docx.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My name is Tom Sudinsky and I agree with the attached letter.
I have resided in Rancho Mirage for nearly 16 years. I am currently developing a property at 38850 Kelley Lane and my personal residence at 38480 Peterson Road. Given the impact of including the former mobile home park and Thunder Rd. properties in the update to the Housing and Safety Element of the City Plan, enough time was not given for community outreach, input and consideration of alternate locations.
Low income and affordable housing is a necessity for our community but squeezing hundreds of units in the small strip of land that runs between the wash and the mountain is far from ideal.
Please forward my concerns to the Mayor and City Council.
Sincerely,
Tom Sudinsky
38480 Peterson Rd.
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
4-525
Honorable Mayor Ted Weill 1-20-22
Council Members:
Steve Downs
Richard Kite
Iris Smotrich
Charles Townsend
Dear Madam and Sirs:
Please consider the following for the Housing Element. I oppose including the Thunder Road parcels (above the Shell station at Hwy 111 and Peterson Road) and the former mobile home park on Peterson Road. This letter includes information the Planning Department and Planning Commission did not have and was not included in the Planning Commission Hearing on January 13, 2022.
The below states reasons and facts why three parcels noted should be in Housing Element overlay. Rancho Mirage quota (1,741 units) for low-income housing can easily be met by the three parcels proposed, yielding over 2,600 units.
Low-income housing is not the objection. It is the locations with densities that are opposed.
1) The problems, negative impacts and objections to the Palms and Sands proposed 55 homes on 4 ½ acres carry over to Thunder Road and Peterson Road parcels. The negative impacts of high -density development in a low-density residential neighborhood include, decisions of existing property owners and prospective ones to invest and develop. To wit, the one-acre parcel on East side of Palms and Sands property was in escrow. The buyer cancelled escrow upon learning that Palms and Sands 55 homes were proposed next door.
There are 19 acres in multiple parcels for sale North of Mirage Cove 4-526
along Peterson Road that would be negatively impacted by the MHP at 28 units/ac.
2) The CVWD has a prohibition on building homes within 300’ of the flood channels unless the channel is “lined” along the subject property.
The channel behind the Peterson Road mobile home property is only partially lined. Therefore, housing prohibited in the first 300’ along the channel. This property could be used for a 5-acre park bordering the Butler Abrams Trail. This property was intended for Senior housing prior to Redevelopment Agencies being closed down by the State. The remaining 7-acres could be Senior housing like Santa Rosa Villas on the South side, providing approximately 50 homes. Further, if the City and CVWD were to approve housing within the 300’ prohibition zone, would they be subject to inverse condemnation lawsuits by owners of parcels denied development within the 300’ zone?
Summary
Prior to the January 13, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing, notice was not sent to the property owners within 500’ of the Planning Department Housing Element proposed parcels. With adequate time for residents’ comments, the overwhelming consensus is that Peterson Road MHP and Thunder Road parcels should not be changed to ultra-high-density (28 units or more) and not be included in the “Housing Element” overlay.
13 acres Hwy 111
This parcel across from Motel 6 is surrounded on 3 sides by mountains and HWY 111 frontage on 4th side. 28 units per acre yields 364 units.
Buildings at rear along mountain could be 3 story. Hwy 111 is a major road and has bus transportation within walking distance of parcel. 4-527
This parcel was approved several years ago for a boutique hotel, rental condos and commercial office space. The applicant tried unsuccessfully to find a buyer/hotel developer. The property is for sale now. A hotel and rental condos on the parcel are not financially feasible and are not market attractive for such development. The list price is $8,000,000.00. 364 units are approximately $22,000/unit, a reasonable land cost for low-income housing. The parcel is also within walking distance of large employer (casino at Date Palm and Hwy 111) and Cathedral City Civic Center.
The acreage along Hwy 111, just East of City Hall and across from Atrium/Palms Café is more attractive for a boutique hotel and rental condos.
It satisfies Rancho Mirage’s vision for a hotel and mixed-use development.
40 acres adjacent to Rancho Mirage High School
40 acres at 28 units per acre yields 1,120 units. The proposed plan is to have only 9 units per acre. Benefits for low -income, high-density housing:
1) Major road/thoroughfare that connects to Ramon and Dinah Shore for East/West travel.
2) Large employment base at Mission Hills Country Club, Westin Hotel , Westin Timeshare Villas and Del Webb development.
3) Rancho Mirage High School could be used for evening classes, G.E.D. education and recreation. High school age children could walk to school.
City owned land 50 acres
This land is between the Rancho Mirage Dog Park and Home Depot Center. Using only 40 acres with 28 units per acre, yields 1,120 units. 10+ acres could be open space, and/or public park.
4-528
Benefits
1) Dinah Shore Drive frontage – major arterial
2) Walking distance to stores and restaurants
3) Walking distance to a large, concentrated employment base. Low - income residents need housing and employment opportunities. The latter is critical to moving up the economic scale and transitioning to non-subsidized housing. This parcel could be a “master-planned community” and a model for low-income housing.
The City Council backed by a large majority of residents stopped CV Link from going through Rancho Mirage and prohibited short-term rentals. The negative impacts on the city and neighborhoods would have been disastrous.
We implore the Council to use the same reasoning and protect the two neighborhoods of Peterson Road/Mirage Cove and Thunder Road.
CC: Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager
Jeremy Gleim, Development Director
4-529
From:Dominic Lewis
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Housing development
Date:Thursday, February 3, 2022 7:59:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi
I would like to voice my opinion on the proposed housing development on Peterson and Thunder Road. I don't think enough study has gone into this and the residents have not been given proper notice. Please expect some heavy push back.
Sincerely
Dominic Lewis
Small Mountain condos
4-530
From:Jane Pressman
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Proposed re-zoning in Rancho Mirage
Date:Thursday, February 3, 2022 9:58:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I’m writing in strong opposition to the proposed new zoning in the Thunder Road and Santa Rosas area. The current zoning density in this area CAN support moderate and low income housing in a sustainable way. New zoning is unsustainable and unacceptable.
Thank you ,
Jane
4-531
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Kay Williams
Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 12:31 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Seeding of Speaking Time
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon!
My name is Kay Williams and I will be attending the City Council meeting this Thursday, February 3rd, at 1:00. I wish to seed my speaking time to Mr. Michael Fontana as he is sharing my thoughts as well as his.
If you have any questions, you may reach me at this email or via text at 760‐413‐5180.
Thank you,
Kay Williams
38600 Peterson Road
Rancho MIrage, CA. 92270
4-532
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Lisa McFadden
Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:12 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:[email protected]
Subject:City Council Meeting - February 3, 2022
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Morning,
Please allow Mike Fontana of Rancho Mirage, CA. to use my 3 minutes for public comments at the City Council Meeting on Thursday, February 3, 2022.
Thank you very much.
LISA McFADDEN
38900 Kelley Lane
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
760‐992‐6500
LISA McFADDEN
Chair, Counseling Department
College of the Desert
43500 Monterey Avenue
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
[email protected]
760-776-7499
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Maya Angelou
“If you think you can or if you think you can’t, you’re right.” Henry Ford
4-533
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 12:34 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:City Council Meeting
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Ronald Williams and I plan on being in attendance at the City Council meeting this Thursday, February 3rd, at 1:00. Mr. Michael Fontana will be speaking on my behalf and I request that my time be seeding to him. Thank you so very much!
Sincerely,
Mr. Ronald Williams
38600 Peterson Road
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
4-534
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Carol Engle
Sent:Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:54 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Re-Zoning
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Kristie,
I'm a new resident of Rancho Mirage. I'm opposed to re‐zoning without community input. Can you tell me exactly where the proposed re‐zoning is? I just moved to Country Club Estates at Bob Hope and Country Club.
I'm saying "NO" to City Council.
Thank you,
Carol Engle
925.360.7002
4-535
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Stephen Hall
Sent:Thursday, February 3, 2022 3:50 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Proposed Zoning Ordinance in Rancho Mirage
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am concerned about the City increasing the density per acre in Rancho Mirage. Please vote NO to City Council regarding an increase to the density per acre.
Thank you,
Stephen Hall
Rancho Mirage Citizen
Sent from Mail for Windows
4-536
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Thomas Gass
Sent:Thursday, February 3, 2022 3:24 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Opposed to rezoning the Thunder Road/Santa Rosa area Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Count me in as one who would be opposed to rezoning for high density low income/middle income rental housing in this area. I believe this definitely needs to be discussed in more detail and put out for vote.
Thomas J Gass
14 Calle Vega
Rancho Mirage, CA
Sent from my iPhone
4-537
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:[email protected]
Sent:Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:32 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:OPPOSED to Re-Zoning on every level
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Community VOTE and CLEAR details required to change anything in our residential community.
Please, we need to be involved and notified prior to changes in our ordinances.
Thank you
Verlinda “Lin” Richardson
72265 Rodeo Way
Rancho Mirage, Ca.
4-538
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:joseph regina
Sent:Friday, February 4, 2022 7:36 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Zoning on the sly
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Shame on you
No No and No
Sent from my iPhone
4-539
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Marilyn Arcoli arcaroli
Sent:Sunday, February 6, 2022 3:53 PM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Low income rentals
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The city is encouraging more crime, with high density low cost rentals. Why are you not offering to build low cost homes for sale which brings pride of ownership. Are the members of the city council on board with this plan. I doubt it very much
Sent from my iPad
4-540
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Joe
Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 8:43 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:New Zoning Proposal
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We are saying “No” to the new proposed zoning ordinance that wouldn’t triple the density for “rental housing” only.
Joseph Scarfi
7 Majorca Drive
Rancho Mirage
92270
Sent from my iPhone
4-541
1 Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:Marita Schaub
Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:04 AM
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:I say "NO" to new zoning
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Kristie Ramos & Rancho Mirage city council,
I am a home owner in Rancho Mirage.
Please vote NO to new zoning in the Thunder Road and Santa Rosas area.
Thank you.
Mary Rita Schaub
(818) 203‐8859
4-542
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
6-20
6-21
6-22
6-23
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
7-17
7-18
7-19
7-20
7-21
7-22
7-23
7-24
7-25
7-26
7-27
7-28
7-29
7-30
7-31
7-32
7-33
7-34
7-35
7-36
7-37
7-38
7-39