Petition Against Rezoning General Plan Amendment 240053

No to the development too much traffic and water well demand will reduce our water in our wells

No.

This would be a detriment to the community.

I’m opposed to this project in this area

To populated already. Thank you

We would like to keep the area free from more traffic, unnecessary building like other areas that have been taken over by overpopulated neighborhoods. The area we live in is best kept rural. The amount of water we have already lost from the drought will become significantly worse for those of us with wells.

Please keep our community as is. We just moved out here to live this way in a rial environment.

We purchased exclusively to be in rural residential, not medium density.

No more development in Hemet.

5 acre minimal

I have lived in Sage for 16 years. I bought my home here specifically because of its RR zoning and the idea that zoning limitations would ensure that this part of California would keep the heritage and history of its past, rather than allowing further urban spread. This is not only an illogical place to put more homes with the fire risk and environmental impact but it's also spreading blight. Why not encourage the areas of Hemet that need redevelopment to invest in converting that infrastructure to housing areas, like the strip mall and so forth that have sat empty for over half the time I've lived in Sage. Planning should be occuring with the idea that moving further into wild areas is bad enough mass. Just look at Alta Dena, Sage is actually much more likely to burn if masses of homes are put in that area. We already have a 40 minute drive for many of us just to get to the Hemet post office when our mail is diverted. That is more often than it is actually delivered out here, this would extend that to a minimum hour to 1.15. The New housing that has already gone in has made it difficult for the actual rural people with farms to get to town. You will reduce the value of what exists as well. If you want to drive more of the actual money out of California destroying areas like Sage is precisely how you'll do it. This place has a lot of value financially that can be developed but not as cheap, mass produced suburbs. That's ugly and proven to have serious negative impacts in every possible way from the environment to social impacts.

I'm against rezoning residential communities with larger parcel mandates in favor of high-density developments. There is plenty of work to do within the city to improve its desirability & attract wage-earning, productive residents. When the city looks & works better, you may consider sprawl. I won't endorse planners taking the easy route until you clean up your mess.

No to zone changes in this area. Leave the rural areas alone.

I oppose the 240053 rezone.

Keep anza anza ! We do not need apartments ….

No to further developement

Everyone needs to leave the ranchers alone, stop trying to change the natural environment for the animals. It’s bad enough that we have fires and stuff that have interrupted the animals homes, we don’t need to add to that. We don’t need to be crowded with more homes, stores and restaurants.

Stop building high density housing in rural areas. Leave our rural areas as is.

Protect our RR land and the native flora and fauna. As California is laden with wildfires, bringing more population in the form of crowded neighborhoods to these areas, which are full of natural chaparral and craggy mountain passes would endanger all of us to more wild fires.

No more building!