� CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
CITY COUNCIL,
LIBRARY AND OBSERVATORY BOARD,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD,
AND THE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTING
THE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026
1:00 P.M.
AGENDA
LATE SUBMISSIONS AND/OR REVISIONS
• 6C - Attachment No. 13 - Revised
From:
To:
Bee:
Subject:
Date:
Attadunen ts:
Hello Holly,
Lezlee Perez
Holly Blair
Ben Torres
RE: Mirage Cove Condos
Tuesday, November 25, 2025 9:21:47 AM
city seal transparent 2 4b81bffe-bb95 -4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png PDP25-0003 - PHN.pdf
ATTACHMENT 13
REVISED
There was no meeting on Friday, November 21st. The project is tentatively scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting on December 11, 2025. Please refer to the attached document.
You should also be receiving a public hearing notice in the mail. Feel free to stop by our planning counter to review the project files. I'd be happy to discuss the project and answer any questions.
Our planning counter is open Monday- Friday from 8am to 5pm. If you are not able to come in person, the project files and staff report will be available on our website by end of day, Friday December 5th here:
https://ranchomirageca.gov/our city/city boards commiss ions/pla nning comm ission.php .
Thank you
Lezlee
[g
L
7 _J
Lezlee Perez
Assistant Planner
Phone: 760-328-2266 Ext. 257
E-mail: [email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
TRANSPARE NCY NOTI CE
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 7920-793 1, et seq.) From: Holly Blair <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, Novembe r 21, 2025 12:07 PM
To: Lezlee Perez <lezleep@ranchomirageca .gov>
Subject: Mirage Cove Condos
CAUTION: This email originated from outs ide The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the conten t is safe. ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "[email protected] " <[email protected] > To: "hollyeb lair@yahoo .com " <[email protected] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 at 12:05:29 PM PST
Subject: Failure Notice
To whom this may concern:
My name is Holly Mickschl and my condo is located at 70100 Mirage Cove #4. The proposed project that is the museum and parking lot directly behind my condo is very concerning. My condo is rented full time and I was not made aware of this project and was unable to draft a negative draft declaration in the time frame stated due to only finding out this week from my renter. We bought this condo due to the quiet complex anytime of day and any day of the week. The project that taking place in my backyard will not only change the noise factor but the privacy and the view factors now come into play. The hillside offers a beautiful view as well as protection from the wind and privacy from onlookers peeping into my backyard. The ensuing project appears to eliminate all the positive reasons we had for purchasing this condo. Is the company that is building this project making sure those of us inconvenienced by the noise and losing privacy and our view, are compensated? Are they putting in landscaping that will help with the noise and privacy issues? I do not live in the area and am not able to attend a meeting today, Friday the 21st. Can you advise me on what this meeting is concerning?
Sincerely,
Holly Mickschl
From: Kristie Ramos, CMC
To: Brad Anderson
Subject: Re: Public Comment(s) - City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2025 (2:PM) Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 2:12:06 PM
Attachments: city seal transparent 2 4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Your email has been received and will be provided to the Planning Commission prior to their 12/11/2025 meeting.
Best,
Kristie Ramos
Kristie Ramos, CMC
City Clerk
Phone:
760-324-4511 Ext. 488
E-mail:
[email protected]
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
www.RanchoMirageCa.gov
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 7920-7931, et seq.) On Dec 10, 2025, at 1:38
PM, Brad Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
December 10, 2025
City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Commission
City Council Chamber / City Hall
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage,
CA.
92270
760.324.4511 Ext. 488
Attention:
City Clerk / Clerk of the Board (Planning Commission)
Re:
Written testimony in regards to Agenda Items: 3.A & 4.B. (PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC)
Dear current Planning Commission Appointees,
Please review my written statements listed below prior to the consideration of each agenda Item presented.
1) Agenda Item: 3.A. (Proposed approval of written meeting minutes - October 9, 2025)
Position: In Opposition
Please be reminded that city of Rancho Mirage Council's radical political maneuver nearly one year earlier that implemented extreme measures to censor verbal testimony supplied during public meetings held under it's authority.
It's reasonable to consider that appointees of city commissions have decided to allow aspects of free speech (accurate recorded written meeting minutes) to be eliminated from official city controlled public records.
YouTube (Internet network) is a private sector business that City of Rancho Mirage currently displays videos through. Please be advised that advertisements are marketed with city content (videos) -YouTube channel videos are NOT official public records.
City Council members clearly have an advantage (political re-election) when their actions eliminated an accurate accounting of public decent and or radical behaviors that they themselves displayed during city controlled public meetings (censorship of written meeting minutes).
Draft minutes of the October 9, 2025 City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission meeting went to great lengths to describe commissioner comments while eliminating (censoring) verbal testimony (comments) received from myself and others during that "open public meeting".
It's critical that an accurate summary of concerns and opinions expressed from Commissioners / Staff / Contractor's / General Public (Residents) be recognized and recorded within the official public record (written meeting minutes) of those proceedings).
The city of Rancho Mirage has clearly violated good judgment and ethical standards with it's limitations on free speech (recording written meeting minutes in an accurate fashion).
2) Agenda Item: 4.B. (PUBLIC HEARING) Proposed Development - Global Wildlife Discovery Museum/Environmental Assessment Case: EA25-0003 Position: In Opposition (as currently presented)
It's alarming that major destruction of a long established and iconic landmark (landscape - Mountain) be partially disrupted and be assessed as having No negative effect over the surrounding areas. It's clear that property maintenance of those sites have been deferred for years. Dead and damaged vegetation (Palm Trees) were allowed to be in clear violation of city code requirements while city sponsored (supposed) private "ART" display(s) were for sale on one of those properties.
A nearby wildlife corridor should be recognized and not disrupted. Traffic Safety should dictate street widening with appropriate lanes that would enhance traffic flows. It's clear Coachella Valley Association of Government (CVAG) inquired influence over current City Council members to take control over traffic signals within citys boundaries and cause traffic flows to become negatively impacted. It's reasonable to consider that CVAG have manipulated traffic signals to radical slow and or stop vehicles within City boundaries with NO known positive aspects for each individual vehicle that's impacted by CVAG's radical behaviors of traffic signal manipulation.
It's reasonable to consider that city officials may have a high interest in this proposal. Please be reminded that selected properties were used to display private sector business merchandise - "ART" for an extended period of time from a contractor that has strong business Interests with local politicians and their pet projects (Children Museum among others). Having the misfortune of being flanked with neighbors - the mentioned contractor above and ALSO being inflicted with another contractor related to this proposed project who is also a neighbor is discouraging and concerning. It's worth noting that both neighbors have attempted to display their influence with city officials (or threaten) to cause distress towards my private residence in the past and recently with unreasonable/unverified vulgarity accusations that's unrelated to this proposal.
Integrity of city officials and hired contractors should be one of the highest priorities of city government. It's reasonable that selective individuals (city contractors) maybe mentally compromised, city government shouldn't be completely held accountable for unfavorable conducted from individuals that attempt to use influences of city officials for their private means but should reserved the right to investigate those private sector companies that abuse their position.
It's reasonable that the proposed properties are NOT the best location for this proposed development. Of course it's very likely that political maneuvers of local politicians are a factor within this recommendation. It's noticed that potential (3) Three different property owners may be involved to date.
Having an advertisement Billboard that's located in the proposed development maybe an aspect of future Infrastructure and development growth. It should be detailed if properly owner "Morris Communication" have drect involvement with the stated Billboard easement. The potential movement of a Bus-Stop from it's current location to private property should be described if accurate.
Please don't take any reprisal actions against my private property or person for reporting this true and accurate summary of concerns and opinions. It's highly recommended to recognize and recorded this public testimony within the official public record without censorship techniques from City of Rancho Mirage officials (In Opposition, as presented to date).
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | 37043 Ferber Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270 Cc:
47th District Assembly member
I
[email protected] and Hollyebalir@vahoo .com
City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Commission
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Troy Ditt & Holly Mickschl
70100 Mirage Cove Dr. #7
December 10, 2025
RE: Planning Commission Public Hearing - Global Wildlife Discovery Museum Environmental Case EA25-0003 and
Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PPD25-003
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We live directly behind the overflow parking area for the proposed Global Wildlife Discovery Museum at 69934 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. We feel we will be directly impacted by the museum and have the following comments on the plans and environmental review:
1.0 The overflow parking lot is proposing 4 bus parking spaces located about 5' from the back wall of our complex (The plans on the website have no dimensions and are cut off so the actual setback is unknown). The parked buses will have significantly less landscape buffer from the residences than the auto parking which increases the impacts of the bus parking. We have the following concerns on the design of the auxiliary parking lot:
1.1 The environmental review does not analyze the noise created by the buses parking so close to the existing residential uses. These buses will be parked with their engine and air-conditioning systems running adjacent to the residential lot line and the noise of these idling buses needs to be analyzed in the environmental review . Very often, the bus driver stays in the bus while the customers are visiting the museum thus there is a significant amount of time (up to several hours) that the bus could be idling to air condition the bus thus significantly impacting the adjacent residences. The front engine compartment of the buses could be as close as 5' from the residential property line. The noise and exhaust from these buses will have a significant impact on the residences and our ability to use the outdoor areas. These impacts need to be studied under the operational noise section in the environmental documentation .
1.2 The buses are significantly taller than the existing wall/fence and will be visible from the residences. The environmental documentation needs to analyze the views of the parked busses from the adjacent residents and whether the lights on the buses will produce glare into the residential uses as well the impacts of blocking views from the residences.
1.3 There is no discussion in the environmental review on the height of the wall between the residents and the parking lot and whether it will effectively screen the parking lot to mitigate impacts on the existing residents.
1.4 The environmental documental does not clearly state whether the auxiliary parking lot is paved or not. If the auxiliary parking lot is not paved, there could be considerable dust from buses and autos using the parking lot and that should be analyzed.
1.5 The environmental documentation needs to address and confirm the proposed parking lot lighting will not spill over into the residential property to avoid impacts from glare and spillover lighting.
1.6 The City website does not provide a complete set of plans so we can see the proposed landscaping and lighting locations for the auxiliary parking lot along the entire residential frontage . The plans are cut off on the website so it's difficult to understand what is planned near the residential uses. We would like to see the proposed landscape plans for buffering the residential uses from the auxiliary parking lot.
2.0 We would suggest that these environmental impacts could be reduced if they move the bus parking to the south side of the parking lot adjacent to Highway 111.
2.1 Moving the bus parking would move the noise and light impacts away from the residential uses and thus reduce these impacts to the residences.
2.2 Relocating the 4 bus parking spaces and designing the replacement auto parking with the enhanced landscape setback from the residential property line could mitigate impacts on the existing residential uses.
We support the concept of the museum on the site and want to work to reduce the impacts of the museum parking, so our residences are not significantly impacted by the project . We would like to see the environmental documentation address the impacts of the auxiliary parking lot and provide mitigation requirements to reduce these impact by redesigning the parking lot.
Sincerely