Zoning Text Amendment Case No.
ZTA26-0002
Public Comments
From:Michael Silver
To:City Clerk
Cc:Michael Silver; miriam Silver; howard Silver
Subject:Zoning Text Amendment Case No ZTA260002
Date:Sunday, July 12, 2026 8:57:58 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.
To Whom it may concern. My name is Michael J. Silver. I represent the Silver Family Trust. We own the duplex properties at 39900 and 39920 View Road . There is no DESIGNATED NAME for our neighbor…..Its over 65 years old and horribly neglected like a horrible stepchild within the city of Rancho Mirage. A little history…We purchased the two parcels over 25 years ago using my parents hard earned civil service retirement to invest in these properties, which I manage. We purchased the properties from Ted and Judy Martinez Who developed a third property also on Thunder Road. They were built after the City Of Rancho Mirage DOWNZONED to two units per
Parcel. Ours were build in 1989 and 1992 after the downzoning. THEY ARE THE ONLY RESIDENCES THE CITY HAS ALLOWED IN OVER 25 YEARS????? WHY? THERE ARE SIXTEEN. UNDEVELOPED LOTS IN THIS AREA….THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST UNDEVELOPED AREAS IN THE CITY. PROJECTS HAVE COME AND GONE WITHOUT THE CITIES. APPROVAL. AND NOW THEY SIT THERE WITH A PROPOSAL TO FURTHER DEBASE OUR PEOPERTIES WITH 800. FT CONCRETE MONOPALM MONSTROSITIES!!!!On another note there is a large 15 unit building that has been condemned and for over a year has sat there empty
On the corner of Thunder and Bird Lane because it isn’t built to earthquake standards and the repairs remain unmade
OUR PROPERTIES SIT AT THE BASE OF $7 to 15 MILLION PROPERTIES—THE BEST ESTATES IN THE VALLEY. Do they Want a view of concrete towers? They also have clear indications that they cause health risks of cancer and other disorders.
This is one of the only areas of the city with moderate income housing resided in by tenants….I have canvassed thereto make sure the residents have a voice in this decision. There is a beautiful senior housing complex on Thunder Estates Rd. Put in affordable housing NOT CELL PHONE TOWERS So why has the city let the land GO UNDEVELOPED? So Naturally we can have Cell Phone towers?WE are in possibly the LAST area in. The city on septic. Its there an argument between the developers and the city because they want all development to put in the
Sewers? Cell phone towers don't require sewers…The land owners are held over a barrel becsuse they have land they CAN NOT build on and the tower company leases the land from the Owner…Owners don't let this happen.
Tenants don't let them ruin our neighborhood quality of life in. our peaceful neighborhood What has the city done for us recently????? We handed streets paved for the first time. In 25 years. In other ways the city is great
We are safe, there is little crime.
My comment is there needs to be a city sanctioned plan for our neighborhood so our property values are not impacted by these ugly ugly towers!!!!!!!Change the zoning etc back to have 4 units per lot and the owners may pay for the septic?Put in beautiful senior and moderate income housing. Develop the area so we dont HAVE TO ACCEPT CELL PHONE TOWERS Higher than any structure in the area… I agree we need more cell towers and there are many areas including this neightborhood that have bad service and dropped calls. Over on 111 byThe atrium.and city hall have poor reception…..We need better service but not at the cost of our quality of life and the city of Rancho Mirage’s NEGLIGANCE! I AM ENCOURAGING ALL THE RESIDENTS TO. WRITE TO THE CITY AND ATTEND THE MEETING ON THE 26TH AT 1:00PM
Michael Silver MFT
From:Deborah Dooley
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case ZTA26-0002
Date:Monday, July 13, 2026 5:14:37 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. >
> Members of City Council:
>>>
>>> I am writing as a member of the Rancho Mirage community, Wonder Palms at Tamarisk Villas, next to the city owned property at the corner of Frank Sinatra and DaVall roads. I understand that this property, >>> may be the subject of consideration for up to three 81 foot cell towers per a simplified planning process as proposed by this amendment.
>>>
>>> i oppose the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) that, per your public hearing notice, would grossly simplify the approval process for existing entitlements to locating cell towers in what are exclusively residential neighborhoods.
>>>
>>> First, I believe that no “staff member” should be able to make such a decision, and that a proposal to place towers there should be subject to a public hearing.
>>>
>>> The potential opportunity for placement of cell towers in the center of a residential area surrounded by multiple condominium communities will have a devastating effect on all of our property values, destroying our mountain views and, in effect, introducing an industrial quality to a tranquil and elegant neighborhood. >
> When a planning process is being effected in a neighborhood, every citizen should have a right to well presented information and a hearing on the implications of future use proposals that will implicate their lifestyles and most especially, property values.
>
> Staff level decision-making will clearly preclude these rights. And elected officials are duty bound to hear constituent concerns as a part of crucial decision-making on issues affecting their property values. >
> Lastly, it is my understanding that this property was purchased through housing fund monies. I reject the proposed expedited planning process that may well (easily and without community comment) preclude appropriate housing as the outcome of a proposed development on the property.
>
>>> Thank you for your attention.
>>> Deborah Dooley
> 70070 Frank Sinatra Dr. #3
> Rancho Mirage
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
From:Kutayozulu
To:City Clerk
Subject:Opposition to Proposed 81-Foot Mono Palm Cell Tower Due to Health, Safety, and Community Concerns Date:Monday, July 13, 2026 5:44:11 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.
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 81-foot mono palm wireless facility planned for my neighborhood.
While I understand the importance of reliable wireless service, I urge the City to carefully consider the potential health, safety, and quality-of-life impacts this project may have on nearby residents before approving this application.
The proposed tower would be located in close proximity to homes, exposing residents to continuous radiofrequency (RF) emissions twenty- four hours a day. Although regulatory agencies have established exposure limits, there continues to be scientific debate regarding the long-term effects of chronic exposure, particularly for children, seniors, and individuals with existing medical conditions. Given the remaining uncertainty, I believe the City should apply the precautionary principle and avoid placing this facility so close to residential neighborhoods whenever feasible.
In addition to health concerns, the proposed 81-foot structure would negatively affect the character of our neighborhood. Even when disguised as a palm tree, a mono palm of this height is visually incompatible with the surrounding area and would diminish the natural beauty and residential atmosphere of our community.
I am also concerned about potential impacts on property values, neighborhood aesthetics, and the precedent this approval could set for future development of similar facilities in residential areas.
I respectfully request that the City:
Deny approval of the proposed 81-foot mono palm at this location.
Require the applicant to evaluate alternative sites farther from homes and other sensitive uses.
Require an independent review of potential environmental and community impacts before making any final decision.
Prioritize the health, safety, and well-being of residents over the convenience of this proposed location.
As elected officials and decision-makers, you have a responsibility to protect the interests of the community. I respectfully ask that you consider the concerns of the residents who will be most directly affected by this project.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to preserving the health, safety, and quality of life of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kutay Egilmez
71781 Sahara road
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
From:youkali
To:City Clerk
Cc:bob colleran
Subject:CELL PHONE COVERAGE
Date:Monday, July 13, 2026 3:28:45 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.
I am an 83 year old living alone on Bird Ln. My T-Mobile strength is so poor that if I lose wi-fi I have no emergency contacts. A guy named Michael Silver is distributing handbills on windshields in the neighborhood arguing against improving T-Mobile strength here. Please let it be improved for my health and others safety.
Sincerely,
Michael Colleran
From:Michael Harrington
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:City Council Mtg Agenda No. 6a
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:34:30 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.
Agenda Item 6.A.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Oppose
Concern 1: I am not convinced the City has demonstrated why removing Planning Commission review is necessary now. The staff report emphasizes streamlining approvals, but I would like the Council to explain what has changed that justifies this shift and whether there were alternatives that would improve efficiency while preserving public participation.
Concern 2: This ordinance transfers significant decision-making authority from the Planning Commission to administrative staff. Each proposed location has unique characteristics, and I do not believe a one-size-fits-all administrative process is an adequate substitute for site-specific public hearings.
Concern 3: I would like the Council to explain what public notice and appeal rights will remain. How will nearby residents know an application has been filed or approved? Who will receive notice? When does the appeal period begin, and what body will hear an appeal?
Concern 4: Some of the proposed locations raise unique issues. I live near the Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive site. It is adjacent to homes, across from Wilson Park, and close to historically significant properties in the Tamarisk area, including the Frank Sinatra estate. Whether an 83-foot wireless facility is appropriate at that location deserves site-specific public review rather than relying solely on predetermined standards.
Concern 5: While communication towers are generally designed to meet engineering standards, documented accidents have occurred during construction and maintenance, including tower collapses. Those risks reinforce the importance of evaluating each site individually. Locations
adjacent to homes, parks, schools, or historic areas may present different safety and construction considerations that deserve public review rather than automatic administrative approval.
Mike Harrington
From:Sonia Beekman
To:City Clerk
Subject:Request that the City Council not adopt the Ordinance Amending Section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) of Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:17:51 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.
To the Rancho Mirage City Council,
As a resident of Rancho Mirage, I strongly request that the City Council not adopt the Ordinance Amending Section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) of Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code to streamline the entitlement process for wireless communication facilities at designated preferred locations.
The need for cell phone towers within Rancho Mirage is an issue that is understood by its residents; however, the placement of these facilities is of utmost importance and concern to the homeowners in our communities. We have chosen to live in Rancho Mirage because of its beauty and the care taken to preserve its landscape and history.
Currently, as it should remain, the City Council must approve the construction of “new wireless communication facility towers.” If the Ordinance is accepted and the Code amended, the decision as to where to locate a cell phone tower would rest with a single non-elected city employee, the Director of Development Services, who is appointed by another non-elected city employee, the City Manager. This restructuring takes residents and homeowners input out of the decision making process on a major decision that impacts them directly. The democratic process must be allowed to continue with a path for residents and homeowners to have their voices heard by their elected officials who in turn can make decisions based on the will of their constituents.
Locations should not be considered that would negatively impact current residential communities, for example, the parcels of land located at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive. Locating a cell tower here would create a visual impairment, not fit in with the well-maintained surrounding neighborhoods and be out of place with preserving the character and historical significance of the area. A cell tower at this location would also negatively impact property values. This is not a commercial corridor.
There are many existing commercial properties that could house Wireless Communication Facilities. These should be considered primary locations. In addition, undeveloped land in locations zoned commercial should be considered so the tower
can be taken into consideration as commercial construction is erected around it.
Again, I ask that the Council not pass the Ordinance today. I believe if the current Rancho Mirage Municipal Code is upheld, and the Council holds public hearings, especially in the fall, when more residents are back after their summer vacations, you can obtain the needed input from the residents and homeowners and take the necessary time to make this very important decision and be responsive to the people of Rancho Mirage.
However, if the Council decides despite all of the opposition presented to adopt the Ordinance, I ask that they pass proposal 2B instead of 2A. I have already addressed why the parcels of land located at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive are an unacceptable location and they are excluded from the list of designated preferred locations in proposal 2B.
Sincerely,
Sonia Beekman
WESTAR ASSOCIATES
Real Estate Development
July 16, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Rancho Mirage City Council, On behalf of Rancho Mirage Bob Hope Associates, LLC, owner of the Gelson's Shopping Center, I respectfully submit this letter in support of the proposed amendments to the City's Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance.
First, I would like to thank City staff for preparing a thoughtful plan that recognizes the importance of critical communications infrastructure while carefully identifying appropriate locations throughout the community. It is encouraging to see the City take a proactive approach to addressing a growing public need before it becomes a greater challenge.
The Gelson's Shopping Center has proudly served Rancho Mirage for many years, and we are honored that it has been identified as one of the City's preferred locations for future wireless communication facilities. Having successfully accommodated wireless infrastructure in the past, we believe the property's established commercial character makes it well suited for this use.
For decades, Westar Associates has approached every shopping center with a long-term ownership perspective. While our primary mission is providing an exceptional retail environment, we recognize that well -located commercial properties can also accommodate compatible uses that create value beyond retail. Communications infrastructure is one example of how the interests of property owners, businesses, residents, and the City can align.
We appreciate the City's balanced approach to improving communications infrastructure while preserving community character, and we respectfully encourage the City Council to approve the proposed ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
WESTAR ASSOCIATES
Connor Best
Executive Vice President— Entitlements
4650 VON KARMAN AVENUE I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 192660
p 714.241.0400 I f714.241.0132 I info©westarl.com
west a ra sso c i a tes.co m
From:Dorothy Lendaris Kemp, J.D.
To:City Clerk
Cc:Kemp Havlin; Dorothy Lendaris Kemp, J.D.; Brian Lenihan Subject:Statement in Opposition to Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2026 1:21:08 PM
Attachments:Wonder Palms Tamarisk Villas Statement in Opposition to Zoning Text Amendment Case No ZTA26-0002 - City Council.docx
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.
Please accept this email, with attachment, as our formal opposition to the subject amendment.
We are not opposed to cell towers. We are not opposed to streamlining procedures. We are not a NIMBY community. We recognize the importance of seamless cell coverage and the revenue stream to the City because of the towers. We do, however, feel strongly that the residents of the City should have the right to be notified and comment on hot button issues such as the siting of cell towers. The local electorate deserves to have officials, who have a duty to the voters, make such important decisions. To leave that task to an employee who may or may not have an appreciation for the nuances of RM, its historical importance, the aesthetic beauty and the specifics of property values or the resulting loss in the event of poor tower placement, is not in the best interests of the City nor the residents.
Thank you all for your consideration.
Dorothy Lendaris Kemp
President, Board of Directors
Wonder Palms Tamarisk Villas
503-780-7704
Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Greg Lindner
Wednesday, July 15, 2026 9:29 AM
City Clerk
rm-wireless tower proposal
RM-Wireless_tower-Proposal.pdf; zta26-0002-parcel-map.html.txt Follow up
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.
I'm writing regarding the wireless proposal that will be discussed tomorrow, July 16th. See attached letter.
I just wanted to suggest that when you list parcel numbers you also include a map of those locations with pinpoints for each location. 99.9% of people I would say do not have a clue what their parcel number is. You would be doing your community a great service by also including the map. I believe this will add more transparency to future proposals.
Here is a map (attached) I created based on the parcel numbers in relation to my neighborhood. I used Al to create it because it was much quicker, but this would be very easy for your staff to create in their gis system.
It is just a suggestion.
Greg Lindner
Snippet of map -
1 tei
ZTA26.0002 Parcels (69!
• Pa -cc with situ S adY rrs s ( SG1
▪ tk) situsa1drl ss (32)
Rx7rmtinrt Wa y (orll •Ir
Disttriterun3s .1,7rn
i!
Cathedral City
:i
5 .a
a
r..
'• a
1 •
a
r art Il a OlwY —
a
t
G...ra Or..
A \IHII I O•N.
•
•
•
rr . NI N ed V. *• • •
cow., cue a ,.
a
'9
• • ...
s� �• i
•
•
I.. n. Yob. O..
CITY Or RANCHO MIRAGE
Planning Division
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
(760) 328-2266
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Thursday, July 16, 2026 - 1:00 p.m.
Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Applicant: City of Rancho Mirage
Request: Consideration of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) including but not limited to Section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. The proposed amendment streamlines the entitlement process for wireless communication facilities at the identified locations by allowing staff level approvals for an up to 81 -foot tall monopalm with up to three (3) wireless carriers. The Planning Commission recommended approval on June 25, 2026.
Location: Select locations throughout City (See Assessor Parcel Numbers) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the City of Rancho Mirage City Council pursuant to Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Title 17. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In -Fill Development Project).
The Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, at which time and place pertinent testimony will be heard. The file, including all environmental information, is available for public inspection at City HaII, Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and will be posted on the City's website with the publication of the City Council Agenda, to be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Written testimony may be submitted to the City Clerk via email to CitvClerkCa�RanchoMiraoeCA.gov, or mailed to City of Rancho Mirage, ATTN: City Clerk, 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. Written testimony must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing to be considered by the City Council.
GOVERNMENT CODE § 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge this proposed activity in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council sufficiently prior to the Public Hearing to enable its consideration by them.
July 15, 2026
City of Rancho Mirage City Council
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
RE: Opposition to Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 — Amendment to Section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) of Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities)
Dear City Council:
The Board of Directors of Wonder Palms Tamarisk Villas respectfully submits this letter in opposition to Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002. We submitted a similar letter to the Planning Commission in advance of their meeting on June 25, 2026.
We recognize the importance of expanding wireless communications infrastructure to improve service coverage throughout Rancho Mirage. We have reviewed Chapter 17.32 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and generally support the existing framework governing wireless communication facilities, including the preference for locating facilities in commercial and public/semi-public areas, the requirement for stealth design and landscape screening, and the tiered review process based on project size and complexity.
While we greatly appreciate your attention to one immediate concern, addressed by the City Council's carve out of the four lots at the corner of Franks Sinatra and Da Vall from the `preferred site' list, our CHIEF CONCERN is much larger, that the proposed amendment allows approval of new wireless communication facilities on those sites through a Minor Conditional Use Permit reviewed solely by the Planning Director, without a public hearing.
OBJECTION NO. 1 - ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT The proposed amendment would permit wireless facilities, including monopalm towers up to 81 feet in height, to be approved administratively by the Planning Director on designated preferred sites without public review or testimony.
The staff report indicates that this amendment is intended to implement the City Council's direction to "streamline the permitting process" following adoption of the Wireless Master Plan. However, the proposed amendment appears to accomplish this objective primarily by eliminating opportunities for public participation.
Residents and property owners have a legitimate interest in the placement, design, screening, and visual impacts of telecommunications facilities. Public hearings provide an important mechanism for identifying site -specific concerns, improving project design, and ensuring transparency in governmental decision -making.
[1]
We question whether alternatives were considered that would improve administrative efficiency without removing public participation. If the goal is to streamline permitting, the City should first evaluate internal procedural improvements rather than reducing opportunities for residents to provide input on projects that may significantly affect surrounding neighborhoods.
OBJECTION NO. 2 - EXCESSIVE NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF
"PREFERRED SITES"
The project description states that the amendment is intended to streamline approvals for "up to twenty-five (25) sites." However, the proposed ordinance identifies sixty-eight (68) separate parcels as preferred sites and contains no language limiting the number of facilities that may ultimately be approved.
The Wireless Master Plan was developed to identify underserved areas within Rancho Mirage. Rather than identifying a limited number of strategically selected locations that best address coverage deficiencies while minimizing impacts on residents, the amendment designates virtually all City -owned properties as preferred sites.
Many of these parcels are adjacent or in close proximity to one another. Under the proposed ordinance, multiple monopalm towers could potentially be approved on neighboring parcels without any spacing requirements, density limitations, or objective standards governing the number of facilities that may be installed.
Additionally, several designated preferred sites are residentially zoned properties. This appears inconsistent with the stated purpose of Section 17.32.040, which encourages wireless communication facilities to be located in commercial, public, and semi-public zoning districts whenever feasible.
The proposed amendment provides no clear criteria for prioritizing locations, evaluating competing sites, or minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. Without such standards, approval decisions may become arbitrary and difficult for the public to understand.
REQUESTED ACTION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission:
1. Deny approval of Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 in its current form;
2. Direct staff to revise the ordinance to retain public review and comment opportunities for new wireless communication facilities through the Conditional Use Permit process;
[2]
3. Direct staff to reduce the number of designated preferred sites to those locations that are commercial, public, or semi-public in nature, to the greatest extent feasible while still meeting the City's wireless coverage objectives; and
4. Establish objective criteria, including site prioritization standards, spacing requirements, and limitations on facility density, to guide future approvals and ensure consistent decision -making.
We appreciate your consideration of these concerns and respectfully request that the Commission protect meaningful public participation while pursuing the City's telecommunications goals.
Sincerely,
/Dorothy Lendaris Kemp/
Dorothy Lendaris Kemp, President
Board of Directors
Wonder Palms Tamarisk Villas HOA
70070 Frank Sinatra Drive, #4
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
dorothynrondonekemp.corn
503.780.7704
[3]
From:Soraya Lanyri
To:City Clerk
Subject:FORMAL OPPOSITION to ZTA26-0002 – 39920 View Rd, Rancho Mirage Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2026 5:50:11 PM
Attachments:Tower.pdf
Tower 1.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.
July 15, 2026
Dear City Clerk and City Council Members,
Please find attached a formal letter of opposition regarding the proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA26-0002).
Our households (Units A and B of 39920 View Rd) have been members of this community for a combined 20 years. We are deeply concerned that the proposal to designate our neighborhood as a preferred location for an 81-foot wireless communication facility would permanently obstruct our mountain views and degrade the quality of life we have invested in for two decades.
We have attached the signed copy of our letter for the official record. We respectfully urge the Council to select "Action 2(b)" and remove residential-adjacent properties from the list of preferred sites.
Thank you for your time and your commitment to the residents of Rancho Mirage.
Sincerely,
Soraya Lanyri
760-812-4504
Untitled 7/15/26, 5:15 PM
July 15, 2026
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Mirage 69825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Subject: FORMAL OPPOSITION to ZTA26-0002 — 39920 View Rd, Rancho Mirage To the Honorable Mayor and City Council,
We, the residents of 39920 View Rd (Units A and B), are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA26-0002), specifically regarding the proposal to designate the vicinity of our neighborhood as a preferred location for a new wireless communication facility.
1. Community Tenure and Quality of Life Collectively, our households have called this neighborhood home for a total of 20 years. We chose this location specifically for the tranquil residential character of the area and the cherished, unobstructed mountain views that define the beauty of Rancho Mirage. The installation of an 81 -foot industrial monopalm would permanently obstruct these vistas and fundamentally degrade the aesthetic quality of life we have invested in for two decades. This project would significantly impact the primary reasons we chose to make this our home.
2. Community Health and the Precautionary Principle We are deeply concerned about the potential long-term health implications of having a high -power wireless facility placed within close proximity to our dwellings. We urge the Council to apply the "Precautionary Principle," which prioritizes safety when scientific uncertainty exists. Several credible health agencies have highlighted the need for caution regarding Radio Frequency (RF) exposure:
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B). • National Toxicology Program (NTP): Their findings indicated "clear evidence" of tumors in animal studies exposed to high levels of RF radiation, signaling the need for caution regarding human proximity to such infrastructure.
Given these findings, we believe it is irresponsible to prioritize the expedited deployment of wireless infrastructure over the potential health and well-being of residents living immediately adjacent to these sites.
3. Property Value and Neighborhood Character The introduction of a large-scale cellular facility adjacent to homes is well -documented to impact property values. We are concerned that such a structure will diminish the appeal of our homes and the surrounding residential streetscape, directly contradicting the City's goal of maintaining the aesthetic integrity of our community.
4. Request for Alternative Site Selection We are not opposed to the City's goal of improved
Untitled 7/15/26, 5:15 PM
cellular coverage, but we strongly oppose the inclusion of residential -adjacent parcels as "preferred locations." We note that the City Council has previously considered excluding sensitive residential areas from the list of preferred sites (such as the exclusion of the Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive properties in Alternative Action 2b). We respectfully request that the Council extend that same consideration to our neighborhood. We urge you to select "Action 2(b)" and remove residential -adjacent properties from the list of preferred sites, requiring carriers to utilize commercial or institutional zones instead.
We appreciate your time and your commitment to the residents of Rancho Mirage. We look forward to your support in preserving the character, view, and safety of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Unit A: Raj Pandian t / ` . _ `c
Meena Pandian “4 C114'
Unit B: Soraya Lanyri
Steven Markovics v �(" '
Marlene Lanyri ✓i r1
39920 View Rd, Rancho Mirage, CA 9227
From:Amanda Erlinger
To:City Clerk
Subject:Cellular Tower Placement
Date:Thursday, July 16, 2026 10:34:20 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.
To Our City Manager, Commisions, and Staff:
I’m writing as a resident of Rancho Mirage. My family has been in Rancho Mirage, in one form or another, since 1954. My grandmother lived part-time in Rancho Mirage starting in 1990 until she passed away at 101. My mom, sister, and I currently own property in Rancho Mirage.
My grandfather, Frank Sinatra, fell in love with the Coachella Valley in 1939, lived in Palm Springs first, and on a flight over the desert with his friend Jimmy Van Heusen, he saw the Bill Cody designed house that he would live in from 1954-1995. It was on un- incorporated, Cathedral City land, and he was enthralled by the views of the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Big Horn sheep, and the open space that could be enjoyed on what was originally named Wonder Palms Road.
It didn’t hurt that he had a few friends who had started to populate the area. His friends (the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, and George Burns) founded Tamarisk Country Club in 1952 because Jewish and Black and Brown people were being excluded from the other clubs in the desert.
So, my family has a deep emotional connection with Rancho Mirage and with the Marx Brothers property that is now city owned—we’ve owned our properties, and have enjoyed being a part of the Rancho Mirage community, for decades.
It is our hope that you, the individuals who comprise the commission, carefully consider each site that has been identified for potential cellular towers. We want safety in the city, and with the growing numbers of fires and extreme weather incidents, reliable cellular networks are imperative. We understand the need, but we also want to express how valuable our city aesthetics are, especially to residents.
Rancho Mirage is a true “Oasis in the Desert”, as my grandpa announces over the hidden speaker at Wolfson Park.
On behalf of my family, and as a Rancho Mirage resident myself, I
thank you for the work that you do, and please keep us in mind as you make these challenging calls.
All the Best,
Amanda Erlinger
From:Brad Anderson
To:City Clerk
Subject:Public Comment - City of Rancho Mirage Council meeting of July 16, 2026 (1:PM) - AGENDA ITEM: 6.A. (PUBLIC
HEARING TOPIC)
Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2026 12:34:36 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.
July 15, 2026
City of Rancho Mirage
City Council / City Hall
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Attention: Clerk of the Board
Re: Written testimony in regards to Agenda Item: 6.A. (PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC) Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002, proposed Ordinance changes and municipal code manipulation.
Position: In Opposition
Dear current elected and appointed City Council members, Please review my written statements listed (see attached - email dated: June 30, 2026 (10:07AM).
It's reasonable that City officials decided to eliminate accountability and proceed with their own agenda through deceptive methods. Shameful activities of city officials are unfortunate and hopefully their currently held positions are temporary.
Greed and unacceptable behavior of city officials appears to be normal business as usual techniques. As detailed in this month's City demands (Agenda Item: 5.E.) It's reasonable to consider that the uncontrolled expenditures of city council members and other city officials is extreme and unreasonable.
It's critical that potential litigation activities that maybe performed in regards to this unique and unusual political maneuver (Agenda Item: 6.A) be informed of City of Rancho Mirage officials ongoing efforts to disenfranchise citizens of the opportunity to have their verbal testimony documented within written meeting minutes controlled and constructed by city officials. City of Rancho Mirage have censored public testimony provided during public meetings held under it's authority. That action have place city officials at an increase possibility of legal ramifications from those illegal and unethical actions.
Please refrain from any futher reprisal actions against my private property or person for reporting this true and accurate summary of concerns and opinions expressed.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | 37043 Ferber Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brad Anderson
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 10:07 AM
Subject: Written response to business as usual techniques of City appointed Planning Commissioner (City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 2026 (2:PM))
To:
Cc:
June 30, 2026
City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Commission (PC)
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage, CA.
Attention: Planning Commissioner's
Re: Written response to commissioner(s) comments received during the regular scheduled Planning Commission "Public" meeting of June 25, 2026 (2:PM) Dear current Planning Commissioners,
Please consider reviewing the included comments in regards to the most recent planning commission meeting, that included a public hearing topic. 1) It's highly suspicious that only two (2) established commissioners were present during that meeting. And it's unusual that the appointed City Clerk made the determination of presenting the official Oath-of-office to a non-transparent assigned appointee that was (recommended by an appointee of the City Council**) towards the beginning of that public meeting that really never had a original meeting quorum necessary to begin that subcommittee public meeting. 2) the approach to approve prior limited (non-summary) recorded written meeting minutes of the March 26, 2026 regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting was unlawful (Inappropriate). Ethical standards should of had the NEWLY slected appointee recuse herself from that official action.
3) clearly the out-dated and unofficial method of having longevity of "appointed" Planning Commissioner's (currently that may enjoy "forever" placement on city appointed subcommittees) is deeply flawed with favoritism aspects that clearly may encourage avenues (or the appearance) of potential Influence activities.
4) the only Public Hearing topic that was agendized (Item: 5.A.) was disturbing to witness a commissioner's comments in-person and in recorded format (which wasn't released for public Inspection until the following day).
It's concerning that one commissioner added his own personal experience of driving around to certain locations in the early morning . The determination of that sole collected Information along with details of other projects from intenet sources that were not supplied by city staff and not accessable to other commissioners or the public at large was outside that
commissioners duties.
City officials decided to eliminate printing the names of Ex-Officio members (All City of Rancho Mirage Council members) on the official printed meeting agenda (Planning Commission). Please be reminded that other City constructed sub-committees still practices that unusual political maneuver of listing each council members (Ex-Officio members) on their meeting agendas. So, the unusual method of a planning commissioner addressing (speaking too and asking question of) a city council member seated in the chambers should be considered unusual because of the non-public announcement of that subcommittee Ex-Officio members not be recognized officially.
It appeared to be critical that selected designed wireless network facilities would be recognized as having "Date Palms" surrounding them. Please be advised that one major problem with established forever placement of assigned appointees, would be their individual capabilities to dictate unrealistic expectations of non-native plants in most every project that passes through that selected subcommittee.
Public Safety appears to be the narrative chosen to avoid accountability of city officials actions. "Nanny State" would define that ambition, but really the "unofficial" mission of city officials is to:
A) Save developers resources (monies that are known about) B) capabilities to futher develop surveillance devices (wireless networks that supply Automatic License Plate Recognition devices (ALPR's) and other undesirable Police State type of Mass population surveillance devices (such as Drones).
C) expel local resources to select desirable candidates (RFP's) and proposed site locations along with other profit seeking vendors.
D) remove good governance and ethical standards
It was noticed that currently assigned Planning Commission chair allowed city staff to decide topics that he should of addressed and concluded himself. Public Comment was denied to one participate that missed the start of (agenda Item: 5.A. - PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC) but was within the consideration stage of that topic.
Most disturbing, was city staffs opinion that a participate was discussing agenda Item: 5.A. during his non-agenda public comment. Clearly the public speaker had GREAT latitudes of discussion and was within his lawful right to provide public testimony. The actions of city officials to reduce and or eliminate that public speakers comments were misdirected and wrong (unlawful).
The actions of city officials to limit and or eliminate public debate has been strongly linked to current City Council members ambitions to hold status quo operations (censor verbal testimony supplied from residents and guests).
Please be reminded, that official public record should include a brief description summary formatted meeting minutes protocol that will comply with Government Code: 65009. (AS described (listed) on the City of Rancho Mirage PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission meeting for June 25, 2026 - 2:00 p.m. - Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002.
Please refrain from any reprisal actions against my private property or person for reporting this true and accurate summary of concerns and opinions expressed.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | 37043 Ferber Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270 **
It's highly recommended that elected officials (City Council) that appoints a individual for a vacated City Council position for an EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, limits that unelected appointed City Council member of the authority to select (recommend) city assignments of appointed positions along with expelling City financial resources or providing avenues to special Interests (such as presentations for private or public consumption).
Cc:
Los Angeles Office
545 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1114
Los Angeles, California 90071
213-356-5500 Phone
213-356-5511 Fax
Riverside County Office
77564 Country Club Drive, Suite 244
Palm Desert, California 92211
760-978-6200 Phone
760-904-0987 Fax
www.morrisonlawgroup.com
REPLY TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE
Edward F. Morrison, Jr.
Direct Dial: (760) 978-6201
[email protected]
Los Angeles Riverside
July 15, 2026
Via Electronic Mail
[email protected]
City Council of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Attention:
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
Re: City Council Meeting Set for July 16, 2026 (Public Hearing Item 6.A-Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Applicant: City of Rancho Mirage)
Dear Members of the City Council:
NOTICE OF COMMENT
I write in regard to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING set for July 16, 2026 at 1:00 p.m.
Please let this serve as a written public comment.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
This letter is written in regard to the City Council Agenda, Item 6.A - Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Applicant: City of Rancho Mirage. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) of Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code:
Recommended Actions:
There are two separate recommended actions in this staff report for Council to consider. Action 2 includes two options for Council’s consideration- action “a” or action “b.” Only one of the two is recommended.
City Council of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Mirage
July 15, 2026
Recommended Action 2(a) would introduce and adopt the Ordinance with all twenty-five (25) included as preferred sites.
Alternative Recommended Action 2(b) has been provided based on public input received at the June 25, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Staff’s intent was to provide the City Council the option of adopting the proposed amendments while excluding the proposed preferred location at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive (APNs 674-220-019, 674-220-022, 674-220-023, and 674-220-003). Any future proposal for a wireless communication facility proposed on the excluded properties could only be considered through the City's standard entitlement process if this alternative recommended action is taken.
OBJECTION AND COMMENT
I have been a full time resident of Rancho Mirage since 2013 and live at Mission Hills Country Club with my wife Susan and two minor children. I have been actively involved in local community affairs and care deeply about Rancho Mirage and the quality of life we enjoy here.
I oppose aspects of the Zoning Amendment.
I urge the City Council to reject the Zoning Amendment to the extent it would permit cell tower structures over 30 feet in height to be constructed in any of the residential areas of the City. While improvement of cell service in the City is an important benefit for the entire community, to construct large towers, as much as nine (9) stories high, in an already established residential neighborhood will impose an enormous burden which is inconsistent with what I see as the enormous value the City has placed in quality of life.
I want to be clear of my understanding that at least four owners of property located in residential areas have consented to 81 foot towers. Those owners, however, are not the only ones impacted. For example, if the 81 foot tower were constructed at Westin Mission Hills or the old Palm Valley School Campus 1, the residents in those areas (which I am very familiar with) will be severely impacted-and not just in the time it will take to construct a nine story steel structure, but a lasting detriment to the every day lives of the impacted residents. I am not familiar with the two other residential areas being considered, but I am sure the residents will suffer there as well. I absolutely recognize the benefit of better cell service, but the burden of that great benefit should not be imposed on residents who do their daily living here.
1 I note that Recommended Action 2(b) may not or would not include the old Palm Valley School Campus.
City Council of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Mirage
July 15, 2026
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Edward F. Morrison, Jr.
Edward F. Morrison, Jr.
Good afternoon, Mayor and Members of the City Council.
My name is Natasha Tanenbaum, and my husband Gary and I are proud residents of Magnesia Falls Cove.
We're here today as concerned residents, and we respectfully ask you to vote NO on this zoning amendment.
Our greatest concern is the potential long-term health impacts of placing these wireless facilities in residential neighborhoods.
Thousands of peer-reviewed studies have raised concerns about the long-term health effects of radiofrequency radiation, including links to oxidative stress, DNA damage, neurological effects, and certain cancers. Because children are more vulnerable during critical stages of brain and body development, we believe we have a responsibility to ensure these facilities are not placed near schools or residential neighborhoods.
Even the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recently launched a new federal study into the health effects of wireless radiation. If our nation's leading public health agency believes this issue deserves renewed scientific investigation, that should be reason enough for our city to exercise caution—especially when children's health may be involved.
But there's another question that hasn't been answered.
Exactly what problem are we trying to solve?
In Magnesia Falls Cove, we already have excellent cell phone coverage. We don't experience dropped calls or poor reception.
If there truly is a coverage problem somewhere in Rancho Mirage, we support fixing it. But first, prove there's a problem.
Why not survey every resident and every business before changing our zoning laws? Ask the people who actually live and work here where they experience dropped calls or poor reception.
Attorney Robert Berg, who has represented communities in wireless infrastructure cases, has warned that wireless companies sometimes claim coverage gaps that don't match the FCC's National Broadband Map. If there are legitimate coverage gaps in Rancho Mirage, let's verify them with objective evidence and with the real-world experience of our residents before approving more towers.
Finally, this ordinance would allow many future wireless facilities to be approved by city staff instead of requiring a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Today we're fortunate to have a public hearing. But if this ordinance passes, many future wireless facilities could be approved by city staff without ever coming back before the Planning Commission for public comment.
Progress should never come at the expense of public health or our community's voice.
Please preserve the public's voice, require proof that these towers are actually needed, and vote NO on this ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Natasha and Gary Tanenbaum
Residents - Magnesia Falls Cove
Mary G. Whitaker
21 Via Haciendas
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
760.464.0828
July 15, 2026
Via E -Mail: CityClerk a;RanchoMirageCA.gov
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Attn: City Clerk
Re: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Public Hearing: July 16, 2026
Gentlemen:
I am a homeowner and full time resident of Mission Hills. I write in opposition to the Resolution and Amendment (Zoning Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002). .
1. The hearing date and deadline for public comments were set upon minimal notice at a time when many residents are out of town, thereby disenfranchising a large segment of the population.
2. The Amendment is inconsistent with the overall design plan for the City. I do not object to the placement of cell equipment on public street lamps or traffic signals so long as the total height does not exceed the height of existing lamps and signals — approximately 25 feet. But the Amendment addresses structures up to 81 feet tall in residential areas. Our beautiful City is well planned to limit heights. I am unaware of a single structure in the City — other than the Agua Caliente resort — which is 81 feet tall. Tall cell structures will stand out like proverbial sore thumbs.
3. The Amendment is overly broad. It goes beyond the specific sites and specific heights mentioned in the City's Master Plan to include additional locations, additional areas within sites, and additional heights. For example, the Master Plan speaks of a 60 foot flagpole at the Westin. But the Amendment addresses an 81 foot tall tower located not just at the Westin's flagpole location, but anywhere on the large Westin property.
City of Rancho Mirage
July 15, 2026
4. There is no showing of necessity for the Amendment. The Master Plan refers to a number of CUPs which were approved, but the facilities were never constructed. There is no showing that the less intrusive facilities described in the CUPs would not be sufficient to solve the alleged problem. Nor has there been any showing that City Council approval after an opportunity for homeowners to be heard is so onerous that it poses an impediment to the construction of new facilities without undue delay.
5. The Amendment considers only part of the question (who owns the land on which the tower will be built and who will be compensated) and gives no consideration whatsoever to the nearby residents who will be adversely impacted by the tower (adjoining residential property owners who must look at the tower, who will suffer loss of privacy and the construction of a structure incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and whose property values will be reduced). It is no answer to argue that, at this stage, calculation of harm to adjacent landowners is premature, because the Amendment eliminates entirely the right of adjacent landowners to present their arguments at a public hearing before duly elected City officials.
6. My sixth objection is practical. Although the planning staff may be experienced and professional, two pairs of eyes are always better than one. In the city where I lived for many years before moving to Rancho Mirage, the city council retained ultimate decision -making authority, even though that city was blessed with equally competent planning staff. And wisely so, because, from time to time, staff failed to give proper consideration to an issue deemed important by the city council. Such an approach will help to avoid costly litigation against the City by aggrieved residents, whose only recourse, in the absence of public hearings and a decision by duly elected officials, is to file suit.
7. The Amendment is unconstitutional and otherwise contrary to law. It imposes a burden (diminution in property values) on selected residents (those who reside near selected sites) for the allege benefit of all (the hope of improved cell service) without compensation, without a showing of necessity, and without due process (opportunity to be heard at a public hearing before duly elected officials). Again, it cannot be said that harm is theoretical at this time, because residents will not have an opportunity to present these arguments later if the Amendment passes.
I am mindful of the complaints (often shrill) about the perceived inadequacy and/or unreliability of cell service. Improvement of cell service is a laudable goal. The flawed Amendment is not the fair, reasonable, or legal way to achieve it.
Very truly yours,
MARY G. WHITAKER