Rancho Mirage City Council
July 16, 2026

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243411 07/02/2026 PRTD 62 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 0930106162026 06/18/2026 07032026 143.36 Invoice: 0930106162026 SERVICE PE 5/15/2026 (ACCT #154 326 0930 1) 143.36 21500690 7600 NATURAL GAS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 2300606162026 06/18/2026 07032026 885.05 Invoice: 2300606162026 SERVICE PE 5/15/2026 (ACCT #051 525 2300 6) 885.05 10133300 7600 NATURAL GAS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 3388006172026 06/19/2026 07032026 122.51 Invoice: 3388006172026 SERVICE PE 6/17/2026 (ACCT #066 225 3388 0) 122.51 21500500 7600 NATURAL GAS
CHECK 243411 TOTAL: 1,150.92
243412 07/02/2026 PRTD 234 DESERT LIMNOLOGISTS INC 06-24834 06/20/2026 20260004 07032026 415.00 Invoice: 06-24834 CANCER SURVIVORS PARK POND MAINTENANCE 6/2026 415.00 21895000 7612 MAINTENANCE
DESERT LIMNOLOGISTS INC 06-24835 06/20/2026 20260004 07032026 150.00 Invoice: 06-24835 WATER FEATURE MAINTENANCE 6/2026 150.00 21893000 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243412 TOTAL: 565.00
243413 07/02/2026 PRTD 532 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY INV09922 05/31/2026 20260006 07032026 4,763.67 Invoice: INV09922 BUS SHELTER MAINTENANCE 5/2026 4,763.67 10133000 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243413 TOTAL: 4,763.67
243414 07/02/2026 PRTD 3389 TINA BROWN 2027 RMWF DEPOSIT 07/01/2026 07032026 12,500.00 Invoice: 2027 RMWF DEPOSIT 2027 RMWF DEPOSIT - T BROWN 12,500.00 244 7910 FOUNDATION - PROGRAMS
CHECK 243414 TOTAL: 12,500.00
243415 07/02/2026 PRTD 9 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) IN 263368519-001 06/19/2026 07032026 516.90 Invoice: 263368519-001 SCISSOR LIST QUARTERLY INSPECTION 516.90 24281000 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243415 TOTAL: 516.90
243416 07/02/2026 PRTD 480 US BANK 8223169 06/25/2026 07032026 3,750.00 Invoice: 8223169 ADMIN FEES FY 2026/2027 3,750.00 721 7440 BOND SERVICING
122

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/02/2026 11:25
User:alexanderh
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
CHECK 243416 TOTAL: 3,750.00
243417 07/02/2026 PRTD 329 WESTERN PUMP, INC.W91358 06/26/2026 07032026 528.75 Invoice: W91358 COMPRESSOR SERVICE 6/22/2026
528.75 10133310 7612 MAINTENANCE
WESTERN PUMP, INC.W91361 06/26/2026 07032026 560.00
Invoice: W91361 COMPRESSOR SERVICE 6/22/2026
560.00 21500690 7612 MAINTENANCE
WESTERN PUMP, INC.W91359 06/26/2026 07032026 861.25
Invoice: W91359 COMPRESSOR SERVICE 6/22/2026
861.25 21500500 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243417 TOTAL: 1,950.00
243418 07/02/2026 PRTD 2881 WELTYS ENTERPRISES, INC 5005 06/28/2026 07032026 75.00 Invoice: 5005 LIVE SCAN FEES

75.00 24281000 7860 RECRUITMENT
CHECK 243418 TOTAL:75.00
NUMBER OF CHECKS 81 *** CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL *** 497,384.76

COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS 45 244,598.22
TOTAL EFT'S 36 252,786.54
*** GRAND TOTAL *** 497,384.76
123

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User:cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
10243 07/10/2026 EFT 839 AARON ESPINOSA 86110 06/16/2026 07102026 263.25 Invoice: 86110 BOOKS FOR S ROWLEY PROGRAM
263.25 24281000 7910 FOUNDATION - PROGRAMS
AARON ESPINOSA 86111 01/16/2026 07102026 201.62
Invoice: 86111 UNIFORMS FOR RMWF
201.62 244 8000 SUPPLIES
AARON ESPINOSA 86112 06/30/2026 07102026 2,096.04
Invoice: 86112 REIMB-ALA CONFERENCE 6/25-30/2026
2,096.04 24281000 7806 MEETINGS/TRAINING/TRAVEL
CHECK 10243 TOTAL: 2,560.91
10244 07/10/2026 EFT 333 BECK OIL INC 217587 06/30/2026 07102026 1,318.26 Invoice: 217587 FUEL PE 6/30/2026

98.55 10132000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
432.31 10133000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
377.44 10132000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
217.42 10141000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
192.54 10123000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
BECK OIL INC 218521 07/07/2026 07102026 868.73
Invoice: 218521 FUEL PE 7/7/2026
109.19 10132000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL

66.59 10133000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
164.99 21800000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
233.98 10132000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
203.98 10141000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL

90.00 10123000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
CHECK 10244 TOTAL: 2,186.99
10245 07/10/2026 EFT 1523 CDW GOVERNMENT INC AJ9WV9N 07/03/2026 07102026 366.54 Invoice: AJ9WV9N TRIPP NETWORK MANGEMENT
366.54 10156000 7639 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE
CHECK 10245 TOTAL:366.54
10246 07/10/2026 EFT 274 CORELOGIC INFORMATION SOLUTIONS I 30884929 06/30/2026 07102026 420.11 Invoice: 30884929 REAL QUEST PROPERTY SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 420.11 10156000 7818 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
CHECK 10246 TOTAL:420.11
10247 07/10/2026 EFT 2314 CREATIVE LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL , 4157407 06/30/2026 20260016 07102026 269.50 Invoice: 4157407 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE 6/2026
269.50 24281000 7612 MAINTENANCE
124

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User:cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
CREATIVE LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL , 4157406 06/30/2026 20260016 07102026 302.00 Invoice: 4157406 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE 6/2026
302.00 10133300 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 10247 TOTAL:571.50
10248 07/10/2026 EFT 2966 DEANNE DEKLE 86129 06/30/2026 07102026 440.00 Invoice: 86129 REIMB-ALA CONFERENCE 6/25-30/2026
440.00 24281000 7806 MEETINGS/TRAINING/TRAVEL
CHECK 10248 TOTAL:440.00
10249 07/10/2026 EFT 3024 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH C 3-2026 06/02/2026 07102026 59,627.94 Invoice: 3-2026 PP-GEMT IGT TRNSFR - 3/4 CY 2026 (NPI 1457885089) 59,627.94 21500000 7853 GEMT QUALITY ASSURANCE FEE
CHECK 10249 TOTAL: 59,627.94
10250 07/10/2026 EFT 96 ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR 42277644 06/30/2026 07102026 1,377.58 Invoice: 42277644 SHERIFF VEHICLE RENTAL PE 6/4/2026
1,377.58 10141000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 10250 TOTAL: 1,377.58
10251 07/10/2026 EFT 1358 HERC RENTALS INC 36745580-002 06/29/2026 07102026 1,333.22 Invoice: 36745580-002 SKIDSTEER LOADER RENTAL - 6/24/2026 1,333.22 10133310 8002 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
CHECK 10251 TOTAL: 1,333.22
10252 07/10/2026 EFT 36 JOSLYN CENTER 13674 07/01/2026 07102026 22,764.60 Invoice: 13674 CONTRACT SERVICES Q1 FY 26/27
22,764.60 10157000 7488 SENIOR CENTERS
CHECK 10252 TOTAL: 22,764.60
10253 07/10/2026 EFT 3035 KAILA WAYBRIGHT 86116 06/23/2026 07102026 157.65 Invoice: 86116 REIMB-SUPPLIES FOR PROGRAMS, SRC, STEAM READS

85.39 24281000 7910 FOUNDATION - PROGRAMS

9.10 24281000 7914 FOUNDATION - READING CLUB

41.42 E LL_STEAM -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7919 FOUNDATN-LITERARY LEGACY

21.74 E LB_SRC -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
125

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User:cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
24281000 7919 FOUNDATN-LITERARY LEGACY
CHECK 10253 TOTAL:157.65
10254 07/10/2026 EFT 611 VALENTINE KEPHART 86123 06/30/2026 07102026 1,967.30 Invoice: 86123 REIMB-ALA CONFERENCE 6/25-30/2026
1,967.30 24281000 7806 MEETINGS/TRAINING/TRAVEL
CHECK 10254 TOTAL: 1,967.30
10255 07/10/2026 EFT 3309 MAZZETTI INC 0112847 07/07/2026 20260072 07102026 1,584.68 Invoice: 0112847 RMEA ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONSULTANT PE 5/22/2026 1,584.68 600 7426 SUSTAINABILITY REBATES & PRGRM
CHECK 10255 TOTAL: 1,584.68
10256 07/10/2026 EFT 3471 NEON ONE LLC INV595336 07/07/2026 07102026 384.22 Invoice: INV595336 NEON ONE CRM SUBSCRIPTION 7/2026
384.22 243 7639 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE
CHECK 10256 TOTAL:384.22
10257 07/10/2026 EFT 295 OVERDRIVE INC H-0123693 07/01/2026 07102026 9,000.00 Invoice: H-0123693 FY 26/27 LICENSE & HOSTING, CONTENT CREDIT 9,000.00
E LB_ELECT -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
OVERDRIVE INC 01187CO26231259 07/08/2026 07102026 432.50 Invoice: 01187CO26231259 EBOOKS & AUDIOBOOKS
432.50
E LB_ELECT -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
OVERDRIVE INC 01187DA26230419 07/07/2026 07102026 75.00 Invoice: 01187DA26230419 EBOOKS & AUDIOBOOKS

75.00 E LB_ELECT -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
OVERDRIVE INC 01187CO26229210 07/07/2026 07102026 207.92 Invoice: 01187CO26229210 EBOOKS
207.92
E LB_ELECT -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
126

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User:cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
CHECK 10257 TOTAL: 9,715.42
10258 07/10/2026 EFT 3198 PARK PLACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC PUSA10090225616 06/30/2026 20270011 07102026 7,484.64 Invoice: PUSA10090225616 VXRAIL SUPPORT FY 2026/2027
7,484.64 10156000 7639 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE
CHECK 10258 TOTAL: 7,484.64
10259 07/10/2026 EFT 612 RACHEL ANNE HORWITZ L844440 07/01/2026 07102026 17.00 Invoice: L844440 GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES 6/2026

17.00 600 7842 ADVERTISING/PUBLISHING
RACHEL ANNE HORWITZ L844441 07/01/2026 20260135 07102026 1,467.95 Invoice: L844441 GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES 6/2026
1,467.95 10172000 7494 AMPHITHEATER PROGRAMMING
CHECK 10259 TOTAL: 1,484.95
10260 07/10/2026 EFT 50 RANCHO MIRAGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 117786 06/30/2026 20270014 07102026 15,000.00 Invoice: 117786 2026 TASTE OF SUMMER
15,000.00 10172000 7468 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CHECK 10260 TOTAL: 15,000.00
10261 07/10/2026 EFT 2459 SELF INSURED SERVICES COMPANY 86155 06/30/2026 07102026 7,594.07 Invoice: 86155 DISABILITY 07/26
7,594.07 101 2279 ADDITIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
CHECK 10261 TOTAL: 7,594.07
10262 07/10/2026 EFT 2244 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTE 5209 052826 05/28/2026 07102026 200.00 Invoice: 5209 052826 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION
200.00 10122000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTE 5209 061126 06/12/2026 07102026 636.58 Invoice: 5209 061126 CERT, STUDY AND CODE BOOKS ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 636.58 10122000 7806 MEETINGS/TRAINING/TRAVEL
CHECK 10262 TOTAL:836.58
10263 07/10/2026 EFT 218 TRACY FINNELL, INC 142588 07/08/2026 07102026 1,575.84 Invoice: 142588 PM SERVICE - 2016 FORD EXPLORER
1,575.84 10141000 7624 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
127

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User:cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
CHECK 10263 TOTAL: 1,575.84
10264 07/10/2026 EFT 2109 WITTMAN ENTERPRISES LLC WITT-000701 06/30/2026 07102026 8,016.00 Invoice: WITT-000701 AMBULANCE BILLING SERVICES 6/2026
8,016.00 21500000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 10264 TOTAL: 8,016.00
10265 07/10/2026 EFT 1848 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS, INC 6302026 06/30/2026 07102026 30,588.31 Invoice: 6302026 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT 6/2026
466.15 600 7212 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT
26,096.24 10151000 7212 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT
3,512.99 24281000 7212 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT
512.93 28000000 7212 INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT
CHECK 10265 TOTAL: 30,588.31
10266 07/10/2026 EFT 2855 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 90010523 06/29/2026 20260011 07102026 2,519.14 Invoice: 90010523 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE - HWY 111 & INDIAN TRL 2,519.14 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 90010529 06/30/2026 20260011 07102026 8,959.70 Invoice: 90010529 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
8,959.70 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
CHECK 10266 TOTAL: 11,478.84
243419 07/10/2026 PRTD 2888 UNIVERSAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE, L 18552787 06/04/2026 20260111 07102026 13,152.06 Invoice: 18552787 JANITORIAL SERVICES 6/30/2026
4,533.39 10133300 7612 MAINTENANCE
968.82 10133310 7612 MAINTENANCE
7,220.71 24281000 7612 MAINTENANCE
429.14 24282000 7613 OBSERVATORY MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243419 TOTAL: 13,152.06
243420 07/10/2026 PRTD 1592 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. 19Q6-PF4Y-CGYL 07/01/2026 07102026 1,122.74 Invoice: 19Q6-PF4Y-CGYL OFFICE SUPPLIES, SRC PROGRAM SUPPLIES 377.10
E LB_SRC -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7919 FOUNDATN-LITERARY LEGACY
745.64 24281000 8000 SUPPLIES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. 19WH-Y4LR-WXLV 07/01/2026 07102026 2,213.47 Invoice: 19WH-Y4LR-WXLV BOOKS, CDS, PROGRAM SUPPLIES, DESK CHAIR 713.27 24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION

19.36 24281000 7914 FOUNDATION - READING CLUB
128

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
790.26 24281000 8000 SUPPLIES

46.31 24281000 8012 SMALL TOOLS, FURN & EQUIP

68.40 24281000 8028 COMPUTER ENHANCEMENT
276.37 24281000 8900 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
190.91
E LB_ELECT -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION

57.57 E LB_SRC -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7919 FOUNDATN-LITERARY LEGACY

51.02 E LL_YODER -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED -UNDEFINED
24281000 7919 FOUNDATN-LITERARY LEGACY
CHECK 243420 TOTAL: 3,336.21
243421 07/10/2026 PRTD 219 CALIFA GROUP 9337 07/01/2026 07102026 1,391.00 Invoice: 9337 NEW YORK TIMES SUBSCRIPTION PE 6/30/2027 1,391.00 24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
CHECK 243421 TOTAL: 1,391.00
243422 07/10/2026 PRTD 331 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS 86160 06/30/2026 07102026 1,045.80 Invoice: 86160 STATE FEE QE 06/26 1,162.00 101 2464 CBSC FUND FEE
-116.20 101 4222 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES CHECK 243422 TOTAL: 1,045.80
243423 07/10/2026 PRTD 275 CINTAS DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 9379323209 06/30/2026 20260021 07102026 135.77 Invoice: 9379323209 AED SERVICE AGREEMENT 6/2026 135.77 10142000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CINTAS DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 9379308310 06/30/2026 20260021 07102026 139.00 Invoice: 9379308310 AED SERVICE AGREEMENT 6/2026 139.00 10142000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CINTAS DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 5337518005 05/21/2026 07102026 391.57 Invoice: 5337518005 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 391.57 24281000 8000 SUPPLIES
CINTAS DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 9374850467 05/31/2026 20260034 07102026 426.69 Invoice: 9374850467 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR AEDS - LIBRARY 426.69 24281000 8220 LEASE PAYMENTS
CHECK 243423 TOTAL: 1,093.03
129

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243424 07/10/2026 PRTD 275 CINTAS DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 9379319477 06/30/2026 20260021 07102026 543.06 Invoice: 9379319477 AED SERVICE AGREEMENT 6/2026 543.06 10142000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 243424 TOTAL: 543.06
243425 07/10/2026 PRTD 11 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION 86156 06/30/2026 07102026 8,700.00 Invoice: 86156 TUMF FEES 06/26 8,700.00 702 2460 TUMF DEPOSITS
CHECK 243425 TOTAL: 8,700.00
243426 07/10/2026 PRTD 11 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION IN-CVAG-26-0629 12/31/2025 07102026 3,997.79 Invoice: IN-CVAG-26-0629 FY2026 Q2 RANCHO MIRAGE AB2766 3,997.79 239 7484 CVAG ADMINISTRATION FEE
CHECK 243426 TOTAL: 3,997.79
243427 07/10/2026 PRTD 311 COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COM 86158 06/30/2026 07102026 5,108.40 Invoice: 86158 MSHCP FEES 06/26 5,160.00 702 2473 MSHCP FEES
-51.60 101 4222 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES
CHECK 243427 TOTAL: 5,108.40
243428 07/10/2026 PRTD 2799 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PE0000003675 06/30/2026 07102026 487.02 Invoice: PE0000003675 APX MAINTENANCE PE 6/2026 487.02 10141000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 243428 TOTAL: 487.02
243429 07/10/2026 PRTD 1491 DESERT ARC 1203257 06/30/2026 07102026 337.50 Invoice: 1203257 SHREDDING SERVICES PE 6/30/2026 337.50 10112000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 243429 TOTAL: 337.50
243430 07/10/2026 PRTD 601 JOSUE CAMPA 070126 07/01/2026 20260134 07102026 1,200.00 Invoice: 070126 VALET PARKING - AMPHITHEATER 5/16/2026 1,200.00 10172000 7494 AMPHITHEATER PROGRAMMING CHECK 243430 TOTAL: 1,200.00
130

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243431 07/10/2026 PRTD 1628 EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER 86157 06/23/2026 07102026 6,800.00 Invoice: 86157 ACCT#700000134 (S260530018/S260780041/S260890042) 6,800.00 10141000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 243431 TOTAL: 6,800.00
243432 07/10/2026 PRTD 2211 ENDURA STEEL INC 304877 04/06/2026 07102026 200.75 Invoice: 304877 STEEL PLATES 200.75 10133310 8004 REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CHECK 243432 TOTAL: 200.75
243433 07/10/2026 PRTD 24 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 9-365-66557 07/03/2026 07102026 9.00 Invoice: 9-365-66557 POSTAGE 6/24/2026

9.00 10151000 7869 EMPLOYEE EVENTS
CHECK 243433 TOTAL: 9.00
243434 07/10/2026 PRTD 1727 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE 9034600626 06/30/2026 07102026 48.00 Invoice: 9034600626 RECORDING DOCS 6/30/2026

48.00 10131000 8000 SUPPLIES
CHECK 243434 TOTAL: 48.00
243435 07/10/2026 PRTD 1882 FRONTIER 021826506202026 06/20/2026 07102026 1,150.00 Invoice: 021826506202026 SERVICE PE 7/19/2026 (ACCT# 760-197-1766-021826-5) 1,150.00 24281000 7826 INTERNET ACCESS & SERVICE CHECK 243435 TOTAL: 1,150.00
243436 07/10/2026 PRTD 3120 GANNETT MEDIA CORP 0007784749 06/30/2026 07102026 516.94 Invoice: 0007784749 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES PE 6/30/26 (ACCT #1252602) 516.94 10121000 7842 ADVERTISING/PUBLISHING
CHECK 243436 TOTAL: 516.94
243437 07/10/2026 PRTD 3005 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 124602952 07/01/2026 07102026 1,251.82 Invoice: 124602952 DRINKING FOUNTAIN FILTERS 1,251.82 21892000 8004 REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CHECK 243437 TOTAL: 1,251.82
131

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243438 07/10/2026 PRTD 3114 GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LLC 753920463 07/01/2026 07102026 829.08 Invoice: 753920463 SERVICES PE 7/31/2026 196.34 28100000 7821 TELEPHONE
207.41 28600000 7821 TELEPHONE
288.82 28400000 7821 TELEPHONE
136.51 28300000 7821 TELEPHONE
CHECK 243438 TOTAL: 829.08
243439 07/10/2026 PRTD 30 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5076512506302026 07/02/2026 07102026 26.78 Invoice: 5076512506302026 SERVICE PE 6/2/2026 (ACCT# 50765125)

26.78 201 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5005354206302026 07/02/2026 07102026 39.63 Invoice: 5005354206302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50053542)

39.63 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5092838806302026 07/02/2026 07102026 84.19 Invoice: 5092838806302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50928388)

84.19 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5092838906302026 07/02/2026 07102026 37.80 Invoice: 5092838906302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50928389)

37.80 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5033942106302026 07/02/2026 07102026 67.21 Invoice: 5033942106302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50339421)

67.21 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5032131606302026 07/02/2026 07102026 99.62 Invoice: 5032131606302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50321316)

99.62 201 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5005355206302026 07/02/2026 07102026 110.37 Invoice: 5005355206302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50053552) 110.37 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5005353506302026 07/02/2026 07102026 137.95 Invoice: 5005353506302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50053535) 137.95 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5070533006302026 07/02/2026 07102026 50.49 Invoice: 5070533006302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50705330)

50.49 21891000 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5060236006302026 06/30/2026 07102026 91.55 Invoice: 5060236006302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50602360)

91.55 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5047472106302026 06/30/2026 07102026 111.14 132

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
Invoice: 5047472106302026 SERVICE PE 6/28/2026 (ACCT# 50474721) 111.14 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5042311206302026 06/30/2026 07102026 36.19 Invoice: 5042311206302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT #50423112)

36.19 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5021443106302026 06/30/2026 07102026 104.19 Invoice: 5021443106302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50214431) 104.19 201 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5017900906302026 06/30/2026 07102026 101.08 Invoice: 5017900906302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT #50179009) 101.08 201 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5005357406302026 06/30/2026 07102026 40.80 Invoice: 5005357406302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT #50053574)

40.80 10132000 7618 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/ELEC
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5005356506302026 06/30/2026 07102026 111.73 Invoice: 5005356506302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT #50053565) 111.73 10133310 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5033942206302026 06/30/2026 07102026 31.38 Invoice: 5033942206302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50339422)

31.38 10132000 7603 ELECTRICITY
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 5033781706302026 06/30/2026 07102026 3,278.26 Invoice: 5033781706302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 50337817) 3,278.26 10133310 7603 ELECTRICITY
CHECK 243439 TOTAL: 4,560.36
243440 07/10/2026 PRTD 1636 INGRAM S97684765 07/05/2026 07102026 4,518.99 Invoice: S97684765 BOOKS 4,518.99 24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
INGRAM S 97684765 07/05/2026 07102026 2,123.74 Invoice: S 97684765 BOOKS 2,123.74 24281000 7912 FOUNDATION - COLLECTION
CHECK 243440 TOTAL: 6,642.73
243441 07/10/2026 PRTD 2731 IVAN'S PAINTING INC 4631 05/18/2026 07102026 2,880.00 Invoice: 4631 PAINT WOOD BEAMS - CITY HALL 2,880.00 10133300 8004 REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CHECK 243441 TOTAL: 2,880.00
133

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243442 07/10/2026 PRTD 185 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 326751 06/22/2026 07102026 6,645.00 Invoice: 326751 ERC MEMBERSHIP 7/1/2026 - 6/30/2027 6,645.00 10153000 7593 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS CONS CHECK 243442 TOTAL: 6,645.00
243443 07/10/2026 PRTD 2031 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE QE 06302026 06/30/2026 07102026 600.00 Invoice: QE 06302026 REIMBURSE CLAIM 501-492728-BND 600.00 702 2462 RESTITUTION - A/P
CHECK 243443 TOTAL: 600.00
243444 07/10/2026 PRTD 2852 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 472753150001 06/26/2026 07102026 58.92 Invoice: 472753150001 COFFEE SUPPLIES, ERASERS

58.92 24281000 8000 SUPPLIES
CHECK 243444 TOTAL: 58.92
243445 07/10/2026 PRTD 99999 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC 1236 04/28/2026 07102026 1,750.00 Invoice: 1236 CLEAN-UP SERVICES 4/28/2026 1,750.00 10141000 7400 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
CHECK 243445 TOTAL: 1,750.00
243446 07/10/2026 PRTD 5 POWERS AWARDS 164887 06/25/2026 07102026 126.92 Invoice: 164887 NAME PLATE - MAYOR/COUNCIL 126.92 10151000 8000 SUPPLIES
CHECK 243446 TOTAL: 126.92
243447 07/10/2026 PRTD 1827 QUINN COMPANY PCA30037341 06/22/2026 07102026 7.53 Invoice: PCA30037341 CLAMP HOSE

7.53 10133310 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243447 TOTAL: 7.53
243448 07/10/2026 PRTD 101 THE RITZ CARLTON RANCHO MIRAGE 86094 06/29/2026 20270012 07102026 15,000.00 Invoice: 86094 MARKETING SUPPORT 15,000.00 107 7478 MARKETING PROGRAM
CHECK 243448 TOTAL: 15,000.00
134

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User: cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243449 07/10/2026 PRTD 53 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AUDITOR AC0000002256 07/01/2026 07102026 9,001.68 Invoice: AC0000002256 LAFCO FEES FY 26/27 9,001.68 10152000 7588 LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMM CHECK 243449 TOTAL: 9,001.68
243450 07/10/2026 PRTD 147 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000050953 06/30/2026 07102026 1,139.12 Invoice: SH0000050953 FUEL PE 6/24/2026 1,139.12 10141000 7623 VEHICLE FUEL
CHECK 243450 TOTAL: 1,139.12
243451 07/10/2026 PRTD 2767 SAVANT SOLUTIONS, INC SS-1433 05/11/2026 20260213 07102026 23,726.05 Invoice: SS-1433 DARKTRACE - CLOUD SECURITY 23,726.05 10156000 7639 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243451 TOTAL: 23,726.05
243452 07/10/2026 PRTD 2784 MONTGOMERY DUBINA M1773 06/17/2026 07102026 691.25 Invoice: M1773 RADIO INSTALLATION 691.25 10141000 7550 CITY-WIDE COPS PROGRAM
CHECK 243452 TOTAL: 691.25
243453 07/10/2026 PRTD 60 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION O SCAG FY27 0138 07/01/2026 07102026 2,625.00 Invoice: SCAG FY27 0138 SCAG ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES FY 2027 2,625.00 10153000 7580 SCAG
CHECK 243453 TOTAL: 2,625.00
243454 07/10/2026 PRTD 61 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPAN 008606302026 07/06/2026 07102026 1,737.81 Invoice: 008606302026 SERVICE PE 6/30/2026 (ACCT# 700052520086) 1,737.81 10132000 7603 ELECTRICITY
CHECK 243454 TOTAL: 1,737.81
243455 07/10/2026 PRTD 1946 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1058643 06/23/2026 07102026 92,306.98 Invoice: 1058643 RMEA CONTRACT ID# 88091 PE 1/31/2026 92,306.98 600 7520 POWER PROCRUREMENT
CHECK 243455 TOTAL: 92,306.98
135

City of Rancho Mirage

A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 07/09/2026 12:01
User:cecelial
Program ID: apcshdsb

CASH ACCOUNT: 999 1005 CHECKING

CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET

INVOICE DTL DESC
243456 07/10/2026 PRTD 2286 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 86159 06/30/2026 07102026 1,142.99 Invoice: 86159 SMI FEES Q4 04/26 - 06/26
1,142.99 101 2465 SMI FEE
CHECK 243456 TOTAL: 1,142.99
243457 07/10/2026 PRTD 1704 TECH LOGIC CORPORATION CM2023060881 09/16/2025 07102026 -1,063.50 Invoice: CM2023060881 CREDIT - CONVEYOR BELT
-1,063.50 24281000 8004 REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
TECH LOGIC CORPORATION INV21004882 05/08/2026 20270013 07102026 18,796.32 Invoice: INV21004882 CONVEYOR BELT MAINTENANCE RENEWAL 2027 18,796.32 24281000 7612 MAINTENANCE
CHECK 243457 TOTAL: 17,732.82
NUMBER OF CHECKS 63 *** CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL *** 429,090.51

COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS 39 239,572.62
TOTAL EFT'S 24 189,517.89
*** GRAND TOTAL *** 429,090.51
136

City Council Staff Report

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

DATE ITEM #
July 16, 2026 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6A.

Presented To Presented By
Mayor and City Council Ben Torres, Planning Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Find that the adoption of the Ordinance has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, and that adoption of the Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project); and
2) Introduce for first reading:

A. Ordinance No. (Next-in-Order), 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; or
B. Ordinance No. (Next-in-Order), 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, excluding the following properties located at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive from the list of designated preferred locations: APNs 674-220-019, 674-220-022, 674-220-023, & 674-220-003.

DISCUSSION
Purpose
Approval of staff’s recommendation supports the policies of the City Council’s adopted Wireless Master Plan (WMP). Specifically, the recommended changes to Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code (RMMC”) would streamline the permitting process for up to twenty-five (25) sites with a monopalm at a maximum height of 81-feet with up to three wireless carriers, at designated locations identified in the WMP and on City or Housing Authority owned properties. By proactively identifying suitable locations, the City is hopeful to facilitate timely development of wireless infrastructure for the public good, as set forth in more detail in the attached Resolution and Ordinance. 137

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.

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.

Background
Rancho Mirage offers an exceptional quality of life, with year-round sunshine, breathtaking mountain views, and world-class amenities. However, these same features create significant challenges for wireless cellular coverage.

The City’s low population density, limited vertical assets, and surrounding mountains present significant barriers to reliable service. The City’s composition and land use patterns directly impact the coverage challenges it faces.

Cellular facilities are typically located in commercial and institutional areas, where development barriers are lower.

In contrast, residential communities have historically been hesitant to allow wireless facilities within their neighborhoods. Of the City’s 59 cellular facility applications including those never built or now expired, only two were in residential zones, with one additional facility proposed in a golf area within a residential community. This creates large gaps in coverage.

Although the City Council has expressed support for new towers in recent years, tower development has been reactionary, with the City responding to carrier-initiated projects. However, municipalities are increasingly shifting from passive regulatory roles to proactive infrastructure planning— optimizing existing assets and even developing open-access networks. To further that proactivity, the City Council supported the development of the Wireless Master Plan.

On March 6, 2025, the City Council received and filed the Wireless Master Plan (clicking this link allows you to access the Wireless Master Plan webpage) which contains key data and recommendations on how to improve cellular coverage within the City. As of today, thirty (30) wireless communication facilities have been constructed, these facilities range in height from 30’ to 81’. To ensure adequate coverage, each carrier should operate at least 12 traditional cell sites, not including small cell sites according to the Wireless Master Plan. The study found that each carrier currently maintains only 4-6 sites in Rancho Mirage, resulting in poor signal quality, reduced data speeds and overall capacity limits. The Wireless Master Plan also contains certain locations that were recommended to establish additional wireless communication facilities.

The current Zoning Text Amendment is implementing the following actions the City Council directed staff to take as part of the Wireless Master Plan:

1. Initiate necessary amendments to streamline the permitting process; recommendations include streamlining the zoning and permitting process for new tower and small cell applicants in Rancho Mirage. It highlights the importance of early collaboration between applicants and city staff, clear communication, and understanding project scopes and city constraints. These strategies aim to improve efficiency, ease pressure on resources, and support wireless infrastructure growth;

2. Conduct a policy review of the Municipal Code and initiate the amendment process to reduce barriers to entitlement; and

3. Develop and maintain a list of pre-approved sites for infrastructure deployment, including both new and existing locations by working with key stakeholders and the utilization of City assets. A key element of this strategy is the identification and pre-approval of specific locations and site configurations. By providing operators with a clear view of viable deployment options, this approach reduces uncertainty, streamlines approval processes, and strengthens Rancho Mirage’s position as a proactive partner in telecommunications development.
138

On June 5, 2025, the City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 17.32 of the Municipal Code (ZTA25-0001) which included provisions to streamline the permitting process for wireless communication facilities, reduce barriers to entitlement, and a variety of other actions to align regulations with the Wireless Master Plan. Some of the notable changes included allowing a staff level review for wireless communications facilities that are located on an existing building or structure. If adopted, the proposed streamlining ordinance would save up to a year’s time on the developer’s side of implementation.

Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA26-0002)
The current project (ZTA26-0002) proposes to streamline up to twenty-five (25) sites with a monopalm at a maximum height of 81-feet with up to three carriers at select sites referenced in the City’s Wireless Master Plan and select City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority properties, as identified in the attachments. Four (4) privately owned properties which include Camera West, Palm Valley School, Rancho Mirage Marketplace, & the Westin are included as part of the preferred locations and the City received written authorization from the property owners/authorized representatives to take this action. In addition, twenty-one (21) City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority properties like City Hall, the Rancho Mirage Dog Park & other City properties are also included. A map depicting the privately owned properties in blue and City/Housing Authority properties in green is included as Attachment 3. Attachment 4 is included to depict the proposed alternative Recommended Action (2b), the removal of proposed preferred location located at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive.

As part of this further streamlining process, the City is establishing a regulatory framework that provides flexibility for the future placement of wireless communication facilities while ensuring that development occurs in a predictable and well-planned manner. The adoption of this framework does not mean that every identified location will ultimately be developed with a wireless communication facility, nor does it mean that any facility constructed will utilize the maximum height permitted under the regulations. Rather, the purpose of this amendment is to establish clear development standards and design parameters that allow qualifying facilities at specific, pre-identified locations to be reviewed administratively by staff, provided they comply with the adopted standards. This approach streamlines the review process while maintaining consistency with the City's adopted design and operational requirements.

As part of the Wireless Master Plan, network coverage analyses were prepared for the three primary wireless carriers (AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile) to identify existing service levels and areas with coverage deficiencies (see Attachment 10). The locations identified in the Master Plan were selected based on these analyses and are intended to prioritize and incentivize future wireless communication facilities in areas where they are needed most to improve network reliability and reduce existing coverage gaps. Inclusion of a location in the Master Plan does not obligate a wireless carrier to construct a facility at that site; rather, it makes those locations available should a carrier determine that additional infrastructure is necessary to meet current or future service demands. By identifying preferred locations in advance, the Wireless Master Plan provides greater certainty and predictability for wireless carriers, property owners, and the City during the site selection and entitlement process. This proactive planning approach helps streamline future wireless facility development, encourages deployment in areas with demonstrated need, and supports the efficient expansion of wireless infrastructure.

In the Ordinance (Attachment 9) the proposed additions are “bolded and underlined” and deletions have a “strikethrough.”
General Plan Compatibility
The City’s General Plan contains several goals, policies and programs applicable to the proposed project to streamline the entitlement process for up to eighty-one (81) foot tall monopalm Wireless Communication Facility with up to three (3) carriers at select locations within the City. The following discusses the appliable General Plan sections:

Program PS&F 5.2A Wireless facilities shall be stealth in their design in order to preserve citywide aesthetics.

Response: As shown in the typical plans for a three carrier and two/one carrier design (see Attachments 11 & 12) included in this staff report, the proposed staff level review at select locations will require stealth monopalm designs. The stealth design standards involve ground equipment requiring a block wall enclosure to screen any ground-based equipment like equipment cabinets and generators. The monopalm will also be required to be painted to resemble a palm tree and will have artificial palm fronds and other stealth features. Landscaping will also be required, which will help screen the Wireless Communication Facility, in accordance with Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 17.32.050(B)(c).
139

POLICY I 1.5 The City shall provide opportunities for review and comment on development proposals through public hearing notices sent to owners of property located within 500 feet of the development proposal site.

Response: As part of this Zoning Text Amendment, sixty-eight (68) Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s) were identified (some locations consist of multiple APN’s) and notification packages were created which identified property owners within a 500-foot radius of each location. In total 2,002 public hearing notices were mailed out to property owners for the subject City Council meeting, the same number of notices was also distributed for the prior Planning Commission meeting. The notice was also posted on the City website, at physical locations at City Hall & the Rancho Mirage Library and Observatory, and published in the Desert Sun.

GOAL SAFE 4 Emergency preparedness and response programs that provide for fast and effective response to daily emergencies and major catastrophes.

Response: Wireless coverage is vital to access emergency services. As detailed in the coverage maps (See Attachment 10), the three main carriers (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, & T-Mobile) all have coverage gaps within the City.

Access to reliable and strong wireless coverage is essential to communicate with emergency services. The current proposal is intended to facilitate the development of additional Wireless Communication Facilities to improve wireless coverage for residents, business, and visitors within the City.

Planning Commission Meeting
On June 25, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and reviewed the proposed municipal code amendments. Staff summarized the highlights of the staff report, and eight (8) members of the public provided comments during the public hearing. In addition, staff received thirty-one (31) written public comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting that were distributed before the meeting. As summarized in the draft minutes attached to this report, the Commissioners asked questions to which staff answered. After due consideration of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Commission made the following motion:

ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-PC-01, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:

1. FIND THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN COMPLIANCE WITH

THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CEQA

GUIDELINES, AND THAT ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES), AND 15332 (IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT); AND

2. INTRODUCE AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. (NEXT-IN-ORDER), 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.

MOTION CARRIED 3/0.

Planning Commission’s findings, determinations and actions are based on contents of the Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the proposed project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the item; testimony and/or comments from the applicant and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the item, if any; and testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format, or correspondence, at, or prior to, the Planning Commission’s consideration of the item, including without limitation public comments made at the meeting.

Environmental Determination
140

This Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project). The preferred locations are not considered environmentally sensitive. The proposed facilities would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, as they will consist of standard communications equipment that are regulated by federal and State agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sufficient setback distancing and screening will be reviewed at the staff level with a Minor Conditional Use Permit and/or Minor Modification, which will minimize the visual impacts to surrounding properties. All public utilities and services will be available to the identified locations. No special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that establishing a wireless communication facility at the preferred sites will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the proposed design, locations, and standard conditions of approval, wireless communication facilities are small structures with many locations surrounded by developed areas. Therefore, there is no expected significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is required.

Noticing Requirement
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 17.74.020, Hearing and notice, requires that all property owners, as shown on the county’s latest equalized assessment roll, within a 500-foot radius of the boundaries of the subject parcel(s) be notified of matters requiring a public hearing. If the number of property owners to whom the notice would be mailed to is less than 25, then the mailing radius is required to be increased to 1,000 feet as measured from the exterior boundaries of the subject parcel.

On July 1, 2026, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the parcel boundaries and posted at the City’s designated community posting sites pursuant to the requirements of Chapter

17.74 of the Municipal Code. Notification of the public hearing was published in The Desert Sun on July 5, 2026.

Any information addressed to the City Council, but received after completion of this final report, will be distributed at the public hearing.

Public comments that have been received prior to the publication date of this report, including comments received as part of the prior Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachment 13.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - 06/25/2026 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 2 - Draft 06/25/2026 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 - Recommended Action 2a Preferred Locations Attachment 4 - Recommended Action 2b Preferred Locations (Removing Site) Attachment 5 - Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 6 - Notice of Exemption
Attachment 7 - City Attorney Independent Analysis
Attachment 8 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-PC-01 Attachment 9 - Draft Ordinance
Attachment 10 - Coverage Maps for AT&T, Verizon, & T-Mobile Attachment 11 - Three Carrier Typical Plan
Attachment 12 - Two & One Carrier Typical Plan
Attachment 13 - Public Comments
141

Planning Commission Staff Report
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 DATE ITEM #
June 25, 2026 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 5A.

Presented To Presented By
Planning Commission Ben Torres, Planning Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-PC-(Next-in-Order), recommending that the City Council take the following actions:

1.Find that the adoption of the Ordinance has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, and that adoption of the Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project); and

2.Introduce and adopt Ordinance No. (Next-in-Order), 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.

DISCUSSION
Facts

1.Applicant:City of Rancho Mirage

2.Request: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.

ATTACHMENT 1
142

3. Location:APNs: 689-030-001, 689-030-013, 689-030-012, 689-030-017, 674- 220-003, 674-220-023, 674-220-022, 674-220-019, 689-100-049, 689-100-040, 685-090-014, 685-010-011, 690-182-016, 690-182-017, 674-600-008, 674-600-006, 674-600-004, 674-600-007, 674-600-005, 674-600-003, 674-600-002, 674-600-020, 689-180-012, 689-160-029, 689-160-021, 689-190-022, 689-210-002, 684-660-086, 684-660-088, 684-660-084, 684-660-087, 684-660-085, 684-660-083, 684-181-036, 684-181-032, 684-181-012, 684-150-031, 684-150-016, 684-150-018, 684-130-023, 684-130-032, 684-130-024, 684-182-002, 684-182-003, 684-182-004, 684-182-005, 684-182-006, 684-182-011, 684-182-010, 684-182-008, 684-182-007, 684-181-010, 684-181-009, 684-240-005, 684-240-006, 684-240-008, 684-240-019, 684-160-036, 684-171-024, 684-171-029, 684-171-030, 684-171-025, 684-172-008, 684-172-007, 684-343-036, 673-250-022, 673-250-021, & 676-220-016.

4. Environmental Information 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).

PURPOSE
Approval of staff’s recommendation supports the policies of the City Council’s adopted Wireless Master Plan (WMP). Specifically, the recommended changes to Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code (RMMC”) would streamline the permitting process for up to twenty-five (25) sites with a monopalm at a maximum height of 81-feet with up to three wireless carriers, at designated locations identified in the WMP and on City or Housing Authority owned properties. By proactively identifying suitable locations, the City is hopeful to facilitate timely development of wireless infrastructure for the public good, as set forth in more detail in the attached Resolution and Ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Rancho Mirage offers an exceptional quality of life, with year-round sunshine, breathtaking mountain views, and world-class amenities. However, these same features create significant challenges for wireless cellular coverage.

The City’s low population density, limited vertical assets, and surrounding mountains present significant barriers to reliable service. The City’s composition and land use patterns directly impact the coverage challenges it faces.

While 35% of Rancho Mirage is designated for residential use, the largest land use category is “Open Space” (47%), with the “Mountain Reserve” category accounting for 32% of this—consisting of mountainous and conservation lands with limited development potential. Of the City’s 25 square miles, less than 18 are buildable due to terrain constraints and land use restrictions, and much of this land is already developed into residential communities.

Cellular facilities are typically located in commercial and institutional areas, where development barriers are lower.

In contrast, residential communities have historically been hesitant to allow wireless facilities within their neighborhoods. Of the City’s 59 cellular facility applications including those never built or now expired, only two were in residential zones, with one additional facility proposed in a golf area within a residential community. This creates large gaps in coverage.
143

Although the City Council has expressed support for new towers in recent years, tower development has been reactionary, with the City responding to carrier-initiated projects. However, municipalities are increasingly shifting from passive regulatory roles to proactive infrastructure planning— optimizing existing assets and even developing open-access networks. To further that proactivity, the City Council supported the development of the Wireless Master Plan.

DISCUSSION
On March 6, 2025, the City Council received and filed the Wireless Master Plan (clicking this link allows you to access the Wireless Master Plan webpage) which contains key data and recommendations on how to improve cellular coverage within the City. The Wireless Master Plan also contains certain locations that were recommended to establish additional wireless communication facilities. The current Zoning Text Amendment is implementing the following actions the City Council directed staff to take as part of the Wireless Master Plan:

1. Initiate necessary amendments to streamline the permitting process;

2. Conduct a policy review of the Municipal Code and initiate the amendment process to reduce barriers to entitlement; and

3. Develop and maintain a list of pre-approved sites for infrastructure deployment, including both new and existing locations by working with key stakeholders.

On June 5, 2025, the City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 17.32 of the Municipal Code (ZTA25-0001) which included provisions to streamline the permitting process for wireless communication facilities, reduce barriers to entitlement, and a variety of other actions to align regulations with the Wireless Master Plan. Some of the notable changes included allowing a staff level review for wireless communications facilities that are located on an existing building or structure.

As of today, thirty (30) wireless communication facilities have been constructed, these facilities range in height from 30’ to 81’.

The current project (ZTA26-002) proposes to streamline up to twenty-five (25) sites with a monopalm at a maximum height of 81-feet with up to three carriers at select sites referenced in the City’s Wireless Master Plan and select City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority properties, as identified in the attachments. Four (4) privately owned properties which include Camera West, Palm Valley School, Rancho Mirage Marketplace, & the Westin are included as part of the preferred locations and the City received written authorization from the property owners/authorized representatives to take this action. In addition, twenty-one (21) City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority properties like City Hall, the Rancho Mirage Dog Park & other City properties are also included. A map depicting the privately owned properties in blue and City/Housing Authority properties in green is included as Attachment 1.

As part of this further streamlining process, the City is establishing a regulatory framework that provides flexibility for the future placement of wireless communication facilities while ensuring that development occurs in a predictable and well-planned manner. The adoption of this framework does not mean that every identified location will ultimately be developed with a wireless communication facility, nor does it mean that any facility constructed will utilize the maximum height permitted under the regulations. Rather, the purpose of the this amendment is to establish clear development standards and design parameters that allow qualifying facilities at specific, pre- identified locations to be reviewed administratively by staff, provided they comply with the adopted standards. This approach streamlines the review process while maintaining consistency with the City's adopted design and operational requirements.
144

As part of the Wireless Master Plan, network coverage analyses were prepared for the three primary wireless carriers (AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile) to identify existing service levels and areas with coverage deficiencies (see Attachment 7). The locations identified in the Master Plan were selected based on these analyses and are intended to prioritize and incentivize future wireless communication facilities in areas where they are needed most to improve network reliability and reduce existing coverage gaps. Inclusion of a location in the Master Plan does not obligate a wireless carrier to construct a facility at that site; rather, it makes those locations available should a carrier determine that additional infrastructure is necessary to meet current or future service demands. By identifying preferred locations in advance, the Wireless Master Plan provides greater certainty and predictability for wireless carriers, property owners, and the City during the site selection and entitlement process. This proactive planning approach helps streamline future wireless facility development, encourages deployment in areas with demonstrated need, and supports the efficient expansion of wireless infrastructure.

In the Ordinance (Attachment 6) the proposed additions are “bolded and underlined” and deletions have a “strikethrough.”
General Plan Compatibility
The City’s General Plan contains several goals, policies and programs applicable to the proposed project to streamline the entitlement process for up to eighty-one (81) foot tall monopalm Wireless Communication Facility with up to three (3) carriers at select locations within the City. The following discusses the applicable General Plan sections:

Program PS&F 5.2A Wireless facilities shall be stealth in their design in order to preserve citywide aesthetics.

Response: As shown in the typical plans for a three carrier and two/one carrier design (see Attachments 8 & 9) included in this staff report, the proposed staff level review at select locations will require stealth monopalm designs. The stealth design standards involve ground equipment requiring a block wall enclosure to screen any ground-based equipment like equipment cabinets and generators. The monopalm will also be required to be painted to resemble a palm tree and will have artificial palm fronds and other stealth features. Landscaping will also be required, which will help screen the Wireless Communication Facility, in accordance with Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 17.32.050(B)(c).

POLICY I 1.5 The City shall provide opportunities for review and comment on development proposals through public hearing notices sent to owners of property located within 500 feet of the development proposal site.

Response: As part of this Zoning Text Amendment, sixty-eight (68) Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s) were identified (some locations consist of multiple APN’s) and notification packages were created which identified property owners within a 500-foot radius of each location. In total 2,002 public hearing notices were mailed out to property owners, the notice was also posted on the City website, at physical locations at City Hall & the Rancho Mirage Library and Observatory, and published in the Desert Sun.

GOAL SAFE 4 Emergency preparedness and response programs that provide for fast and effective response to daily emergencies and major catastrophes.

Response: Wireless coverage is vital to access emergency services. As detailed in the coverage maps (See Attachment 7), the three main carriers (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, & T-Mobile) all have coverage gaps within the City.

Access to reliable and strong wireless coverage is essential to communicate with emergency services. The current proposal is intended to facilitate the development of additional Wireless Communication Facilities to improve wireless coverage for residents, business, and visitors within the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
145

This Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project). The preferred locations are not considered environmentally sensitive. The proposed facilities would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, as they will consist of standard communications equipment that are regulated by federal and State agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sufficient setback distancing and screening will be reviewed at the staff level with a Minor Conditional Use Permit and/or Minor Modification, which will minimize the visual impacts to surrounding properties. All public utilities and services will be available to the identified locations. No special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that establishing a wireless communication facility at the preferred sites will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the proposed design, locations, and standard conditions of approval, wireless communication facilities are small structures with many locations surrounded by developed areas. Therefore, there is no expected significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is required.

NOTICING REQUIREMENT
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 17.74.020, Hearing and notice, requires that all property owners, as shown on the county’s latest equalized assessment roll, within a 500-foot radius of the boundaries of the subject parcel(s) be notified of matters requiring a public hearing. If the number of property owners to whom the notice would be mailed to is less than 25, then the mailing radius is required to be increased to 1,000 feet as measured from the exterior boundaries of the subject parcel.

On June 2, 2026, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the parcel boundaries and posted at the City’s designated community posting sites pursuant to the requirements of Chapter

17.74 of the Municipal Code. Notification of the public hearing was published in The Desert Sun on June 5, 2026.

Any information addressed to the Planning Commission, but received after completion of this final report, will be distributed at the public hearing. No comments have been received as of the publication date of this report.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - Proposed Preferred Locations.pdf
Attachment 2 - Public Hearing Notice.pdf
Attachment 3 - Notice of Exemption.pdf
Attachment 4 - City Attorney Independent Analysis.pdf
Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution.pdf
Attachment 6 - Ordinance for ZTA26-0002.pdf
Attachment 7 - Coverage Maps for AT&T, Verizon, & T-Mobile.pdf Attachment 8 - Three Carrier Typical Plan.pdf
Attachment 9 - Two/One Carrier Typical Plan.pdf
146











 !
"#

$%&'()*+,-./(0123.2425.2644789:; ?&@ABCDEFEGHIBCHCJHIIKLLGMEGNOPQRSTOUVUWTXYPTZZQ[YSQ\QQYOX]Y^^U[QUTY_`aabcdcBCeCfIHDgHIhKER^\\OiiO^XQUj]^iYOXOZQ[YSQkZT]iTZlYQcBCJCLHKmLfLffnJEoJpqqrssrptuvGutwxuvyUOiYOQzT\^i{ROYWRZQU|{T[\OXOiYQUQ[YSQ}TYS^k}kkOPQY^R^\\OiiO^XQUzQXT|QUcBCMCGLIIJHIIoH~psrtr€euw u€Dvu‚€Gutwxuv€ev‚wtbUQiQXY`j]^iYOXO{VUWTXY{zQXT|QUcjƒiQXY`VQTZQ{„UQWc

…†‡

††ˆ‰


‡ Š
‹




ˆ †‰Œˆ






†Ž‡% CJL nggnLFEGJL EFKgR^\\OiiO^XQUj]^iYOXO‘QZP^\Q[R^\\OiiO^XQUzQXT|QUTX[iTO[YSTYSQZ^^|Q[k^U‘TU[Y^‘^U|OX]TZ^X]iO[QSQU^’QUYSQXQ“YWQTUc”QTZi^‘QZP^\Q[Q’QUW^XQOXYSQTl[OQXPQTX[YSTX|Q[YSQ\k^UTYYQX[OX]cR^\\OiiO^XQUzQXT|QUYSTX|Q[YSQROYWR^lXPOZTX[Q’QUW^XQ‘S^•ZTPQ[YSQOUYUliYOXSQUc–SQ]T’Qi•QPOTZYSTX|iY^R^lXPOZdQ\ƒQU—U^\ƒQU]˜[QZiYQOXk^USQU|OX[X^\OXTYO^Xc–SQiTO[OY‘TiSQUS^X^UY^iQU’QSQUP^\\lXOYWTX[YSTYiSQZ^^|Q[k^U‘TU[Y^‘^U|OX]‘OYSSQUkQZZ^‘R^\\OiiO^XQUicNOPQRSTOUVUWTXY‘QZP^\Q[R^\\OiiO^XQUzQXT|QUY^YSQR^\\OiiO^XTX[SO]SZO]SYQ[SQUƒTP|]U^lX[c”QTZi^YSTX|Q[k^U\QURSTOURSTXYQUk^USQUYS^l]SYklZP^XYUOƒlYO^XiY^YSQbZTXXOX]R^\\OiiO^Xc™CHššGL›HILf nFhKEg™CHC wvœš ž€ Ÿ ž€Gu~  wvš wttrt~Jpqqrssrpt uurt~ rt us¡z˜R}dd˜¢£˜£jR¤¥}¢`j••U^’QYSQdTUPS_¦{_a_¦{zQ]lZTUbZTXXOX]R^\\OiiO^XdQQYOX]dOXlYQiTi•UQiQXYQ[c §¨¨§©ª«¬­¨®
147

 

 












 
 
 


 






!"#$
"!%&'

(()*+,-.+,
)/
01*2(.23)+
1+4
5*6.7 01*2(.23)+89:
; ?
@AB::C:D
EB:BD9=?
F=9>9:G9H
GI9
>GBJJ
=9F MN>>C N9HK 



 


 












 






O


 
 




P

QRST"
U%V"$W'P

X)+*+Y
!.Z,
-.+4-.+,

13. $)

X![\7]]][
^
((_*61+,`
*,a
)/
V1+60)
&*21Y.

)+3*4.21,*)+
)/
1+#24*+1+6.
-.+4*+Y
'.6,*)+
bc
d[
]
]
eQ2./.22.4
T)61,*)+3f
)/
01(,.2
bc
d[
eg*2._.33
)--h+*61,*)+i16*_*,*.3f
)/
!*,_.
bc
ejX)+*+Ykf
)/
,0.

V1+60)
&*21Y.
&h+*6*(1_
)4.l
mnopEEnqrnr
Lo;spqt
LH t
€{
C:H
GIBG
GI9
BH
‚99:
=9ƒC99H
C:

M C
?
B:H
GIBG
BH MBG9D NB:G
G
†9MGC
€‡ˆvˆ
yq9
o G=NMGC C {?
B:H
€‡ˆˆu
ys:x CAA
r9ƒ9A {
>
o {
G=9B|AC:9
GI9
9:GCGA9|9:G
F= >
J >
M
BG
H9>CD:BG9H
F=9J9==9H
A Ko GBG9|9:G
J
=9>CH9:M9toIBC=
8=}B:G”>
=9>CH9:M9
C>
A
CH9:GCJC9H
C:

GIC>

GI9F=9J9==9H
A CG9?
ICMI
C>
D9:9=BAA}
A >9>>
@B=M9A
qN|‚9=w•–x€•vxv€uK
;I9
F= 9H

B
A9DC>ABGCƒ9
BMGC GB‚AC>IC:D
BAG9=:BGCƒ9
>G=9B|AC:9H
=9ƒC9
F=
J
CH9:GCJC9H
B>
F=9J9==9H
A
CG9>?
ICMI

: 9AJ
BMGNBAA}
9:GCGA9
GI9M G=NMGC F9MCJCM
C=9A9>>
M CG9K
oIBC=
8=}B:G“>
FB=GCMCFBGC
F9=|C>>C‚A9‚9MBN>9
GI9=9“>
: 99B‚A9
|BG9=CBA
JC:B:MCBA
9JJ9MG
>C
=9BA
F= C|FA}
>G=9B|AC:9>
GI9
F9=|CGGC:D
F= >
BG
CH9:GCJC9H
F=9J9==9H
A ?
H
: 9
>C F=
: 9AJ
F9=|CG
B
>F9MCJCM
C=9A9>>
M
: >C
F=
H9ƒ9A G
B:H‚9>G
N>9?
|B=~9G
ƒBAN9
N‚>GB:GCBAA}
BAG9=C:D
G=BJJCM
A9ƒ9A>?
C:G9:>CG}
9?
FB=~C:D?
ƒC9?
F=CƒBM}?
: 9A9ƒ9A>?

F9=|C>>C‚A9
J MN>>C
CG9|K89:
; ?
@AB::C:D
EB:BD9=?
F=9>9:G9H
GI9
>GBJJ
=9F
F= GC| ?
@B|9AB
B:DA9}?
8=BHL:H9=> IB
;B:9:‚BN|?
?
B:H
˜9::CJ9=
r MN>>C N9HK 



 





™™š
  




 



O› 

 œ
šš
O 





O






›



›

 
O


O 
   


ž



Ÿž
š
¡¢
ž
 






O








£O
   

›
 

O 
   

ž






ž
 
 
š¤


Ÿ ›
 

 
O


š


š¤


148






 
 


 
 
 
 



 
   


!
 


"  


 
 

#$
%
! !

 


 
 
 ! 


 
"  


   
   




 
&'()*)+,-.)/,0123455*66.)789:; >=?@AB@AC@D@CEF>GH=D@C;CA=AIFB;ACFGEJ>@KK=LL;AMNOPFD@CQ:FAFACR=J;HMSFMT@ANUV(,/W*1X)6.)7Y:F@HZH[FAMFC\=EHA;CM:;L;;M@ABFM]O^^_U`U abcdebcfghijcekkelckfmneojcpcqmdrckstcbpuvcwcvxkuvuekjescyddbmpcfghaqekkukz{mrru||umki 149

Proposed Preferred Locations
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 689-030-001, 689-030-013, 689-030-012, 689-030-017, 674- 220-003, 674-220-023, 674-220-022, 674-220-019, 689-100-049, 689-100-040, 685-090- 014, 685-010-011, 690-182-016, 690-182-017, 674-600-008, 674-600-006, 674-600-004, 674-600-007, 674-600-005, 674-600-003, 674-600-002, 674-600-020, 689-180-012, 689- 160-029, 689-160-021, 689-190-022, 689-210-002, 684-660-086, 684-660-088, 684-660- 084, 684-660-087, 684-660-085, 684-660-083, 684-181-036, 684-181-032, 684-181-012, 684-150-031, 684-150-016, 684-150-018, 684-130-023, 684-130-032, 684-130-024, 684-182- 002, 684-182-003, 684-182-004, 684-182-005, 684-182-006, 684-182-011, 684-182-010, 684-182-008, 684-182-007, 684-181-010, 684-181-009, 684-240-005, 684-240-006, 684- 240-008, 684-240-019, 684-160-036, 684-171-024, 684-171-029, 684-171-030, 684-171-025, 684-172-008, 684-172-007, 684-343-036, 673-250-022, 673-250-021, & 676-220-016.

Map – The map identifies the Assessor Parcel Number listed. Properties identified in blue are privately owned and those in green are City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority owned.

ATTACHMENT 3
150

Proposed Preferred Locations

151

Proposed Preferred Locations

152

Proposed Preferred Locations

153

Proposed Preferred Locations

154

Proposed Preferred Locations
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 689-030-001, 689-030-013, 689-030-012, 689-030-017, 689- 100-049, 689-100-040, 685-090-014, 685-010-011, 690-182-016, 690-182-017, 674-600- 008, 674-600-006, 674-600-004, 674-600-007, 674-600-005, 674-600-003, 674-600-002, 674-600-020, 689-180-012, 689-160-029, 689-160-021, 689-190-022, 689-210-002, 684- 660-086, 684-660-088, 684-660-084, 684-660-087, 684-660-085, 684-660-083, 684-181- 036, 684-181-032, 684-181-012, 684-150-031, 684-150-016, 684-150-018, 684-130-023, 684-130-032, 684-130-024, 684-182-002, 684-182-003, 684-182-004, 684-182-005, 684-182- 006, 684-182-011, 684-182-010, 684-182-008, 684-182-007, 684-181-010, 684-181-009, 684-240-005, 684-240-006, 684-240-008, 684-240-019, 684-160-036, 684-171-024, 684- 171-029, 684-171-030, 684-171-025, 684-172-008, 684-172-007, 684-343-036, 673-250- 022, 673-250-021, & 676-220-016.

Map – The map identifies the Assessor Parcel Number listed. Properties identified in blue are privately owned and those in green are City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority owned.

ATTACHMENT 4
155

Proposed Preferred Locations

156

Proposed Preferred Locations

157

Proposed Preferred Locations

158

Proposed Preferred Locations

159

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 Hall, 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 [email protected], 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
160

ZTA26-0002 July 16, 2026

Assessor Parcel Numbers: 689-030-001, 689-030-013, 689-030-012, 689-030-017, 674- 220-003, 674-220-023, 674-220-022, 674-220-019, 689-100-049, 689-100-040, 685-090- 014, 685-010-011, 690-182-016, 690-182-017, 674-600-008, 674-600-006, 674-600-004, 674-600-007, 674-600-005, 674-600-003, 674-600-002, 674-600-020, 689-180-012, 689- 160-029, 689-160-021, 689-190-022, 689-210-002, 684-660-086, 684-660-088, 684-660- 084, 684-660-087, 684-660-085, 684-660-083, 684-181-036, 684-181-032, 684-181-012, 684-150-031, 684-150-016, 684-150-018, 684-130-023, 684-130-032, 684-130-024, 684- 182-002, 684-182-003, 684-182-004, 684-182-005, 684-182-006, 684-182-011, 684-182- 010, 684-182-008, 684-182-007, 684-181-010, 684-181-009, 684-240-005, 684-240-006, 684-240-008, 684-240-019, 684-160-036, 684-171-024, 684-171-029, 684-171-030, 684- 171-025, 684-172-008, 684-172-007, 684-343-036, 673-250-022, 673-250-021, & 676-220- 016.
161

Development Services Department
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage CA 92270
Phone 760/328-2266 Fax 760/324-9851

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
To: Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Riverside County Clerk 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 751
Sacramento, CA 95812 Riverside, CA 92501
Project Title/Case Nos. Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Project Location:

APNs: 689-030-001, 689-030-013, 689-030-012,
689-030-017, 674-220-003, 674-220-023, 674-
220-022, 674-220-019, 689-100-049, 689-100-
040, 685-090-014, 685-010-011, 690-182-016,
690-182-017, 674-600-008, 674-600-006, 674-
600-004, 674-600-007, 674-600-005, 674-600-
003, 674-600-002, 674-600-020, 689-180-012,
689-160-029, 689-160-021, 689-190-022, 689-
210-002, 684-660-086, 684-660-088, 684-660-
084, 684-660-087, 684-660-085, 684-660-083,
684-181-036, 684-181-032, 684-181-012, 684-
150-031, 684-150-016, 684-150-018, 684-130-
023, 684-130-032, 684-130-024, 684-182-002,
684-182-003, 684-182-004, 684-182-005, 684-
182-006, 684-182-011, 684-182-010, 684-182-
008, 684-182-007, 684-181-010, 684-181-009,
684-240-005, 684-240-006, 684-240-008, 684-
240-019, 684-160-036, 684-171-024, 684-171-
029, 684-171-030, 684-171-025, 684-172-008,
684-172-007, 684-343-036, 673-250-022, 673-
250-021, & 676-220-016.

Applicant/Representative:

City of Rancho Mirage
Attn: Ben Torres, Planning Manger
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Project Description:

The “Proposed Project” is a
City-initiated ordinance
amending Chapter 17.32
(Wireless Communication
Facilities) of the Rancho
Mirage Municipal Code
would streamline the
permitting process for up to
twenty-five (25) sites with a
monopalm at a maximum
height of 81-feet with up to
three wireless carriers, at
designated locations
identified in the WMP and on
City or Housing Authority
owned properties.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:

City of Rancho Mirage Ben Torres
Planning Manager
Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency [Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)] Emergency Project [Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)]; Statutory Exemption; Code No Categorical Exemption. State type and Section number:

Other: CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects)

1.Reasons why project is exempt: The proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). The ordinance establishes preferred locations and development standards for wireless communication facilities and streamlines the entitlement process at designated sites.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Ben Torres, Planning Manager Telephone No. (760) 328-2266 Date:

Ben Torres, Planning Manager
Signed by Lead Agency
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT
162

STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission/City Council DATE: June 25, 2026 FROM: Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

SPECIFIC REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission and City Council consider and receive and file the City Attorney’s Independent Analysis of the Ordinance approving Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26- 0002.

Background
Since the Zoning Text Amendment requires the adoption of an ordinance, the City Attorney is required to make determinations which address whether the City has the legal authority to adopt said ordinances.

Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 1.04.031 (Review And Approval Of Legal Form Of Ordinances By City Attorney) provides that “[n]o ordinance shall be deemed effective unless the City Attorney determines that the City has the authority to adopt the proposed ordinance, that the proposed ordinance is constitutionally valid under the state and federal constitutions, and that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City, the City’s Charter, ordinances approved by the voters, and any applicable federal and/or state laws.” Legal Authority
Zoning Text Amendments
California’s Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code §§65000–66499.58) is the framework for local land use regulation. Every city must have a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development. Government Code §65300. Generally, City’s zoning ordinances must be consistent with the City’s general plan. See Government Code Section 65451. Zoning consistency with the general plan is required for all cities, including charter cities. (Government Code 65860.)
Moreover, Chapter 17.73 (General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Text Amendment) of the Municipal Code, in relevant part, provides procedures for initiating and processing amendments to the text of Title 17, which includes, but is not limited to: initiation of amendment by a Council member, City Manager or any Department Director; review by City Attorney to make the same determinations set forth in Section 1.04.031, as set forth above; and grants the City Council the authority to take certain actions at their discretion (as set forth in 17.73.030 (Procedure).

ATTACHMENT 7
163

Any city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with applicable state laws. (Cal Const art XI, §7.) The police power of a city is its right to adopt regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as regulations designed to promote the public health, the public morals, or the public safety. (Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v Illinois (1906) 200 US 561, 592, 26 S Ct 341.) The exercise of police power must: 1) be reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose (Birkenfeld v City of Berkeley (1976) 17 C3d 129, 158; see Consolidated Rock Prods. Co. v City of Los Angeles (1962) 57 C2d 515, 522 (there must be reasonable basis in fact to support legislative determination of regulation's wisdom and necessity)); and 2) have a reasonable tendency to promote the public health, morals, safety, or general welfare of the community. (Carlin v City of Palm Springs (1971) 14 CA3d 706, 711 (city has broad discretion in determining what is reasonable in endeavoring to protect public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of community).)

It is the independent opinion of the City Attorney that based on the content and findings in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution, and proposed ordinance, the City Attorney determines that the City Council has the legal authority to adopt the ordinance, since the proposed ordinance is constitutionally valid under the state and federal constitutions, is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City, the City’s charter, ordinances approved by the voters, and applicable federal and state laws.

164

ATTACHMENT 8
165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, 1) FINDING ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CEQA; AND 2) 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
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2025, the City Council received and filed the Wireless Master Plan which contains key data and recommendations on how to improve cellular coverage within the City. The City Council directed staff to initiate the necessary municipal code amendments to streamline the permitting process and to reduce barriers to entitlement for wireless communication facilities. On June 5, 2025, the City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities), updating the City’s regulations of wireless communication facilities to streamline the permitting process; and
WHEREAS, as stated in the Wireless Master Plan, “[a] key element of this strategy is the identification and pre-approval of specific locations and site configurations. By providing operators with a clear view of viable deployment options, this approach reduces uncertainty, [and] streamlines approval processes”; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is in furtherance of public interest, health, safety and welfare. Mobile connectivity has become an essential part of daily life, with individuals increasingly relying on their phones for communication, education, commerce, public safety, working, connecting with others, and access to services. The proposed amendment streamlines the entitlement process for preferred locations, further reducing significant challenges for wireless cellular coverage in the City, which may result in improved access to cellular services, improving access to emergency services and remote healthcare services, improving public safety, broadening mobile access for civic engagement and government services, supporting tourism through mobile access to information on local points of interest, and stimulating economic growth via better connectivity. As mobile services become a primary gateway to opportunity and information, ensuring equitable access to reliable coverage is a matter of public good; and
ATTACHMENT 9
194

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project).

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That the above Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
That the City Council conducted a noticed Public Hearing on [INSERT], 2026, and considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record for the proposed Ordinance, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein;
(c) Wireless Master Plan, received and filed by the City Council on March 6, 2025; (d) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for June 25, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(e) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the proposed Ordinance, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the June 25, 2026, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(f) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the June 25, 2026, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(g) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for [INSERT], 2026, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(h) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the proposed Ordinance, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the [INSERT], 2026, City Council Public Hearing; and
195

(i) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the [INSERT], 2026, City Council Public Hearing.

Section 3. FINDINGS
That the City Council finds that all proposed zoning text amendments herein are consistent with the General plan upon consideration of all of its aspects, including without limitation that the proposed amendments further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and do not obstruct their attainment. The City Council further finds that the City’s low population density, limited vertical assets, and surrounding mountains present significant barriers to reliable service. The proposed amendment is in furtherance of public interest, health, safety and welfare. Mobile connectivity has become an essential part of daily life, with individuals increasingly relying on their phones for communication, education, commerce, public safety, working, connecting with others, and access to services. The proposed amendment streamlines the entitlement process for preferred locations, further reducing significant challenges for wireless cellular coverage in the City, which may result in improved access to cellular services, improving access to emergency services and remote healthcare services, improving public safety, broadening mobile access for civic engagement and government services, supporting tourism through mobile access to information on local points of interest, and stimulating economic growth via better connectivity. As mobile services become a primary gateway to opportunity and information, ensuring equitable access to reliable coverage is a matter of public good.

Section 4. AMENDING SECTION 17.32.040 (PREFERRED LOCATIONS) OF CHAPTER 17.32 (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES) OF
TITLE 17 (“ZONING”) OF THE RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL
CODE
That Section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) of Chapter 17.32 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, is hereby amended as set forth in more below:
§ 17.32.040. Preferred locations.

Wireless communications facilities are encouraged to be located in commercial and public/semi- public zoning districts whenever feasible. Applicants are encouraged to site facilities on existing commercial buildings. Co-location is encouraged.

A. In the instance where a facility is proposed within 100 feet of residential zoning or child day care centers, the applicant shall submit a narrative description of alternative sites considered, if any, and include specific reasons why these alternative sites were not chosen. Drawings shall include the location of all schools, child day care centers, hospitals, and residential dwellings within 100 feet of the antenna array.
196

B. Notwithstanding Section 17.32.060 (Reviewing authority), preferred sites will be required to process a Minor Conditional Use Permit and/or Minor Modification, subject only to the Director’s review authority, for a monopalm up to eighty-one feet in height and accommodating up to three (3) wireless carriers, provided the facility substantially conforms to City Council-approved designs on file with the Planning Department and the approval standards set forth in Section 17.32.050 (Approval standards). The Director may refer an application to the Planning Commission if the Director determines that the application presents unique impacts, including but not limited to substantial design deviations, aesthetics, visual or noise impacts, presents a land use issue not addressed by the development standards of this chapter, involves significant deviation in technologies with characteristics not contemplated by the enacting ordinance, as may be amended from time to time, or requires interpretation of conflicting provisions of this code.

1. Monopalm designs approved by City Council are intended to depict representative examples of acceptable monopalm designs, provided for illustrative purposes only and not intended to establish mandatory development standards. Alternative monopalm designs may be approved by reviewing authority, provided it substantially conforms to the overall design intent and aesthetic objectives of this chapter.

C. For purposes of this section, “preferred sites” shall mean any site(s) designated as preferred sites via ordinance of the City Council.

Section 5. MONOPALM DESIGNS ADOPTED
In accordance with Section 17.32.040(B), the City hereby adopts typical monopalm designs, as set forth in more detail on Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
That the City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project) because it may result in construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures, or the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure and none of the application exceptions under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (a-f) apply; and this approval is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, and any development would occur within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, the project sites have no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, 197

approval of this action would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and the sites can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Moreover, the preferred locations are not considered environmentally sensitive. The proposed facilities would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, as they will consist of standard communications equipment that are regulated by federal and State agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Sufficient setback distancing and screening will be reviewed at the staff level with a Minor Conditional Use Permit and/or Minor Modification, which will minimize the visual impacts to surrounding properties. All public utilities and services will be available to the identified locations. No special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that establishing a wireless communication facility at the preferred sites will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the proposed design, locations, and standard conditions of approval, wireless communication facilities are small structures with many locations surrounded by developed areas. Therefore, there is no expected significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is required.

Section 7. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW
That the City Attorney prepared and framed this Ordinance pursuant to Section

1.04.010 of the Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt this Ordinance, that the Ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the Ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City as set forth in Section

1.04.031 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.

Section 8. SEVERABILITY
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 9. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
That all the provisions of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code as heretofore adopted by the City that are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.

Section 10. AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE
That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Ordinance necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

Section 11. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its second reading. 198

Section 12. CERTIFICATION
That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published as required by law.

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

199

The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on ______________, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

_______________________________
Lynn Mallotto, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

200

EXHIBIT “A”

PREFERRED LOCATIONS DESCRIPTION & DEPICTION

[TO BE ATTACHED]

201

EXHIBIT “B”

MONOPALM DESIGNS

[TO BE ATTACHED]

202

AT&T Coverage Map
ATTACHMENT 10
203

Verizon Coverage Map

204

T Mobile Coverage Map

205

GENERAL NOTES:

1. ALL STEEL SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE “STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL” ASTM A36, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE STRUCTURAL PLANS OR BELOW.

2. ALL ROUND STEEL PIPE SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF API-5LX GR. 42 (42 KSI YIELD POINT MATERIAL).

3. ALL TUBE STEEL (SQUARE OR RETANGULAR) SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A500 GRADE B (46 KSI YIELD POINT MATERIAL),

4. ALL POLYGON FORMED STEEL SHAFTS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A572 GRADE 65 (65 KSI YIELD POINT MATERIAL).

5. ALL WELDED CONNECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY AWS 01.1 CODE. ALL WELD ELECTRODES OR WIRE SHALL AT A MINIMUM CONFORM TO E70 ELECTRODES (70 KSI YIELD).

6. ALL STEEL SHAPES AND PLATES SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED ACCORDING TO ASTM A123. ALL STEEL NUTS AND BOLTS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED ACCORDING TO ASTM A153.

7. WIND TESTING OF PINE TREE BRANCHES HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SUPPLIER OF THE BRANCHES, LARSON. LARSON HAS VERIFIED THE STRENGTH OF THE BRANCHES THROUGH FULL SCALE WIND TESTING. THE WIND AREA USED IN THE CALCULATIONS IS BASED ON THE WIND TEST DATA. THE CALCULATION ACCOUNT FOR PINE TREE BRANCHES ATTACHED AT THE TOP OF THE MONOPOLE. ISE INC.

HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE WIND TEST METHODS.

8. THE MAIN MONOPOLE STRUCTURE SHALL BE FABRICATED BY A JURISDICTION CERTIFIED FABRICATOR OF CONVENTIONAL STEEL STRUCTURES.

9. SPECIAL INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO SECTION 1704 OF THE 2018 IBC REFER TO TABLE “SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INSPECTION” ON THIS SHEET.

10. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE SPECIAL

INSPECTOR OR INSPECTION AGENCY (OR THE INSPECTING GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEER) AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL INSPECTION. PER THE 2018 IBC ANY WORK THAT REQUIRES

SPECIAL INSPECTION THAT IS INSTALLED OR COVERED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTION IS SUBJECT TO REMOVAL.

11. THE LIST OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IS IN ADDITION TO INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 110 OF THE 2018 IBC. SPECIAL INSPECTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTION FOR INSPECTION BY A CITY INSPECTOR.

12. THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION TO PERFORM THE TYPES OF INSPECTION REQUIRED.

13. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION IS ALWAYS REQUIRED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.

14. ANY SUPPORT SERVICE PERFORMED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD DURING

CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTINUOUS AND DETAILED INSPECTION SERVICES, WHICH ARE FURNISHED BY OTHERS. THESE SUPPORT

SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD ARE ONLY FOR THE

PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN THE QUALITY CONTROL AND IN ACHIEVING CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THIS SUPPORT DOES NOT

GUARANTEE THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUPERVISION OF CONSTRUCTION.

15. THE ANTENNA MOUNT SHALL BE FABRICATED BY LARSON VALMONT, LLC. OR AN APPROVED FABRICATOR OF CONVENTIONAL STEEL STRUCTURES.

ERECTION NOTES:

1. ALL ANTENNA COAXIAL CABLES SHALL BE RUN INSIDE THE
MONOPOLE SHAFT.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ANTENNA AND MOUNT AS REQUIRED BY THE OWNER.

3. ALL ANCHOR BOLT NUTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED TO AISC SNUG TIGHT REQUIREMENTS. THE SNUG TIGHT CONDITION IS DEFINED AS THE

TIGHTNESS THAT EXISTS WHEN ALL PLIES IN A JOINT ARE IN FIRM CONTACT. THIS MAY BE ATTAINED BY A FEW IMPACTS OF AN IMPACT

WRENCH OR THE FULL EFFORT OF A MAN USING AN ORDINARY SPUD WRENCH.

4. ALL GALVANIZED SURFACES THAT ARE DAMAGED BY ABRASIONS,

CUTS, DRILLING OR FIELD WELDING DURING SHIPPING OR ERECTION

SHALL BE TOUCHED UP WITH TWO COATS OF A COLD GALVANIZING COMPOUND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A780.

5. THE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATES AND BASE PLATE WILL TYPICALLY

HAVE AN AZIMUTH WELDED OR A NOTCH INDICATING THE CORRECT ORIENTATION OF THE ANCHOR BOLTS. THIS IS NECESSARY TO
PROPERLY ORIENT THE MONOPOLE EXIT PORTS.

6. SLIP JOINT IS A FRICTION CONNECTION THAT WILL TRANSFER DESIGN FORCES WHEN THE SPECIFIED OVERLAP IS ACHIEVED. ASSEMBLY

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE EXPERIENCED AND FAMILIAR WITH TAPERED POLE ASSEMBLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSPICUOUSLY MARK THE

LOWER POLE SECTION FOR THE MAXIMUM, DESIGN, AND MINIMUM OVERLAP DISTANCES. CONTRACTOR SHALL SLIDE SECTIONS

TOGETHER AND APPLY FORCES THROUGH JACKING OR END RAM TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN OVERLAP.

7. ALL SLIP SPLICES SHALL BE JACKED TO WITHIN THE SLIP SPLICE DESIGN CRITERIA AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IF THE DESIGN SPLICE CANNOT BE ATTAINED ISE INC. SHALL BE CONTACTED.

8. ALL A36 THREADED ROD AND U-BOLTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED TO AISC SNUG REQUIREMENTS. THE SNUG TIGHT CONDITION IS DEFINED AS

THE TIGHTNESS THAT EXIST WHEN ALL PLIES IN A JOINT ARE IN FIRM CONTACT. THIS MAY BE ATTAINED BY A FEW IMPACTS OF AN IMPACT

WRENCH OR THE FULL EFFORT OF A MAN USING AN ORDINARY SPUD WRENCH. A36 NUTS AND BOLTS TIGHTENING DO NOT REQUIRE
SPECIAL INSPECTION.

9. ANTENNA MOUNT SHALL NOT BE USED AS A CLIMBING DEVICE.

WORKERS SHALL ALWAYS TIE OFF TO A SPECIFIED CLIMBING POINT.

NO. DESCRIPTION OF TYPE OF INSPECTION REQUIRED, LOCATION, REMARKS, ETC CONTINUOUS / PERIODIC FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION:
- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD MAY SERVE AS THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR FOR THE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION.
1).

A.

PF1

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
- SHALL VERIFY THE DIAMETER, DEPTH AND QUALITY OF EXCAVATION PRIOR TO THE CONCRETE PLACEMENT.
- SHALL VERIFY THE ON SITE SOILS ARE AS DETERMINED IN THE SOILS REPORT.

CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE (FOUNDATION):
- REINFORCING CAGE SHALL BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPER GEOMETRY, SIZE, LENGTH, QUAINTLY AND GRADE MATERIAL ARE USED. - ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED BY ACI-318, LATEST EDITION TO

ENSURE THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IS ATTAINED AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOUNDATION NOTES.
- CONTINUOUS INSPECTION IS REQUIRED DURING THE CONCRETE PLACEMENT.

B.

C.
2).

A.

B.

C.

ANCHOR BOLTS INSTALLED IN CONCRETE:3).
-PLACEMENT SHALL BE ORIENTED ON PROPER BOLT CIRCLE AS SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL PLANS, WITH TOP AND BOTTOM TEMPLATES INSTALLED. - SHALL BE PLUMB.
- SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM EMBEDMENT IN FOUNDATION PER FOUNDATION DETAIL
-SHALL BE TIGHTENED TO SNUG TIGHT CONDITION PER AISC STEEL MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION.PERIODIC

PERIODIC

PERIODIC

PERIODIC

CONTINUOUS

PERIODIC

PERIODIC

PERIODIC

PROJECT INFORMATION
DATE:

CUSTOMER:

PRODUCT:

SITE ID:

LOCATION:

LARSON VALMONT
70'-0'' MONOPOLE
LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

May 15, 2024

PROGRESS LOG

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWING DATE

PROGRESS
05/14/240 ISSUED TO CLIENT PB
0 THIS DESIGN DRAWING IS

PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION IN THIS DRAWING IS THE
SOLE PROPERTY OF LARSON. ANY

REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR

MANUFACTURING IN PART, OR AS A WHOLE,

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION
OF LARSON IS PROHIBITED.

May 15, 2024

POLE SPECIFICATIONS
Section Shape
PipeTaper
Pole Material
Base Plate
Anchor Bolts
Pole Length Weight Tkns. Lap Splice Diameter Section (ft.) (kips) (in.) (in.) Top (in.) Bot (in.) 18-SIDED Tapered

0.283 IN/FT
A572-65 (65 KSI)
ASTM A572 GR50

2.25"Ø X 84" ASTM A615 GR 75 - DRILLED PIER
L1
Base Plate

43.00 2.631

0.919

0.219

2.25 53.64 20.000 32.169
52"Ø w/ 29.5"Ø ID
TABLE INDICATES RAW STEEL WEIGHTS. FINAL GALVANIZED WEIGHTS SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 22% GREATER.

L2 30.47 3.544 0.312 --30.466 39.089

2.25"Ø X 72" ASTM A615 GR 75 - MAT
2018 IBC, 108 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED, TIA-222-H, EXPOSURE C, TOPOGRAPHIC CATEGORY 1, RISK CATEGORY II, GROUND ELEVATION 581'
DESIGN CRITERION:

DEFLECTIONS

Elev. (ft.) Lateral (in.) Sway ( ° ) Lateral (in.) Sway ( ° ) Top 34.939 3.9471.0879.636
60 MPH Wind 108 MPH Wind

APPURTENANCES
Elevation (ft.) (Qty)Description
70' (1)4' Lightning Rod
60' - 70' (65)(20) 7' , (20) 9', (25) 10' Palm Fronds

30.5' - 60.5' (1)12' Dia. x 30' Tall Frond Skirt
65'(1)EPA Load - 278sq.ft
50'(1)EPA Load - 278sq.ft
35'(1)EPA Load - 208sq.ft
26' (1)Ice Shield
20' (1)MW Dish

DESIGN LOADS
1987.303

41.255

27.479
(Unfactored Base Wind Reactions)
Moment = Ft-Kips
Shear = Kips
Axial = Kips

SHEET INDEX
PF2
PF1 PRODUCT INFORMATION & NOTES

POLE ELEVATION

DETAILS

EARTHQUAKE DESIGN DATA
FOUNDATION NOTES:

1. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER (OR THE APPROPRIATE INSPECTOR) SHALL INSPECT THE EXCAVATION PRIOR TO PLACING REINFORCING STEEL OR FORMS.

THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER (OR INSPECTOR) SHALL PROVIDE A NOTICE OF

INSPECTION FOR THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR REVIEW AND RECORDS PURPOSE.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE MEANS AND METHODS TO SUPPORT THE EXCAVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL READ THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SHALL

CONSULT THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS NECESSARY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

4. FOUNDATION DESIGN PER GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT:

5. ALL FOUNDATION CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH F'c= 4000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE DESIGNED BY AN APPROVED LABORATORY. CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM
WATER/CEMENT RATIO OF 0.45. ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 318. “THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE”, LATEST EDITION. CEMENT SHALL BE TYPE II, CONFORMING TO ASTM C-150. ALL AGGREGATE USED IN THE CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-33. MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE TO BE 1 1/2”.

SLUMP 4" - 8".

6. CAISSON FOUNDATION INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 336, “STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRILLED PIERS”, LATEST EDITION. MAT/PIER FOUNDATION INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 318 LATEST EDITION. CONCRETE CYLINDERS SHALL BE MADE AND TESTED. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) SET SHALL BE TAKEN FROM CONCRETE IN FOUNDATION. EACH SET SHALL CONSIST OF FOUR (4) CYLINDERS. ONE SHALL BE TESTED AT (7) DAYS, TWO SHALL BE TESTED AT TWENTY EIGHT (28) DAYS AND THE LAST CYLINDER SHALL BE A HOLD. ALL

CYLINDERS SHALL BE TAKEN, PREPARED AND TESTED BY A TESTING LAB IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM STANDARDS C172, C31 AND C39.

7. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A615. VERTICAL BARS SHALL BE GRADE 60, AND TIES OR STIRRUPS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GRADE

40. THE PLACEMENT OF ALL REINFORCEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO ACI 315, “MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAILING REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES”, LATEST EDITION, UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED ON THIS SHEET.

8. ESTIMATED CONCRETE VOLUME =
MAT+PIER : 46.32 CYD
PIER : 19.80 CYD

9. THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO RESIST THE FOLLOWING FACTORED LOADS:

10. SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED PER TABLE

11. “SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INSPECTION"
PF3
MOMENT = 2031.895 FT-KIPS
SHEAR = 41.255 KIPS
AXIAL = 32.975 KIPS
DETAILSPF4
IMPORTANCE FACTOR (1): 1
OCCUPANCY CATEGORY: II
RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR (R): 1.50

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE USED EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE SS = 0.051
S1 = 0.021
SDS = 0.054
SD1 = 0.034
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY:

SITE CLASS:

SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT:

DESIGN BASE SHEAR:

A
D

0.014

41.255
ATTACHMENT 11
206

1 POLE ELEVATION

PROGRESS LOG

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWING DATE

PROGRESS
05/14/240 ISSUED TO CLIENT PB
0 THIS DESIGN DRAWING IS

PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION IN THIS DRAWING IS THE
SOLE PROPERTY OF LARSON. ANY

REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR

MANUFACTURING IN PART, OR AS A WHOLE,

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION
OF LARSON IS PROHIBITED.

May 15, 2024
PF2
FLAT NUMBERING2
1 2
3 4
7 8
91011
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 NOT USED3
5 6
NOTES:

1. BRANCHES SHOWN FOR

ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE
ONLY

2. HANDHOLES NOT SHOWN
AT TRUE ORIENTATION.

REFER TO SCHEDULE
NOTES:

1. BRANCHES SHOWN FOR

ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE
ONLY

2. HANDHOLES NOT SHOWN
AT TRUE ORIENTATION.

REFER TO SCHEDULE

BASE PLATE
& ANCHOR BOLTS

FINISH GRADE
0'-0"

TOP OF BRANCHES
74'-0''

TOP OF POLE
70'-0''
53 .
6 4
"
LA
P

S
P
L
I
C
E

DATE PALM BRANCHES

PORT (SEE SCHEDULE)
18'-0''

ANTENNA RAD CENTER
65'-0''

PORT (SEE SCHEDULE)
65'-0''

ANTENNA RAD CENTER
50'-0''

PORT (SEE SCHEDULE)
33'-0''

PORT (SEE SCHEDULE)
48'-0''

ANTENNA RAD CENTER
35'-0''

PORT (SEE SCHEDULE)
4'-0''

MW ANTENNA RAD CENTER
20'-0''

FULL BARK
207

PLATE GRADE THICKNESS
(IN)
OUTER

DIAMETER (IN)
INNER

DIAMETER
(IN)
BOLT

CIRCLE (IN)

BOLT HOLE

DIAMETER (IN)
BASE PLATE 2.25 52 29.5 46 2.625

ANCHOR BOLT
TEMPLATE A36 0.5 51 41 46 2.375
A572 GR50
BOLT GRADE NO. OF BOLTS BOLT

DIAMETER (IN)
TOTAL

LENGTH (IN)
ANCHOR BOLTS - PIER A615 GR 75 12 2.25 84

EMBEDMENT
(IN)
72 ANCHOR BOLTS - MAT A615 GR 75 12 2.25 72 60

FOUNDATION INFORMATION

PIER DIAMETER
(FT)

PIER EMBEDMENT
(FT)
PIER

PROJECTION (IN)

VERTICAL

REINFORCEMENT TIES ANCHOR BOLT

EMBEDMENT (IN)

5.5 22 6 (22) #10 #5 72

COAX HAND/ACCESS HOLE SCHEDULE
TYP.

W
H
POLE
(PER PLAN)
A
Tf
POLE
(PER PLAN)
BB

B SECTION 'B-B'
D2
D1
ELEV QTY W H AZIMUTH D1 D2 Tf
(AFG) (IN) (IN)(IN) (IN) (IN)
65'-0" 3 8 22 0°,120°,240°1 1/2 2 1/2 12"
48'-0" 3 8 22 0°,120°,240°1 1/2 2 1/2 12"
33'-0" 3 8 22 0°,120°,240°1 1/2 2 1/2 12"
18-0" 1 6 18 90° 1 1/2 2 1/2 12" 4'-0" 2 10 30 0°, 180° 2 1/2 4 1/2 3
4"
Tp
100%
45°
45°

PROGRESS LOG

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWING DATE

PROGRESS
05/14/240 ISSUED TO CLIENT PB
0 THIS DESIGN DRAWING IS

PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION IN THIS DRAWING IS THE
SOLE PROPERTY OF LARSON. ANY

REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR

MANUFACTURING IN PART, OR AS A WHOLE,

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION
OF LARSON IS PROHIBITED.

May 15, 2024
PF3
Tf = THICKNESS OF FLANGE
Tf

J-HOOK INSIDE POLE AT COAX PORTS
TpTYP.
120.0° (TYP) UNO

MONOPOLE SHAFT
(PER PLAN)

COAX PORT
(PER PLAN)J-HOOK GRIP HOIST

OPPOSITE EACH
COAX PORT (TYP.)
Tp
Tp
Tp = THICKNESS OF POLE

MONOPOLE SHAFT
(PER PLAN)
R11
2" ZINC DRAIN
TYPICAL OF 3
(120° APART)
Tp
1 2" THK. X 22" O.D.

TOP PLATE

MONOPOLE
WEEP HOLE - 1/4"

DRILL THRU BOTTOM

FACE OF TUBE AS CLOSE

TO WELD AS PRACTICAL
5/16" DRILL THRU FOR
1/4" THRU BOLT

STEEL TUBING-
1-1/4" SQ. X 3/16"
WALL X 15" LG., A500-46

DATE FROND

REMOVE ALL BURRS

FROM TUBE OPENINGS
Tp
ANG
L
E

F
R
O
M
VER
T
I
C
A
L

MONOPOLE

POLE TOP PLATE
WEEP HOLE - 1/4"

DRILL THRU BOTTOM

FACE OF TUBE AS CLOSE

TO WELD AS PRACTICAL
5/16" DRILL THRU FOR
1/4" THRU BOLT

STEEL TUBING-
1-1/4" SQ. X 3/16"
WALL X 15" LG.

A500-46

REMOVE ALL BURRS

FROM TUBE OPENINGS
Tp

DATE FROND

BASE PLATE

OUTER DIAMETER

BOLT CIRCLE
POLE

INNER DIAMETER

BOLT HOLES

OUTER DIAMETER

BOLT CIRCLE

TEMPLATE
(2 REQUIRED)

INNER DIAMETER

BOLT HOLES

BASE PLATE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE

ANCHOR BOLTS

VERTICAL

REINFORCEMENT
3"

C
L
R
.

VERTICAL

REINFORCEMENT
(3
)

#
5 @

2 .
5 "
3"

C
L
R
PIER

PROJECTION

ANCHOR BOLTS W/

LEVELING NUTS

POLE & BASE PLATE
(PER PLAN)

FINISHED GRADE
PI
E
R

E
M
B
E
D
M
E
N
T

PIER DIAMETER
3"

C
L
R

ANCHOR BOLT

EMBEDMENT
3" CLR.

ANCHOR BOLT

TEMPLATE
DRILLED PIER FOUNDATION4TYPICAL FROND SLEEVE ATTACHMENT (TOP OF POLE)7 COAX HAND HOLES DETAILS1

POLE/BASE PLATE CONNECTION
2 3

A ELEVATION
5 BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTSTYPICAL FROND SLEEVE ATTACHMENT (SIDE OF POLE)

SIDE VIEW
POLE TOP DETAIL6
8 (3) #5 TIES
w/STAGGERED HOOKS
TI
E
S

@

6 "

O
.

C
.

S
E
I
S
M
I
C

B
E
N
D
S

A
T

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
208

PROGRESS LOG

SHEET NUMBER

DRAWING DATE

PROGRESS
05/14/240 ISSUED TO CLIENT PB
0 THIS DESIGN DRAWING IS

PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION IN THIS DRAWING IS THE
SOLE PROPERTY OF LARSON. ANY

REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR

MANUFACTURING IN PART, OR AS A WHOLE,

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION
OF LARSON IS PROHIBITED.

May 15, 2024
PF4
21'-6''
10'-9"

MAT TOP & BOTTOM

REINFORCING
(3" EDGE CLEAR TYP.)

CONCRETE PIER HEAD
1B
--
PLAN VIEW1A
--
MAT FOUNDATION1
PIER SECTION1C
--
21 '
-
6 '
'
10 '
-
9 "
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
MAT FOUNDATION SECTION1B
--
10 '
-
9 "

CONCRETE MAT

CONCRETE PIER HEAD

SPIRAL TIES

VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT
3" CLR.

ANCHOR BOLTS
10'-9"
TIES
2'-
6 '
'
3'-
6 '
'
(12) 2.25"Ø X 72" BOLTS ON 46" B.C. W/

2.25" X 52" ROUND BASE PLATE
W/ LEVELING NUTS W/ 12" EXPOSURE
AND 60" EMBEDMENT (INSTALL W/ LONG

THREAD UP)
F.G.
21'-6" SQUARE
5'-6" Ø

PIER HEAD
6"
10 "

T
O

1 2
"
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
3" CLR.

TYP
1C
--
1A
--
F.G.

POLE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY
(SEE PF1 & PF2)
#5 HORZ. TIES AT 6" O.C.,
TERMINATE EA. END W/ 4" LONG 135° SEISMIC
HOOK AROUND ALTERNATING VERTS.

OVERLAY THE ENDS BY 6" MIN.
1" CHAMFER
#4 STIRRUPS AT 18"
O.C. TYP. ALL (4) SIDES
3"
(16) #10 VERTS. W/ 24" HOOKS,

EQUALLY SPACED RADICALLY
3"

C
L
R
.

OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
JOINT

MAT TOP & BOTTOM
(12) #10 EACH WAY
(3" EDGE CLEAR TYP.)

LOWER ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE
PER DETAIL5 SHEET PF3
TIES AT 3" O.C.
@ BOTTOM 30"
209

T-1

PROJECT INFORMATION
PSW
AAS

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY
A 5-28-25 PRELIMINARY PSW
0 6-11-25 FINAL PSW

SHEET TITLE
CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NUMBER
MANUFACTURER:
1501 S. EUCLID AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85713
PHONE: (520) 294-3900
FAX: (520) 741-3488

CONTACT INFORMATION

SHEET INDEX
T-1 PROJECT INFORMATION
GN-1 NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS
S-1 ELEVATION
S-2.0 BASEPLATE & TOP CAP DETAILS
S-2.1 PORT DETAILS
S-3 FOUNDATION

PROJECT DATA
JSL

ALTHOUGH RARE, VIBRATIONS SEVERE ENOUGH TO CAUSE DAMAGE CAN OCCASIONALLY OCCUR IN STRUCTURES OF ALL TYPES.

BECAUSE THEY ARE INFLUENCED BY MANY INTERACTING
VARIABLES, VIBRATIONS ARE GENERALLY UNPREDICTABLE. THE

USER'S MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SHOULD INCLUDE OBSERVATION

FOR EXCESSIVE VIBRATION AND EXAMINATION FOR ANY
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE OR BOLT LOOSENING. THE VALMONT

WARRANTY SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES FATIGUE FAILURE OR SIMILAR

PHENOMENA RESULTING FROM INDUCED VIBRATION, HARMONIC

OSCILLATION OR RESONANCE ASSOCIATED WITH MOVEMENT OF
AIR CURRENTS AROUND THE PRODUCT.
75'-0" TALL (TOP OF STEEL)
81'-0" TALL (TOP OF STRUCTURE/DATE PALM FRONDS)

MONOPALM
ATTACHMENT 12
210

GN-1

NOTES &

SPECIFICATIONS
AAS
JSL
PSW

SHEET TITLE
CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NUMBER
MANUFACTURER:
1501 S. EUCLID AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85713
PHONE: (520) 294-3900
FAX: (520) 741-3488
NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS 1

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY
A 5-28-25 PRELIMINARY PSW
0 6-11-25 FINAL PSW

GENERAL DESIGN NOTES:

STRUCTURAL DESIGN IS BASED ON THE 2022 CALIFORNIA
BUILDING CODE AND THE TIA-222-H STANDARD
DESIGN LOADS:

WIND: WIND SPEED = 96 MPH (3-SEC GUST) PER THE ASCE 7-16

STANDARD
RISK CATEGORY / STRUCTURE CLASS: II
EXPOSURE: C
TOPOGRAPHIC CATEGORY: 1
CREST HEIGHT: 0 FT
ELEVATION: 1468.7 FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL
ICE: NONE PER THE TIA-222-H STANDARD
SEISMIC:

IMPORTANCE FACTOR: 1.00
RISK CATEGORY / STRUCTURE CLASS: II
MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS:

SS = 1.392g, S1 = 0.515g
SITE CLASS: C
SPECTRAL RESPONSE COEFFICIENTS:

SDS = 1.114g, SD1 = 0.510g
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D
BASIC SEISMIC-FORCE-RESISTING-SYSTEM:

TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER: STEEL POLE
SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT, Cs: 0.201
SEISMIC BASE SHEAR, Vs: 2.901 K
RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, R: 1.5
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE: EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE
STRUCTURAL STEEL:

1. POLYGONAL MONOPOLE SHAFT STEEL SHALL CONFORM w/
ASTM A572 GR. 65, U.N.O.

2. STEEL FOR BASEPLATES UP TO 2" THICK SHALL CONFORM
W/ ASTM A572 GR. 55. STEEL FOR BASEPLATES OVER 2"
THICK SHALL CONFORM W/ ASTM A572 GR. 50.

3. ALL STEEL PIPE SHALL CONFORM w/ ASTM A53 GR. B (35
KSI), U.N.O.

4. ALL STEEL RECTANGULAR TUBES (HSS) SHALL CONFORM
w/ ASTM A500 GR. B (46 KSI), U.N.O.

5. REINFORCED PORT STEEL SHALL CONFORM w/ ASTM A572
GR. 65, U.N.O.

6. ALL OTHER STEEL SHAPES & PLATES SHALL CONFORM w/
ASTM A36, U.N.O.

7. ALL BOLTS FOR STEEL-TO-STEEL CONNECTIONS SHALL
CONFORM w/ ASTM F3125 GR. A325, U.N.O.

8. ALL ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM w/ ASTM A615 GR. 75,
U.N.O.

9. ALL WELDING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY CERTIFIED
WELDERS IN ACCORDANCE w/ THE LATEST VERSION OF THE
AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY AWS D1.1. STEEL WELDS
SHALL BE BY E70XX LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES, U.N.O.

10. ALL STEEL SURFACES SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN
ACCORDANCE w/ ASTM A123 AND ASTM F2329 STANDARDS.

11. ALL BOLTED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE TIGHTENED PER THE
"TURN-OF-NUT" METHOD AS DEFINED BY AISC.

BASE DESIGN REACTIONS:

MOMENT, M = 1094 K-FT (1.0 WIND)
SHEAR, V = 17 K (1.0 WIND)
AXIAL, P = 17 K (1.2 DEAD)
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:

1. STEEL FABRICATION SHALL BE DONE ON THE PREMISES OF A

FABRICATOR REGISTERED AND APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY THE

BUILDING OFFICIAL TO PERFORM SUCH WORK WITHOUT SPECIAL
INSPECTION. ALTERNATIVELY, SPECIAL INSPECTION OF MATERIALS,

WELDING, AND FABRICATION PROCEDURES SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR FABRICATION BY AN UNAPPROVED FABRICATOR.

2. NO FIELD WELDING SHALL BE PERMITTED

3. THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 17 OF THE BUILDING CODE:
·PERIODIC SPECIAL INSPECTION OF HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTING (WHEN

APPLICABLE)
·PERIODIC SPECIAL INSPECTION OF PLACEMENT OF REINFORCING STEEL ·CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION OF ANCHOR BOLTS PRIOR TO AND

DURING CONCRETE PLACEMENT
·CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT
·CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION OF DRILLING OPERATIONS FOR PIER

FOUNDATIONS
·CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION TO VERIFY LOCATION, PLUMBNESS,

DIAMETER, AND LENGTH OF PIER FOUNDATIONS

4. SPECIAL INSPECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR WORK OF A MINOR NATURE

OR AS WARRANTED BY CONDITIONS IN THE JURISDICTION AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THUS, SPECIAL INSPECTION ITEMS ABOVE MAY BE WAIVED AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION:

NO STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IS REQUIRED.

DISCLAIMERS:

1. ALL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS TO BE CONNECTED TOGETHER SHALL

BE COMPLETELY FIT UP ON THE GROUND OR OTHERWISE VERIFIED FOR COMPATIBILITY PRIOR TO LIFTING ANY COMPONENT INTO PLACE.

REPAIRS REQUIRED DUE TO FIT-UP OR CONNECTION COMPATIBILITY

PROBLEMS AFTER PARTIAL ERECTION ARE THE FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

2. WHERE EFFECTIVE PROJECTED AREAS (EPA) ARE USED, IT IS THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS TO VERIFY INSTALLED EQUIPMENT DOES NOT EXCEED LISTED EPA.
211

SHEET TITLE
CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NUMBER
MANUFACTURER:
1501 S. EUCLID AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85713
PHONE: (520) 294-3900
FAX: (520) 741-3488
S-1

ELEVATION
AAS
PSW
JSL
SCALE:

NTS
SCALE:

NTSAPPURTENANCES 1
POLE SECTIONS 2
ELEVATIONS 4
PORTS (TYP.)

BASE PLATE

FOUNDATION
2 S-2.1
1 S-2.0
4 S-3
FINISH INSTRUCTION: FAUX
BARK TO 70'-0" A.G.L., PAINT
ABOVE

CENTERLINE OF ANTENNAS
ELEVATION 71'-0" A.G.L.

TOP OF STEEL
ELEVATION 75'-0" A.G.L.

CENTERLINE OF PORT
ELEVATION 3'-0" A.G.L.

FINISHED GRADE
ELEVATION 0'-0"

FINISHED GRADE
ELEVATION 0'-0"
SCALE:

NTS

CENTERLINE OF PORT
ELEVATION 68'-0" A.G.L.

SCALE:

NTS
POLE SPLICE DETAILS 3

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY
A 5-28-25 PRELIMINARY PSW
0 6-11-25 FINAL PSW

DESIGN LOADING

ELEVATION QTY APPURTENANCE
66'-0" TO 81'-0"65 7' TO 10' DATE PALM FRONDS
71'-0"N/A 225 SQ. FT./3,375 LBS EPA
61'-0"N/A 175 SQ. FT./2,625 LBS EPA
NOTES:

1. SECTION WEIGHT INCLUDES PORTS, LOWEST SECTION WEIGHT INCLUDES BASEPLATE WEIGHT.

2. DESIGN TAPER = 0.1149 in/ft.

3. WEIGHTS LISTED IN THIS CHART ARE RAW STEEL WEIGHTS. FINAL WEIGHTS MAY BE UP TO 22% GREATER DUE TO GALVANIZING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.

4. DIAMETER OF POLE SECTIONS AT LAP SPLICES MAY BE ADJUSTED BY UP TO TO 0.06" TO ACCOUNT FOR THE THICKNESS OF THE COATINGS.
118
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 Ø

UPPER POLE

SECTION

LOWER POLE

SECTION

TOP OF LOWER POLE SECTION
NOTES:

1. SLIP SPLICE MINIMUM LENGTH EQUALS 1.5 TIMES THE INSIDE WIDTH (FLAT TO FLAT) OF THE UPPER POLE SECTION.

2. POLE MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR JACKING FORCES TO BE APPLIED AT SPLICES.

3. SPLICES SHALL BE JACKED TOGETHER TO OBTAIN A TIGHT EVEN JOINT REGARDLESS OF THE SPLICE LENGTH OBTAINED DURING INITIAL FIT UP.

4. JACKING FORCES SHALL BE INCREASED UNTIL NO ADDITIONAL MOVEMENT OCCURS.

S
L
I
P

S
P
L
I
C
E
LE
N
G
T
H

P
E
R

D
E
T
A
I
L
2/
S
-
1 (T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E

=
+
1 0
%
,

-
0 %
)

BOTTOM OF UPPER POLE SECTION
NOTE: DATE PALM FRONDS, ANTENNAS, RADIOS AND

CORRESPONDING EQUIPMENT ARE DESIGNED BY OTHERS AND

SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND STRUCTURAL
COMPLIANCE FOR LOADS IMPOSED TO BASE METAL.

MONOPOLE SECTION CHART
SECTION LENGTH TOP Ø BOTTOM Ø THICKNESS SLIP SPLICE

LENGTH WEIGHT
1 30.00' 20.0000" 26.8919" 0.2500" 4.5'2004 LBS
2 30.00' 25.3581" 32.2500" 0.2500" 5.5'2313 LBS
3 24.00' 30.4865" 36.0000" 0.28125"--- 3402 LBS

TOP CAP
DETAIL

APPURTENANCE

LOADING
1 S-1
3 S-2.0
(2
0 )

7 '
-
0 "

F
R
O
N
D
S
(2
0 )

9 '
-
0 "

F
R
O
N
D
S
(2
5 )

1 0
'
-
0 "

F
R
O
N
D
S
(65) 7' TO 10' DATE

PALM FRONDS DATE

PALM FRONDS
1 S-2.1 PALM FROND

ATTACHMENT
DETAIL

CENTERLINE OF ANTENNAS
ELEVATION 61'-0" A.G.L.

CENTERLINE OF PORT
ELEVATION 59'-0" A.G.L.

SECTION 1 OF
POLE
2 S-1

POLE SPLICE
DETAIL (TYP.)
3 S-1
SECTION 2 OF
POLE
2 S-1
SECTION 3 OF
POLE
2 S-1
212

SHEET TITLE
CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NUMBER
MANUFACTURER:
1501 S. EUCLID AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85713
PHONE: (520) 294-3900
FAX: (520) 741-3488
S-2.0

BASEPLATE & TOP CAP

DETAILS
PSW
AAS
SCALE:

NTS
SCALE:

NTS
SCALE:

NTSBASEPLATE DETAIL 1 TOP CAP DETAIL 3ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE DETAIL 2 1" V-NOTCH IN

ANCHOR BOLT

TEMPLATE
R 1
2 " ORIEN
T
A
T
I
O
N

T
A
B
0°
90°
180°
270°
0°
90°
180°
270°
POLE
SHAFT

2.5" THK x 49"Ø

BASEPLATE
[10] Ø2.625" BOLT
HOLES
Ø43" B.C.

Ø25" I.D.
(2) 1"Ø ZINC DRAINS
ON A 32.9" CIRCLE
Ø43" B.C.
49" O.D. ANCHOR

BOLT TEMPLATE
SCALE:

NTS
JSL
NOT USED 4
Ø37" I.D.
(10) Ø2.375" HOLES

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY
A 5-28-25 PRELIMINARY PSW
0 6-11-25 FINAL PSW

1/4x1/2
1/4x1/2
CJP, E80XX

BACK GOUGE

FOR REINFORCING FILLET-WELDS,

SHORTER WELD LEG TO BE ON

BASEPLATE, LONGER LEG ON

POLE WALL

TEMPLATE THICKNESS
LOCATION MIN. THICKNESS
TOP 3
8"
BOTTOM 3
8"
3/8" THICK TOP
CAP, O.D. = d+1"
3/16
TYP.

BOTTOM

OF CAP TO
POLE
SHAFT

ZINC DRAIN,
TYP.

POLE
SHAFT
Ø
7 8"
d
213

S-2.1

PORT DETAILS
AAS
PSW

SHEET TITLE
CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NUMBER
MANUFACTURER:
1501 S. EUCLID AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85713
PHONE: (520) 294-3900
FAX: (520) 741-3488
SCALE:

NTS
SCALE:

NTSFROND RECEIVER DETAIL 1 PORT DETAIL 2
JSL
NOTE: FOR POLE SHAFT
THICKNESS, t, SEE DTL 2/S1

T PER PORT

SCHEDULE
B

PER PORT

SCHEDULE
D
P
E
R

P
O
R
T
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
1/
2 "

T
Y
P
.

H PE
R
PO
R
T
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E

ELEVATION

SECTION
t
45°
0 t+1/16
C.L. OF PORT PER

PORT SCHEDULE
t
POLE
SHAFT
E80

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY
A 5-28-25 PRELIMINARY PSW
0 6-11-25 FINAL PSW

NOTE: Tp = THICKNESS OF POLE
WEEP HOLE - 1/4" DRILL

THRU BOTTOM FACE OF

TUBE AS CLOSE TO

WELD AS PRACTICAL
Tp

POLE TOP PLATE

MONOPOLE
1'-
8 -
1 4"
5/16" DRILL THRU FOR
1/4" BOLT

DATE FROND

REMOVE ALL BURRS

FROM TUBE OPENINGS
STEEL TUBING - 1-1/4"
SQ. X 3/16" WALL X 15"
LG. A500-46

PORT SCHEDULE
C.L. ELEVATION PORT SIZE (B x H)D T QTY AZIMUTHS
68'-0"6"x18"2.72"0.47"3 0°/120°/240°
59'-0"6"x18"2.72"0.47"3 0°/120°/240°
3'-0"9"x24"3.62" 1.00"2 0°/180°
214

S-3
AAS

FOUNDATION
PSW

SHEET TITLE
CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NUMBER
MANUFACTURER:
1501 S. EUCLID AVE. TUCSON, AZ 85713
PHONE: (520) 294-3900
FAX: (520) 741-3488
6"

POLE SHAFT AND

BASE PLATE
TOP OF

CONCRETE

PIER OR

PEDESTAL

FINISHED
GRADE
2 x

A
N
C
H
O
R
BO
L
T

D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
(M
A
X
)
SCALE:

NTS
SCALE:

NTS
SCALE:

NTS
FOUNDATION NOTES 1
BASE DETAIL 2
FOUNDATION DETAIL 4
JSL
SCALE:

NTS
HOOKED TIE DETAIL 3

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY
A 5-28-25 PRELIMINARY PSW
0 6-11-25 FINAL PSW

3"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
CO
V
E
R
(24) #9 VERTICALS,

EQUALLY SPACED
6'-0" Ø

ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE

W/ HEAVY HEX NUTS (T&B)
TOWER
(10) 2.25" Ø x 7'-0" LONG
ANCHOR BOLTS12
"
A.

B
.

P
R
O
J
.
4" CONCRETE
COVER
2 S-2.0
4 S-1
6'-
6 "

H
O
O
K
E
D

T
I
E
S

P
E
R

3 /
S
-
4 @

6 "
SEE 1/S2.0 FOR BASE

PLATE DIMENSIONS

LAP TIE DETAILA
3 S-3
A
LA
P

T
I
E
S

O
R

H
O
O
K
E
D

T
I
E
S

(
A
T

C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S

O
P
T
I
O
N
)
2"
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
CO
V
E
R
(5) #5 TIES @3"
18 '
-
0 "
#5 TIES @ 8" O.C.

LAP TIES
30" - TYP.
6"

ANCHOR BOLT

DOUBLE HEAVY

HEX NUT
FLAT WASHER (TYP.)

CHAMFER OR

TROWEL EDGE
FORM

CONCRETE

ABOVE GRADE

HEAVY HEX

LEVELING NUT
4" CONCRETE
COVER

VERTICALS, SPACED EVENLY
PROVIDE 90°x4"

HOOK AROUND
VERTICAL BARS.

STAGGER HOOK

LOCATION AROUND

PIER WITH A
NOMINAL 180°

SEPARATION
AROUND PIER.

LA
P

T
I
E
S

6 "

M
I
N
.

GENERAL DESIGN NOTES:

1. FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED UPON THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.

DESIGN LOADS:

1. THIS FOUNDATION IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE 75'-0" TALL, MONOPALM TOWER DESIGNED BY PINNACLE CONSULTING, INC. (JOB NO. 632232).

2. FACTORED BASE REACTIONS PROVIDED BY TOWER DRAWINGS ARE:
a. MOMENT = 1094 FT-KIPS (1.0 WIND)
b. SHEAR = 17 KIPS (1.0 WIND)
c. AXIAL = 17 KIPS (1.2 DEAD)
FOUNDATION NOTES:

1. FOUNDATION IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NO.

GEO25-25051-08 BY DELTA OAKS GROUP DATED MARCH 27, 2025.  REFER TO REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

MATERIAL NOTES:

1. ANCHOR BOLTS:  ASTM A615, GRADE 75
STEEL PLATE (TEMPLATES):  ASTM A36 (OR BETTER) UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

2. CONCRETE:
a. 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f'c) OF 4000 PSI
b. TYPE II PORTLAND CEMENT
c. 3/4" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE

3. REINFORCING STEEL:  ASTM A615, GRADE 60
FOUNDATION SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:

1. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PER IBC CHAPTER 17 FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
a. PERIODIC INSPECTION OF REINFORCING STEEL TO VERIFY SIZE AND PLACEMENT. b. PERIODIC INSPECTION OF ANCHOR BOLTS TO VERIFY SIZE AND PLACEMENT. c. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT TO VERIFY PROPER PLACEMENT TECHNIQUES. d. CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION OF DRILLING OPERATIONS FOR DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS e. CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION TO VERIFY LOCATION, PLUMBNESS, DIAMETER, AND LENGTH OF PIER FOUNDATIONS.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

1. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST REVISION OF ACI 301, "SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE" AND WITH THE LATEST REVISION OF ACI-318, "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE". 215

Zoning Text Amendment Case No.

ZTA26-0002
Public Comments
ATTACHMENT 13
216

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic; Colin Kirkpatrick
Subject:FW: PUBLIC COMMENT:Strong Opposition to case numbers ZTA26-002 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL RECORD FOR CASE ZTA26-0002 Date:Thursday, July 9, 2026 2:26:06 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Please see public comment below.

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.) -----Original Message-----
From: Karen Petromilli
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 2:05 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT:Strong Opposition to case numbers ZTA26-002 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL RECORD FOR CASE ZTA26-0002 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: Mayor and Members of the City Council, City of Rancho Mirage From: Karen Petromilli and Frank Harrington
20 Via Haciendas, Rancho Mirage CA 92270
Subject: STRONG OPPOSITION to Zoning Case No. ZTA26-0002 (Wireless Communication Facilities) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment (Case number ZTA26-002), which would allow staff-level approval for cell towers up to 81 feet tall.

While we understand the need to address wireless coverage, we object to this amendment for the following reasons:

INADEQUATE NOTICE AND UNFAIR TIMING: This critical hearing is being rushed with very short public notice.

Scheduling this meeting during the peak of the summer heat means a vast number of our full-time and seasonal residents are away from the Coachella Valley and Rancho Mirage area in question. Holding this vote when affected community members cannot attend in person is excluding the very people that would be affected and is unfair.

LOSS OF TRANSPARENCY: Moving to staff-level approvals removes the requirement for public hearings. This strips resident of their right to review, voice concerns and oversee major structures being placed near their homes. 217

INAPPROPRIATE LOCATIONS: 81 foot towers near residential neighborhoods and major thoroughfares compromises the aesthetic appeal, character and property values of our community.

We respectfully urge the City Council to reject this amendment. At a minimum, We request that you postpone this decision until the fall when the full community is present to participate in a transparent and well publicized public forum.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Karen Petromilli and Frank Harrington
218

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Michael Silver
Subject:Re: zoning text amendment case no zta26-0002
Date:Thursday, July 9, 2026 9:17:22 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Your email was received.

Best,
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
City of Rancho Mirage

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 Jul 9, 2026, at 8:55 AM, Michael Silver 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.

Good morning. This is a test to make sure I have the proper email address or I will be poning before the end of the week. I represent the Silver Family trust who have owned property at that location. You will get an extensive email from me and I will be attending the meeting. [email protected]
219

220

221

222

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW: Input on Cell Towers for Planning Commission Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:15:08 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) -----Original Message-----
From: Al Parso-York
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:30 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Input on Cell Towers for Planning Commission
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 need more cell towers in Rancho Mirage. Hopefully they can be disguised as trees or something so they aren't so unappealing but we need them. Please do whatever you can to get them approved expeditiously.

Al Parso-York
Please keep my address & phone private:
4 Dickens Ct
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
415-254-2469
[email protected]
223

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Public Comment - City of Rancho Mirage subcommittee "Planning Commission" regular scheduled public meeting of June 25, 2026 (2:PM) - AGENDA ITEM: 5.A. (PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC) Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:04:56 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Brad Anderson
Date: June 24, 2026 at 10:20:27 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - City of Rancho Mirage subcommittee "Planning Commission" regular scheduled public meeting of June 25, 2026 (2:PM) - AGENDA ITEM: 5.A. (PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC)

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.

June 24, 2026
City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Commission (PC)
69825 Hwy 111
224

Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Attention: Acting Clerk of the Board
Re: Written testimony in regards to Agenda Item: 5.A. (PUBLIC HEARING) Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002, Amendment to limit transparency of City operations (Wireless Communication facilities/entitlements).

Dear current City of Rancho Mirage appointed Planning Commission members, Please review my written statement prior to consideration of agenda Item: 5.A.

Please be advised that Public Hearing Items should be recognized as having accurate written meeting minutes that reflects any and all public testimony (comments) received with recorded position stances documented in the official public record (written meeting minutes) of those proceedings. As this commission should be aware, the Rancho Mirage City Planning Commission "could" be considered as the last (ONLY) opportunity for members of the community to address the legislative bodies in regards to this agenda Item and be recognized as having standing if needed in future legal ramifications.

It's critical that any future litigation in regards to this agenda topic have the appropriate documentation (accurate summary of public comments/written meeting minutes) within the City's public record (written meeting minutes).

Position (Stance): In Opposition
It's reasonable that wireless network companies would seek out designated locations for their infrastructure elements (Wireless Communication facilities) that would archive their goal of a need (customers) along with the ideal area to optimised their equipment for increased profit and customer satisfaction.

It's unusual that City government would expel city resources to fund a poorly manufactured study to evaluate Wireless network structure throughout it's boundaries. It's reasonable that certain (selected) influences were able to lobby for such city funded infrastructure proposed elements while developers (contractors) profit at taxpayer's expense.

Of course having the convenience of by-pasting Citys council (and other regulatory parties) to have one unelected bureaucrat (City Manager) dictate potential Implementation of Wireless Communication facilities within City neighborhoods is nonsensical and dangerous to common sense and best practices protocols of acceptable governance.

The City's narrative of "Streamlining" the City's permitting process along with "reducing barriers" to City supplied entitlement. With the construction of a "pre- approved" list of sites (locations) for that unique power consuming equipment is nonsensical and potentially deceitful.

It's radical to dismiss long established method of having proposed development (major infrastructure elements) presented to City representatives along with public notification and options for public comments to be recognized and recorded in regards to those proposed projects.

Please be reminded that City Managers are employed to represent City council members with operations of city services. Clearly city officials are aware that City 225

residents and businesses may disrupt their ambition to please developers (contractors) with residents concerns of health and safety and other undesirables Issues that would negativity impact city residents and their properties with the proposed development of censoring city business Interests.

It's highly recommended to abandon side-stepping common sense approaches to good governance. Opose the consideration of amending city regulations to appease a non-transparent form of governance.

City owned and operated real properties need to be recognized by city residents before development of those properties. Areas Identified such as "Palm Valley School" (In session or vacated) should be reexamined to include surrounding locations that reduced potential risks to children and household's from unannounced infrastructure elements being installed secretly (No PUBLIC notice).

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 Cc:
226

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Public Comment for Planning Commission Hearing (June 25, 2026) – OPPOSITION to Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 9:34:49 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Carol Leflufy
Date: June 24, 2026 at 9:22:00 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for Planning Commission Hearing (June 25, 2026) – OPPOSITION to Case No. ZTA26-0002

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.

Subject:

To: Rancho Mirage Planning Commission
Sent Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Case No. ZTA26-0002 (Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance Amendment)
227

Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission,

My name is Carol LeFlufy and I am a resident of the Tamarisk West community. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendments under Case No. ZTA26-0002, specifically regarding the drastic expansion of allowable tower heights and the elimination of future public notices.

While I recognize and support the city’s objective to improve cellular connectivity along the Highway 111 corridor, the mechanism proposed in this text amendment completely disregards neighborhood aesthetic standards and strips residents of their due process.

I urge the Planning Commission to reject or heavily modify the current proposal based on the following crucial concerns:

1. Severe Aesthetic Degradation from 81-Foot Structures Rancho Mirage has long maintained an admirable commitment to low-profile architectural standards and preserving our unique desert landscape. Allowing "camouflaged" monopalms to reach heights of up to 81 feet is a massive departure from this standard. An 81-foot faux structure will tower aggressively over the single- story residences in Tamarisk West and the surrounding low-profile neighborhoods, creating a permanent, industrial eyesore that visually degrades our community and threatens local property values.

2. Elimination of Vital Public Notices and Transparency The most alarming aspect of this amendment is the shift toward "administrative, staff-level approvals." Stripping the public notice requirement for future wireless facilities removes our right to be informed about major infrastructure projects happening directly outside our front doors. Decisions of this magnitude—which directly impact local neighborhoods—must remain transparent, require community notification, and offer an open forum for public discourse before a shovel ever hits the ground.

3. Disproportionate Local Impact
The designated site at Frank Sinatra and Da Vall is directly adjacent to a residential zone. Forcing an un-notified, 81-foot industrial asset into this specific area without localized public scrutiny is an unfair burden to place on immediate neighbors who will bear the brunt of the visual and structural footprint.

Cellular connectivity can be achieved responsibly through a denser network of smaller, truly low-profile small-cell deployments that respect existing height limits.

Sacrificing the procedural rights of residents and the visual integrity of our city for an 81-foot quick-fix is entirely unacceptable.

I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Case No. ZTA26-0002 as written, retains the mandatory public notice framework for all macro-cell installations, and maintains strict, lower height restrictions that align with the historic character of Rancho Mirage.

228

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Carol LeFlufy
1402 Tamarisk West Street
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Email tracked with Mailsuite · Opt out
229

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW: Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Opposition to Proposed Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance Amendment Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:25:07 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,

Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) From: Christian Pita
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 4:50 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Scott Goldstein
Subject: Re: Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Opposition to Proposed Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance Amendment

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.

June 25, 2026

Rancho Mirage Planning Commission

Re: Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Opposition to Proposed Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance Amendment

Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission, 230

Christian Pita / General Manager / COO

On behalf of Tamarisk Country Club, its leadership, and our membership, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendments contained in Case No. ZTA26- 0002. Tamarisk Country Club has been part of the Rancho Mirage community for more than seventy years. Throughout that time, the city has done an exceptional job balancing growth with preservation while protecting the unique character that makes Rancho Mirage such a desirable place to live, work, and visit. We are concerned this proposal moves away from that thoughtful approach.

While we recognize the importance of improving wireless infrastructure, we do not believe it should come at the expense of transparency, public involvement, and sound planning.

Our primary concern is not simply the proposed increase in allowable tower heights to 81 feet, although we believe structures of that scale are inconsistent with the city's long- standing commitment to preserving the visual character of Rancho Mirage. The more significant concern is the proposal to eliminate meaningful public notice and public input by allowing future wireless facilities to be approved administratively.

Projects that have the potential to affect neighborhoods, parks, businesses, and community institutions should continue to be subject to public review. Residents and stakeholders deserve the opportunity to understand what is being proposed, ask questions, and provide input before decisions are made. That level of transparency has served Rancho Mirage well for many years and should not be removed in the interest of administrative efficiency.

The proposed location at the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive is immediately adjacent to Tamarisk Country Club and neighboring residential communities. Decisions affecting an area of this prominence should not occur without meaningful public engagement. Technology and infrastructure will continue to evolve, and Tamarisk supports thoughtful improvements that benefit the community. However, those improvements should be accomplished through an open process that balances technological needs with the character of our city and the interests of those most directly affected.

We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to reject the ordinance as currently written or, at a minimum, preserve the existing public notice and hearing requirements while carefully reconsidering the proposed height allowances. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued service to the Rancho Mirage community.

Respectfully,

231

Office 760 328 2141 x 104
Email [email protected] Web tamariskcc.com
70-240 Frank Sinatra Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Long live the player.

232

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Cell Tower Objection
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 9:05:52 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: "Mr. Colavito"
Date: June 24, 2026 at 7:58:26 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Cell Tower Objection

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.

ObjectI am opposed to the placement of a cell tower on the corner DaVal and Frank Sinatra. The cell tower is too
close to residential property. It will obstruct the views that were the reason that I chose to live in. The Tamarisk
community.
233

Palm Springs would never entertain the thought of placing a cell tower this close to residences.

Place the tower across the street in the park.

Tamarisk Gardens
234

From:Darcy Roberts
To:Ben Torres
Subject:Re: city of Rancho Mirage Planning commission
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 2:53:34 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 Staff and Rancho Mirage Planning Commission,
I live at 37790 Da vall Dr., Rancho Mirage CA 92270 and I am writing as a nearby resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed wireless communications facility at the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and DaVall Drive. My front door and yard is the only home that directly looks at this empty lot. I have a $1.2million dollar home and there are many homes of historic significance on my street.I understand the importance of improving wireless service, but I strongly believe this is the wrong location.

This corner sits directly adjacent to established historical residential communities and is a highly visible part of Rancho Mirage. The mid century modern home tours have bus tours on our street twice a year! Placing several large wireless towers here would be a detriment! This is a carefully maintained neighborhood. These structures do not belong in this setting.

My biggest concern is the visual impact. Rancho Mirage has always taken pride in thoughtful planning, attractive landscaping, and preserving the character of its neighborhoods. Towers at this intersection would permanently negatively alter the look and feel of the area and create unnecessary visual blight for nearby residents. It would also negatively affect surrounding property values, as few homeowners are eager to purchase homes overlooking commercial wireless infrastructure.

I am also concerned that alternative locations do not appear to have been fully explored.

Before placing this type of infrastructure next to homes, every reasonable effort should be made to identify less intrusive sites, such as commercial areas, existing utility corridors, or other locations where the impact on residents would be far less significant.

Finally, this proposal involves several towers, not a single discreet installation. The intrusive negative impact on surrounding communities and neighboring residential areas, would be substantial. Residents should not be expected to absorb this kind of long-term visual and environmental burden when more appropriate alternatives may exist.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of this proposal at this location and require the applicant to pursue more suitable alternatives.

Thank you for listening to a very concerned home owner who would be greatly impacted by this eyesore. I hope I will not have to consult an attorney to fight for my property value to stay intact.

Sincerely, Darcy Roberts
235

602-315-9134
236

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: public hearing june 25, 2026 at City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 7:20:33 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Darcy Roberts
Date: June 22, 2026 at 5:05:11 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: re: public hearing june 25, 2026 at City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission

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 of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission, 6/22/26 I am submitting testimony to the City Clerk via email re: Public Hearing scheduled for Thurs June 25, 2025
I own property at 37790 Da Vall Dr., Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Parcel # 674-220- 014.
237

I am writing as a nearby resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed wireless communications facility being considered at the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive. This lot is 4 parcel numbers: 674-220-003 674-220-023
674-220-022
674-220-019
My front door and yard is the only home that directly looks at this empty lot. This empty lot once belonged to the infamous Marx Brothers in the 1960’s. I have a $1.3 million dollar home and there are many homes of historic significance on my street (Da Valle Estates).I understand the importance of improving wireless service, but I strongly believe this is the wrong location.

This corner sits directly adjacent to established historical residential communities and is a highly visible part of Rancho Mirage. The mid century modern home tours have bus tours on our street twice a year! Placing several large wireless towers here would be a severe detriment to the history of this area as well as to all of our property values! This is a carefully maintained neighborhood. These structures do not belong in this setting.

My biggest concern is the visual impact. Rancho Mirage has always taken pride in thoughtful planning, attractive landscaping, and preserving the character of its neighborhoods. Towers at this intersection would permanently negatively alter the look and feel of the area and create unnecessary visual blight for nearby residents. It would also negatively affect surrounding property values, as few homeowners are eager to purchase homes overlooking commercial wireless infrastructure.

I implore you to consider other locations in a more commercial area before placing this type of infrastructure next to historic homes, every reasonable effort should be made to identify less intrusive sites, such as commercial areas, existing utility corridors, or other locations where the impact on residents would be far less significant.

Residents should not be expected to absorb this kind of long-term visual and environmental burden when more appropriate alternatives may exist.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of this proposal at this location and require the applicant to pursue more suitable alternatives.

Thank you for listening to a very concerned home owner who would be greatly impacted by this eyesore.

I hope I will not have to consult an attorney to fight for my property values to stay intact.

Sincerely, Darcy Roberts
602-315-9134
238

239

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Objection to cell tower
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 1:21:08 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: DEAN & PHILIP
Date: June 24, 2026 at 11:07:34 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Objection to cell tower

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 corner of Frank Sinatra and DaVall is not appropriate. It is residential property.

The views from the surrounding homes should not be obstructed.

What will prevent the tower from using scaffolding in the way that the cell tower on Eldorado in Palm Desert.

There are several commercial properties on both sides of Frank Sinatra and Hwy 111 including city hall that are more appropriate.

Thank you
240

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case ZTA26-0002
Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 7:18:34 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Deborah Dooley
Date: June 22, 2026 at 6:41:44 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case ZTA26-0002
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:
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,
241

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.

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 housing as the outcome of a proposed development on the property. 242

Thank you for your attention.

Deborah Dooley
70070 Frank Sinatra Dr. #3
Rancho Mirage
Sent from my iPad
243

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Statement in Opposition to Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:59:00 PM
Attachments:Wonder Palms Tamarisk Villas Statement in Opposition to Zoning Text Amendment Case No ZTA26-0002.pdf city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below/attached.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dorothy Lendaris Kemp, J.D."
Date: June 23, 2026 at 11:49:35 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Cc: "Dorothy Lendaris Kemp, J.D."
Subject: Statement in Opposition to Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26- 0002

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 statement in opposition to the Zoning Text Amendment Case No.

ZTA26-0002.

We hope that the Commission will give some great thought to the community’s 244

opposition to the amendment, and in particular, to the aesthetic challenges our community faces if these towers are installed without public comment and consideration. Further, the community deserves articulatable standards by which these telecom tower permits will be granted.

Thank you.

Dorothy Lendaris Kemp, President
Board of Directors

WONDER PALMS TAMARISK VILLAS
Direct: 503.780.7704

245

[1]

June 23, 2026

City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission
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 Planning Commissioners:

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 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.

Our concerns are directed specifically at the proposed amendment, which would designate numerous City-owned properties as “preferred sites” and allow 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 246

[2]

mechanism for identifying site-specific concerns, improving project design, and ensuring transparency in governmental decision-making.

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;
247

[3]

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;

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
[email protected]
503.780.7704

248

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Proposed 81- ft cell tower
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 8:16:32 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Ev MMOPS
Date: June 19, 2026 at 7:00:52 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Proposed 81- ft cell tower

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. As a I am firmly opposed to turning over the decision about where to place any tower, let alone in 81 foot tower in the hands of one person as the city council is apparently considering.

Such an important decision must be open to public discussion and ultimately vote voted on by the entire city Council, being sensitive to both health and safety and aesthetic concerns as well as the possible impact on property value of residents in proximity to any proposed tower.

I don’t argue that another tower (or 2?) is necessary inasmuch as we get anywhere 249

from limited to no reception along Hwy 111 & the Bob Hope – Country Club corridor where we reside, and rely on Eisenhower Med Center and nearby medical facilities for our care where all are adversely impacted by the current poor phone and Internet reception. But we expect that any tower placement in RM where needed to improve reception will be done only after the steps I mentioned above.

Sincerely,
Ev Levin
15 Lehigh Ct.

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Evanne “Ev” Levin
Mattey’s Mutts of Palm Springs
Easy-Lift Handle Pet Vests
Because Your Pet Deserves the Best.

Www.matteysmutts.com
310 383-5006 cell
250

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Our opposition to the wireless tower rule change (Case ZTA26-0002), please include in the record Date:Sunday, June 21, 2026 11:36:17 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: June 21, 2026 at 11:29:07 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Our opposition to the wireless tower rule change (Case ZTA26-0002), please include in the record

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 Planning Commission and City Clerk,

I and live full-time at 70070 Frank Sinatra Drive, #15 in the Tamarisk Villas / Wonder Palms community, on the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall. We're writing to 251

object to the proposed change to the wireless tower rules (Case ZTA26-0002) that's on your agenda for Thursday, June 25. Please include our letter in the official record for that hearing.

We only recently learned about this, and here's what worries us. As we understand it, right now a new cell tower has to go in front of the City Council at a public hearing. This change would let city staff approve an 81-foot tower, made to look like a palm, without that hearing, at certain spots around town. Some of those spots are the empty city-owned lots on Da Vall Drive, right up against the back wall of our neighborhood.

That's a real problem for me and the other neighbors:
- Our whole neighborhood looks west across those lots to the mountains. That's our main view, and there's nothing out there tall enough to hide an 81-foot pole. A tower that size would stand well above the palms and be visible to all of us. - We bought here for that view and the quiet, and we're worried about what a tower would do to our home's value. We wouldn't be the only ones. It would affect every home along that side, and probably the Tamarisk Country Club too. - Our neighborhood is one of the oldest in the city and has a historic designation.

Dropping something like this at its edge just doesn't fit.

We're not against better cell service. What we're against is taking away the public hearing for a tall tower going up right next to people's homes. We're asking the Commission to keep the public hearing and Council review for any new tower proposed within about 500 feet of homes like ours, and to leave those Da Vall lots off the list of places where staff can approve a tower on their own.

Thank you for reading this and for including it in the record.

252

Guy Pirelli
70070 Frank Sinatra Dr, #15, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
310-497-1638 [email protected]
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
253

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Statement of Opposition to ZTA26-0002
Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 3:37:52 PM
Attachments:Statement in Opposition to Zoning Test Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 HGKemp.pdf city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below/attached.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Havlin Kemp
Date: June 23, 2026 at 3:19:53 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Statement of Opposition to ZTA26-0002

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 provide this Letter of Opposition to the Planning Commission for inclusion in the record of the Public Hearing for the Planning Commission Meeting to be held on June 26, 2026.

Thank you,
Havlin Kemp
(503) 720-2933
254

June 23, 2026

City of Rancho Mirage, Planning Commission
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT CASE NO. ZTA26-0002:

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.32.040 (PREFERRED LOCATIONS) OF CHAPTER

17.32 (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES)

Planning Commissioners,

I am writing in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Section

17.32. I do understand that better wireless coverage is needed in Rancho Mirage and I applaud the City Council’s work in creating the Wireless Masterplan to attract wireless carriers to invest in providing more wireless communications sites within the City of Rancho Mirage. However, the proposed amendments to Section 17.32 to “streamline” the City Approval process do nothing to improve the City’s efficiency and timeliness in reviewing Conditional Use applications, only proposing to eliminate Public Review and comment. The proposed amendment also identifies 68 parcels of City owned property on which wireless facilities can be approved but does not limit the number of wireless facilities to the 25 sites noted in the published narrative. Additionally, the proposed amendments to Section 17.32 are poorly written and have amended the wrong sections of the Code while not including amendments to other affected sections of the Code.

It appears from this proposed amendment that the Planning Staff has not reviewed their own Approval processes and timelines nor proposed any amendments that would require changes to the Planning Department review procedures and timelines, choosing only to propose eliminating Public Notice and Comments from Wireless Communication Facility applications that are proposed to be located on City property as the method of “streamlining” the approval process. The proposed amendment has changed the Approval Process and Authority for these facilities on the “preferred sites” to a Minor Conditional Use with approval only by the Planning Director. Per the Zoning Code, Minor Conditional Use 255

applications do not require Notification of the public nor are public hearings required.

Public notice and the opportunity to comment on proposed Conditional Use applications is crucial to creating an attractive and livable City that we all want for Rancho Mirage. There are many steps required for the Approval of a wireless facility in Rancho Mirage, all of which could be streamlined. Eliminating the opportunity for Public notice and comment is not to the benefit of Rancho Mirage.

“Preferred Sites”: Why are there so many “preferred sites” that are so closely located”? Why are 68 Parcels listed as “preferred sites” but the narrative explaining the amendments notes that the amendment is intended to streamline permitting for “up to (25) sites? There is nothing in the proposed amendment that limits the number of approvals to 25 sites! Many of the parcels are adjacent to each other. According to the proposed amendment, multiple adjacent parcels could have 81-foot monopalms located together and approved by the Planning Director. There are no guidelines nor limitations on the number nor spacing of monopalms located on “preferred sites.”

This proposed amendment of Section 17.32 of the zoning code has amended the incorrect section of the zoning code and failed to amend other sections of 17.32. The proposed amendment to the code has been added to section 17.32.040 (Preferred Locations) however, what is actually being amended is the Reviewing Authority which is Section

17.32.060. No changes to Section 17.32.060 have been shown.

Additionally, Section 17.32.040.,in both B and C refers to “preferred sites”. But the title of

17.32.040 is Preferred locations. And in 17.32.040A. these Preferred locations are noted as “commercial and public/semi-public districts whenever feasible.” But in the proposed amendment, new section 17.32.040C notes that “preferred sites” will now be “any site(s) designated as preferred sites via ordinance of the City Council.” The proposed “preferred sites” include Residential and Open Space zoned parcels. This will be very confusing for users of the Zoning Code:

1. Preferred Locations: “commercial and public/semi-public districts whenever feasible.”

2. Preferred Sites: (Proposed to be shown under Preferred Locations) “any site(s) designated as preferred sites via ordinance of the City Council”, including Residential and Open space and not “commercial and public/semi-public districts” as listed in the same Section 17.32.040.

256

As noted above, the definition of “preferred sites” is proposed to be in 17.32.040C. but “Definitions” for Section 17.32 are listed in 17.32.030. Definitions. This proposed amendment has not shown any changes to Section 17.32.030 Definitions.

“Preferred sites” are defined in proposed Section 17.32.040C as “any site(s) designated as preferred sites via ordinance of the City Council” and the parcel numbers were shown in the Public Hearing announcement but the parcel numbers do not appear in the proposed Zoning Code amendments. How will users of the Zoning Code know which parcels are “preferred sites”? The amendments to the code should refer to a table or list to be included in Section 17.32 .

A proposed Standard Monopalm is included in 17.32.040B1. which is the “Preferred sites” portion of the Zoning Code. There are several difficulties with this:

1. Code Section 17.32.050. Approval Standards should have been modified to include the Standard Monopalm design.

2. Are “Standard Monopalm”s only to be proposed for use on ‘preferred sites” per

17.32.040 B1.? Or can the proposed “Standard Monopalm” be used on any proposed site? If the latter is true, a User of the Zoning code would not know it because the Standard Monopalm (and clarifying note proposed in 17.32.040B1) are only referred to in 17.32.040 Preferred Locations and the Approval Standards Section 17.32.050 has no proposed modification referencing the “Standard Monopalm” nor how or where that Standard Monopalm design can be used.

Requested Action
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission:

1. Deny approval of Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 as currently drafted.

2. Direct staff to evaluate and propose alternative methods of streamlining the wireless facility approval process that do not eliminate public notice and public hearing requirements for wireless communication facilities.

3. Direct staff to revise the proposed amendments to ensure that all changes are incorporated into the appropriate sections of Chapter 17.32, including the definitions, approval standards, and reviewing authority provisions, so that the Zoning Code remains clear, internally consistent, and easy to administer.

4. Direct staff to clearly identify all designated “preferred sites” within the Zoning Code and establish objective standards governing the number, location, and minimum spacing of wireless communication facilities that may be approved on those sites.
257

5. Direct staff to clarify whether the proposed Standard Monopalm design is intended for use only on designated preferred sites or throughout the City, and amend the applicable approval standards accordingly.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Best regards,

Havlin Kemp
70070 Frank Sinatra Dr., #4
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
503-720-2933

258

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: OPPOSITION to Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 8:58:29 AM
Attachments:Jason Beekman - Resident Comment Letter to Council.pdf city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below/attached.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jason C. Beekman"
Date: June 25, 2026 at 8:48:16 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: OPPOSITION to Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 
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.

Jason Beekman
70070 Frank Sinatra Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
(301) 529-8151
June 25, 2026
Via Email ([email protected]) and U.S. Mail
259

Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Mirage
c/o Office of the City Clerk
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
cc: Director of Development Services / Planning Division; Office of the City Attorney Re: OPPOSITION to Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 (Amendment of Section 17.32.040, “Preferred Locations”)—Planning Commission Public Hearing, Item 5A, Thursday, June 25, 2026, 2:00 p.m.; Request to Recommend Against Adoption or, in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing and Reject the Claimed CEQA Categorical Exemption Dear Chair and Members of the Commission:

I am the owner, alongside my husband Robert Watkins, of the residence at 70070 Frank Sinatra Drive and a resident of Rancho Mirage. I have reviewed the Planning Commission Staff Report for Item 5A, the proposed Ordinance, and the Notice of Exemption. I write in firm opposition to ZTA26-0002 and respectfully ask that the Commission decline to adopt the recommending resolution and instead recommend against adoption or, at a minimum, continue this matter to a properly noticed hearing. I request that this letter be entered into the administrative record in full for both this Planning Commission proceeding and the subsequent City Council proceedings, and that every factual and legal issue raised herein be deemed timely raised and preserved for all purposes, including under Government Code section 65009(b) and Public Resources Code section 21177.

I do not oppose this amendment on the basis of radiofrequency emissions or any asserted health effect. Nor do I dispute that the City has a legitimate interest in improving wireless coverage. My objections rest on grounds the City must consider: the elimination of discretionary public review, the validity of the claimed CEQA exemption, General Plan consistency, and the structural conflict in the City approving facilities on its own revenue-generating land. On each of those grounds the amendment cannot be sustained as proposed.

1. The amendment eliminates discretionary, elected, public review of the highest-impact category of wireless facility, and the lone “safeguard” is illusory.

Under the current code, a brand-new freestanding tower is the most heavily scrutinized wireless facility there is. Section 17.32.060.A.3 vests review authority for “new wireless communication facility towers” in the City Council itself, acting in a noticed public hearing, and only after the discretionary findings required by Section 17.32.100, including that the facility “is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood” and that no less intrusive alternative site can feasibly serve the coverage need.

ZTA26-0002 would replace that elected, public, discretionary review with just an administrative sign-off—a staff-level Minor Conditional Use Permit and/or Minor Modification—for up to twenty-five monopalm towers, each as tall as 81 feet and carrying up to three carriers, across sixty-eight identified parcels. The practical consequence is irreversible: once this ordinance is adopted, no resident will again receive an individualized hearing on, or cast a vote-accountable objection to, any specific tower erected at a preferred site near their home. This hearing is not the first opportunity for public input on those towers; it is the last.

As drafted, the Ordinance offers a single ostensible safeguard—the provision that the Director “may” refer an application to the Planning Commission upon a finding of “unique impacts.” That provision is no safeguard at all. It is wholly 260

illusory. “May” is permissive, not mandatory. The Director is under no affirmative duty to refer even if she finds unique impacts, and may approve the facility notwithstanding such a finding. A discretionary referral that imposes no duty and binds no one is not a check on staff approval; it is merely the appearance of one.

2. The City stands on every side of this transaction—a structural conflict that highlights the need for independent review.

The Staff Report confirms that the City of Rancho Mirage and its Housing Authority own twenty-one of the twenty-five preferred locations, including City Hall and the Dog Park. The City is therefore at once the initiator of this amendment, the regulator that will approve the permits, and the landlord that will collect lease revenue from the carriers. Removing discretionary, publicly accountable review of these facilities—precisely as the City positions itself to profit from siting them on its own land—is highly suspect. Independent review by elected officials in a public hearing is not an obstacle to good government here or unnecessary bureaucratic “red tape”. Rather, it is the sole safeguard to protect residents when the City’s regulatory role and its financial interest point in the same direction—one of the most common areas for corruption.

3. The claimed CEQA categorical exemption is legally indefensible.

The Staff Report asserts that ZTA26-0002 is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15332 (In-Fill Development Project), and that “no special circumstances exist.” That position simply does not withstand scrutiny.

First, both exemptions are reserved for discrete, site-specific physical projects—a single small structure, or a single in-fill development on a site of five acres or less.

ZTA26-0002 is neither. It is a legislative, citywide enactment authorizing as many as twenty-five 81-foot, triple-carrier towers across sixty-eight parcels. A programmatic ordinance of that scope is a far cry from a “small structure.” Moreover, the City cannot make the project-specific findings Section 15332 requires—including consistency with the General Plan and zoning on a defined site, and the absence of significant effects on traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality—in the abstract. A project-specific analysis is required that this amendment would completely ignore.

Second, even if a class exemption could otherwise apply, it is defeated by the exceptions in Guidelines section 15300.2. The cumulative-impact exception (section 15300.2(b)) applies directly as does the unusual-circumstances exception (section 15300.2(c)), because 81-foot monopalms laden with three carriers' antenna arrays will have a significant aesthetic effect in a low-rise desert resort community defined by scenic viewsheds and mountain backdrops. An 81-foot, triple-carrier tower is not the ordinary “small structure” the exemption contemplates.

Third, the Notice of Exemption’s conclusory statement that the sites are “not environmentally sensitive” and that “no special circumstances exist” conflates habitat sensitivity with the actual concern here: visual and cumulative impact. The City cannot simply use this amendment to discharge its burden where a fair argument of significant effect exists. The City further proposes to defer all visual review to the staff-level Minor CUP stage, where each facility will predictably be treated as exempt as well. The result is that the aesthetic and cumulative impacts of a twenty-five-tower program would never receive environmental review at any stage. At a minimum, the City must prepare an Initial Study addressing the aesthetic and cumulative impacts of the program.

4. The amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan, including 261

the very policies the Staff Report invokes.

A zoning text amendment must be consistent with the General Plan. The Staff Report itself cites three provisions in support. However, on inspection, they cut the other way.

Program PS&F 5.2A requires that wireless facilities “shall be stealth in their design in order to preserve citywide aesthetics.” But “stealth” for an 81-foot monopalm carrying three carriers’ arrays is wishful thinking at best, and the amendment removes the discretionary, public visual-compatibility review (the Section 17.32.100 finding) through which the City has always verified that stealth is actually achieved on a given site. Substituting a checklist applied by staff for a public finding of neighborhood compatibility weakens the very mechanism PS&F

5.2A depends upon.

Policy I 1.5 provides that the City “shall provide opportunities for review and comment on development proposals through public hearing notices.” The City touts its compliance with that policy for this hearing. But the policy’s purpose is public hearing and comment on development proposals (i.e., hearings on the towers themselves), the exact process the amendment abolishes! The City cannot claim consistency with Policy I 1.5 by honoring it once, at the program stage, while eliminating it at every project stage to follow.

The amendment is likewise in tension with the City’s broader scenic mandates:

Section 17.01.030 (design that “enhances the visual character of the city” and “preserves the scenic qualities of the city”), Section 17.18 (viewshed protection as “an important consideration” when reviewing structure height and size), and Section 17.20 (visual and spatial analysis of height and massing “to preserve and enhance the scenic viewshed”). As for Goal SAFE 4 and emergency coverage—a goal I certainly share—improving coverage does not require eliminating public review. The City can designate preferred sites and retain a noticed hearing and discretionary findings. SAFE 4 supports building the towers but it does not support removing the public from the decision.

5. The summer timing, whatever its technical compliance, undermines the legitimacy of the record.

I do not contend that the City failed to satisfy the mailed-notice requirements of Section 17.74.020. The Staff Report states that 2,002 notices were mailed within 500 feet on June 2, 2026, and that publication occurred in The Desert Sun on June 5. I object, however, to the clearly purposeful scheduling of a hearing that will permanently alter residents’ participation rights for late June. With the large seasonal community substantially absent the record of this hearing will not reflect the community whose rights are at stake. I respectfully ask the Commission to continue this matter to a date when residents are present, so that the decision rests on a representative record.

6. Nothing in federal or state law requires the City to do this.

The “streamlining” rationale does not carry nearly the weight the City places on it.

The Telecommunications Act expressly preserves local zoning authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities (47 U.S.C. section 332(c)(7)(A)). The FCC's “shot clock” rules (47 C.F.R. section 1.6003) set only the outer time limits within which the City must act. They do not require the City to abolish discretionary review or public hearings, and the City can readily hold a noticed hearing and act within those limits. State collocation-streamlining law likewise does not require eliminating conditional use permits or public hearings for new freestanding towers. The Wireless Master Plan and this amendment are policy choices, not legal necessities. I note that the City Attorney's independent analysis (Attachment 4) addresses the City’s authority to adopt the amendment 262

however whether the City has power to streamline or not does not resolve whether this CEQA exemption is valid, whether the amendment is consistent with the General Plan, or whether it is sound as a legal or good policy matter, to surrender discretionary review of facilities on the City’s own revenue-generating land.

Relief requested.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Commission:
(a) Decline to adopt the recommending resolution, and instead recommend that the City Council not adopt the Ordinance as proposed; (b) In the alternative, continue this matter and direct that it be re-noticed for a hearing on a date outside the peak summer season;
(c) Reject the claimed CEQA categorical exemption and direct preparation of, at a minimum, an Initial Study addressing the aesthetic and cumulative impacts of the program authorized by the Ordinance and the Wireless Master Plan;
(d) Retain discretionary review through a noticed public hearing, together with the Section 17.32.100 visual-compatibility finding, for any new freestanding tower at a preferred location, and convert the Director's permissive referral into a mandatory referral upon defined, objective criteria; and
(e) If, over this objection, any streamlined track is recommended, condition it on enforceable protections, including individualized mailed notice and an administrative appeal right for the neighbors of each specific proposed tower; genuine height, setback, and separation standards measured against the surrounding canopy and adjacent residences; exclusion of sensitive sites, including school grounds and parcels adjoining homes; and public posting of each proposed site.

Reservation of rights.

I fully reserve any and all rights in law and equity. The issues raised here are presented to exhaust administrative remedies and to preserve them for judicial review, including under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code sections 21167, 21168.5, and 21177) and Government Code section 65009. I intend to participate fully in these proceedings and in the City Council proceedings to follow, and to hold the City to the administrative record it makes.

Respectfully submitted,
Jason C. Beekman
Owner, 70070 Frank Sinatra Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 263

264

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Cell tower placement
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 9:29:16 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Judie Brown
Date: June 19, 2026 at 12:14:44 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Cell tower placement
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.

It has come to my attention that the decision of placement of cell towers will be left to an elected city employee… The director of planning!
I strongly oppose this decision as it impacts property values and should be between the residents of Rancho Mirage and the City Council.

Thank you for noting my opposition.

Judith Brown
112 La Cerra Dr
Rancho Mirage
Sent from my iPhone
265

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:14:24 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) -----Original Message-----
From: LMM Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 4:04 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Todd Stevens
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
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 Planning Commissioner:

My husband & I are writing as nearby residents to express strong opposition to the proposed wireless communications facility being considered at the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive.

Lot numbers:
674-220-003
674-220-023
674-220-022
674-220-019
As we are both employed in the real estate vertical, our primary concern is property values and environmental impacts.

In fact, a very simple online search regarding "Cell tower pros & cons" results in the following information at bottom which more than emphasizes our concerns out of the gate.

We chose this area and our community specifically because of its historical significance. I docent for FOUR preservation and historical organizations that are concerned with preserving the history and integrity of areas around Coachella Valley, and the pedigree of many architects and pioneering individuals of Rancho are of particular interest and concern. DaVaal, himself, would be appalled that his date farm -- which became a world renown golf course and 266

country club flanked by premiere condo communities, each with their own unique style and stories - would consider hosting 4 parcels' worth of blight and intrusion on the livelihoods of so many in a highly desirable pocket. The money invested in creating the park across Frank at the wash would also suffer from blight and poisoned views.

Once again, RM is demonstrating that decisions often made by an insular group have little regard for their larger contingency of residents impacted by said decisions.

Please consider other, more appropriate sites for the necessary expansion of our infrastructure. We support the growth, but we also support honoring our heritage. You have better, more responsible options available. Thank you. -Lori & Todd Stevens
Cell towers provide essential connectivity but come with significant drawbacks, including aesthetic blight, potential property value drops of up to 10-20% for nearby homes, and structural fall or fire hazards. Additionally, communities often raise concerns regarding long-term exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation and the long-term contracts tied to the land. [1 https://www.steelintheair.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-having-a-cell-tower-on-your-property/ > , 2 https://ehsciences.org/cell-towers-drop-property-value/ > , 3 https://ehsciences.org/top-10-health-safety-and-liability- risks-of-cell-towers-near-homes-and-schools/> ] The primary disadvantages associated with cell towers encompass a wide range of aesthetic, financial, and physical concerns: [1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA1gGKzWClQ > , 2 https://www.nar.realtor/cell-phone-towers > ] 1. Aesthetic and Property Impacts * Visual Blight: Cell towers, especially older, uncamouflaged monopoles, are often considered unsightly and can disrupt the visual appeal of residential neighborhoods and rural landscapes. [1 https://www.steelintheair.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-having-a-cell-tower-on-your-property/ > , 2 https://ehsciences.org/top-10-health-safety-and-liability-risks-of-cell-towers-near-homes-and-schools/ > ] * Decreased Property Values: Studies and real estate appraisers note that proximity to cell towers can negatively impact home values. Properties located close to a tower or with a direct view of one can see a decrease in marketability and value, sometimes dropping by 2% to nearly 10% depending on visibility. [1 https://ehsciences.org/cell-towers- drop-property-value/> ]

2. Health and Safety Risks
* Radiation Concerns: While government agencies generally set safety limits for RF radiation, controversy and community concern persist regarding long-term, non-thermal biological effects, such as headaches, sleep disturbances, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Many health and environmental groups argue for larger setbacks from schools and homes. [1 https://ehsciences.org/top-10-health-safety-and-liability-risks-of-cell-towers-near-homes-and-schools/ > , 2 https://www.propublica.org/article/what-to-know-about-cellphone-radiation > , 3 https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower- radiation/> , 4 https://ehsciences.org/are-cell-towers-safe/ > ] * Fire and Fall Hazards: The equipment, which includes high-voltage electronics and backup lithium-ion or diesel batteries, poses potential fire and HAZMAT risks. If a tower collapses or suffers structural failure, the immediate fall zone also poses a direct physical threat to surrounding properties. [1 https://ehsciences.org/top-10-health-safety-and- liability-risks-of-cell-towers-near-homes-and-schools/> ]

3. Landowner and Contractual Drawbacks
* Restrictive Leases: For property owners hosting towers, lease agreements typically span 25 years or longer. These long-term contracts can restrict future development or land use, and the agreements heavily favor telecom companies, rarely allowing the landowner to terminate the lease early. [1 https://www.steelintheair.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of- having-a-cell-tower-on-your-property/> ]
* Relocation Costs: Once a tower is built, it is incredibly expensive (upwards of $300,000) to move or relocate if the landowner decides they need the space for other purposes. [1 https://www.steelintheair.com/blog/pros-and-cons- of-having-a-cell-tower-on-your-property/> ]
--

LORI STEVENS
[email protected]
267

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 1:19:31 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Lucie Rochon
Date: June 24, 2026 at 12:28:21 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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 Staff and Rancho Mirage Planning Commission,
I am writing as a resident who lives on Frank Sinatra Drive to express my strongopposition to the proposed wireless communications facility at the corner of FrankSinatra Drive and DaVall. I understand the importance of improving wireless service,but I strongly believe this is the wrong location.

This corner sits directly adjacent to established residential communities and a beautiful 268

park and is a highly visible and used part of Rancho Mirage. Placing several largewireless towers here would create an obvious commercial intrusion in an area that isotherwise residential and carefully maintained. These structures do not belong in thissetting.

My biggest concern is the visual impact. Rancho Mirage has always taken pride inthoughtful planning, attractive landscaping, and preserving the character of itsneighborhoods. Towers at this intersection would permanently alter the look and feelof the area and create unnecessary visual blight for nearby residents. It would alsonegatively affect surrounding property values, as few homeowners are eager topurchase homes overlooking commercial wireless infrastructure.

Before placing this type of infrastructure next to homes, every reasonable effort shouldbe made to identify less intrusive sites, such as commercial areas, existing utilitycorridors, or other locations where the impact on residents would be far lesssignificant.

Finally, this proposal involves several towers, not a single discreet installation. Thecumulative impact on surrounding communities and neighboring residential areas,would be substantial. Residents should not be expected to absorb this kind of long-term visual and environmental burden when more appropriate alternatives may exist.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of this proposal at thislocation and require the applicant to pursue more suitable alternatives.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lucie Rochon and Richard Feutz70118 Frank Sinatra DrRancho Mirage, CA 92270 269

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW: Cell tower
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:14:55 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) -----Original Message-----
From: mark sean
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:10 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Cell tower
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.

Do not vote in favor of a cell tower to be placed on Frank Sinatra and DaVall. It will be an eye sore.

None of the residents in the Tamarisk developments want the tower placed here.

Mat
270

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW: Call Tower Placement
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:14:42 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Stern
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 6:58 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Call Tower Placement
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 Planning Commission:

I respectfully oppose the proposed wireless communications facility at Frank Sinatra Drive and Da Vall Drive.

While reliable wireless service is important, this location is inappropriate. The site is surrounded by high-density residential communities and occupies a highly visible gateway to Rancho Mirage. Multiple wireless towers at this intersection would create a significant visual intrusion and undermine the residential character and aesthetic quality of the area.

Residents also have concerns about locating this infrastructure so close to homes. At a minimum, less intrusive 271

alternatives should be fully explored before such a facility is placed in the heart of a residential neighborhood.

I urge the Commission to deny this proposal and require the applicant to pursue a more suitable location.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael Stern
Michael Stern
Author
Hollywood Modern https://www.rizzoliusa.com/book/9780847862795/ > (Rizzoli) Curator and Author
Julius Shulman: Palm Springs http://www.rizzoliusa.com/book.php?isbn=9780847831135 > (Rizzoli) Director
Julius Shulman: Desert Modern https://www.kcet.org/tv-talk/sinatra-kcet-ultra-cool-updated > 272

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Comment re City Planning Meeting Set for June 25, 2026 (Agenda Item Zoning Text Amendment Case No.

ZTA26-0002 – Applicant: City of Rancho Mirage)
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 9:40:35 AM
Attachments:20260624 SERVICE COPY Comment Letter to Members of the Planning Commission.pdf city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below/attached.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Aldwin Hernandez
Date: June 25, 2026 at 9:38:54 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Cc: Edward Morrison , mary whitaker

Subject: Comment re City Planning Meeting Set for June 25, 2026 (Agenda Item Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Applicant: City of Rancho Mirage)

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 Members of the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission:

Attached please find the letter from Edward Morrison, a resident of the City of 273

Rancho Mirage, with his comments as to the Zoning Text Amendment Case No.

ZTA26-0002.

Mr. Morrison thanks you for your consideration.

Aldwin Hernandez
Legal Assistant
The Morrison Law Group
77564 Country Club Drive, Suite 244
Palm Desert, California 92211
Telephone: (760) 978-6200
Facsimile: (760) 904-0987
Email: [email protected]

274

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
June 25, 2026
Via Electronic Mail
[email protected]

Planning Commission
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Attention:

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

Re: Comment re City Planning Meeting Set for June 25, 2026 (Agenda Item Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 – Applicant: City of Rancho Mirage)

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

NOTICE OF COMMENT
I write in regard to the REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING set for June 25, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Please let this serve as a written public comment.

Per the Planning Commission Agenda, before the Planning Commission is Ordinance No. (Next -in-Order), 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 ("Ordinance").1

1 Quoting the Planning Commission Staff Report in part: "The current project (ZTA26- 002) proposes to streamline up to twenty-five (25) sites with a monopalm at a maximum height of 81-feet with up to three carriers at select sites referenced in the City’s Wireless Master Plan and select City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority properties, as identified in the attachments.

Four (4) privately owned properties which include Camera West, Palm Valley School, Rancho Mirage Marketplace, & the Westin are included as part of the preferred locations and the City received written authorization from the property owners/authorized representatives to take this 275

Rancho Mirage City Planning Commission
June 25, 2026

I have been a full time resident of Rancho Mirage since 2013 and live at Mission Hills Country Clu b 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 Ordinance.

In that regard, I urge the Commission to reject the Ordinance 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 as to 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 Palm Valley School Campus, 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 t wo 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 living in already established residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Edward F. Morrison, Jr.

Edward F. Morrison, Jr. of
Enclosure: Map of Proposed Preferred Locations
action. In addition, twenty-one (21) City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority properties like City Hall, the Rancho Mirage Dog Park & other City properties are also included. A map depicting the privately owned properties in blue and City/Housing Authority properties in green is included as Attachment 1."
276

Rancho Mirage City Planning Commission
June 25, 2026

ENCLOSURE

277

Proposed Preferred Locations
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 689-030-001, 689-030-013, 689-030-012, 689-030-017, 674- 220-003, 674-220-023, 674-220-022, 674-220-019, 689-100-049, 689-100-040, 685-090- 014, 685-010-011, 690-182-016, 690-182-017, 674-600-008, 674-600-006, 674-600-004, 674-600-007, 674-600-005, 674-600-003, 674-600-002, 674-600-020, 689-180-012, 689- 160-029, 689-160-021, 689-190-022, 689-210-002, 684-660-086, 684-660-088, 684-660- 084, 684-660-087, 684-660-085, 684-660-083, 684-181-036, 684-181-032, 684-181-012, 684-150-031, 684-150-016, 684-150-018, 684-130-023, 684-130-032, 684-130-024, 684-182- 002, 684-182-003, 684-182-004, 684-182-005, 684-182-006, 684-182-011, 684-182-010, 684-182-008, 684-182-007, 684-181-010, 684-181-009, 684-240-005, 684-240-006, 684- 240-008, 684-240-019, 684-160-036, 684-171-024, 684-171-029, 684-171-030, 684-171-025, 684-172-008, 684-172-007, 684-343-036, 673-250-022, 673-250-021, & 676-220-016.

Map – The map identifies the Assessor Parcel Number listed. Properties identified in blue are privately owned and those in green are City/Rancho Mirage Housing Authority owned.

ATTACHMENT 1
278

Proposed Preferred Locations

279

Proposed Preferred Locations

280

Proposed Preferred Locations

281

Proposed Preferred Locations

282

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW: Additional Supporting Information – Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:17:08 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,

Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) From: Natasha Kujovic
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:08 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Additional Supporting Information – Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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 Planning Commissioners,
My husband and I are residents of the Magnesia Cove area, and we respectfully oppose the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.32 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code that would allow staff-level approval of monopalm wireless communication facilities up to 81 feet in height with up to three wireless carriers.

This is our second email regarding Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26- 0002. We would like to provide additional supporting information concerning the potential health risks associated with radiofrequency (RF) and 283

electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation.

While researching the potential locations identified for these monopalm facilities, I was deeply concerned to find that one potential location appeared to be in close proximity to Rancho Mirage Elementary School - located in our neighborhood of Magnesia Falls Cove. If accurate, we believe this would be unacceptable and unforgiveable. Wireless facilities of this scale should never be placed near schools, parks, or established residential neighborhoods.

Residents deserve complete transparency regarding all proposed locations before any approval process is streamlined.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider the following resources as part of the public record:

1. The Life of Samuel Symons (28-minute documentary)
This documentary, originally aired in February 2010, tells the story of Samuel Symons and the effects his family attributes to prolonged electromagnetic radiation exposure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6aw2P7MQQ

2. "UnPlug: A Radiologist Explores the Damage Caused by Electropollution and How You Can Prevent It"
Written by radiologist Rob Brown, M.D., who has researched the health effects of electromagnetic radiation for more than a decade, this recently published book summarizes current research on EMR exposure and discusses practical measures to reduce exposure, particularly for children.

We also note that June 24 is recognized as the International Day Against Electromagnetic Pollution, a global awareness initiative that highlights concerns regarding continuous, often involuntary, exposure to electromagnetic radiation from wireless telecommunications, Wi-Fi, and other sources.

We respectfully ask each Commissioner to review these materials with an open mind as you consider this important ordinance.

For these reasons, we again urge the Planning Commission to reject ZTA26- 0002 or, at a minimum, retain Planning Commission review and public hearings for any monopalm wireless communication facility proposed within or near residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Natasha and Gary Tanenbaum
Magnesia Falls Cove Residents
284

Rancho Mirage, California

285

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Date:Sunday, June 21, 2026 10:01:01 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Natasha Kujovic
Date: June 21, 2026 at 9:33:29 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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 Planning Commissioners,
My husband and I are residents of the Magnesia Cove area, and we respectfully oppose the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.32 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code that would allow staff-level approval of monopalm wireless communication facilities up to 81 feet in height with up to three wireless carriers.

This proposal would significantly reduce public oversight of projects that 286

may directly affect residential neighborhoods. Decisions involving large wireless facilities should continue to receive public review and Planning Commission scrutiny rather than being delegated to administrative approval.

We are deeply concerned about the health impacts associated with radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless communication facilities.

There is substantial scientific literature, peer-reviewed studies, case reports, and independent research documenting both immediate and long-term biological effects from RF exposure, including cancer. We do not believe residents should be subjected to increased exposure from facilities placed near homes, schools, parks, and neighborhoods without meaningful public review.

We specifically oppose the placement of monopalm wireless communication facilities within visual range of, adjacent to, or in close proximity to the Magnesia Cove neighborhood.

These structures can also negatively impact property values and the character of established residential neighborhoods.

Most importantly, this amendment would make it easier to approve these facilities while reducing opportunities for residents to participate in decisions that affect their quality of life. The residents of Magnesia Cove and other Rancho Mirage neighborhoods deserve notice of these potential locations, transparency, and public hearings before facilities of this scale are approved.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Planning Commission to reject ZTA26-0002 or, at a minimum, retain Planning Commission review and public hearings for any monopalm wireless facility proposed within or near residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Natasha and Gary Tanenbaum
Magnesia Cove Residents
Rancho Mirage, California

287

From:Lezlee Perez
To:Ben Torres
Subject:FW: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:36:22 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png print.agendalink.app_v6_ranchomirageca_6a29ea5ea60908b04bbbb2c8.pdf

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

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.)
From: Naved Khan
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:31 PM
To: Dorothy L. Kemp TTE ; Deborah Dooley ; Craig Vandermaas ; Havlin G. Kemp TTE ; Nancy Sinatra Lambert ; Michael and Amanda Erlinger ; Sunny Orlyn ; Tom Sudinsky ; Joseph Stein ;
Guy Pirelli ; Ben Matz ; Thomas Sarkis ; Pam Tondreau ; Bob Levy ; Dan Bolton ; thomas lott ;
Kevin Healy ; Lezlee Perez ; Jason Beekman ; AJ Lambert ; Brett Mellor
Subject: Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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.

Folks: pls review the attached. It will give the over view of the cell tower plan.

There has been too much misinformation about it. In fact, many in our community are armed to oppose it. Be that as it may, please know that the intent of this initiative is to eliminate dead cell areas in Rancho Mirage - of which there are plenty.

Cell service is as primary as water, sewage, electricity , garbage disposal etc. Daily essentials.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lezlee Perez
Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 11:55 AM
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
To: [email protected]
CC: Planning Division

Good morning,

Please use the link below to access the agenda for this week’s planning commission on Thursday June 25, 2026, at 2PM.

Attachments can be found at the bottom of the page. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact our Planning Department at 760-328-2266 or [email protected].

Agenda: https://print.agendalink.app/agenda/69f1396330b5cb004402cfa3 Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002: https://print.agendalink.app/v6/ranchomirageca/6a29ea5ea60908b04bbbb2c8 288

Thank you,
Lezlee

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

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.)
289

From:Nickie McLaughlin
To:Isaiah Hagerman, CPA
Cc:Ben Torres; [email protected]
Subject:PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS - Opposition to Proposed Wireless Communications Facility – Frank Sinatra Dr. & DaVall Dr.

Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 9:29:08 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 Staff and Rancho Mirage Planning Commission,
I am writing as a nearby resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed wireless communications facility at the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and DaVall Drive.

I understand the importance of improving wireless service, but I strongly believe this is the wrong location.

This corner sits directly adjacent to established residential communities and is a highly visible part of Rancho Mirage. Placing several large wireless towers here would create an obvious commercial intrusion in an area that is otherwise residential and carefully maintained. These structures do not belong in this setting.

My biggest concern is the visual impact. Rancho Mirage has always taken pride in thoughtful planning, attractive landscaping, and preserving the character of its neighborhoods. Towers at this intersection would permanently alter the look and feel of the area and create unnecessary visual blight for nearby residents. It would also negatively affect surrounding property values, as few homeowners are eager to purchase homes overlooking commercial wireless infrastructure.

I am also concerned that alternative locations do not appear to have been fully explored. Before placing this type of infrastructure next to homes, every reasonable effort should be made to identify less intrusive sites, such as commercial areas, existing utility corridors, or other locations where the impact on residents would be far less significant.

Finally, this proposal involves several towers, not a single discreet installation. The cumulative impact on surrounding communities and neighboring residential areas, would be substantial. Residents should not be expected to absorb this kind of long- term visual and environmental burden when more appropriate alternatives may exist.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of this proposal at this location and require the applicant to pursue more suitable alternatives.

Thank you for your consideration.
290

Sincerely,
Nickie McLaughlin
70128 Frank Sinatra Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
291

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Public Comment for Planning Commission Hearing (June 25, 2026) – OPPOSITION to Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:14:51 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Randolph Punley
Date: June 23, 2026 at 4:59:23 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for Planning Commission Hearing (June 25, 2026) – OPPOSITION to Case No. ZTA26-0002

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.

Re: Case No. ZTA26-0002 (Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance Amendment)

Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission,

My name is Randy Punley and I am a full-time resident of Rancho Mirage in the Tamarisk West community. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the 292

proposed amendments under Case No. ZTA26-0002, specifically regarding the drastic expansion of allowable tower heights and the elimination of future public notices.

While I recognize and support the city’s objective to improve cellular connectivity along the Highway 111 corridor, the mechanism proposed in this amendment completely disregards neighborhood aesthetic standards and strips residents of their due process.

I urge the Planning Commission to reject or heavily modify the current proposal based on the following crucial concerns:

1. Severe Aesthetic Degradation from 81-Foot Structures Rancho Mirage has long maintained an admirable commitment to low-profile architectural standards and preserving our unique desert landscape. Allowing "camouflaged" monopalms to reach heights of up to 81 feet is a massive departure from this standard. An 81-foot faux structure will tower aggressively over the single- story residences in Tamarisk West and the surrounding low-profile neighborhoods, creating a permanent, industrial eyesore that visually degrades our community and threatens local property values.

2. Elimination of Vital Public Notices and Transparency The most alarming aspect of this amendment is the shift toward "administrative, staff-level approvals." Stripping the public notice requirement for future wireless facilities removes our right to be informed about major infrastructure projects happening directly outside our front doors. Decisions of this magnitude—which directly impact local neighborhoods—must remain transparent, require community notification, and offer an open forum for public discourse before a shovel ever hits the ground.

3. Disproportionate Local Impact
The designated site at Frank Sinatra and Da Vall is directly adjacent to a residential zone. Forcing an un-notified, 81-foot industrial asset into this specific area without localized public scrutiny is an unfair burden to place on immediate neighbors who will bear the brunt of the visual and structural footprint.

Cellular connectivity can be achieved responsibly through a denser network of smaller, truly low-profile small-cell deployments that respect existing height limits.

Sacrificing the procedural rights of residents and the visual integrity of our city for an 81-foot quick-fix is entirely unacceptable.

I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Case No. ZTA26-0002 as written, retain the mandatory public notice framework for all macro-cell installations, and maintain strict, lower height restrictions that align with the historic character of Rancho Mirage.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Randy Punley
293

1418 Tamarisk West St
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
703-867-3470
294

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Cell tower proposal
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 5:39:50 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Renee McGovern
Date: June 19, 2026 at 4:51:02 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Cell tower proposal
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 homeowner in Rancho Mirage I am against the proposal in front of the city council to allow cell towers to be built on private and public property by anyone without going through the public feedback process.

As with many of us, our decision to move to Rancho Mirage was based on the quality of life, the tax base, and the protection of the value of our investment in our home here.

While cell reception in and around our city, it is vital that we have the opportunity to give our input as to where the towers are located is an aesthetic issue which impacts 295

the value of our property.

Thank you,
Abbe Renee McGovern
93 Tennis Club Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Sent from my iPhone
296

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 9:07:12 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Rob Lavery
Date: June 24, 2026 at 8:51:51 AM PDT
To: City Clerk , Lori Stevens

Cc: Roberto Amaral
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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 Staff and Rancho Mirage Planning Commission,
cc - Tamarisk Gardens HOA
I am writing as a nearby resident and home owner to express my strong opposition to the proposed wireless communications infrastructure planned for the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and DaVall Drive. While I understand the importance of improving wireless service and the economic benefits, I believe this is an 297

inappropriate location.

The proposed site is directly adjacent to historic residential communities and is a highly visible part of Rancho Mirage. Placing several large wireless towers at this location would create a significant intrusion in a carefully maintained residential area. These structures are incompatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. Given that this parcel is vacant property, there will be no masking the cell tree - it will be 100% exposed and visible to everyone at a very busy intersection. Towers at this intersection would permanently alter the area's landscape, creating visual blight and potentially decreasing surrounding property values.

In my 13 years as a homeowner, I have known Rancho Mirage to have a commitment to thoughtful planning and preserving the aesthetic appeal of our neighborhoods. I hope this thoughtfulness will continue in consideration of this issue. I believe that more appropriate sites very nearby exist, including: the city park directly across Frank Sinatra Dr; commercial property at 111 and Frank Sinatra; and, RM city hall itself.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to review this proposal and require the applicant to pursue alternative sites that do not negatively impact historic residential communities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Rob Lavery
Tamarisk Gardens
70136 Frank Sinatra Dr, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
298

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Planning Commission May 25, 2026 agenda item 5.A. Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 1:23:59 PM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good afternoon,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Barbara Marshall
Date: June 24, 2026 at 12:52:12 PM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Planning Commission May 25, 2026 agenda item 5.A. Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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.

Re: Planning Commission May 25, 2026 agenda item 5.A. Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002 (specifically regarding APNs 674-220-003, 674-220-023, 674-220-022, and 674-220- 019)
Dear City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission,
299

We are property owners at 70-152 Frank Sinatra Drive who would be directly affected by the visual blight created by the proposed cell tower installation at the intersection of Frank Sinatra and Da Vall Drives.

We moved to Rancho Mirage one year ago. One of our
considerations in moving to Rancho Mirage was the city's well- deserved reputation for placing emphasis on quality of life issues.

The placement of a cell tower at the intersection of Frank Sinatra and Da Vall Drives flies in the face of that city priority.

At its core, the proposal to place a commercial function in the middle of a residential area, as well as abutting one of the city's most beautiful parks, is fundamentally flawed. We do not want to drive by an oversized commercial cell tower day in and day out.

Please understand that this is not a NIMBY ("not in my backyard") issue. For us it is a "WHY" in our backyard issue when there are so many more appropriate areas to place this commercial function.

As a practical matter, our cell service is clear and
dependable, hence zero benefit accrues to nearby residents.

Please find a more suitable location for this commercial function.

Let's continue to adhere to the community-friendly planning policies that make Rancho Mirage a great place to live.

Sincerely,
Ron & Barbara Marshall
70-152 Frank Sinatra Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
300

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: OPPOSITION to Proposed Zoning Amendment of Section 17.32.040, “Preferred Locations”)—Planning Commission Public Hearing, Item 5A,
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 8:39:11 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Sonia Beekman
Date: June 25, 2026 at 8:25:10 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: OPPOSITION to Proposed Zoning Amendment of Section 17.32.040, “Preferred Locations”)—Planning Commission Public Hearing, Item 5A, 
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 Planning Commission,
As a resident of Rancho Mirage, I’m writing to request that the Commission not adopt Ordinance No. (Next-in-Order), 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. 301

I believe strongly that the proposed Amendment is not in the best interest of the residents and homeowners of Rancho Mirage, both in the substance of the Amendment itself and in the manner in which the Amendment is being brought forth for adoption. Of utmost importance to our residents and homeowners is their ability to participate in the process- to provide their input and to have their voices heard on issues that directly affect their property values and views. The construction of cell towers is such an issue. Under the proposed Amendment, to construct a monopalm up to eighty-one feet in
height on a “preferred site,” a cell carrier would need only to apply to the City's Director of Planning, an unelected city employee, for approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and/or Minor Modification. The decision to approve would rest solely on this one individual, who is not elected by constituents of Rancho Mirage. In this scenario, the residents’ input is totally removed from the process.

Unlike the current status requiring County Council approval, there is no requirement for public forums. There is no interaction between elected Council members and constituents on this important issue for them to consider the feedback of property owners before making a decision.

In addition, the timing in which this Amendment is being presented for approval also decreases the opportunity for public participation. The end of June is known to be a time when many Rancho Mirage residents and homeowners are out of town, in cooler climates. To enable more people to attend the Planning Commission Meeting where the proposed Amendment is on the agenda, it should be scheduled after November 1st, during what is considered “in season.” Notices of the meeting should also be sent out sooner.

I understand the need for more cell connectivity in Rancho Mirage. I use my cell phone and encounter weak spots just like everyone else, however, I do not think the proposed Amendment is the correct solution. I urge the Commission to deny approval. I trust that the Planning Commission can find locations for the needed cell towers that do not negatively impact existing properties. Perhaps a study group that includes residents would be something to consider.

Sincerely,
Sonia Beekman
302

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:FW:

Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:14:06 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) -----Original Message-----
From: Steve Williams
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 5:52 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject:

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.

Subject: Public Comment for Planning Commission Hearing (June 25, 2026) – OPPOSITION to Case No. ZTA26- 0002

To: Rancho Mirage Planning Commission
Sent Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Case No. ZTA26-0002 (Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance Amendment)

Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission, 303

Our names are Stephen F WIlliams and Patricia D. Warwick. We are residents of the Tamarisk West community. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendments under Case No. ZTA26-0002, specifically regarding the drastic expansion of allowable tower heights and the elimination of future public notices.

While we recognize and support the city’s objective to improve cellular connectivity along the Highway 111 corridor, the mechanism proposed in this text amendment completely disregards neighborhood aesthetic standards and strips residents of their due process.

We urge the Planning Commission to reject or heavily modify the current proposal based on the following crucial concerns:

1. Severe Aesthetic Degradation from 81-Foot Structures Rancho Mirage has long maintained an admirable commitment to low-profile architectural standards and preserving our unique desert landscape. Allowing "camouflaged" monopalms to reach heights of up to 81 feet is a massive departure from this standard. An 81-foot faux structure will tower aggressively over the single-story residences in Tamarisk West and the surrounding low-profile neighborhoods, creating a permanent, industrial eyesore that visually degrades our community and threatens local property values.

2. Elimination of Vital Public Notices and Transparency The most alarming aspect of this amendment is the shift toward "administrative, staff-level approvals." Stripping the public notice requirement for future wireless facilities removes our right to be informed about major infrastructure projects happening directly outside our front doors. Decisions of this magnitude—which directly impact local neighborhoods—must remain transparent, require community notification, and offer an open forum for public discourse before a shovel ever hits the ground.

3. Disproportionate Local Impact
The designated site at Frank Sinatra and Da Vall is directly adjacent to a residential zone. Forcing an un-notified, 81- foot industrial asset into this specific area without localized public scrutiny is an unfair burden to place on immediate neighbors who will bear the brunt of the visual and structural footprint.

Cellular connectivity can be achieved responsibly through a denser network of smaller, truly low-profile small-cell deployments that respect existing height limits. Sacrificing the procedural rights of residents and the visual integrity of our city for an 81-foot quick-fix is entirely unacceptable.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny Case No. ZTA26-0002 as written, retains the mandatory public notice framework for all macro-cell installations, and maintains strict, lower height restrictions that align with the historic character of Rancho Mirage.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. 304

Sincerely,
Stephen F. Williams & Patricia D. Warwick
1406 Tamarisk West St
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
479 871-5082
305

From:Kristie Ramos, CMC
To:Ben Torres
Cc:Majna Dukic
Subject:Fwd: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 7:38:34 AM
Attachments:city_seal_transparent_2__4b81bffe-bb95-4b18-a74a-4086edea3b60.png Good morning,
Please see public comment below.

Best,
Kristie

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.) Begin forwarded message:

From: Taylor Crary
Date: June 24, 2026 at 7:17:37 AM PDT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Case No. ZTA26-0002

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 writing as a nearby resident to express my strong opposition to the proposedwireless communications facility at the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and DaVall Drive. Iunderstand the importance of improving wireless service, but I strongly believe this isthe wrong location.

This corner sits directly adjacent to established residential communities and is a highlyvisible part of Rancho Mirage. Placing several large wireless towers here would createan obvious commercial intrusion in an area that is otherwise residential and carefullymaintained. These structures do not belong in this setting. 306

My biggest concern is the visual impact. Rancho Mirage has always taken pride inthoughtful planning, attractive landscaping, and preserving the character of itsneighborhoods. Towers at this intersection would permanently alter the look and feelof the area and create unnecessary visual blight for nearby residents. It would alsonegatively affect surrounding property values, as few homeowners are eager topurchase homes overlooking commercial wireless infrastructure.

I am also concerned that alternative locations do not appear to have been fullyexplored. Before placing this type of infrastructure next to homes, every reasonableeffort should be made to identify less intrusive sites, such as commercial areas, existingutility corridors, or other locations where the impact on residents would be far lesssignificant.

Finally, this proposal involves several towers, not a single discreet installation. Thecumulative impact on surrounding communities and neighboring residential areas,would be substantial. Residents should not be expected to absorb this kind of long-term visual and environmental burden when more appropriate alternatives may exist.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of this proposal at thislocation and require the applicant to pursue more suitable alternatives.

Thank you for your consideration.

Taylor Crary 70132 Frank Sinatra Dr.

Rancho Mirage ca 92270
307

City Council Staff Report

Consideration of Submitting a Proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure to Rancho Mirage Voters at the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election

DATE ITEM #
July 16, 2026 ACTION CALENDAR - 7A.

Presented To Presented By
Mayor and City Council Kofi Antobam, Director of Administrative Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-(Next-in-Order), Calling for the Placement of a General Tax Measure on the Ballot for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election for the Submission to the Qualified Voters of an Ordinance to Enact a Transaction and Use Tax at the Rate of One Cent (1¢); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-(Next-in-Order), Providing for the Filing of Primary and Rebuttal Arguments and Setting Rules for the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure to be Submitted at the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election;
3) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-(Next-in-Order), Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be Held on November 3, 2026, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on that Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code; and 4) Consider designating a member or members of the City Council to author and file Primary Argument(s) for or against the ballot measure.

DISCUSSION
Background
The City of Rancho Mirage historically maintains balanced budgets while providing a high level of public services, infrastructure maintenance, public safety protection, parks and recreation amenities, library services, and community programs.

Over the last several years, the City has experienced increasing costs associated with public safety services, infrastructure maintenance, insurance, labor, construction materials, equipment, and contracted services. While the City has implemented numerous cost-control measures and remains fiscally sound, these cost pressures are projected to continue increasing faster than existing revenues.

As part of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget discussions, the City undertook a comprehensive public information effort regarding City finances, municipal services, infrastructure needs, and long- term fiscal sustainability. The purpose of the outreach effort was to provide information to the public regarding City services and revenues and to obtain community feedback regarding service priorities and future funding needs. 308

ANALYSIS
Funding Needs and Fiscal Challenges
The City's General Fund serves as the primary operating fund supporting municipal services, including public safety, public works, parks and recreation, library services, and general government operations.

The Fiscal Year 2026-27 General Fund operating budget includes approximately $38.5 million in expenditures and approximately $39 million in projected revenues. Although the budget remains balanced, several long-term financial pressures continue to affect the City.

Public Safety
Public safety represents the City's largest operating expenditure.

Since 2020:

Fire and EMS service requests have increased approximately 39%; Sheriff responds to over 18,000 calls for service each year; Sheriff and Fire Department service costs have increased by more than 56%.

While crime trends and response figures have improved significantly in recent years, maintaining current service levels requires continued investment in personnel, equipment, technology, emergency response capabilities, and regional public safety partnerships. In total, public safety expenses account for approximately half of the city’s general fund operating expenditures.

Infrastructure
The City maintains approximately 91 miles of streets and roads, sidewalks, traffic signals, drainage systems, public facilities, parks, fire stations, and other public infrastructure.

A 2021 pavement management study found approximately 85 percent of the City's roadways were in fair-to-good condition. However, roadway replacement costs now exceed approximately $1.5 million per mile.

In addition, the City continues to address:

Aging public facilities;
ADA accessibility improvements;
Fire station modernization needs;
Facility maintenance requirements; and
Future capital replacement obligations.
309

The City does not have a dedicated revenue source for capital improvements. Any capital-related expenses must be funded through reserve spending or a general fund surplus. The City’s general fund operating margins have been shrinking year after year.

Economic and Revenue Challenges
The City relies heavily upon economically sensitive revenues, including Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Sales Tax.

Rancho Mirage's revenue structure is heavily influenced by visitor activity. An estimated 75 percent of sales tax revenue generated within the City is paid by tourists and visitors rather than Rancho Mirage residents. In addition, TOT and Sales Tax together account for approximately half of General Fund revenues. While these revenue sources provide significant benefits to the community, they are also sensitive to economic conditions, tourism trends, and consumer spending patterns.

At the same time, labor, insurance, equipment, construction, and contracted service costs continue to rise.

Fiscal Management Actions
To address rising costs and preserve fiscal stability, the City has undertaken a variety of cost-control and efficiency measures, including:

Reducing staffing levels by approximately 11% over the last three years; Pursuing state and federal grant funding opportunities; Renegotiating contracts where possible;
Maintaining a two-year budget cycle to improve long-term planning; Investing in technology to improve service delivery and operational efficiency; and Strategically utilizing reserve funds for infrastructure investments and one-time capital projects.310

While these actions have helped control expenditures, they do not fully offset long-term cost increases associated with public safety, infrastructure, insurance, and operational expenses.

Potential Transactions and Use Tax Measure
One potential funding option available to the City is a locally controlled Transactions and Use Tax (Sales Tax) measure. The proposed measure would increase the City's sales tax rate by one percent (1.0%), increasing the total sales tax rate from 7.75% to 8.75%. Staff estimates the measure would generate approximately $7.5 million annually in locally controlled revenue for the City's General Fund. An estimated 75% of sales tax revenue generated within Rancho Mirage is currently paid by tourists and visitors rather than City residents. As a result, a substantial portion of the revenue generated by the proposed measure would be paid by individuals visiting, shopping, dining, or staying within the City.

As a general tax measure, all revenues generated would remain local and could not be transferred to another jurisdiction.

Regional Sales Tax Comparison
Rancho Mirage currently maintains one of the lowest sales tax rates in the Coachella Valley.

Current sales tax rates are as follows:

If approved by voters, Rancho Mirage's sales tax rate would increase to 8.75%, matching several neighboring cities. The City currently receives only one cent of the existing 7.75% sales tax rate collected within Rancho Mirage.

The proposed additional one-cent Transactions and Use Tax would be returned directly to the City and retained for local use. Rancho Mirage would receive the full amount of the additional 1%; other jurisdictions or taxing agencies would not receive additional revenue.

Certain purchases would remain exempt from sales tax under State law, including:
311

Most groceries;
Prescription medications;
Rent;
Utilities;
Medical supplies; and
Items purchased using CalFresh benefits.

Community Outreach and Public Information Efforts
Prior to consideration of a potential ballot measure, City staff conducted an extensive public information and community engagement effort regarding City finances, service demands, infrastructure needs, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Outreach efforts included:

Creation of a dedicated "Financing City Services" webpage containing information regarding City services, budget information, fiscal challenges, revenue sources, and potential funding options; Publication of a four-part educational newsletter series addressing:

Public Safety;
Streets, Roads and Infrastructure;
Budget and Revenue Overview; and
Fiscal Management and Cost-Control Measures;
Development and distribution of a digital community priorities survey allowing residents to provide feedback regarding City services and funding priorities;
Direct mail notifications to Rancho Mirage households informing residents of community meetings and opportunities for public participation;
Two public town hall meetings open to all residents, including one at Rancho Mirage City Hall and one at the Rancho Mirage Library and Observatory;
One virtual town hall conducted via Zoom;
Two informational town halls conducted specifically for City commissioners; Presentations and discussions with community organizations and stakeholder groups; Ongoing communications through City newsletters, social media platforms, and public information channels.

The goals of the community outreach initiatives were to provide information to the community regarding city operations and finances and to obtain feedback regarding community priorities. Throughout the outreach process, staff emphasized that no decision had been made regarding a potential ballot measure and that any tax measure would require voter approval.

Proposed Ballot Question
Should the City Council approve placement of the measure on the ballot, voters would be asked to consider the following ballot question:
"RANCHO MIRAGE PUBLIC SAFETY, ROADS, CITY SERVICES MEASURE . Shall the measure maintaining Rancho Mirage's long-term financial stability, City services such as 9-1-1 emergency medical/fire response, fire protection, Sheriff's patrols, crime prevention/response programs; keeping public areas safe/clean; maintaining streets, roads, parks, libraries, fire stations; retaining/attracting local businesses, other services, by establishing a 1¢ sales tax generating approximately $7,500,000 (seven point five million dollars) annually until ended by voters, requiring public spending disclosure, funds for Rancho Mirage only, be adopted?"

ELECTION REQUIREMENTS
Council Approval Threshold
Pursuant to applicable California law governing local general tax measures, placement of the proposed measure before voters requires approval by at least four-fifths (4/5) of the City Council.

Because the Rancho Mirage City Council consists of five members, a minimum of four affirmative votes is required to place the measure on the ballot.

Voter Approval Threshold
312

If placed before voters, the proposed Transactions and Use Tax would require approval by a simple majority vote (50 percent plus one) of voters voting on the measure.

Election Process and Key Deadlines
If the City Council approves placement of the measure on the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election ballot, staff will work with the City Attorney and Riverside County Registrar of Voters to complete all required election procedures and filings.

Major election deadlines include:

August 6, 2026 – Last regular City Council meeting to consider placing a measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

August 7, 2026 – Deadline to submit ballot measure materials to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

August 12, 2026 – Deadline to withdraw measure.

August 17, 2026 – Deadline for submission of the City Attorney's impartial analysis and primary ballot arguments.

August 27, 2026 – Deadline for submission of rebuttal arguments.

November 3, 2026 – Statewide General Election.

The City Attorney will prepare the impartial analysis of the measure in accordance with California Elections Code requirements. If approved by a majority of voters voting on the measure, the Transactions and Use Tax would become effective pursuant to State law and applicable administrative procedures.

Ballot Arguments and Rebuttal Arguments
If the City Council approves placement of the measure on the ballot, the Council will also be asked to authorize preparation and submission of the ballot argument in favor of the measure, as permitted by the California Elections Code.

The City Council may authorize the City Council, individual Councilmembers, or an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to prepare and submit the argument in favor of the measure and any related rebuttal arguments.

FISCAL IMPACT
Election administration costs associated with placing the measure on the ballot will be paid from existing City funds.

If approved by voters, the proposed one-percent Transactions and Use Tax is estimated to generate approximately $7.5 million annually in ongoing locally controlled General Fund revenue.

ALTERNATIVES
If the City Council elects not to place the measure before voters, or if the measure is placed before voters and is not approved, the City would continue to provide services using existing revenue sources. However, as expenditures continue to outpace revenue growth, the City Council may need to evaluate future spending priorities, reserve utilization, capital improvement schedules, and other fiscal management strategies to maintain long-term financial sustainability.

CONCLUSION
Rancho Mirage continues to maintain a stable financial position and provide a high level of public services.

However, increasing costs associated with public safety, infrastructure, insurance, labor, and other municipal services continue to place pressure on existing revenue sources and long-term financial sustainability. 313

The City has undertaken extensive public outreach and community education regarding these issues and has provided numerous opportunities for public input. Adoption of the proposed resolutions would not enact a tax increase. Rather, it would provide Rancho Mirage voters with the opportunity to determine whether a locally controlled funding source should be established to support City services, infrastructure, and long-term fiscal sustainability. The ultimate decision regarding the proposed measure rests with Rancho Mirage voters.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution Calling Election
Attachment 2 -Draft Resolution Regarding Filing of Arguments Attachment 3 - Draft Resolution Requesting County Services 314

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A GENERAL TAX MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR

THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A TRANSACTION AND USE TAX AT THE RATE OF ONE CENT (1¢)
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) is authorized to levy a Transactions and Use Tax (“TUT”) for general revenue purposes pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9, subject to approval of the electorate pursuant to Article XIIIC, section 2 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 218”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code section 9222, the City Council has authority to place local measures on the ballot to be considered at a Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, the City Council would like to submit to the voters at the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election a measure establishing the rate of the TUT of one cent (1¢) on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the City until it is repealed by voters, as more specifically set forth in the attached proposed ordinance adding Chapter 3.22 (Transactions and Use Tax) to the City’s Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the one cent (1¢) TUT is a general tax, the revenue of which will be placed in the City’s general fund and will be used to pay for general City services; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance creates a locally-controlled funding source that can only be used for local Rancho Mirage services and address local priorities, which cannot be taken by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City provides municipal services, including police, fire, and emergency medical response, roadway and infrastructure maintenance, parks and recreation services, library services, and other general governmental services; and WHEREAS, the City has historically maintained balanced budgets and fiscal stewardship while continuing to invest in public safety, infrastructure, and quality-of-life services for residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, public safety represents the City’s largest operating expenditure, accounting for approximately half of General Fund expenditures, and since 2020 the City has experienced increases in emergency service demands and a 56% increase in public safety costs; and
WHEREAS, the City maintains approximately ninety-one (91) miles of streets and roadways, together with public facilities, parks, fire stations, drainage infrastructure, and other capital assets requiring ongoing maintenance, repair, replacement, and modernization; and
ATTACHMENT 1
315

2 WHEREAS, roadway replacement costs now exceed approximately $1.5 million per mile and the City continues to face increasing costs associated with infrastructure maintenance, construction materials, labor, insurance, equipment, and contracted services; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have a locally controlled, dedicated revenue source to fund its ongoing capital infrastructure needs and must therefore rely substantially upon available General Fund revenues, reserves, and one-time or limited funding sources to address capital infrastructure needs; and
WHEREAS, despite implementing cost-control measures, operational efficiencies, staffing reductions, grant funding efforts, and long-range financial planning strategies, the City continues to experience expenditure growth that is projected to outpace revenue growth over time; and
WHEREAS, the City relies upon economically sensitive revenues, including sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues, and an estimated seventy-five percent (75%) of sales tax revenue generated within Rancho Mirage is paid by tourists and visitors rather than City residents; and
WHEREAS, as part of its Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget discussions, the City undertook a comprehensive public information and community outreach effort regarding City finances, municipal services, infrastructure needs, and long- term fiscal sustainability; and
WHEREAS, City staff conducted extensive public outreach, including a dedicated Financing City Services webpage, an informational newsletter series, community surveys, direct mail notifications, public town hall meetings, virtual meetings, commissioner town halls, and presentations to community organizations and stakeholder groups; and WHEREAS, to fund general City services, including those items discussed herein, the City Council is proposing this measure as a long-term source of locally controlled funding; and
WHEREAS, therefore, this measure could maintain funding for City services and help implement plans of the City by establishing a general tax in which the proceeds will be deposited in the City’s General Fund for general government use; and WHEREAS, this measure incorporates accountability requirements such as public disclosure of all spending, local control, and annual independent financial audits; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 218, an amendment to the State Constitution which requires that all general taxes which are imposed, extended or increased must be submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors voting in the election; and 316

3 WHEREAS, pursuant to Proposition 218 (California Constitution, Article XIIIC, section 2(b)), the general rule is that any local election for the approval of an increase to a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9, a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the City Council is required to place the measure on the November 3, 2026, ballot; and

WHEREAS, the next regularly scheduled general election at which City Council members will be elected is November 3, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the ordinance to be considered by the qualified voters and the terms of approval, collection and use of the general TUT are described and provided for in the ordinance/measure attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Measure”) and by this reference made an operative part hereof, in accordance with all applicable laws.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

That the Recital set forth above is true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Submission of Ballot Measure.

That pursuant to California Elections Code section 9222, Government Code section 53724, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9 and any other applicable requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to the City, the City Council, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members, hereby orders the Measure to be submitted to the voters of the City at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Section 3. Ballot Question.

That the City Council, pursuant to California Elections Code section 9222, hereby orders that the ballot question for the Measure shall be presented and printed upon the ballot submitted to the qualified voters in the manner and form set forth in this Section 3.

On the ballot to be submitted to the qualified voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, in addition to any other matters required by law, there shall be printed substantially the following ballot question:

317

4 “RANCHO MIRAGE PUBLIC SAFETY, ROADS, CITY SERVICES
MEASURE.

YES
Shall the measure maintaining Rancho Mirage’s long-term financial stability, City services such as 9-1-1 emergency medical/fire response, fire protection, Sheriff’s patrols, crime prevention/response programs; keeping public areas safe/clean; maintaining streets, roads, parks, libraries, fire stations; retaining/attracting local businesses, other services, by establishing a 1¢ sales tax generating approximately $7,500,000 (seven point five million dollars) annually until ended by voters, requiring public spending disclosure, funds for Rancho Mirage only, be adopted?

NO

Section 4. Conduct of Election.

That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 5. Impartial Analysis.

That pursuant to Elections Code section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk not later than the deadline for submittal of primary arguments for or against the Measure.

That the impartial analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-font bold type, the following: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 324-4511 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”

Section 6. Notice and Call of Election.

That notice of the election is hereby given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

318

5 Section 7. Placement on the Ballot.

That the full text of the Measure shall not be printed in the voter information guide, and a statement shall be printed on the ballot pursuant to Elections Code section 9223 advising voters that they may obtain a copy of this Resolution and the Measure, at no cost, upon request made to the City Clerk.

Section 8. Filing with County.

That the City Clerk shall, not later than the 88th day prior to the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, file with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside, State of California, a certified copy of this Resolution.

Section 9. Public Examination.

That pursuant to Elections Code section 9295, this Measure will be available for public examination for no fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to being submitted for printing in the voter information guide. The City Clerk shall post notice in the Clerk’s office of the specific dates that the examination period will run.

Section 10. Environmental Review.

That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this Resolution and attached Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The transactions and use tax submitted to the voters is a general tax that can be used for any governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action or actions. As such, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment Moreover, the Measure relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b)(5).

Section 11. Severability.

That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

319

6 Section 12. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 13. Effective Date.

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 14. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

Section 15. Party Responsible for Managing Election.

That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to issue instructions to the County of Riverside Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the election.

Section 16. Further Actions.

That if the ballot measure is duly approved by the qualified voters, the City approves and authorizes the Mayor, City Manager, or either of their designees to take all steps necessary to effectuate the measure, including without limitation executing any agreements with California Department of Tax and Fee Administration implementing the purpose and intent of the measure, upon consultation with the City Attorney.

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

320

7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July 2026.

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

____________________________
Lynn Mallotto, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

321

8 EXHIBIT “A”

TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ORDINANCE

(SEE ATTACHED)

322

9 ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND IMPOSING A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX OF ONE PERCENT (1%) BY ADDING CHAPTER 3.22 (TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX) TO TITLE 3 OF THE RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO BE ADMINISTERED

BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) is authorized to levy a Transactions and Use Tax (“TUT”) for general revenue purposes pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9; and

WHEREAS, the People of the City desire to add Chapter 3.22 to Title 3 of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code establishing a general Transactions and Use Tax (“TUT”) until ended by voters, on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retain the City, at a rate of one percent (1%).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

The above recitals set forth above are all true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Approval of Voters.

Subject to the approval by a majority of the voters of the City of Rancho Mirage at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, called by the City Council in a separate resolution, Chapter 3.22 is added to Title 3 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:

“Chapter 3.22” - TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX

Section 3.22.010 — Short title

This Chapter shall be known as the “City of Rancho Mirage Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance.” The City of Rancho Mirage hereinafter shall be called "City." This Chapter shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City.

Section 3.22.020 — Operative Date

“Operative Date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance. For purposes of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7265, this ordinance shall be considered adopted on the date of the election 323

10 in which it is approved by the qualified voters of the City.

Section 3.22.030 — Purpose

This Chapter is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:

A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part

1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the City to adopt this tax ordinance which shall be operative if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.

B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.

D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part

1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 3.22.040 — Contract with State

Prior to the operative date, the City shall contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.

Section 3.22.050 — Transactions Tax Rate

For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at a rate of one percent (1%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this Chapter.

324

11 Section 3.22.060 — Place of Sale

For the purposes of this Chapter, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Section 3.22.070 — Use Tax Rate

An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this Chapter for storage, use, or other consumption in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of one percent (1%) of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.

Section 3.22.080 — Adoption of Provisions of State Law

Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this Chapter as though fully set forth herein.

Section 3.22.090 — Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes

In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of the City shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when:

1. The word “State” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;

2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.

3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to:
325

12 a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;

b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of that code.

4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof) 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797, or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

B. The word “City” shall be substituted for the word “State” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this State” in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.

1. “A retailer engaged in business in the City” shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combined sales of tangible personal property in this state or for the delivery in the State by the retailer and all persons related to the retailer that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this section, a person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to Section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.

Section 3.22.100 — Permit Not Required

If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this Chapter.

Section 3.22.110 — Exemptions and Exclusions

A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transaction tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.

B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transaction tax the gross receipts from:

1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the country in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.

2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the 326

13 retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied.

a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an opt-out-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principle place of residence; and

b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.

3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:

1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.

2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this 327

14 ordinance.

4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.

7. "A retailer engaged in business in the City" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City.

D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.

Section 3.22.120 — Audit and Review

The proceeds of the tax imposed by this ordinance, as well as the expenditure thereof, shall be audited annually by an independent accounting firm as part of the City’s regular audit. The City Council shall review the results of such audit at a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public. The report of such audit shall be posted on the City’s website.

328

15 Section 3.22.130 — Amendments

All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this ordinance, provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9217, the City Council may amend this ordinance as deemed necessary for collection and enforcement, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate or extend the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance without the approval of the voters.

Section 3.22.140 — Enjoining Collection Forbidden

No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.

Section 3.22.150 — Increase of Appropriations Limit

Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California and applicable laws, the appropriations limit for the City is hereby increased by the aggregate sum authorized to be levied by this tax for fiscal year 2026-27 and each year thereafter.

Section 3.22.160 — Severability

If any provision of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Section 3. CEQA. The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The transactions and use tax submitted to the voters is a general tax that can be used for any governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action or actions. As such, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Section 4. Effective Date.

This ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately as provided by law.

329

16 Section 5. Severability.

The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 6. Execution.

The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 7. Termination Date.

The authority to levy the tax imposed by this ordinance shall continue unless and until ended by the voters.

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

330

17 PASSED and ADOPTED by the voters of the City of Rancho Mirage, State of California, at the General Municipal Election held on the 3rd day of November, 2026.

_________________________
Lynn Mallotto, Mayor
City of Rancho Mirage

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
City of Rancho Mirage

331

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF PRIMARY AND REBUTTAL

ARGUMENTS AND SETTING RULES FOR THE FILING OF WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026,

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Rancho Mirage, California, on November 3, 2026, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure:
“RANCHO MIRAGE PUBLIC SAFETY, ROADS, CITY
SERVICES MEASURE. YES
Shall the measure maintaining Rancho Mirage’s long-term financial stability, City services such as 9-1-1 emergency medical/fire response, fire protection, Sheriff’s patrols, crime prevention/response programs; keeping public areas safe/clean; maintaining streets, roads, parks, libraries, fire stations; retaining/attracting local businesses, other services, by establishing a 1¢ sales tax generating approximately $7,500,000 (seven point five million dollars) annually until ended by voters, requiring public spending disclosure, funds for Rancho Mirage only, be adopted?
NO

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

That the Recital set forth above is true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Primary Arguments.

That the City Council authorizes (i) the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council, (ii) any individual voter eligible to vote on the above measure, (iii) a bona fide association of such citizens, or (iv) any combination of voters and associations, to file a written argument in favor or against the City measure, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Election Code of the State of California, and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk, after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.

ATTACHMENT 2
332

2 That the deadline to submit arguments for or against the City Measure pursuant to this Resolution is declared by the City Clerk to be August 17, 2026, at 5 p.m. Each argument shall not exceed 300 words and shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.

Section 3. Rebuttal Arguments.

That pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the primary arguments for and against the City Measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Clerk shall send copies of the primary argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of the primary argument against, and copies of the primary argument against to the authors of the primary argument in favor. The authors or persons designated by them may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than August 27, 2026, at 5 p.m. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the primary arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the primary argument which it seeks to rebut.

Section 4. Severability.

That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 6. Effective Date.

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 17. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

Section 8. November 3, 2026 Election.

That the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 hereof shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 2026, and shall then be repealed.

333

3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of July 2026.

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

_________________________
Lynn Mallotto, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

334

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF

RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE WHEREAS, on July 16, 2026, the City Council of the City of Rancho Mirage adopted Resolution No. 2026-_____, calling a General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question relating to the Transactions and Use Tax; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the election department of the County of Riverside canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

That the Recital set forth above is true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Request for Consolidation.

That pursuant to the requirements of §10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the following question relating to the Transactions and Use Tax.

Section 3. Measure Language.

That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:

ATTACHMENT 3
335

2 “RANCHO MIRAGE PUBLIC SAFETY, ROADS, CITY
SERVICES MEASURE.

YES
Shall the measure maintaining Rancho Mirage’s long-term financial stability, City services such as 9-1-1 emergency medical/fire response, fire protection, Sheriff’s patrols, crime prevention/response programs; keeping public areas safe/clean; maintaining streets, roads, parks, libraries, fire stations; retaining/attracting local businesses, other services, by establishing a 1¢ sales tax generating approximately $7,500,000 (seven point five million dollars) annually until ended by voters, requiring public spending disclosure, funds for Rancho Mirage only, be adopted?

NO

Section 4. Canvass of Returns.

That the County of Riverside Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns and perform all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the General Municipal Election. The Election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. Pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide General Election.

Section 5. Necessary Steps.

That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

Section 6. Costs.

That the City Council determines and declares that the City will pay to the County the reasonable and actual expenses incurred by the County by the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. The City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. The City Manager of the City of Rancho Mirage is authorized and directed to pay for the expenses incurred after receiving a statement from the County of Riverside.

Section 7. Filing of Resolution.

That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County of Riverside Registrar of Voters.

336

3 Section 8. Severability.

That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 9. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 10. Effective Date.

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 11. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
337

4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of July 2026.

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

_________________________
Lynn Mallotto, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

338

City Council Staff Report

City Participation in County of Riverside’s Urban County Program, Community Block Development Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)

DATE ITEM #
July 16, 2026 ACTION CALENDAR - 7B.

Presented To Presented By
Mayor and City Council Marcus Aleman, Housing Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-(Next-in-Order), Authorizing Participation in the County of Riverside’s Urban County Program for the Fiscal Years of 2027-2028, 2028-2029, and 2029-2030, and Approving the Cooperation Agreement for the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant for Fiscal Years 2027-2028, 2028-2029, and 2029-2030.

DISCUSSION
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) provides annual grants on a formula basis to states, counties, and cities, for the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) program, Emergency Solutions Grant (“ESG”) program and HOME Investment Partnership (“HOME”) program. The CDBG program aims at developing viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons1. The ESG program’s focus is to assist people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness2.

The HOME program helps fund a wide range of activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people3. Application for funds can occur by applying directly to the State or by applying in cooperation with the County.

In June 2026, the City was contacted by the County of Riverside (“County”) to offer an opportunity to participate in their Urban County program for federal fiscal years 2027-28, 2028-29, and 2029-30. Participation in the Urban County program would authorize the County to receive and administer the City’s CDBG, ESG, and HOME funds that would otherwise go the State. The City has inquired about CDBG funds in the past but was not eligible to participate based on the program’s requirements. Application through the County instead of directly to the State would clear any administrative obstacles, provide a more streamlined process and as the County indicated, the City will now be eligible to receive funding. If the City does not participate in the County’s program, application through the State would be required to access any grant funds, which would be a more challenging process.

Participation in the Urban County program allows the City to produce local programs for its residents by utilizing the allocated funds and allows the City to benefit from access to established County programs which include but are not limited to Homelessness Assistance/Prevention Programs and gap funding for development of affordable housing.
339

1. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/cdbg

2. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/esg/

3. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/home Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution
340

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S URBAN COUNTY PROGRAM FOR HE FISCAL YEARS OF 2027-2028, 2028-2029, AND 2029-2030, AND

APPROVING THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2027-2028, 2028-2029, AND 2029-2030
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage has elected to participate as unit of local government (Cooperating City) in the County of Riverside’s (“County”) Urban County Program for Federal Fiscal Years 2027-28, 2028-29, and 2029-30; and WHEREAS, the attached Cooperation Agreement (“Cooperation Agreement”), incorporated herein by reference, will allow the County and City to carry out activities which are funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG); and WHEREAS the Cooperation Agreement will allow City to participate in the Urban County Consolidated Planning Programs.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Approval of Cooperation Agreement.

That the Cooperation Agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Rancho Mirage is hereby approved.

Section 3. Execution of Cooperation Agreement.

That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor or City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Cooperation Agreement in substantially the same form on behalf of the City of Rancho Mirage, and take any further actions necessary to effectuate the intent of this Resolution.

ATTACHMENT 1
341

Section 4. Severability.

That should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution or Cooperation Agreement be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution or Cooperation Agreement as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 6. Effective Date.

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 7. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
342

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Rancho Mirage City Council on this ___ day of ___________, 2026, by the following vote:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
____________________________
Lynn Mallotto, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
343

EXHIBIT “A”

COOPERATION AGREEMENT
(SEE ATTACHED)
344

Cooperation Agreement For CDBG, HOME And ESG Funds 2027-2029