At its April 3 meeting the Rancho Mirage City Council approved three formal items affecting land use and city contracts.

The council voted 5–0 to approve a financing and conveyance tentative tract map for the Section 31/Cotino Town Centre (environmental assessment EA24‑0012; tentative tract map TTM38990). City staff described the map as a financing conveyance map that subdivides about 72.88 acres into 23 parcels to facilitate ownership transfers and financing; staff said no new vertical development is permitted under the map without separate entitlements and that the action is consistent with prior environmental review (city staff cited CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as the controlling CEQA determination). The Planning Commission recommended approval on March 13, 2025, and staff recommended approval to the council. The motion passed unanimously.

The council also granted a one‑year extension of time (the first of up to three allowed) for tentative tract map TTM38222, a previously approved eight‑lot gated residential subdivision proposed by Bravo Holdings. Staff said the applicant requested the extension because the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has been slow to complete necessary hydraulic modeling and plan check work; the extension moves the project’s expiration to May 18, 2026. Consultant Dusty Knapp told the council CVWD review and modeling timelines — he cited a four‑month wait for hydraulic work and estimated a four‑to‑six month plan‑check window — and council members discussed the regional utility backlog. The extension passed 5–0.

Finally, the council approved the consent calendar by a 5–0 vote. The consent calendar included approval of the March 6 regular meeting minutes, receipt of 2024 board and commission annual reports, approval of contracts (including a contract renewal for the city's automated license‑plate reader system provided by Flock Safety), and the approval of demands. During public comment, speaker Brad Anderson raised concerns about the absence of detailed public record for speaker remarks and questioned the cost and renewal process for contracts including a sheriff staffing arrangement and the ALPR renewal; those concerns were noted by the council and remained part of the public record of comments.

No closed‑session reportable action followed a closed session on potential litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4); the city attorney reported no reportable action.