HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-21 2nd Review - MSA Response to City Incomplete Letter
34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | msaconsultinginc.com
May 21, 2026
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
Design and Development Department
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92252
Subject: MSA Response to City Incompleteness Letter for La Quinta Resort Renovation of
the Existing Family Swimming Pool CUP 2025-0004
Dear Nicole,
This letter responds to the City’s Planning Incompleteness Letter dated March 19, 2026
for the CUP application. Responses to each comment are provided below for the City’s
review.
1. Modify the Statement of Operations to include the hours for seasonal operation,
and the time frames for each set of operating hours, for example “May to
October…” Provide a description of the pieces of equipment that will be installed
to operate the pool and slides, including their location on the site plan, whether
they are above- or in-ground (and provide dimensioned elevations in the plan
details for all equipment that is above-ground). Provide a description of operational
processes such as backwash, refills, full water change, and their schedules. We
were not asking about construction equipment.
Response - Please see attached/ separate Statement of Operations and revised
architecture book.
2. Plan Set: It appears that there was some confusion about the modifications to the
plan set. For clarity, I have itemized the changes required below.
a. Page 1: correct the hours of operation per comment #1 above. Add the
project area in square feet and acres. Add required parking spaces per
Municipal Code.
Response – Added to page 1.
b. Page 2: and other page where it occurs: remove the red hatch pattern.
Keep the blue line outline. Add the blue outline to the legend and label it
“Project Limits”.
Response – Done
34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | msaconsultinginc.com
c. Page 2: Outline all structures/facilities to be removed in green. Add the
green outline to the legend and label it “To be Demolished/Removed”.
Response – Done
d. Page 3: remove the yellow highlighted labels that reference items outside
the project limits. Remove the surrounding areas and enlarge the site plan
to include only the project limit. Provide dimensions throughout the site plan:
setbacks from proposed facilities to the property/limit of work line;
dimensions of buildings and slide tower, cabanas, etc.; width and length of
pool; label buildings and structures (cabanas, slide tower, restrooms, spa
rooms, bar, kitchen, etc.). Label and dimension all ground mounted
mechanical equipment to the nearest property line.
Response – Done
e. Page 4 and 5: Duplicate dimensions and labeling from Page 3. On Page 4,
label equipment to the west of the heat pumps. If the area is not a building,
show what is proposed for screening on the west limit of work.
Response – Done.
f. Page 6 and 7 and all other pages showing elevations: All height
measurements must be to top of roof of each roof area, or highest point if
not depicting a building. Plate heights are irrelevant. Include height on
cabana, restroom sheets. The lifeguard stations appear to be missing?
Response – Done
g. Page 17: Provide dimensioned slide section with height limits (see drawing
4 on Page 19).
Response - Height limits to be established with CUP process.
h. Page 19: Provide height limits for drawing 4.
Response - Please see the updated sheet 17 labeled as “ Splash Pool
Plan” and we have noted the 17’-10” height of the splash pool equipment.
i. Renderings: Please check proportions. Based on correction 2.g. and 2.h.,
scale the slides to have a correct relationship to surrounding structures. If
the kids’ pool structure is 30± feel tall, it appears to be out of scale with the
adjacent Morgan House structure. If the section on Page 19 is correct, the
kids’ pool structure is 61 feet tall. It is shown in the renderings’ Page 23 as
34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | msaconsultinginc.com
being lower than the adjacent Morgan House. The Morgan House is not 61
feet tall. The pool also appears to be too small.
Response - Proportions of the Slide Structure and Slides including the
surrounding structures have been verified to be accurate. The kids pool
structure is not 30 feet tall. It is 17’-10” tall to its tallest play structure
element. Please refer to the
3. Parking Study for the anticipated generated daily use traffic. You indicate in your
response that this will be an ancillary use to the resort, but provide no support for
that statement. Given the size of the resort, and the likely distance some families
will travel within it to use the pool, City staff, and eventually the Planning
Commission, will need to understand how this facility will operate without any
parking whatever.
Response – A parking memo by Urban Crossroads has been prepared and is
provided with this submittal. The findings have been incorporated into the CE and
is included in the document as “Attachment B” .
4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption Justification Letter: Your
letter has been received, but is incomplete in two ways. First, an analysis for
exemption must include an analysis of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Second, the project occurs adjacent to a historic structure, the Morgan House.
Please demonstrate that the project will have no indirect impact on that historic
structure. When the complete information is provided, we will review it to determine
whether the City can support an exemption for this project.
Response – The CE has been updated to include a analysis of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15300.2. Statistical Research Inc prepared a memo on the Morgan House
and found that no direct or indirect impacts to the Morgan House would occur as
a result of the proposed project. The memo has been incorporated into the CE and
included as “Attachment A”.
Please let us know if any additional information is needed.
Thank you,
Nicole Vann
Senior Planner/Project Manager
Nicole Vann