01375.0020/977771.3
Appellant Statement and Supporting Evidence
Council Member Lisa DeForest, Third District
April 19, 2024
As an elected City Council Member of the City of Murrieta in District 3, where this project is proposed, it is of the utmost importance to me to ensure development projects fully disclose project impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is a basic requirement of CEQA.
The proposed project - Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-00006 (DP-2022- 2605/2023-00006) and its accompanying Initial Study and supporting documents (referred to hereinafter as Project) failed to disclose or fully disclose certain potentially significant impacts, or made conclusions without providing adequate substantial evidence. Failure to properly disclose potentially significant impacts, and making conclusions not supported with substantial evidence are improper for the purposes of CEQA.
My appeal seeks to correct these deficiencies and obtain proper analysis and disclosure for the residents of my District and Murrieta. Without these steps, existing and future residents and even future City Councils would not have the information I believe should be available to make future decisions concerning the City's growth.
The Project conflicts with the City’s General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding certain environmental impacts. The City’s General Plan’s policies related to LOS were adopted, in part, to ensure the City’s circulation system operates safely and does not result in traffic safety hazards. CEQA requires that this be disclosed. Despite several attempts by staff to require this analysis, the Applicant failed to do so and instead indicated that a traffic analysis that addressed the City LOS planning goal was irrelevant.
To the contrary, CEQA does not preclude the City from identifying a project’s inconsistencies with general plan or zoning standards. I fully recognize that the adequacy of an LOS analysis is not a basis for challenging a project under CEQA. However, CEQA continues to require projects to analyze its potentially significant transportation impacts related to safety and LOS is a factor in determining whether a project will substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Furthermore, as a voting member of the lead agency that is required to determine that the Project’s environmental analysis was adequate, I demand that the Project’s analysis be properly prepared and peer reviewed, with impacts properly analyzed and disclosed even if vehicle delay is no longer considered an impact under CEQA so that the City Council and public fully understand whether the Project may cause significant traffic safety hazards. Further, once the analysis is completed (and vetted by the City’s expert traffic consultant) it remains to be seen whether or not the Project will result in an unsafe traffic condition 01375.0020/977771.3
since the Applicant is currently unable to provide a street design for Murrieta Hot Springs Road that meets the City’s standard street specifications. This is also an impact under CEQA that was not disclosed. An email from City staff to the Applicant and its design team sent on February 5, 2024 indicates the design for MHSR does not meet City street design requirements – specifically City Standard No. 116.
My appeal material includes Pages 121-123 of the Project IS/MND containing Section
4.17 Transportation, which indicates the Project will have less than significant traffic impacts. I find those determinations to be incorrect for the reasons described below in more detail.
1. LOS (north and south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road)
level of service (LOS) for the roadway segment on Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) as LOS C. The IS/MND failed to properly disclose that the Project would conflict with the Level of Service C segment for Murrieta Hot Springs Road by indicating the Project would have no impact on the City’s circulation plan, even though the LOS would be worse than the acceptable Level of Service (LOS D). Even though LOS, in and of itself, does not have an environmental impact, the resulting LOS D on the MHSR road segment is an impact on the City’s adopted General Plan Circulation Element that the proposed IS/MND should have disclosed for the public’s information, as well as why there was no mitigation required pursuant to CEQA. Instead, the IS/MND makes no mention of the inconsistency. The explanation must be included in the TIA and the IS/MND.
The staff report identifies the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) over the Yoder Wash as a capital improvement to address the Project’s impact on the City’s circulation plan. The IS/MND failed to analyze the timing of the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road over the Yoder Wash as a possible improvement that would be carried out to ensure the Project’s consistency with the City’s circulation plan. Since the timing of MHSR widening is unknown, the IS/MND should have identified the delayed timing for the improvement and the impact of the delay in MHSR widening on achieving the City’s circulation plan. Until the widening of MHSR takes place, the roadway segment’s LOS will exceed the circulation plan’s design capacity for MHSR causing reasonably foreseeable significant traffic safety impacts. The IS/MND needs to analyze the delay in the implementation of the widening. The Project will therefore will be in conflict with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element until the roadway over Yoder Wash is widened which could be several years from now. Yet there is no analysis of this issue in the IS/MND.
01375.0020/977771.3
2) Design speed on Murrieta Hot Springs Road
The Applicant’s design team (Kimley-Horn) stated to staff that they could not meet the design speed for MHSR and requested that they be allowed to use 45 miles per hour (MPH) instead of 60 MPH (identified in City Standard No. 116). Staff did not support their request. The culvert to the east of the Project appears to need to be widened to meet the design speed. Staff cannot arbitrarily lower the speed of the road for this private development’s design needs and if the City did so the speed limit would not be enforceable per the California Vehicle Code. The inability of the City to enforce its speed limit laws as a result of the Applicant’s proposed street design poses a traffic hazard. This should have been disclosed in the IS/MND. The exhibit below depicts a street design at 45 MPH rather than 60 MPH which is the design standard for MHSR adjacent to the Project which is inconsistent with Standard No. 116.
The Applicant needs to substantiate that the Project’s street improvements can be designed to accommodate the 60 MPH design speed for MHSR, a City standard.
Otherwise, an analysis needs to be conducted to determine what impacts will be created from the inadequate design. Currently, staff has recommended that the Applicant meet the City’s street design standard upon the submission of street improvement plans for this Project at a later date. While I commend staff for finding a way for the Applicant to move the Project to public hearing using conditions of approval, further study and analysis must be conducted to (i) ensure the Project can meet City design standards before the conclusion of the Project’s CEQA process, and (ii) determine whether or not the improvements would also have an impact on the environment, such as widening MHSR over an area (Yoder Wash) with sensitive species and habitat. As mentioned above, I have attached an email from City staff to the Applicant and its design team from February 5, 2024 indicating the design for MHSR will need to meet City street design requirements.
Graphic exhibits identifying the referenced design issues are also attached. Given the lack of analysis on this topic of inadequate design, the IS/MND as currently written does not meet the disclosure requirements of CEQA.
01375.0020/977771.3
3) Amenities/Recreation:
The Planning Commission noted that the on-site recreational amenities appeared inadequate for the various age ranges of children/young adults anticipated to reside in the Project. The Applicant offered to convert a green area to a tot lot during rebuttal at the hearing. The design of these improvements needs to be vetted to ensure the Applicant will be able to install them as required by the Planning Commission, and meet all other City standards. No such review was conducted.
Reference Material
I include by reference in my appeal the following documents:
The City’s adopted circulation plan (General Plan Circulation Element adopted in 2020):
https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4359/05---Circulation-Elementpdf The Planning Commission agenda packet of March 27, 2024 available on the City’s website at https://murrieta.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The Kimley-Horn Traffic Study dated May 3, 2023 for the QMC Murrieta Multi-Family Project prepared for Quarterra Multifamily Communities, on file with the City Clerk of the City of Murrieta.
I also attach the following references:
City of Murrieta Standard No. 116 Roadway Design Requirements approved 1/14/10 also available on the City website at
https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/368/100---Typical-Street-Sections- PDF
Pages 121-123 of the Murrieta Hot Springs at Jefferson Residences Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Email from Jarrett Ramaiya, Deputy Director of Development Services, dated February 5, 2024 to Alec Chasman, et al, of LMC Quarterra (Applicant) and City consultants, with attachments.
1 Chantarangsu, David
From: Edgington, Aida
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:07 PM
To: Chantarangsu, David; Stephenson, Brian
Subject: FW: Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Jefferson Apartments - response to resubmittal Attachments: Pages from 2023.12.14 - LMC Apartments - Offsite Improvement Plans.pdf; Pages from Standard Drawings 2010 (All) (PDF).pdf
Hi David,
Highlighted below is the email I could find (the redlined PDF is also attached). I’m also confirming that the design of the roadway needs to be based on the design speed of the roadway per our standard drawings (for Murrieta Hot Springs Road at this location - Urban arterial is 60 MPH).
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you
_________________________________________________
Aida M. Edgington, PE, TE
CONSULTING TRAFFIC ENGINEER
CITY OF MURRIETA
(951) 304-2489 ext. 6232
[email protected]
1 Town Square | Murrieta, CA 92562
www.MurrietaCA.gov | Connect with us
From: Ramaiya, Jarrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 8:20 AM
To: Alec Chasman <[email protected]>; Dan Ferguson <[email protected]>; Cobb, Elizabeth <[email protected]>; Marechal, Jason <[email protected]>; Leung, Brian <[email protected]>; Briggs, Trevor <[email protected]> Cc: Rintamaki, Aaron <[email protected]>; Stephenson, Brian <[email protected]>; Harrison, Tamara <[email protected]>; Chantarangsu, David <[email protected]>; Edgington, Aida <[email protected]>
Subject: Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Jefferson Apartments - response to resubmittal
Hi Trevor and Project Team,
Thank you for providing the revised Supplemental Traffic Memo for queuing the LMC/QMC project. City staff has reviewed the revised memo and continues to have questions about the improvements needed for project opening year conditions. Attached are redlines on the revised memo – please review and address the comments. We are sending this communication to emphasize the need for a resolution, as we are not able to complete the preparation of traffic and engineering conditions, as well as finalize the draft staff report.
2 Jefferson Avenue's revised conceptual striping plan was resubmitted to the City (2024.01.24_Jefferson Concept Plan.pdf) for review. City staff has reviewed the revised plan and has the attached repeat comments related to the geometry requirements along Jefferson Avenue – please see the attached redlines, review, and address.
Lastly, in our meeting on January 16, 2024, the City provided comments to the applicant and the design team on the 2023.12.14 – LMC Apartments – Offsite Improvement Plans.pdf (see attached). The City identified that the shift tapers and reverse curves shown in the KH design for Murrieta Hot Springs Road will need to meet the street design requirements of City Standard Drawing No. 116 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Furthermore, the City would review this when the Street Improvement Plans for the public improvements are submitted for review. The KH design engineer stated during the meeting that they did not think they could meet the design requirements (e.g., a standard). The City responded that this is a requirement based on the speed of the road and will need to be met. As of this email, City staff has not received any communication from the applicant team regarding whether they can meet this standard design requirement. Note that the requirements for the shift tapers and reverse curves are City and State requirements, are based on speed, and will need to be met for this project to maintain the safety of the traveling public and to minimize any potential litigation for substandard design.
Please respond to City staff’s comments to address these remaining concerns listed above and shown in the attachments. In preparation for the hearing, the project plan set will need to have updated parking counts and for the overall plan set to be reduced to what is required by the application checklist, along with the traffic comments and any modifications being made as a result of the ongoing Fire review must be incorporated into the plan set. We are working on getting draft conditions of approval from all Departments to prepare this project for a tentative hearing on 2-28-
24. To meet this date, city staff must complete and submit to the newspaper on the morning of 2-12-24. At this point, resolving this matter is urgent, and prompt resolution is needed.
Sincerely,
JarreƩ Ramaiya
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY OF MURRIETA
O: (951) 461-6069
1 Town Square | Murrieta, CA 92562
www.MurrietaCA.gov |
City Hall Hours: Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.
My Schedule: Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. – 5 p.m., with every other Friday off
Planning Division webpage: https://www.murrietaca.gov/254/Planning Permit Service Delivery Guide: hƩps://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1928/Permit-and-Service-Delivery-- -Performance-Standards--Process-Guide
From: Briggs, Trevor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Stephenson, Brian <[email protected]>; Harrison, Tamara <[email protected]>; Alec Chasman <[email protected]>; Dan Ferguson <[email protected]>; Cobb, Elizabeth <[email protected]>; Marechal, Jason <[email protected]>; Marechal, Jason <[email protected]>; Leung, Brian <[email protected]> Cc: Ramaiya, Jarrett <[email protected]>; Rintamaki, Aaron <[email protected]>; Aida Edgington
1 TIER2 TIER
1 TIER
FRONT3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE
6'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLETRANSFORMER5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE12'-0" CLEAR MAINTENANCEVEHICLE PASSAGEWAY FRONT3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE
6'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLETRANSFORMER5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE12'-0" CLEAR MAINTENANCEVEHICLE PASSAGEWAY
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
EVEVEVEV
JEFFERSON AVENUE
CITY OF MURRIETAKimley Horn and Associates, Inc.1100 Town and Country Rd, Suite 700Orange, CA 92868714.939.1030 F 714.938.9488www.kimley-horn.comCITY OF MURRIETAKimley Horn and Associates, Inc.1100 Town and Country Rd, Suite 700Orange, CA 92868714.939.1030 F 714.938.9488www.kimley-horn.com NORTH
C6.0MURRIETA HOT SPRING RD
FRONT3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE
6'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLETRANSFORMER5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE12'-0" CLEAR MAINTENANCEVEHICLE PASSAGEWAY FRONT3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE
6'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLETRANSFORMER5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE3'-0" CLEAR WORK SPACE 5'-0" CLEAR DRIVE AISLE12'-0" CLEAR MAINTENANCEVEHICLE PASSAGEWAY CITY OF MURRIETAKimley Horn and Associates, Inc.1100 Town and Country Rd, Suite 700Orange, CA 92868714.939.1030 F 714.938.9488www.kimley-horn.com NORTH
C6.1JEFFERSON AVE