Responses to Public Comments on the Murrieta Hot Springs at Jefferson Residences Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to transmit the public comments and responses to these comments received on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Murrieta Hot Springs at Jefferson Residences project located in the City of Murrieta. The Draft IS/MND was released for public review and comment by the City of Murrieta on August 11, 2023 for a 30-day public comment period ending on September 11, 2023.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15074, the City of Murrieta, as the Lead Agency, must consider the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Written responses have been prepared to comments received during the public review period.
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines §15204(b) states that “persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should:
Identify the specific effect,
Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and
Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.” CEQA Guidelines §15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” CEQA Guidelines §15204(d) states, “Reviewing agencies or organizations should include with their comments the name of a contact person who would be available for later consultation if necessary. Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” CEQA Guidelines §15204(e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” List of Respondents
The following public agencies and individuals submitted comments on the IS/MND as of close of the public review period on September 11, 2023.
Amy McNeill, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Engineering Project Manager (Letter 1) Mauricio Alvarez, Riverside Transit Agency – Planning Analyst (Letter 2) Responses to Comments
Responses have been provided to comments on significant environmental points in order to describe the disposition of issues and new information or clarifications, as appropriate. When comments did not address the completeness or adequacy of the environmental documentation, or did not raise significant environmental issues, the receipt of the comment is noted; no further response is provided. This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are followed immediately by the corresponding responses.
Letter 1 Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District Amy McNeill
Engineering Project Manager
September 11, 2023
Letter 1: Response 1
The IS/MND discusses stormwater on page 130 and states that the proposed project would install a 30-inch reinforced concrete storm drainpipe in Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) comment provides additional information regarding proposed stormwater drainage improvements. If the project were to propose a stormwater 36-inch drainpipe, the Flood Control and Conservation District would consider accepting ownership of the improvement through a cooperative agreement. This comment provides additional context regarding stormwater drainage improvements within the District and does not question the impact conclusion in the IS/MND. Therefore, no corrections are warranted. The comment is noted, and no further response is required.
Letter 1: Response 2
The comment discusses the project’s applicable District drainage fees required at issuance of permits. If the project were to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees would apply. As discussed on page 96 of the IS/MND analysis, the project would create additional impervious surface area. Therefore, the project would be subject to applicable fess to the City and District. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND analysis. The comment is noted, and no further response is required.
The comment does not question the outcome of the stormwater analysis in the IS/MND. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns within the site. As discussed on page 130 of the IS/MND analysis, surface flows would be collected in catch basins located along the main drive aisles internal to the project site and would then flow toward a proposed underground detention basin. Therefore, surface water would be adequately managed on site and as such, project implementation would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new expanded storm water facilities. No additional changes or corrections are required. The comment is noted, and no further response is needed.
Letter 1: Response 3
The comment refers to a previous comment letter sent on November 4, 2022. Responses to the referred letter are listed below. No further response is required.
Letter 1: Response 4
The following comment is a statement regarding the transfer of drainage facility ownership from the project to the District. This comment was sent on November 4, 2022, approximately one year before the current IS/MND analysis was released for public review. Therefore, the comment addresses a previous version of the project and therefore is not applicable to the current project analysis. While RCFC’s identified Line D does cross into the project site’s southeastern corner, as shown in IS/MND Exhibit 8 – Utility Plan, the proposed project would not interfere with RCFC’s proposed line. Thus, this comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND analysis. The comment is noted, and no further response is required.
Letter 1: Response 5
This comment discusses the potential transfer of drainage facility ownership from the project to the District. See Response 1. No further response is required.
Letter 1: Response 6
The comment discusses the project’s applicable District drainage fees required at issuance of permits. If the project were to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees would apply. See Response 2. No further response is required.
Letter 2 Riverside Transit Agency
Mauricio Alverez
Planning Analyst
August 22, 2023
Letter 2: Response 1
The comment states that the agency has no comments. No further response is required. kimley-horn.com
1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
kimley-horn.com
1100 Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030