RESOLUTION NO. 26-4976
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A SECOND DRIVEWAY APRON AT 38765 CLEARBROOK DRIVE AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING WHEREAS, Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) Section 15.54.040 requires a property owner to obtain an encroachment permit from the City prior to constructing or repairing a driveway or placing any encroachment in or across any street right-of-way, and recreational vehicles (RV) may only access side or rear yards via a permitted driveway opening; unpermitted ramps and driving over curbs/sidewalks are not allowed Under Murrieta Municipal Code Section 15.54.040, a property owner must obtain an encroachment permit from the City prior to constructing or repairing a driveway or placing any encroachment in or across any street right of way, and an RV can only access a side or rear yard via a permitted driveway opening; unpermitted ramps and driving an RV over the curb and sidewalk are not allowed; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2025, appellant and property owner Dennis Tarlecki submitted an application for an encroachment permit to add a second driveway apron within the public right-of-way at 38765 Clearbrook Drive to drive over the right of way to park vehicles in the yard behind a fence on a residential property; and WHEREAS, staff determined the initial application should be resubmitted to ensure the appellant received written notice of appeal rights, and on July 1, 2026, the appellant filed a subsequent application for an encroachment permit to add a second driveway apron in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2026, the City issued a Notice of Encroachment Permit Denial stating two grounds for denial: (1) the proposed second driveway would constitute a dangerous condition due to lack of adequate sight distance at the curved roadway location; and (2) the combined driveways would exceed forty percent of the lot frontage contrary to the region-wide standard; and WHEREAS, the City has an obligation to maintain sidewalks and roadways in a safe condition, and under the Government Claims Act, a public entity may be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property that is reasonably foreseeable; therefore, the City should not issue an encroachment permit where doing so could create a dangerous condition, particularly where a second driveway would be located on a curved road potentially obscuring visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, the record reflects that the proposed second driveway location on a curved roadway could foreseeably increase collision risk by limiting sight distance, introducing additional conflict points among turning vehicles, through traffic, cyclists, and pedestrians, and disrupting the continuity and accessibility of the pedestrian path of travel including ADA compliance, thereby elevating foreseeable hazards to road users in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2026, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the denial pursuant to MMC Section 15.54.280, asserting that (1) line-of-sight distances are adequate and the area includes effective engineering and administrative traffic controls; (2) the City applied an incorrect regulation regarding the forty percent lot frontage limit and that Bulletin 229/standard drawings control; and (3) the encroachment is necessary for reasonable use/enjoyment and alternate access is not feasible; and WHEREAS, pursuant to MMC Section 15.54.280, upon receipt of an appeal, the City Council has the power to reverse, modify, or otherwise alter the determinations and orders of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled the consideration of the appeal at a noticed public meeting to consider the appeal, staff’s report and analysis, the appellant’s submittals, and the administrative record; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Public Works & Engineering’s decision to deny the encroachment permit based on the findings in the staff report; and WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed, considered, and weighed the evidence in the entire administrative record, including but not limited to the staff report, the attachments to the staff report, and the testimony presented at the public meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. Applicable Encroachment Permit Criteria and Standards.
A. Encroachment Permit Requirement and Safety Obligation. MMC Section 15.54.040 requires an encroachment permit for driveway construction in the public right-of-way. The City is obligated to maintain public property, including streets and sidewalks, in a safe condition; permits should not be issued where the encroachment would create or contribute to a dangerous condition in the right-of-way.
B. Lot Frontage Standard. The Department of Public Works & Engineering determined that the combined widths of the existing and proposed driveways would exceed forty percent of the lot frontage, a region-wide standard applied by the City in evaluating driveway encroachments.
Section 3.
A. Dangerous Condition/Sight Distance (Primary Basis). The record shows that the proposed second driveway is on a curved segment of Clearbrook Drive where sight distances are limited; adding a second curb cut would introduce additional conflict points among vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, and could disrupt the pedestrian path of travel, including ADA accessibility. The proposed driveway location on a curved road limits sight distance and would foreseeably increase collision risk by adding conflict points and potentially disrupting the continuity and accessibility of the pedestrian path of travel including ADA compliance.
Authorizing an encroachment that foreseeably elevates collision risk would be inconsistent with the City’s obligation to maintain safe public property and administer encroachment permits to avoid creating dangerous conditions. The City has an obligation to maintain sidewalks and roadways in a safe condition and should not issue an encroachment permit for a second driveway in a location where doing so could create a dangerous condition. Mr. Tarleki is seeking a second driveway in a location where the road curves, potentially obscuring visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. As a result, the City Council finds that granting the permit would create or contribute to a dangerous condition due to limited sight distance at the curve and added conflict points, and is therefore inconsistent with the safety-related administration of the encroachment permit program set forth in MMC Section 15.54.040. Staff identified that the second driveway would constitute a dangerous condition due to lack of adequate sight distance at the curve and would increase foreseeable hazards through added conflict points, and the City should not issue an encroachment permit in a location where doing so could create a dangerous condition.
B. Lot Frontage/Multiple Driveway Control (Independent, Secondary Basis). The record shows that the combined driveways would exceed forty percent of the lot frontage, contrary to the region-wide standard cited in the City’s denial and reflected in the site plan analysis. Limiting curb cuts and cumulative driveway frontage advances safety by reducing turning conflict points, preserving on-street parking, and maintaining pedestrian continuity. Therefore, independently of the safety finding above, the City Council finds the application fails the applied lot frontage standard and may be denied on this basis.
Section 4. Responses to Appellant’s Material Arguments.
A. Line-of-Sight Adequacy and Existing Traffic Controls. Appellant’s position is that the area includes adequate line-of-sight distances (approximately 500 feet north, 200 feet south) and multiple traffic calming/controls (posted 15 MPH, no parking signs, lighting, speed bumps, sidewalks, crosswalks), rendering the driveway safe. The City Council finds that the 15 MPH signs are advisory signs that recommend a safe speed due to the speed humps, they do not impose a speed limit and that notwithstanding the features identified by Appellant, the driveway would be located on a curve with inherently limited sight distance; adding a second curb cut introduces additional conflict points and could disrupt pedestrian path continuity, including ADA accessibility. For these reasons, the Appellant’s assertions do not overcome the City Engineer’s safety determination. Staff found the proposed second driveway at the curve would constitute a dangerous condition due to limited sight distance and added conflict points, and would disrupt pedestrian path continuity including ADA considerations.
B. Lot Frontage Standard vs. Bulletin 229/Drawings. The Appellant asserts that the City applied the wrong regulation and that Bulletin 229 and drawings govern, while staff cited that the combined driveways would exceed forty percent of the lot frontage contrary to the region-wide standard. The City Council finds that the denial relied on the region-wide forty percent lot frontage standard used by the City in evaluating driveway encroachments; even assuming spacing/setback compliance, the combined widths would exceed the forty percent limit, providing an independent basis for denial as stated in the notice of denial and analyzed in the site plan.
C. Necessity/Alternate Access and Private Convenience. The Appellant also argues that the second driveway is necessary for reasonable use/enjoyment, aesthetics, home value, and trailer access and that alternate access to his rear yard is not feasible. The City Council finds that encroachment permits are evaluated against public safety and right-of-way standards and that identified safety hazards and applicable standards govern. Accordingly, private convenience cannot justify an encroachment that would create or contribute to a dangerous condition. Staff identified safety hazards and standards governing encroachments that the proposed second driveway fails to satisfy.
Section 5. Decision. For the reasons set forth above and based on the entire administrative record, the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Department of Public Works & Engineering’s denial of the encroachment permit application for a second driveway apron at 38765 Clearbrook Drive based on the findings discussed in the report, including dangerous condition due to sight distance at the curve and for exceeding the forty percent front lot coverage standard.
Section 6. Judicial Review Notice. Any judicial review of this decision shall be governed by applicable law.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2026.
Jon Levell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )§
CITY OF MURRIETA )
I, Cristal McDonald, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26-4976 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Murrieta at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of October, 2026, and was signed by the Mayor of the said City, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
01375.0024 2197449.2
01375.0024 2197449.2