TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director
PREPARED BY: Aaron Rintamaki, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
title
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-00006 (DP-2022-2605/2023-00006) Murrieta Hot Springs at Jefferson Apartments
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
On March 27, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-00006 to construct 387 multi-family apartment units, totaling 521,178 square feet on an 18-acre parcel (Project). The Planning Commission’s approval consisted of two actions, which encompassed the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 16.56 for the development of vacant property. On April 1, 2024, Council Member DeForest (Appellant) filed an appeal (Appeal) of the Planning Commission’s approval of the MND and the Project with the City Clerk but only the CEQA appeal is before the City Council at this time. The Appeal was filed in a timely manner since it occurred within 10 days of the Commission’s action. The Appeal filed with the City Clerk is included as Attachment 1. Appeal materials were subsequently received by the Development Services Director on April 19, 2024 which was 17 days prior to the appeal hearing.
The City Council’s action is limited to the Appeal of the MND at this time. The City Council may take either of the following actions: 1) Uphold the Commission’s decision, or 2) Set aside the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the Appellant’s request to appeal the Project's IS/MND. 2) Grant the CEQA appeal as to the MND and direct staff to prepare additional environmental analysis to address the environmental issues raised in the Appeal. Accordingly, the City Council should do the following:
1) Open the public hearing and receive testimony, and consider either of the following actions:
2) Adopt Resolution No. 24-4739 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta Denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval A Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Plan Permit No. 2022-2605/2023-00006 (DP 2022-2605/2023-00006) for Construction of 387 Multi-Family Units and Associated Amenities and Improvements, Located Southeast of the Intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue (APN 910-410-011) and Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Upholding the MND for Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-00006, Relating to the Proposal to Construct 387 Multi-Family Apartment Units, Totaling 521,178 square feet on an 18-Acre Parcel;
OR
3) Adopt Resolution No. 24-4740 entitled: A Resolution of The City Council of the City of Murrieta Approving the Appeal and Overturning the Planning Commission Decision Adopting A Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Plan Permit No. 2022-2605/2023-00006 (DP 2022-2605/2023-00006) for Construction of 387 Multi-Family Units and Associated Amenities and Improvements, Located Southeast of the Intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue (APN 910-410-011) and finding that: (i) there is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument that further environmental study concerning traffic safety and hazards, General Plan conflicts, and the Project’s lack of compliance with City roadway standards which were not adequately analyzed or disclosed to the public in the MND for Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-0006 pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and (ii) that the Project requires the preparation of further analysis of Project environmental impacts pertaining to traffic safety hazards, General Plan conflicts, and compliance with City roadway standards as specified in the resolution, and (iii) the Development Services Director is directed to consider any new information obtained concerning the Project’s environmental impacts related to the Project as described above and proceed in a manner in compliance with CEQA to include the new information in the Project’s Initial Study supporting the MND and to identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts identified by the additional environmental analysis or require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report if the impacts identified are determined to be significant and can’t be mitigated to less than significant.
Based upon the additional information and issues raised in the appeal regarding the Initial Study’s incomplete analysis of certain potential traffic safety impacts, staff recommends the City Council grant the Appeal on the basis of substantial evidence presented by the Appellant.
body
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
On March 27, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-00006 via Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2024-03, to construct the Project (Vote: 3-1-0).
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 27, 2024, to consider Development Plan Permit 2022-2605/2023-00006 filed by Quarterra, LLC (Applicant) and voted to approve the Project. During the Planning Commission hearing, there were questions of staff and discussion. The Commissioners discussed the need to revise the Project site plan to align the Project driveway on Murrieta Hot Springs Road with an approved traffic signal and project driveway of an approved multi-family development (the JPI Project) across the street to the north of the Project, the lack of amenities for varied ages of youth, traffic congestion on Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and the traffic analysis identifying a Level of Service F at the project left turn queuing lane leading into the Project main entrance. The Planning Commission considered the evidence provided at the hearing through public testimony, public comment letters, staff report, and presentations.
Appeal
The Appeal identifies previously undisclosed Project traffic safety impacts, inadequate analyses of the Project’s traffic safety impacts, as well as the Project’s conflicts with the City’s General Plan and adopted City street standards developed and adopted, in part, to address potential traffic safety issues associated with new development. The Appeal further states that the discussion of the additional traffic safety impacts should have been disclosed in the Project’s MND for public review and consideration and that environmental analysis between the Project and the City’s General Plan and adopted street standards is inadequate based on substantial evidence submitted in the Appeal. These issues are more fully described below.
Level of Service (LOS)
In 2013, the state legislature adopted SB 743, which eliminated traffic delay as an environmental impact under CEQA, where an analysis of vehicle trips versus street or intersection capacity to handle such trips was performed. How well or poorly streets and intersections operated were identified by a letter grade of A through F. LOS A represented traffic free flow (no delay), whereas LOS F indicated unstable traffic flows with stop-and-go traffic and poor travel times. Although LOS is no longer considered a CEQA environmental impact, many agencies retain LOS standards in their general plans to maintain acceptable levels of traffic flow on city roadways and for infrastructure planning purposes and to ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing traffic conditions resulting in traffic safety hazards. Murrieta maintains LOS standards in the City’s adopted General Plan Circulation Element. For Murrieta Hot Springs Road the Level of Service differs between the north and south sides of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, as they are in separate land use areas.
The Appeal points out that page 6 of the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA) identifies the City’s acceptable traffic LOS for the roadway segment on Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) as LOS C. CEQA focuses on questions within the Initial Study (Appendix G), such as, would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The 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 under CEQA, the resulting LOS D on the MHSR road segment is an impact on the City’s adopted General Plan Circulation Element that the proposed MND should have been disclosed for the public’s consideration in the CEQA documents as this degradation in LOS may cause significant traffic safety hazards. Instead, the MND makes no mention of the inconsistency. The explanation must be included in the TIA and the MND. Also, the LOS F on Jefferson Avenue, intersection turning movements, was not disclosed. The adopted General Plan policies were intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, which is not provided for in the MND. The lack of disclosure for LOS to address traffic levels is a conflict with this General Plan policy which impacts traffic safety, which is an environmental impact under CEQA.
Disclosure of impacts
As stated in the points of the Appeal, the Project conflicts with the City’s General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding certain environmental impacts. The City’s General Plan 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. CEQA does not preclude the City from identifying a project’s inconsistencies with general plan or zoning standards. CEQA continues to require projects to analyze 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. 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 since the Applicant is currently unable to provide a street design for Murrieta Hot Springs Road that meets the City’s standard street specifications, developed to protect public health and safety. This is also a potential impact under CEQA that was not disclosed.
The MND identifies the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) over the Yoder Wash as a capital improvement project to address the Project’s impact on the City’s Circulation Element. The MND failed to analyze the timing of the widening of MHSR over the Yoder Wash as a possible improvement that would be carried out to ensure the Project’s consistency with the City’s Circulation Element. Since the timing of MHSR widening is unknown, the MND should have identified the delayed timing for the improvement and the impact of the delay in widening MHSR 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 capacity for MHSR, causing reasonably foreseeable significant traffic safety impacts. The MND needs to analyze the delay in the implementation of the widening. The Project will, therefore, 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, the CEQA analysis lacks analysis of this important issue in the MND.
In order to understand if the Project will lead to traffic safety issues, the Project’s analysis needs to be properly updated and peer-reviewed, with impacts vetted and disclosed so that the City Council and public fully understand whether the Project may cause significant traffic safety hazards given the existing environmental documentation does not provide an understanding as to how long a capital improvement project (CIP) will take to implement.
Design Speed on Murrieta Hot Springs Road
The Applicant’s design team (Kimley-Horn) stated to staff at a meeting on January 16, 2024 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, in conjunction with MHSR, 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 MND. The Appellant’s materials contained in Attachment 1 include a graphic that depicts a street design at 45 MPH rather than 60 MPH, which is the design standard for MHSR adjacent to the Project - it 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, in order to demonstrate that the Project can be implemented without adversely impacting traffic safety. 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. The Appellant is requesting that further study and analysis 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. Attachment 1 includes an email dated February 5, 2024, between the Applicant and staff, along with staff comments on conceptual plans of MHSR as substantial evidence depicting the inadequate roadway design and lane configurations. Given the lack of analysis on this topic of inadequate design, the MND, as currently written, does not meet the disclosure requirements of CEQA.
Recreational Amenities
A tot lot was provided at the Planning Commission’s request. The Commission noted that the on-site design was inadequate for the various age ranges of children/young adults expected to live in the Project. The Applicant stated that they would update the design, however the Appellant is seeking to review and approve the design as part of the Development Plan appeal to ensure the improvements are properly integrated into the Project. This item is not part of the appeal of the Project’s CEQA document and is for the City Council’s information only. The Development Plan appeal will be scheduled once the Project’s CEQA appeal is concluded.
Meet and Confer
When an appeal is filed, the Development Code requires that a Meet and Confer meeting occur prior to the appeal being heard by the City Council. Staff scheduled the required Meet and Confer to occur on May 1, 2024. On May 1, 2024 the Applicant, Appellant, and City staff met and no agreements were made.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
On March 27, 2024, the Planning Commission approved a Notice of Determination and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it's implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration). The Planning Commission’s approval of the Project MND is the subject of this Appeal and, therefore is in abeyance until the outcome of this appeal is decided.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal Materials
2. Approved Plans
3. Vicinity Map
4. Planning Commission staff report
5. Public comments received for Planning Commission hearing
6. Resolution No. 24-4739 (Deny Appeal)
7. Resolution No. 24-4740 (Approve Appeal)
8. Conditions of Approval
9. Notice of Determination
recommendationbody