TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Bob Moehling, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Jeff Hitch, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
title
Appeal of the Denial of an Encroachment Permit at 38765 Clearbrook Drive
end
ABSTRACT
This item considers an appeal filed by Dennis Tarlecki regarding the City of Murrieta’s (City) denial of an encroachment permit to construct a second driveway apron within the public right-of-way at 38765 Clearbrook Drive. The proposed driveway would provide access to the side/rear yard for vehicle parking; however, the City determined that the location presents inadequate sight distance and could create a dangerous condition due to the roadway curvature. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Public Works and Engineering’s decision to deny the encroachment permit.
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Department of Public Works and Engineering to deny the encroachment permit based on the findings discussed in this report; and
Adopt Resolution No. 26-4976 entitled: 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.
body
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
None.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This item aligns with the City Council to foster and promote an engaged, connected and caring community.
DISCUSSION
Recreational Vehicles (RVs) can generally be parked on residential private property, including in the side and rear yard, so long as they are screened by an approved fence or wall (Murrieta Informational Bulletin 229, Section II; Attachment 1). RVs cannot be stored within the front yard setback, including the driveway. Under Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) 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. Accordingly, 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.
Dennis Tarlecki owns a residential property at 38765 Clearbrook Drive. On December 18, 2025, Mr. Tarlecki filed an application for an encroachment permit (Attachment 2) to add a second driveway apron within the public right-of-way on his property to allow him to drive over the right-of-way to park vehicles in his yard behind a fence. The application was denied. Mr. Tarlecki subsequently approached staff requesting a reconsideration of his application, and staff realized that Mr. Tarlecki had not been advised of his appeal right in writing. Accordingly, Mr. Tarlecki was asked to resubmit his application.
On July 1, 2026, Mr. Tarlecki filed a subsequent application for an encroachment permit to add a second driveway apron in the public right-of-way. On July 9, 2026, the City issued a Notice of Encroachment Permit Denial (Attachment 3) explaining that the permit was denied for two reasons. The primary reason is that the second driveway would constitute a dangerous condition because of the lack of adequate sight distance. The second reason is that the combined driveways would exceed forty percent of the lot frontage, which is contrary to the region-wide standard. A Site Plan for the City’s analysis of the application is Attachment 4.
Applicable Law
The City has an obligation to maintain sidewalks and roadways in a safe condition. Under California's Government Claims Act, a public entity may be held liable for injuries caused by a "dangerous condition" of its property only when the plaintiff satisfies the four elements of Government Code Section 835: (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) the dangerous condition proximately caused the injury; (3) the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and (4) either a public employee's negligent or wrongful act created the condition, or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken protective measures. Hence, the City should not issue an encroachment permit for a second driveway in a location where doing so could create a dangerous condition. With respect to Mr. Tarlecki’s proposal, he is seeking a second driveway in a location where the road curves, potentially obscuring visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.
The location of the proposed second driveway on a curved road unfortunately creates a dangerous condition of public property by arguably foreseeably increasing collision risk as sight distances are inherently limited on curves, introducing additional conflict points between turning vehicles, through traffic, cyclists, and pedestrians, and disrupting the continuity and accessibility of the pedestrian path of travel, including ADA compliance on sidewalks, all of which may elevate foreseeable hazards to road users and expose the public right-of-way to avoidable risks.
The Appeal
On July 16, 2026, Mr. Tarlecki filed a timely appeal of the denial of the permit pursuant to MMC Section 15.54.280. The Appeal and all documents in support of the Appeal submitted by Mr. Tarlecki are included as Attachment 5. The Appeal’s assertions are shown in red below. The text about the speed sign reflects comments from staff where assertions made by the Appellant warranted a response.
*** The 15 MPH signs are advisory signs that recommend a safe speed due to the speed humps; they do not impose a speed limit as a regulatory sign does.
Appeal Procedure
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. If the City Council is unable to render a decision, the hearing officer's decision will be considered to be upheld.
At the City Council meeting, staff recommends that staff be allowed to present the reason why it denied the encroachment permit application, then allow Mr. Tarlecki time to present his appeal, followed by a brief rebuttal period for each side. Council can then deliberate and render a decision.
PUBLIC NOTICING
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
ATT 1 - Murrieta Informational Bulletin 229
ATT 2 - Application for Encroachment Permit
ATT 3 - Notice of Encroachment Permit Denial
ATT 4 - Site Plan for Driveway Analysis
ATT 5 - Notice of Appeal and its attachments
ATT 6 - Resolution No. 26-4976