TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director
PREPARED BY: Chris Tracy, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning
SUBJECT:
title
Hillside Updates (DCA-2021-2396) - Workshop 6
end
RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
Receive public comments and discuss the proposed ordinance; and
Provide guidance on policy options within the proposed ordinance framework.
body
PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
On March 29, 2022, the City Council directed staff to review the hillside development standards (Non-Action Item).
On June 28, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended the introduction and first reading of an Ordinance updating the hillside development standards, amending Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) Chapters 8.20 and 15.52, and updating portions of Title 16 (Vote 4-0-1) (Attachment 1).
On August 15, 2023, the City Council hosted a workshop on this item. The City Council requested additional information, so the workshop was continued to a future meeting date (Attachment 2).
On March 5, 2024, the City Council hosted a second workshop on this item. Due to the additional time required for discussion and feedback, the workshop was continued for a second time (Attachment 3).
On June 17, 2025, the City Council held a third workshop on this item. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to provide more detailed examples to assist in moving forward, with particular emphasis on retaining wall criteria (Attachment 4).
On October 21, 2025, the City Council held its fourth workshop on this item. The discussion centered on when the standards would apply. The City Council reached a consensus that “Hillside Areas” apply only to residential and open space parcels with slopes of 25% or greater, as mapped in the Hillside Overlay Area (Attachment 5), while Specific Plans retain their original standards. Applicants may use the GIS map or the existing average slope formula with a CAD-based program to determine compliance (Attachment 6).
On November 18, 2025, the City Council held its fifth workshop on this item (Attachment 7). Guidance received included the following:
• Retaining wall updates need to be addressed on more of a Citywide basis rather than specific to Hillside Areas.
• Colors should generally be muted as they relate to retaining walls, and exact shades or blends should be defined upfront in the Development Code to ensure a consistent and desirable appearance.
• Earthtone colors may be a desired design element for hillside areas, as they relate to structures.
• Retaining walls over six feet in height may be too high in some circumstances on a Citywide basis.
• Having landscaping retaining wall tiers is a desired design element.
• Keystone walls with landscaping are a desired design element.
• Landscaping is an important standard for the City Council. Establishing larger planting sizes earlier in the development process is a desired outcome. Further clarification from the Fire Department regarding the specifics of the Fuel Modification Plan's planting was desired. Diagrams of potential landscaping configurations are provided in the Unfinished Topics Area - Landscaping portion of this report. It is broken into three different zones as it relates to the proximity of a residence and fire risk reduction.
• Rural residential custom lots are different from tract home development. Front-yard areas need to be defined differently.
To add more definition to the City Council’s discussion, staff prepared a baseline comparison of the various elements in the current hillside development regulations with other common sections (e.g., grading, landscaping, fencing, etc.) of the Municipal Code. This comparison is provided in Appendix I (Attachment 8). There may be instances where a specific item needs to be updated more broadly in a future Citywide update of the Development Code, rather than as part of this exercise. Lastly, time permitting, staff will introduce the discussion on “Developed versus Undeveloped” properties as they relate to hillside areas. Staff is prepared to discuss the topic at Workshop 6 time permitting, otherwise it can be covered in a future workshop should the Council want to do so.
CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency.
BACKGROUND
The City Council directed staff at its annual priority and goal-setting workshop on March 29, 2022, to review the hillside development standards, as concerns had been raised about how they were being interpreted and implemented at the project level. The City’s existing hillside development standards, contained in Chapter 16.24 (Hillside Development) of the Murrieta Development Code (MDC), were added in 1997 to support the City’s 1994 General Plan land use goals and policies associated with the City’s hillside features. The General Plan continues to contain goals and policies about hillside areas to “maintain the natural character and the environmental and aesthetic values of sloped areas.”
For details about the historical context of the hillside development standards and why these updates are being brought forward, please refer to the “Background Section” as provided within Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Staff is bringing forward these updates in a continued workshop format for the City Council to review the proposed standards and provide input ahead of a future public hearing.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of these updates is to enhance the clarity and precision of the development standards, thereby supporting their consistent application in the City’s development process. By refining language and enhancing accuracy, the revisions aim to reduce ambiguity, streamline the review process, and increase efficiency in the use of time and resources associated with hillside development.
Within the General Plan framework, the statements below promote responsible development, conservation, and sustainable management of the City’s hillside resources. The City’s standards are intended to strike an appropriate balance between protecting community interests and supporting responsible, feasible development in hillside areas.
General Plan Statements - Hillside Development
The focus of today’s workshop, as noted in the introduction, will be to provide a baseline comparison between the current hillside development regulations and other common Municipal Code sections (e.g., grading, landscaping, fencing). Staff is providing this comparison at this juncture, as this would help everyone understand how hillside regulations differ from other established Municipal Code standards, and perhaps some of those updates could be considered as part of a broader Development Code update outside of this specialized topic.
Staff plans to then conclude the retaining wall and landscaping discussion from the last Workshop, and, if time allows, provide an initial overview/opportunity for feedback of “Developed” versus “Undeveloped” hillside areas. A full discussion of this topic is planned for Workshop 7 in the future.
Follow-Up Discussions from Workshop 5
In response to feedback and direction from Council Workshop No. 5, unfinished focus topics to be discussed will center on potential retaining wall and landscaping standards. The intent is to provide clearer examples of how these elements could be designed and integrated to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas, be responsive to site conditions, and align with applicable City policies and requirements.
Retaining Wall Use and Design
Wall and fencing requirements on hillside properties covered within Chapter 16.24 include standards prioritizing hillside stabilization, aesthetics, and visual impact mitigation, often allowing flexible heights, terraced designs, and native-material finishes, whereas non-hillside emphasizes uniformity, function, and prescriptive measurements such as wall height relative to property zoning setbacks.
At the November 18, 2025, Council Workshop, there was a consensus by the City Council on the following retaining walls design elements:
• Provide flexibility with defined options, while providing some specifics as it relates to retaining walls.
• Retaining walls design standards should be implemented on a Citywide basis.
• Colors should generally be muted as they relate to retaining walls, and exact shades or blends should be defined upfront to ensure a consistent and desirable appearance.
• Retaining walls over six feet in height may be too high in some circumstances on a Citywide basis.
• Having landscaping retaining wall tiers is a desired design element.
However, the City Council wanted to revisit certain aspects of the City’s wall standards as identified below:
Unfinished Focus Topics - Retaining Walls
1. If an applicant needs to propose a retaining wall taller than six feet (a desired Council height based on the last Workshop), should a review process be created so that it goes before a decision-maker? (e.g., Planning Commission)
2. Should retaining wall standards apply on a citywide basis?
3. Councilmembers Warren and DeForest emphasized using larger plantings of shrubs and trees earlier in the development process to provide more effective screening of newly installed retaining walls, though the exact timing was not specified.
4. Does the Council desire any exceptions to this process? For example, if the wall is not visible from the public right-of-way since it is located behind a structure or integrated into a structure?
With further direction, staff will update the draft ordinance to be approved by the City Council.
Landscaping and Aesthetics
Landscaping is a critical component of hillside development because it can help preserve the natural character and visual integrity of prominent landforms while accommodating development in a fire-sensitive environment. Inadequately screened development in hillside areas can result in visually intrusive structures, exposed grading, and sharp contrasts with surrounding natural terrain, thereby undermining the aesthetic and character of Murrieta’s landscape backdrop. Additionally, landscape screening not only mitigates these visual impacts but also provides significant environmental and functional benefits. Strategically placed vegetation and landscaping can help stabilize slopes, reduce erosion, manage stormwater runoff, and enhance soil retention which are important in mitigating potential impacts on hillside properties from development. It also safeguards
For context, the following comparison is intended to help the City Council and the public understand how hillside regulations differ from the City’s standard development requirements as they relate to landscaping, and to highlight where hillside-specific standards are more tailored or restrictive to address unique topographic conditions, grading impacts, visual prominence, and long-term maintenance considerations.
As demonstrated by Appendix I, hillside landscaping standards in Chapter 16.24 contrast with those in non-hillside properties in Chapter 16.28 by emphasizing preservation, slope stabilization, and visual integration with natural landforms, rather than the prescriptive, quantity-based, and site-oriented requirements applied elsewhere in the Municipal Code. The main conflicts arise when prescriptive, minimum landscaping standards clash with hillside preservation goals, especially in terms of vegetation retention, slope stability, and visual integration.
The following points summarize the Council’s prior Workshop direction regarding landscaping and aesthetics and provide a framework for closing this discussion topic.
• Landscaping is an important topic for the Council. Establishing larger planting sizes earlier in the development process is a desired outcome. Further clarification from the Fire Department regarding the specifics of the Fuel Modification Plan's planting is needed.
• Rural residential versus tract home development. Front-yard areas need to be clarified differently.
• Earthtone colors may be a desired design element for hillside areas as they relate to structures, as an alternative to landscaping screening.
The City Council left the following topics open for further consideration:
Unfinished Focus Topics - Landscaping
At the previous workshop, the Council requested additional input from the Murrieta Fire and Rescue regarding the limitations of landscaping in hillside areas, which are typically located in a fire hazard severity zone, in order to better understand potential screening standards. The following summarizes the current requirements for what are generally referred to as “Defensible Space Zones”.
• Zone 0 (0-5 feet from structures):
Zone 0 is the immediate area adjacent to buildings and attachments where all vegetation and combustible materials are removed to eliminate direct fire ignition risks, focusing on hardscaping and noncombustible treatments closest to structures.
• Zone 1 (5-30 feet from structures or to the property line):
Zone 1 emphasizes intensive vegetation management by removing dead or dying vegetation, increasing spacing between plants and trees, and reducing fuel continuity to slow fire spread and reduce radiant heat exposure to structures.
• Zone 2 (30-100 feet, up to 200 feet where warranted):
Zone 2 provides a broader fuel-reduction buffer through mowing, thinning, pruning, and controlled retention of vegetation to reduce fire intensity, ember production, and crown fire potential, with spacing adjusted based on slope and site conditions.
The following graphic illustrates how screening might look using the Defensible Space approach where the primary strategy relies on tree planting for screening:
Source: <https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/wildfire/preparing-homes-for-wildfire>
Both Murrieta Fire and Rescue Fire Prevention staff and the City’s landscaping consultant will be available at the workshop to support the City Council’s discussion concerning this topic.
If the City Council reaches consensus on the questions presented within the preceding focus topics, the next step will be to conclude the discussions on Developed and Undeveloped focus topic discussions. The topic is presented below should the City Council wish to begin the discussion at the workshop.
Developed versus Undeveloped Hillside Properties
The City’s General Plan establishes policy direction for development in hillside areas by recognizing slopes, ridgelines, and associated landforms as physically sensitive and visually prominent parts of the City. These policies do not prohibit development in hillside areas; rather, they call for development to be responsive to site conditions, to avoid unnecessary landform alteration, and to maintain the long-term character of hillside areas as development occurs.
For context, the following information provides an overview of the number of parcels located within the Hillside Area Overlay, categorized according to their status as either Developed or Undeveloped. This classification is based on a comprehensive review of County property tax records, in conjunction with current aerial photography, to determine development status. Parcels identified as Developed generally contain permanent structures and improvements. Undeveloped parcels are largely vacant or maintain their natural terrain with minimal disturbance.
• 319 parcels are developed and are privately owned.
• 179 parcels that are developed are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
• 51 parcels in the study area are undeveloped and privately owned.
• 30 parcels are undeveloped, are privately owned, and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
• 25 parcels are undeveloped and owned by the RCA.
• 1 parcel is undeveloped and is privately owned by an entity for conservation purposes.
• Properties included in a specific plan are omitted.
For properties located within the potential Hillside Overlay area, the following list describes major implementation policies of the Hillside Ordinance relative to the General Plan policies.
• Applies standards based on site conditions
Hillside standards are triggered by slope and terrain, not prior development, consistent with General Plan conservation policies (General Plan - Conservation Element; MMC §16.24.020)
• Directs development to suitable areas of a site
Development is guided toward less steep and less prominent slopes, limiting disturbance on more constrained areas (General Plan - Landform & Grading Policies; MMC §§16.24.060, 16.24.070(A))
• Limits the extent and scale of grading
Standards require development to follow existing topography and avoid excessive cut-and-fill (General Plan - Hillside and Ridgeline Policies; MMC §§16.24.060, 16.24.070(A))
• Manages physical and visual scale of development
Retaining wall height, terracing, materials, and landscaping standards address long-term visibility and site integration (General Plan - Visual Character Policies; MMC §§16.24.060, 16.24.070(D))
• Integrates environmental and safety considerations
Hillside review incorporates biological resources, fire hazard conditions, access, and site stability (General Plan - Conservation & Safety Policies; MMC §16.24.070)
As the City Council continues to weigh the considerations of development policy in hillside areas, staff identified the following aspects of the approaches being discussed that are associated with the absence of hillside standards once a property is developed. Included in this evaluation is Appendix II (Attachment 9) which provides a high-level comparison between the City’s Hillside Development regulations and the standards applied to non-hillside areas. This comparison is intended to help the City Council and the public understand why hillside regulations differ from the City’s standard residential development requirements based on unique hillside property conditions such as slope, terrain, aesthetics, hazardous conditions, and other considerations. The table is only intended for context and clarity by comparing the standards that apply to non-hillside areas with those of hillside areas.
Examples of How the Table Should Be Interpreted
For the topic identified below, the comparison matrix sets the City’s non-hillside conditions as the baseline and identifies the additional needs of hillside properties, and why they are needed.
• Site suitability:
In non-hillside areas, most of a parcel is typically considered buildable. In hillside areas, development is more often directed to less steep portions of a site, with remaining areas potentially constrained by slope or other conditions.
• Grading:
While all properties are subject to City grading permit limits, grading in hillside areas is subject to additional aesthetic criteria due to its permanence and potential to alter natural landforms.
• Retaining walls:
In non-hillside areas, retaining walls are usually accessory features. In hillside areas, retaining walls are often structural elements that shape the site and therefore are subject to additional height, terracing, and design considerations.
• Fire hazard and access:
While fire and life-safety standards apply citywide, hillside development may involve additional considerations related to slope, fuel loading, and emergency access that are less common on flatter sites.
• Visual context:
Development on flatter terrain typically has visual impacts limited to adjoining properties. In hillside areas, grading and structures may be visible over longer distances and time periods, which is reflected in additional design considerations such as landscaping and landform grading design.
Staff also identified potential risks and tradeoffs of modifications to the City’s current approach of managing its hillside resources which are described below.
Potential Risks
• Incremental visual change: Exempting developed parcels may allow future additions, grading, or walls to occur without the design controls that address long-range visibility, potentially resulting in gradual but cumulative changes to hillside appearance over time.
• Inconsistent visual outcomes: Similar slopes and ridgelines could be subject to different design expectations based solely on development status, leading to uneven visual patterns within the same hillside area.
• Reduced ability to manage scale: Without hillside standards, tools that manage retaining wall height, terracing, materials, and screening may not apply to later modifications, increasing the likelihood of visually dominant site features.
• Ridgeline exposure: Developed parcels often retain undeveloped or partially graded areas near ridgelines; removing standards could limit the City’s ability to address new work in visually prominent locations.
• Substantial alterations to topography cannot be undone.
Potential Tradeoffs
• Regulatory simplicity for property owners: Removing developed parcels could reduce review requirements for future improvements on those properties.
• Clearer distinction by development status: Standards would apply primarily to initial development, rather than to subsequent changes on already-developed sites.
• Reduced discretionary review: Fewer projects would be subject to hillside-specific design considerations, potentially shortening review timelines saving applicants/ property owners time and money.
Planning Consideration
As properties develop and become exempted from hillside standards, the City’s original intent of managing important hillsides features will be progressively reduced. The General Plan recognizes hillsides, ridgelines, steep slopes, and prominent landforms as features whose sensitivity and visibility persist over time, regardless of development status. The City’s hillside standards are the primary mechanism through which those features are addressed in the City’s development review process. When developed parcels are exempted from hillside requirements, controls on steep slope grading, structure placement, retaining walls, landscaping, and visual scale will no longer apply to future site changes that may affect remaining natural slopes, ridgelines, or visually prominent areas. Removing developed parcels from hillside standards favors property owners and property rights but may limit the City’s ability to address incremental visual change and maintain consistent community character in hillside areas over time.
As the City Council considers its policy direction on the applicability of hillside standards to developed/ undeveloped properties, staff provided the discussion prompts below that could be used to frame the discussion given the public feedback received and the City Council’s discussion during the workshops.
• No Change In Current Status - Should properties in the proposed overlay zone continue to be subject to the hillside standards to maintain the current General Plan approach to hillside management?
• Exempt from Hillside Standards - For parcels that are considered fully developed, does the City Council wish to establish a specific development threshold in order for a property to become exempt from the hillside overlay standards?
• New Applicability Threshold - Is there an interest in distinguishing between minor property alterations and larger expansions (e.g., grading over a certain quantity, new retaining walls, or significant building area increases) when determining hillside applicability?
• Accessory Building Development - Should hillside standards apply to accessory structures or to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on developed hillside parcels, particularly where new grading or visual exposure is involved?
Conclusion
Through a renewed examination of the original intent of these updates and a careful evaluation of the most appropriate path forward, staff remains committed to developing clear, balanced, and practical standards for a future draft ordinance. These refinements are designed to support responsible hillside development that aligns with the City’s General Plan goals, responds to community input, and fosters a more efficient, transparent, and predictable review process for all stakeholders.
The primary objective of these updates is to refine the development standards, thereby improving clarity, precision, and ease of application for homeowners, project applicants, and City staff. Enhanced organization, simplified language, and improved accuracy are designed to reduce ambiguity, streamline the review process, and conserve time and resources, ultimately enhancing overall implementation and administration.
Concurrently, staff recognize the importance of avoiding the imposition of undue burdens on homeowners and applicants. The proposed feedback aims to strike an appropriate balance between protecting hillside resources and accommodating reasonable development. This balanced approach is intended to facilitate responsible growth that is responsive to site-specific environmental conditions while advancing the City’s long-term vision for hillside management.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
ATT 1 - Planning Commission Ordinance Introduction Staff Report, June 28, 2023
ATT 2 - City Council Workshop 1 Staff Report, August 15, 2023
ATT 3 - City Council Workshop 2 Staff Report, March 5, 2024
ATT 4 - City Council Workshop 3 Staff Report, June 17, 2025
ATT 5 - Citywide - Hillside Overlay Map Exhibit - With Specific Plans
ATT 6 - City Council Workshop 4 Staff Report, October 21, 2025
ATT 7 - City Council Workshop 5 Staff Report, November 18, 2025
ATT 8 - Appendix I Comparison of Hillside Development Requirements Versus Standard Municipal Code Requirements
ATT 9 - Appendix II - Comparison of Major Hillside and Non-Hillside Residential Development Policies and Standards
ATT 10 - Draft Ordinance - Title 16 - Strikeout-Underline
ATT 11 - Correspondence - Prior to Workshop 3