Murrieta City Council
March 5, 2024

The City of Murrieta intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Persons with special needs should call the City Clerk Department at (951) 461-6031 or email at [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Murrieta’s equipment must be submitted to the City Clerk’s department 24 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA; via email at [email protected] or call (951) 461-6031. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

Lori Stone
Mayor
Cindy Warren Lisa DeForest
Mayor Pro Tem Council Member
Jon Levell Ron Holliday
Council Member Council Member
Kim Summers, City Manager
Tiffany Israel, City Attorney
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL (CC)

MURRIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (CSD)

MURRIETA FIRE DISTRICT (FD)

MURRIETA LIBRARY BOARD (LB)

MURRIETA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY (RSA)

MURRIETA HOUSING AUTHORITY (HA)

MURRIETA FINANCING AUTHORITY (FA)
YOU MAY VIEW THE MEETING LIVESTREAMED VIA THE CITY’S WEBSITE AT https://murrieta.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

CITY OF MURRIETA
Council Chambers
1 Town Square
Murrieta 92562
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
3:45 PM CLOSED SESSION
5:00 PM WORKSHOP
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
1 City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2024
3:45 PM CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION
CS1. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
The City Council will conduct a closed session, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8, to enable the City Council to consider negotiations and to give direction to its negotiators regarding that certain real property, at 42670 Juniper Street, APNs 906-250-018; 906-250-019; and 906-670-004. The City’s real property negotiators, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and City Attorney, will seek direction from the City Council regarding the price and terms for this property.

CS2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation The City Council will conduct a closed session, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1), to confer with legal counsel regarding 1 litigation case to which the City is a party. The title of such litigation is as follows: Procko v Murrieta; Case Number 5:22-cv-00005-JGB-SP; District Court of the Southern District of California.

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
5:00 PM WORKSHOP

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
WS1. Hillside Updates Workshop (DCA-2021-2396) - Ordinance Overview Recommended Action:

Receive a presentation by staff, discuss the Ordinance overview, and provide direction related to policy options under the proposed Ordinance framework; and Receive public comments.
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION

2 City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2024

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

PRESENTATIONS
Presentation - French Valley Airport
Certificate of Recognition - Riverside County Arts and Culture Month Received After Agenda Printed - Presentations

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CITY MANAGER - ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE
City Manager Administrative Updates is the opportunity for the City Manager to provide community updates, as well as Department or Commission announcements on current or upcoming projects.
• Fire Department: Murrieta Fire and Rescue - Annual Report, Fire Chief Molloy • Public Information Officer: Community Report, Public Information Officer Cristina Davies Received After Agenda Printed - City Manager Admin Update

GOVERNING BODY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD (CCB) REPORTS Governing Body CCB Reports is the opportunity for the City Council to provide a brief report on conferences, seminars, and Commission, Committees, and/or Boards meeting attendance.

Reports shall not exceed three minutes. The City Clerk will use the computerized timer.

Received After Agenda Printed - GBR

PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time any person may address the governing bodies on any subject pertaining to City business, which does not relate to any item listed on the printed agenda. Normally no action may be considered or taken by the governing bodies on any matter not listed on the agenda.

Each speaker will be limited to three minutes.

Received After Agenda Printed - Public Comments
CONSENT CALENDAR - APPROVAL OF ITEMS 1 – 5
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be considered routine by the governing bodies, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. There will be no discussion of these items unless, before the governing body votes on the motion to adopt, specific items are removed from the Consent Calendar for separate motions.

3 City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2024

1. Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on the Agenda and Read by Title Only Recommended Action:

Waive reading, by title only, of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

2. Minutes
Recommended Action:

Approve the minutes of the February 20, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting.

3. Check Register January 2024
Recommended Action:

Adopt Resolution No. 24-4725 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Ratifying the Check Register for the Month of January 2024, in the amount of $3,597,967.51 (Check Numbers 157873-158231).

4. Monthly Investment Transaction Report for January 2024 Recommended Action:

Receive and file the Monthly Investment Transaction Report for January 2024.

5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 602-24 for the Establishment of Medicinal Cannabis Delivery Location and Operational Standards and Miscellaneous Updates to Existing Cannabis Standards (MCA-2023-00008) to amend Sections 16.08.010, 16.10.010,

16.11.010, 16.12.010, 16.13.010, 16.14.010, and 16.44.250 of the Murrieta Development Code
Recommended Action:

Conduct the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 602-24 entitled: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Amending Title 16 of the Murrieta Development Code to Revise Sections 16.08.010, 16.10.010, 16.11.010, 16.12.010, 16.13.010, 16.14.010, and 16.44.250 for the Establishment of Medicinal Cannabis Delivery Location and Operational Standards and Miscellaneous Updates to Existing Cannabis Standards.

DISCUSSION

6. Adoption of 2024 Legislative Platform
Recommended Action:

Approve the 2024 Legislative Platform, as presented.

4 City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2024

7. Type 1 Fire Engine Purchase
Recommended Action:

Adopt Resolution No. 24-4726 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, Authorizing the Purchase of a Type 1 Engine through a Cooperative Purchasing Program in Accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.08.295 and Establishing an Appropriation in the Fiscal Year of Delivery Using the Measure T Fire Fleet Replacement Reserve to Fund Costs Associated with the Purchase and Upfitting of the Type 1 Engine; and Authorize the City Manager to approve the South Coast Fire Equipment proposal and zero-dollar purchase order to initiate the Type 1 Engine construction.

8. Fiscal Year 2023/24 Second Quarter Financial Status Report Recommended Action:

Receive and file the report;
Authorize an appropriation using Measure T Facility Repair Reserves for CIP project 21035 in the amount of $83,000; and
Approve the Updated Schedule of Authorized Positions List.

9. Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Need for Expanded Public Higher Education Institutions within Southwestern Riverside County Recommended Action:

Adopt Resolution No. 24-4727, entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Supporting the Need for Expanded Public Higher Education Institutions within Southwestern Riverside County and State and Regional Funding for the Cost of Tenant Improvements to Create an Expanded Presence for California State University, San Marcos at the Mt. San Jacinto College Campus in Temecula Valley.

GOVERNING BODY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Governing Body Announcements is the opportunity for the City Council to provide miscellaneous reports and announcements. Announcements shall not exceed two minutes.

The City Clerk will use the computerized timer.

Received After Agenda Printed - GBA

COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS TO ADD ITEMS TO FUTURE AGENDAS
This is the opportunity for Council Members to request items and receive consensus for items to be added to a future agenda. There will be no discussion or debate on the requests; a brief explanation of the request may be given.

ADJOURNMENT
Received After Agenda Printed - Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote

5 CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. CS1.

CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/29/2024
powered by Legistar™ 6

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. CS2.

CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/29/2024
powered by Legistar™ 7

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David Chantarangsu, AICP Development Services Director PREPARED BY: Chris Tracy, AICP Senior Planner, Advanced Planning SUBJECT: Hillside Updates Workshop (DCA-2021-2396) - Ordinance Overview

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation by staff, discuss the Ordinance overview, and provide direction related to policy options under the proposed Ordinance framework; and
Receive public comments.

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 providing updates to the hillside development standards amending Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) Chapters

8.20, 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. The workshop was continued to a future meeting date . Additional details from this discussion are provided within the Analysis portion of this report below (Attachment 2).

CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency.

BACKGROUND
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 Attachment 1. Staff is bringing forward these updates in a continued workshop for the City Council to review the proposed standards and provide input ahead of a future public hearing. This allows for time for staff to walk through the more complex updates with the City Council and allows for feedback on new information produced by staff since the last CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 8
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.
workshop.

The purpose of this effort to update the City’s hillside standards is to improve readability and graphic exhibits, resolve code inconsistencies, incorporate best practices, and simplify the standards to make them more userfriendly to staff and applicants. The City’s existing hillside development standards, contained in Chapter 16.24 (Hillside Development) of the Development Code, 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 in hillside areas to “maintain the natural character and the environmental and aesthetic values of sloped areas.”
Analysis
As described in the beginning of this report, the City Council conducted a first workshop on this item on August 15, 2023. The workshop was continued to allow staff to conduct additional analysis in response to City Council questions and public concerns. Specifically, the City Council directed staff to provide additional mapping details for both the hillside areas and prominent ridgeline map exhibits. These recommended updates cover parcels that are owned by the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA), properties that fall under Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Preservation (MSHCP) Criteria Cells, City-owned parcels, and to identify undeveloped and developed parcels within areas potentially affected by changes to the proposed standards. Attachments 3 through 11 depict the data described above graphically through multiple maps and were created using the City’s land use data available through its GIS software.

As a result of the additional analysis conducted by staff, it was determined that out of 371 privately owned parcels, only 51 would be fully affected by changes to the hillside standards since they were not previously developed. The developed 179 parcels would be subject to the new hillside standards if adopted, but existing development would remain. Only new developments such as additions, property redevelopment where housing structures were rebuilt, or future subdivisions/ lot splits would be affected. City and RCA-owned parcels would be unaffected since parcel development is not the goal of public agency ownership of open space lands other than for recreational purposes. Staff notes a key development restriction applicable to ridgelines would be removed with the proposed regulations and replaced with requirements for landscape screening.

Hillside Area(s)
· 319 parcels are developed and are privately owned. These parcels would be subject to the new requirements if additional development on the parcels was ever proposed, such as a room addition, reconstruction of a home, or a subdivision or parcel map. · 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. These parcels represent the remaining undeveloped areas within the proposed Hillside Overlay area that would be required to follow the new requirements if adopted.
· 30 parcels are undeveloped, are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell. · 0 parcels are undeveloped, publicly owned, and are within the boundaries of 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.

Prominent Ridgeline(s)
· 22 parcels are developed and are privately owned.
· 21 parcels are developed, are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.

CITY OF MURRIETA Page 2 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 9
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.
· 8 parcels are undeveloped and privately owned.
· 7 parcels are undeveloped, privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell. · 0 parcels are undeveloped and publicly owned.
· 0 parcels are undeveloped, publicly owned and are within the boundaries of an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
· 0 parcels are undeveloped and are owned by the RCA.

With respect to acreage, the total acreage for all parcels within the mapped hillside areas encompasses 2,157 acres throughout the City. Staff notes this figure includes prominent ridgeline areas. Undeveloped privatelyowned parcels represent approximately 457 acres, conserved publicly-owned parcels represent approximately 492 acres, City-owned parcels represent approximately 163 acres, developed and publicly-owned parcels represent approximately 177 acres, and developed privately owned parcels represent approximately 1,152 acres.

Lastly, the total acreage for all parcels within the mapped Prominent Ridgelines Area encompasses approximately 445 acres. Staff notes that overlay does not cover the entirety of a parcel. Undeveloped privately owned parcels within the ridgelines area represent approximately 114 acres, conserved publiclyowned parcels represent approximately 170 acres, and developed privately owned parcels represent approximately 161 acres.

Mapping Updates
On December 2022, the Murrieta Hills Specific Plan was annexed into the City’s boundaries as approved by Riverside County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Murrieta Hills is adjacent to the Greer Ranch Specific Plan along its northerly boundary and has a large variation in topography throughout the project’s boundaries. The prior Hillside Overlay Map Exhibit identified much of the Murrieta Hills project area as being within the overlay boundaries. Similar to other specific plans within the City, Murrieta Hills has its own hillside development protocols. Given this additional detail, staff updated the map (see the following page for the image and as referenced under Attachment 3) to reflect this recent boundary modification.

Image 1 - Hillside Overlay Exhibit
Summary of Proposed Code Modifications - MMC Chapters 8.20 and 15.52:
· Updates to MMC Section §8.20.030 “Declaration of Nuisance” o Code Enforcement Division’s request to address revegetation of sloped areas after a catastrophic event.
· Updates to MMC Section §15.52.020 “Definitions” for Consistency” o Clarification of a definition for “Hillside Area” and “Hillside Site” for consistency with the proposed updates under Chapter 16.

Summary of Proposed Code Modifications - MMC Title 16
For the updates as proposed under Title 16, please refer to Attachment 12 for a “side-by-side” comparison as it relates to the current MMC Section versus the proposed updates. Lastly, as provided in Attachment 12, a “Strikeout-Underline” version of the proposed amendments is included for further details as the Planning Commission recommends (Attachment 13).

For the City Council’s reference, staff also prepared the table below to describe the changes recommended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission. Attachment 13 depicts additions and deletions to the CITY OF MURRIETA Page 3 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 10
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.
proposed ordinance in redline/strike-through format.

Summary of Changes
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 4 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 11
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

The following points summarize the findings from the mapping analysis:
“Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading - Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters There is public interest in these overall updates, particularly concerning ridgeline development parameters and how regulations apply to existing natural hillside areas versus areas previously graded referred to as manufactured slopes. The applicability of the current standards is summarized below as contained in MMC Section 16.24.020. Regardless of how the ordinance may have been applied in the past, the Municipal Code requires the standards be applied in the following situations as specified in MMC Section 16.24.020:
· To uses and structures within areas with a slope of twenty (20) percent or greater and/or are designated on the significant features map on file with the department.

CITY OF MURRIETA Page 5 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 12
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.
· Development standards, guidelines, and provisions of Chapter 16.24 shall be applied to those portions of land with a predominance of significant natural slopes exceeding twenty-five (25) percent and areas that are integrally contiguous or slopes determined as significant by the director. · The determination of slope is to be computed on the natural slope of the land before grading is commenced.

Notwithstanding the conflicting slope language that currently exists, the application of City hillside standards in MMC Chapter 16.24 applies to property that exceeds a certain natural slope. Since many properties potentially eligible for the proposed regulations were developed under county jurisdiction, there is no precise way to determine which areas of a site are natural or disturbed other than through an engineering opinion. Adoption of the proposed Hillside Overlay Map eliminates any debate or confusion about this topic. Even the current hillside ordinance recognizes that a property with natural and disturbed grades is still subject to the requirements of the hillside ordinance as described by the second bullet point above.

The following information also provides the current General Plan within the Municipal Code and staff’s related analysis.

General Plan Provisions and Ridgelines
The following summarizes the General Plan’s Goals and Policies related to ridgeline development. · Goal CSV-5: “Hills and ridges are protected for their environmental and aesthetic values", and related implementing Policy CSV-5.1. To substantiate this determination, this ordinance update will remain consistent with Policy CSV-5.1 and the following discussion. o Policy CSV-5.1: “Promote compliance with hillside development standards and guidelines to maintain the natural character and the environmental and aesthetic values of sloped areas.”
For the Los Alamos Hills community: Land Use Goal LU-22 applies to ridgeline development in that “...Natural and visual resources are valued resources to maintain the rural character of the Los Alamos Hills” and is achieved with the following policies:
o LU-22.1: “Encourage the preservation of natural and visual resources within Los Alamos Hills, such as rock outcroppings and scenic views of the local hills and valleys, to the greatest degree practicable."
o LU-22.2 “Encourage new construction and landscape design that utilizes grading techniques to mimic the natural terrain.”
Development Code Provisions and Ridgelines
Chapter 16.24 Current Definitions and Design Parameters:

Prominent Ridge: A ridge or hill location that is visible from Interstate 15 or Interstate 215 or from an arterial or secondary street that forms part of the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of land.

Ridge: An extended, narrow, conspicuous elevation of land generally between valleys. (Staff note: the defined term “Ridge” has been separated from the definition of “Prominent Ridge” for the purposes of this report. As of this writing, it is not known if the language should be separated or left as is. This will require further staff review).

A. Site Design.

CITY OF MURRIETA Page 6 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 13
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

1. Design of building sites should be sensitive to the natural terrain. Structures should be located to minimize grading and preserve natural features (e.g., prominent knolls, ridgelines, etc.)

2. Preserve views of significant visual features, as designated on the hillside overlay zone map, as seen from both within and outside a hillside development. When designing lots and plotting homes, the following provisions should be considered:
a. Dwellings should be oriented to allow view opportunities even though views may be limited.

Residential privacy should not be unreasonably sacrificed, and b. A significant public vista, skyline, open space corridor, or vertical open space corridor as seen from an interstate, an arterial, or a secondary street should be a major design element in the site planning process

3. Structures shall not visually impair ridgeline silhouettes. Structures are not permitted closer to a prominent ridge than fifty (50) feet measured vertically on a cross-section or one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontally on a topographic map, whichever is more restrictive. Exceptions to this requirement for public facilities, utilities, and infrastructure necessary to serve the public health, safety, and welfare may be considered by the commission.
e. Manufactured cut and fill slopes exceeding ten feet in height that will be either exposed to permanent public view or are adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas should be designed with features characteristic of natural slopes, where physically feasible so that their ultimate appearance will resemble a natural slope.

This will include slopes along streets and highways adjacent to parks, schools, open spaces, other public facilities, and other prominent and visible slopes.

Discussion
As demonstrated in the above descriptions, both the General Plan and Municipal Code call for the preservation of “ridgeline-related” visual resources covering both natural and manmade areas. Policy CSV-5.1 speaks to maintaining the aesthetic values of sloped areas where the ridgeline would be a slope component.

For the Los Alamos Hills Area under LU-22.1, calls for the preservation of both natural and visual resources, and LU-22.2 speaks to encouraging new construction and landscape design that utilizes grading techniques to mimic the natural terrain. Again, the ridgeline would be an aesthetic component under both of these implementing policies.

As described within the Development Code, it calls for the preservation of significant visual features, and one could make the case that a ridgeline represents this type of feature, whether natural or manmade. Further, it describes that structures shall not visually impair ridgeline silhouettes with setback criteria. Lastly, manufactured cut and fill slopes with prominent and visible slopes need to be designed in a manner that emulates natural conditions.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Ordinance Introduction Staff Report, June 28, 2023

2. City Council Workshop 1 Staff Report, August 15, 2023

3. Citywide - Hillside Overlay Map Exhibit

4. Citywide - Prominent Ridgelines Map Exhibit

5. Focused 1 - Prominent Ridgelines - Los Alamos Hills Area

6. Focused 2 - Hillside - Los Alamos Hills Area

7. Focused 3 - Hillside - Greer Ranch Area
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 7 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 14
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

8. Focused 4 - Hillside - Murrieta Hills Area

9. Focused 5 - Hillside - Bear Creek Area

10. Focused 6 - Hillside - Western City Quadrant - Northwest Section

11. Focused 7 - Hillside - Western City Quadrant - Southwest Section

12. Title 16 Modifications - “Side-by-Side” Comparison

13. Draft Ordinance - Title 16 - Strikeout-Underline

14. Correspondence
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 8 of 8 Printed on 3/4/2024
powered by Legistar™ 15
Template Version 012019
Final Action
☒ City Council
☐ Planning Commission
Subject: Hillside Updates (DCA-2021-2396) to amend Chapters 8.20 and

15.52 of the Murrieta Municipal Code, and to amend the Murrieta Development Code (Title 16) for the purpose of revising and updating Chapters 16.08, 16.10, 16.11, 16.12, 16.13, 16.14, 16.18,

16.22, 16.24, 16.28 and new Sections 16.24.080, entitled “Exceptions”, 16.24.090, entitled “Reserved”, 16.24.100, entitled “Hillside Overlay Map”, and 16.24.110, entitled “Prominent Ridgelines Map”
Date: June 28, 2023
Prepared by: Christopher Tracy, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Carl Stiehl, Interim City Planner
Approved by: Jarrett Ramaiya, Deputy Development Services Director David Chantarangsu, AICP - Development Services Director

RECOMMENDATION

1. Find that the proposed action is consistent with the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.

Seq. (the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15162 for the reasons specified in this report; and

2. Receive public comments; and

3. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council introduce and place on first reading an Ordinance for the Title 16 updates reflective of Attachment 1.3 and Attachment 1.4 (Exhibits “C” and “D”).

BACKGROUND
The City adopted a General Plan in 1994 following incorporation in 1991. At that time, it was determined that all development decisions were to continue using Riverside County’s Ordinance No. 348 (Zoning) until such time that the City adopted its own zoning code, provided that the County’s Ordinance No. 348 was not in conflict with the General Plan. For context, Title 16 of the Murrieta Development Code (Development Code) within the Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC) is the primary instrument for implementing the City’s General Plan. It provides the City’s regulations for the development and use of property within the City limits and provides standards for development, subdivisions, and other related land use activities.

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Report
16

Template Version 082020
In August 1996, the City Council retained a design consultant to assist with the development of a new zoning code. In September 1997, the City began the adoption process for the Development Code after holding several joint Planning Commission and City Council public workshops to receive public input and to identify development standards. In early 1998, the City implemented new zoning and development standards replacing Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The new standards included hillside development. Other than minor updates in 2003, the City’s hillside development standards have remained relatively unchanged since adoption.

When the standards were initially adopted, they were applied on a citywide basis and not specifically to designated hillside areas within the City. Further, the City did not have the ability to identify hillside areas on its own. At some point in time, a map of the City’s hillside features was created which was not codified within the MMC. The information has been utilized in the past with respect to project review, but uncertainty remained regarding its accuracy. With changes in technology, the ability exists to identify hillside areas on a citywide basis with certainty using geographic information software commonly referred to as GIS.

Additionally, over time staff discovered inconsistent standards between existing Municipal Code sections that conflict with interpretations of the current standards. For example, Staff has received feedback from applicants that the City’s hillside standards and general height standards are overly complicated and have not been consistently applied.

The overall goal of these updates is to re-draft the development standards into language that is more concise and accurate for applicants and staff. With these proposed modifications, staff anticipates that proposed modifications would improve readability, resolve code inconsistencies, incorporate best practices, and simplify standards to make them more user-friendly to staff and applicants.

City Council directed staff at its annual priority goals workshop on March 29, 2022, to review the hillside development standards as there were concerns about how it was being interpreted. For reference, the City’s existing hillside development standards are contained in Chapter 16.24 “Hillside Development” of the Development Code. The proposed updates were recently reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (Attachment 2). Lastly, a webpage was created for the proposed modifications to inform the public about the proposed changes at the following link on the City’s website: https://www.murrietaca.gov/1314/HillsideOrdinance-Updates.

Development Advisory Group
On August 25, 2022, staff presented an overview of proposed changes to the Development Advisory Group (DAG) to receive feedback on proposed standards. The consensus from the group was that the proposed standards will be beneficial in clarifying the applicability of hillside standards. Staff notes it also had the benefit of consultant assistance through a grant program administered by the Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG). Within the parameters of this grant program, staff was able to obtain updated graphic images as provided within the draft Ordinance by working with PlaceWorks, at no cost to the City. 17

Template Version 082020
Planning Commission Workshop 1
This item was continued from the December 14, 2022 meeting. No report or presentation was provided.

Planning Commission Workshop 2
On January 25, 2023, staff presented proposed changes to the Planning Commission in a workshop format to review the current and proposed standards ahead of a future public hearing.

The purpose of this effort was to receive feedback on the more substantial issues with current MMC provisions and potential standards. Below is an overview of these Discussion Items:

1. Code conflicts for measuring building height, and staff’s recommendation to use an specific grade reference point that accounts for topography.

2. Hillside mapping using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software.

3. Removal of the Average Slope Calculation from the Development Code and replacement with GIS information for identification of slope contours using 2-foot contour data.

4. Ridgeline mapping using GIS software for identification of these locations and application of techniques for development screening at ridgeline locations.

5. Updated standards for retaining walls, both inside and outside hillside areas.

The other items presented by staff were potential techniques to improve the readability of the existing MMC, examples of graphics that could be incorporated, highlights of areas to resolve code inconsistencies, ways to incorporate best practices, and suggestions from staff on how to simplify the standards to make them more user-friendly to both staff and applicants.

Due to time constraints from the robust discussion from both the public and Planning Commission, there was not enough time to cover the proposed retaining wall updates. Staff will cover this in more detail within the Analysis portion of this report. Comprehensively, all of the updates for consideration which relate to the hillside development standards are included in the draft Ordinance.

Community Outreach Workshop
On April 11, 2023 at the Alderwood Park Clubhouse, staff hosted a presentation on the existing and proposed hillside standards. Staff held the workshop to obtain additional feedback from the community on the proposed hillside development standards. This additional outreach was conducted per direction from the prior Planning Commission meeting for further community input and transparency. Areas that were covered were inclusive of existing and proposed Hillside Overlay applicability, height allowances for structures, height measurement criteria, hillside slope applicability, average slope calculation, prominent ridgelines, and retaining wall criteria. Lastly, staff provided some time for questions/answers at the end of the presentation for feedback.

Overview - Greer Ranch and Copper Canyon Specific Plans It should be noted that portions of the proposed Hillside Area Overlay cover both the Greer Ranch and Copper Canyon Specific Plans areas. For context, a Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the goals and policies of the Murrieta General Plan. Specific Plans serve as 18

Template Version 082020
standalone planning documents with their own unique development standards within a defined area. This would include their own development standards for hillside areas. Areas with adopted specific plans would be excluded from any changes to the hillside regulations, except where noted.

Greer Ranch
With the implementation of the Greer Ranch Specific Plan, it was described as “...the site is characterized by two valleys created by three northeast to southwest trending ridgelines.

Elevations range from 1,560 to 2,160 feet above mean sea level. A highlands area is created by the hills in the northwestern portion of the Site. Development will be primarily restricted to areas of less than 25 percent slope (Greer Ranch Specific Plan, Page 1).” Given this standard in the specific plan, a project would avoid areas over 25 percent slope within Greer Ranch that would otherwise be considered a “Hillside Area” under the City’s hillside development standards.

When reviewing projects within the Greer Ranch Specific Plan on the steeper hillside areas of the plan area, there are provisions for limited pad grading and landform grading techniques. This mirrors the same approaches as provided in the Citywide Development Code: “...The Estate Residential use areas (Planning Areas 6 and 7) are characterized by more steeply-sloped, visible hillsides, particularly in the northwest portions of the Site. Limited pad grading and other minimal grading techniques, in addition to landform grading, will be stressed in the design of development within these areas (see Exhibit 12). A key factor affecting the grading here is access, which is provided with a modified "Mountain Local" road designed to minimize grading and reduce landform impacts (Greer Ranch Specific Plan, Page 34).” Copper Canyon
As described within the Specific Plan “...The prominent ridgelines and hillsides onsite are preserved in open space. Adherence to special hillside grading design criteria and development standards is required in the adjacent development areas to minimize and soften transitional grading impacts. (Copper Canyon Specific Plan, Page 290).” Furthermore, “...A slope analysis of the site was prepared early in the planning process to determine the site development opportunities and constraints. The analysis evaluated slopes of 0-15%, 16%-20%, 25% and 50% with an emphasis on slopes of less than 25% as a benchmark for determining developable areas and preservation requirements. Areas of 25% slope or greater are largely avoided.

The preservation of visually prominent ridgelines and steep hillside areas is a major design feature of the Specific Plan, supported by a comprehensive set of hillside grading, infrastructure, land use, and landscaping design standards and guidelines (Copper Canyon Specific Plan, Page 292).” Similar to Greer Ranch, Copper Canyon would also avoid those areas considered a “Hillside Area” under the citywide development standards.

In addition, the Specific Plan does have provisions for consistency with the hillside development standards when implemented: “...Based upon a directive from the City’s General Plan process a Hillside Overlay Zone (HOZ) was developed to identify prominent hillside and ridge line features of the City. The HDO establishes policies for the treatment of areas identified as being within or adjacent to the HOZ. A portion of the Copper Canyon site associated with the escarpment has been included in the HOZ and is subject to the provisions of the HDO. 19

Template Version 082020
To ensure that the development of the proposed specific plan will be consistent with the HDO, the portions of the project site subject to the provisions of the HDO were identified. While much of the project site is proposed for open space uses where the HOZ is identified, Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2, Planning Area 16 (the golf course), and Planning Area 18 (the golf clubhouse, under the “Golf Course Alternative”) are largely located within the HOZ (Cooper Canyon Specific Plan, Page 40).”

ANALYSIS
The following analysis covers the major proposed modifications that were previously discussed at both the Planning Commission and Community Workshops, as well as, a summary of the more non-substantive modifications.

Summary of Code Changes – Chapters 8.20 and 15.52 (For Informational Purposes Only – Limited to City Council Review) (Attachments 1.1 and 1.2):
 Updates to Section §8.20.030 “Declaration of Nuisance” o Code Enforcement Division’s request to address revegetation of sloped areas after a catastrophic event.
o Following a catastrophic event causing a loss of vegetation (i.e. wildfire, landslide, etc.), all impacted sloped areas of a subject parcel shall be revegetated to prevent further erosion pursuant to Section 16.28.080 “Landscaping Standards”.  Updates to Section §15.52.020 “Definitions” for Consistency o Clarification of a definition for “Hillside Area” and “Hillside Site” for consistency with the proposed updates under Chapter 16.
o “Hillside Area,” means those areas specifically designated in a Hillside Overlay as adopted by the City.

Summary of Code Changes – Title 16 (Attachments 1.3 and 1.4):

The proposed code changes are intended to clarify existing Hillside Development regulations and applicability, remove redundancies, clarify code sections, and streamline review processes where applicable. A summary of the changes proposed is reflected below. The modifications as described below run parallel with the order of the attached Ordinance Amendment:
 Updates to Development Standards Table Updates: Tables 16.08-3, and 16.08-4 o Addition of footnotes on where someone would go to find the maximum building height and if the property is within a “Hillside Area”. o Updates Section §16.08.020 “Residential Districts General Development Standards”, Table 16.08-03 “Residential (Single-Family) Zones General Development Standards” refers back to this footnote.
20

Template Version 082020
o Updates Section §16.08.020 “Residential Districts General Development Standards”, Table 16.08-04 “Residential (Multi-Family) Zones General Development Standards” refers back to this footnote.
 Updates to Section §16.08.030.5.c “Single-family Residential Design Standards and Design Features”
o Provides a new cross-reference from Section §16.08.030.5.c “Single-family Residential Design Standards and Design” to Section §16.22.070(F) “Retaining Walls” for someone to locate retaining wall criteria.
 Updates to Section §16.08.040.7.c “Multi-family Residential Design Standards” o Provides a new cross-reference from Section §16.08.040.7.c “Walls” to Section §16.22.070(F) “Retaining Walls” for the centralized retaining wall criteria.  Development Standards Table Updates: Tables 16.10-2, 16.11-2, and 16.12-2 o Addition of footnotes on where to go to find the maximum building height and if the property is within a “Hillside Area”.
o Section §16.10.020 “Commercial District General Development Standards”, Table

16.10-2 “Commercial Zones General Development Standards Requirements” refers to this footnote.
o Section §16.11.020 “Office Districts General Development Standards”, Table 16.11- 2 “Office Districts General Development Standards” refers to this footnote. o Section §16.12.020 “Business Park and Industrial Districts General Development Standards”, Table 16.12-2 “Business Park and Industrial Zones General Development Standards” refers to this footnote.
 Updates to Section §16.12.030 “Business Park and Industrial Zoning Districts Design Standards”
o Provides a new cross-reference from Section §16.12.030.4.d “Screen Walls/Fencing” to Section §16.22.070(F) “Retaining Walls” for the centralized retaining wall criteria.
 Development Standards Table Updates: Tables 16.13-2 and Table 16.14-2 o Provides footnotes on where to go to find the maximum building height and if the property is within a “Hillside Area”.
21

Template Version 082020
o Section §16.13.020 “Innovation District General Development Standards”, Table

16.13-2 “Innovation District General Development Standards” refers to this footnote. o Section §16.14.010 “Purpose”, Table 16.14-2 “Special Purpose Districts General Development Standards” refers to this footnote.
 Updates to Section §16.18.080 “Height Measurement and Height Limit Exceptions” Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 1 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:

This standard creates ambiguity as to when the City’s Hillside Development standards apply. Relatedly, Chapter 16.24 could be misapplied beyond the maximum slope height criteria as identified under Section 16.18.080 “Height Measurement and Height Limit Exceptions”. Staff is aware of an inconsistent interpretation that has been raised regarding how an applicant would measure a slope under a 14.3 percent slope (onefoot rise or fall in 7 feet). The measurement for a building pad would remain unchanged with these proposed modifications.

Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

This was presented at the Planning Commission Workshop as Discussion Item 1. Staff suggested the below updates as they would provide uniform standards for measuring height on a slope and pad irrespective of a given percentage. Outside of the Hillside Overlay area, the maximum height would be based on the underlying zone maximum height criteria. If a project is located within the mapped Hillside Overlay area, then a 30- foot maximum height would apply to those to those areas greater than 25 percent. The direction to staff from the Planning Commission was that this approach was agreeable for incorporation into the Ordinance amendment.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented for a second time at the hosted community workshop.

The feedback from the group was positive and felt the proposed modifications were easier to implement versus the current criteria.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:

Section 16.18.080 (Height Measurement and Height Limit Exceptions) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

All structures shall meet the following standards relating to height, except for fences and walls, which shall comply with Chapter 16.22 (Fences, Hedges, and Walls).

A. Maximum Height. The height of structures shall not exceed the standard established by the applicable zoning district in Article II (Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses) or for structures within a Hillside Area under Section 16.24.020.A. In addition, the Mmaximum height for structures on a specific parcel shall be measured as follows:the vertical distance from finish grade to an imaginary plane located the allowed number of feet above and parallel to the finish grade.
22

Template Version 082020
FIGURE 3-1

HEIGHT MEASUREMENT

1. Establishing the high point and low point on the property as reference grade points as follows:
a. A measurement is taken from the lower of existing or proposed grade, 5 feet away from the lowest grade point around the structure in accordance with Figure 16.18-

1. This point shall be the low reference grade point. The highest point anywhere on the structure may not exceed the elevation of that low grade point by more than the allowable height plus the grade differential between the low point of structure and high point of structure (excluding items as detailed under Section 16.18.080(B) (Exceptions to Height Limits)), but in such case where the actual grade differential exceeds 10 feet, only a maximum of 10 feet may be added to the maximum allowable height per the zone.

The measurement is the difference in elevation between the highest and the lowest adjacent ground elevation surrounding the building.

FIGURE 16.18-1

MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
b. If the difference in elevation is 10 feet or less, the reference grade point is established at the highest adjacent ground elevation. See Figure 16.18-2. If the difference in elevation is greater than 10 feet, the reference grade point is established at 10 feet above the lowest adjacent ground elevation. See Figure 16.18-3. For stepped 23

Template Version 082020
or terraced buildings, the building height is the overall height as illustrated in Figures

16.18-4 and Figure 16.18-5.

FIGURES 16.18-2, -3, -4. -5

MEASUREMENT CRITERIA
c. For a project with a proposed pad configuration, the height of the structure measured by the vertical distance from the finished grade to the height of the roof line.

See Figure 16.18-6.
o The structure height measurement is the difference in elevation between the highest and the lowest “Adjacent Ground Elevation” located five feet from the building. If the actual grade difference exceeds 10 feet, a maximum of 10 feet may be added to the maximum allowable height per the zone to accommodate areas such as crawl spaces.

Additionally, staff is proposing under this scenario, chimneys, vent pipes, etc. would be permitted to exceed this limit up to 15 percent as provided currently under MMC §16.18.080.C. - “Exceptions to Height Limits.” This approach reduces grading in some respects and promotes a grading design that follows natural grades. o If the difference in elevation is 10 feet or less, the reference grade height is established at the highest “Adjacent Ground Elevation”. Figures 16.18-2 and 16.18-4. 24

Template Version 082020
o If the difference in elevation is greater than 10 feet, the reference grade height is established at 10 feet above the lowest “Adjacent Ground Elevation”. Figures 16.18- 3 and 16.18-5.
o Provides some flexibility to account for some subterranean areas that one would encounter on a sloped property (i.e. crawl space areas below a stem wall). o Provides some flexibility for someone to have a covered elevated deck or balcony within this height envelope.
o For where there are steeper slopes, where the elevation difference is 10 feet or greater, the measurement envelope tightens as height would pull back with the slope.

This would minimize the overall height.
o For gentler slopes where there is a differential of less than or equal to 10 feet, it accounts for slight variation at a building site.
o On a very steep lot, it may limit the height of the building on the highest uphill side.

FIGURE 16.18-6

MEASUREMENT WITH PAD CONFIGURATION
B. Structures on Sloping Parcels. Where the average slope of a parcel is greater than one foot rise or fall in 7 feet of distance from the street elevation at the property line, structure height shall be measured in compliance with Chapter 16.24 (Hillside Development).

CB. Exceptions to Height Limits. Exceptions to the height limits identified in this development code shall apply in the following manner:

1. Roof-mounted Features. Roof-mounted features including chimneys, cupolas, clock towers, elevator equipment rooms, equipment enclosures, and similar architectural features shall be allowed, up to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet above the allowed structure height. The total square footage of all structures above 25

Template Version 082020
the heights allowed in the zoning districts shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total roof area of the structure. Greater height or area coverage may be allowed subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 16.52.

2. Parapet Walls. Fire or parapet walls may extend up to four feet above the allowable height limit of the structure.

3. Public Assembly, Hotels, Class "A" Office and Public Structures. Places of public assembly including churches, schools, assembly halls, Class "A" office buildings greater than three (3) stories, hotels and other similar structures may exceed the established height limit by one (1) foot for every two (2) feet that the minimum required front, rear and side yard setbacks are increased. The increase in the front, rear and side yard setbacks is determined by averaging the total of the increased building setbacks at the closest point on all sides. The maximum additional height allowed is thirty (30) feet above the height limit established for the applicable zoning district. This exception shall not apply when the site is adjacent to single-family zoned property. This exception may be used in conjunction with the height exception for rooftop equipment.

4. Telecommunications Facilities. Telecommunication facilities, including antennae, poles, towers, and necessary mechanical appurtenances, may be authorized to exceed the height limit established for the applicable zoning district, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 16.52.

5. Basement. A basement is defined as a story that has its floor surface below the adjoining finished grade as both conditioned and unconditioned space per the California Building and Residential Codes.
…
o For a proposed building pad location, the height of the building is the vertical distance from the finished grade to the height of the roof line. o The finished grade is a known metric and easily identifiable element. o This mirrors the current standard and it is a simple approach for both a project applicant and City staff.
o This is a relatively easy standard for an applicant to show compliance with elevations and height measurements on a standard set of plans.
 Updates Section §16.18.140.D.4.b “Setback Regulations and Exceptions” Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 5 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:

Presently, Section §16.18.140.D.4.b refers to two retaining wall standards with one standard facing outward and inward; however, it is missing some other wall components that are needed to address line-of-sight and visibility triangles, required offset for step26

Template Version 082020
back, general design criteria, and a cross-reference to retaining wall criteria in Hillside Areas.
o Makes our existing standards easier to follow for applicants and staff for retaining wall criteria.
o Applies Citywide
Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

This was presented at the Planning Commission Workshop as Discussion Item 5. As mentioned in the introduction, due to time constraints from the robust discussion from both the public and the Planning Commission; there was not enough time to cover the proposed retaining wall updates at the Planning Commission Workshop on January 25, 2023.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented at the hosted community workshop. The feedback from the group was that having Table 16.18-2 and having the existing parameters consolidated into one table would be easier for staff and project applicants to follow. Having the retaining wall offset at 12 feet in height was positively received as well.

Proposed Modifications:

TABLE 16.18-2

RETAINING WALLS - NON-HILLSIDE AREAS
Criteria
Facing Outward Within Front or
Street-Side Setback
For residential, mixed-use
locations, commercial, and
industrial, retaining walls within
a front yard or street-side
setback shall not exceed four
feet in height.

Facing Inward Retaining walls up to six feet in
height may be located within a
required setback provided the
exposed side of the wall faces
into the subject parcel and shall
incorporate landscaping to
screen the wall(s).

Line-of-Sight Locations/Visibility
Triangles
For any required line–of–sight
locations or visibility triangles, a
maximum of thirty inches in
height shall be permitted.

Six Feet or Greater - Retaining
Wall Facing Outward
Retaining walls six feet or
greater in height shall be subject
to the same setback
27

Template Version 082020
requirements as the main
structure in the applicable
zoning district and shall
incorporate landscaping to
screen the wall(s).

Required Offset At twelve feet in height, a
retaining wall shall be separated
by a minimum of six feet
horizontally to accommodate
landscaping.

Design Criteria Refer to Section 16.22.070(F)
(Retaining Walls).

Retaining Wall(s) within Hillside
Areas
Refer to Table 16.24-2
(Retaining Walls – Designated
Hillside Areas)
Discussion:

To walk through the proposed parameters:

First, for the first row, with a retaining wall facing outward within the front or street-side setback, an applicant would be looking at a 4-foot maximum height. This would be for walls within a required front or side setback. Past the setback line, a retaining wall can be as tall a structure for that underlying zone. This is the current standard. For the second row, with a retaining wall facing inward, an applicant would be looking at a 6-foot maximum height. An example would be a parking area at a lower elevation than the street. For the third row, for any line-of-sight areas, a proposed maximum height would be thirty inches for safety issues for vehicle visibility. This is consistent with current standards for this design by engineering but just reinforced here. For the fourth row, for a retaining wall six feet or greater would be subject to the same setback requirements as the main structure.

No change in comparison to the current standard. For the fifth row, staff proposes a required offset at twelve feet in height. The retaining wall offset would be separated by a minimum of six feet horizontally in width to accommodate landscaping. This situation is concerning to staff for aesthetic reasons, as it can lead to the creation of large retaining walls with hard edges without landscaping. The idea here was to provide for additional landscaping to help soften tall retaining walls as shown in the images below. 28

Template Version 082020
For the sixth row and fourth rows; this is just a cross-reference to the uniform retaining wall design criteria and for retaining walls in the Hillside Overlay which have their own criteria. This will be covered further within this report.  Minor Table Numbering Update: Table 3-3 to become renumbered Table 16.22-1 o Renumbers Table 3-3 to Table 16.22-1 (Maximum Height of Fences, Hedges, and Walls).
o This would be in-line with other recent table numbering updates within the MMC.  Updates to Section §16.22.040 “Exceptions to Height Limitations” o Minor updates to the title to note “Non-Retaining”.
o Intention for this update is to clarify that the exceptions under this Section are applicable to non-retaining walls and not all walls.
 Updates to Section §16.22.050 “Measurement of Fence or Wall Height” o The objective here is to clarify the measurement criteria under Section §16.18.080 (Height Measurement and Height Limit Exceptions) is to utilize the standards under Chapter 16.24 for parcels located within the Hillside Overlay. o Provides parameters for when there is a difference in the ground level between two adjacent parcels and how that is determined.
 Updates to Section §16.22.060 “Walls Required Between Different Zoning Districts” o Clean-up of criteria and errors in the MMC with respect to wall criteria between Business Park (BP), General Industrial (GI), or General Industrial-A (GIA) Zones. 29

Template Version 082020
o Incorporation of Innovation (INN) Zone fencing criteria in alignment with existing wall standards. This is presently absent.
o Provides for pedestrian and vehicle access standards within the INN Zone with a few exceptions for pedestrian access.
 New Section §16.22.070.F “Retaining Walls”
Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 5 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:

It was brought to staff’s attention through internal dialog with the Planning Division that Section §16.22.070 is lacking design criteria for retaining walls; however, it covers other general wall and fencing requirements. This lack of clarity has created issues for both project applicants and City staff when reviewing a development project. To help resolve this, staff is proposing a new centralized design section. o Makes our existing standards easier to follow for applicants and staff. o Applies Citywide.
o Provides a variety of design choices.

Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

Similar to the other retaining wall items, this was to be presented at the Planning Commission Workshop under Discussion Item 5. As previously noted, there was not enough time to cover this item. Below is a synopsis of the proposed updates.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented at the hosted community workshop. The feedback from the group was positive and the group was in agreement with the proposed modifications as presented.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:

To highlight the proposed modifications:
o Providing cross-referencing of unifying standards for all zones with respect to retaining walls for design consistency under Section §16.22.070.F “Retaining Walls”. o Retaining walls may be used to reduce grading, preserve natural, features, or increase soil stabilization.
30

Template Version 082020
o Crib walls, keystone, loffelstein walls, and other similar living wall systems are a design option as long as it can be demonstrated on the project plans that the walls are structurally acceptable and provisions are provided for acceptable landscaping. 31

Template Version 082020
Such walls would be subject to the following standards:
o Utilize a curvilinear slope pattern consistent with the appearance of the natural hillside terrain.
o Be planted with landscape material suitable for the climate and wall exposure relative to the sun.
o The color palette and materials selected for the retaining wall would be required to blend in with the adjacent hillsides and landscape plant palette. o Walls and fences would incorporate materials and colors used with adjacent structures. All materials used to construct the retaining wall(s) would consist of either:
native stone, poured-in-place concrete, precast concrete block, color treated, textured or veneered to blend in with the surrounding natural colors and textures of the existing landscape and native plant materials.
o Walls and fencing visible from the public right-of-way would be designed to provide variation in placement, use of planters, differing materials, and modulation of the wall plane.
o Walls and fences would follow landform grading shapes and contours. o Use of tubular steel or wrought-iron safety fencing may be necessary in conjunction with these wall locations for landscape safety maintenance personnel. Placement shall be consistent with the California Building Code and related codes.  Minor Modifications to Section §16.24.010 “Purpose”
o Minor typographical updates with capitalization and italicizes to reference a given definition.
 Updates to Section §16.24.020 “Applicability”
32

Template Version 082020
Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 2 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:

The issue is MMC §16.24.060.A under “Hillside Slope Categories” applies the “Hillside Condition” to all natural slopes within the threshold of 25% slope up to 50% slope throughout the City (no development is permitted on slopes over 50%). Staff understands that the intent of this original criteria was for it to be limited to mapped areas (see below image and Attachment 3) within the Hillside Overlay, not on a citywide basis. The other issue is that this map was never codified within the MMC, which should have been the case for ease of reference for project review for both City staff and project applicants.

Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

This was presented at the Planning Commission Workshop as Discussion Item 2. Staff suggested the following updates to limit the applicable criteria to those mapped area within the Hillside Overlay that are 25 percent or greater area and utilize the City’s GIS to have this mapped at two-foot contours for project review. Planning Commission concurred with this approach.
33

Template Version 082020
Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented for second time at the hosted community workshop. The feedback from the group was positive and felt the proposed modifications to have this mapped and codified within the MMC would work with consensus from the group.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:

Staff believes with implementation of the following modifications it will bring clarity to the issue:
o Utilization of Geographic Information System (GIS) for identification of mapped “Hillside Areas”.
o Updates to MMC which address the existing discrepancy with a 20 percent slope being referenced, versus the 25 percent slope as described for the Hillside Overlay Area.

This has been a key issue of misunderstanding and applicability in the past with respect to project review.
o Updates to Section §16.24.020. The updates here help clarify that hillside overlay criteria only applies to those areas that are located within the Hillside Overlay.  Updates to Section §16.24.030 “Definitions”
Removal of Average Slope Calculation
Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 3 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:

As part of the definitions updates it has been brought to staff’s attention the below calculation may have been misinterpreted or misapplied for determining a slope. 34

Template Version 082020
Slope, Average. The method of determining average natural slope of land using the following equation:

I x L x .0023 where
A
I = Contour interval in feet.

L = Combined length in feet of contour lines measured on the project site. .0023 = A constant that converts square feet into acres and expresses slope in percent.

A = Project site area in acres.

Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

This was presented at the Planning Commission Workshop as Discussion Item 3. Staff suggested the removal of this formula. This was based on the fact that with today’s technology, this formula is no longer necessary by using the City’s GIS using two-foot contours. The Planning Commission concurred with this approach.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented for a second time at the hosted community workshop. The feedback from the group was positive and they felt the removal of the formula from the MMC would work.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:

The proposed modifications would remove this formula. As mentioned within the introduction portion of this discussion item, with today’s technology, this formula is no longer necessary in the MMC and the slope criteria can be mapped utilizing the City’s GIS service using two-foot contours. This will be beneficial to project applicants and City staff in reviewing projects since it simplifies the analysis.

Prominent Ridgeline Updates – Part 1
Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 4 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:

An issue that has come is the misapplication of Prominent Ridgelines. The Definitions section currently provides very vague language in defining where these locations are. This lack of clarity could create issues for both project applicants and City staff when reviewing a future project that lies within these areas. A potential solution would be to identify these locations within the Prominent Ridgelines Map (See below image and Attachment 4) and more precisely on the City’s GIS.
35

Template Version 082020
Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

This was presented at the Planning Commission Workshop as Discussion Item 4. With these updates, there was some concern from residents that have property within the Los Alamos Hills area by having this mapped, it may limit future development at these locations. Their contention was that it should only apply to those mapped areas that are conserved for open space and not to existing developed ridgeline properties within the Hillside Overlay. From this dialog, Planning Commission directed staff to host a community workshop to discuss this item further with residents. The last takeaway from this was that the Planning Commission was in favor of using GIS technology to have these areas mapped and codified within the MMC.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This discussion item was presented at the hosted community workshop. The feedback from the group was much the same as Planning Commission. Again, it was noted that these locations should only apply to those mapped areas that are conserved for openspace and not to existing developed ridgeline properties within the Hillside Overlay.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:
36

Template Version 082020
With these updates, staff does not foresee by having these locations mapped using both GIS and codified within an MMC, it would result in a barrier to future development at these locations. It will be a helpful tool for site analysis for both City staff and project applicants with respect to these locations when reviewing future proposals. Additionally, staff is proposing enhanced landscaping at these locations which will be covered in greater detail under Section §16.24.060 “Hillside Development Standards” within this report.

Other Definition Updates
o Provides new definitions consistent with other portions of the MMC including “City”, “City Engineer”, “City Manager”, and “Director”.
o Corrects/updates existing definitions consistent with other portions of the MMC. o Updates provided to Figure 16.24-1 (Slope Examples) with the inclusion of a new 4:1, 25 percent slope example and clearer graphics.
 Updates to Section §16.24.040 “Application Submittal Requirements” o Updates to Section §16.24.040. This covers existing standards for the submittal of a natural features map, a conception grading plan, a drainage map, a slope analysis map, slope profile drawings, data sources, provisions for a geotechnical report, objective design guidelines, criteria for when no grading is required, and additional information that may be needed.
o The proposed language is moving from a subjective interpretation to objective standards. This is consistent and required with recent State housing legislation.  Updates to Section §16.24.050 “Project Review Procedures” o Cross-referencing to the Hillside Overlay Map for applicability. o Clarification of “Commission” to mean “Planning Commission”. o Updates with referencing to objective criteria consistent with recent State housing legislation, versus existing subjective criteria and requirements.  Updates to Section §16.24.060 “Hillside Development Standards” Retaining Wall Updates – Part 2
Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 5 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:
37

Template Version 082020
Similar to the approach for covering the updates proposed under the Citywide retaining walls updates which was covered earlier within this report, staff is suggesting the addition of a new table to make both the existing and proposed standards easier to follow for applicants and staff within 25 percent or greater areas within the mapped Hillside Area overlay.

E. Walls and Fences.

TABLE 16.24-2
RETAINING WALLS – DESIGNATED HILLSIDE OVERLAY
AREAS
Criteria
Up to Three Feet Within Front or
Street-Side Setback
Walls within the required front
yard or street-side setback shall
not exceed three feet in height,
shall be separated by a
minimum of three feet, and shall
incorporate landscaping to
screen the wall(s).

Line-of-Sight Locations/Visibility
Triangles
For any required line–of–sight
locations, or visibility triangles, a
maximum of thirty inches in
height shall be permitted.

Up to Six Feet. Where multiple terraced
retaining walls are designed to
retain larger slopes, they shall
not exceed six feet in height.

Refer to Figure 16.24-2.

Over Six Feet Prohibited
Over Six Feet and as Part of
Structure.

Walls that are an integral part of
the primary structure may
exceed six feet in height;
however, their visual impact
shall be mitigated through
contour grading and landscape
treatment. Refer to Figure

16.24-3.

Required Offset At six feet in height, a retaining
wall shall be separated by a
minimum of six feet horizontally.

Refer to Figure 16.24-2.

Design Criteria Refer to Section 16.22.070.F
(Retaining Walls).
38

Template Version 082020

1. Retaining walls, not exceeding six feet in height, may be allowed to reduce grading, preserve natural features, or increase soil stabilization. Within the required front yard setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height.

2. Where multiple (terraced) walls are designed to retain larger slopes they shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of six feet horizontally. A maximum of two walls shall be placed together. Walls within the required front yard setback shall not exceed three feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of three feet and shall incorporate landscaping to screen the wall(s).

Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

Similar to the other retaining wall items, this was to be presented at the Planning Commission Workshop under Discussion Item 5. As previously noted, there was not enough time to cover this item. Below is a synopsis of the proposed updates.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented at the hosted community workshop. The overall feedback from the group was positive and the group was in agreement with the proposed modifications as presented.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:

The proposed standards here would apply only to designated Hillside Areas. To walkthrough the above table, for the first row above, for a retaining wall within the front or street-side setback, a 3-foot maximum height would be permitted. This reflects the current standard with the additional of the street-side criteria. For the second row, for any line-ofsight areas, a proposed maximum height would be thirty inches for safety issues. This is consistent with current standards for this design by engineering, but just reinforced here.

For the third row, a 6-foot maximum height would be set for terraced walls. This is consistent with the current standard. For the fourth row, for a retaining wall over 6-feet and as part of structure may exceed six feet in height; however, their visual impact shall be mitigated through contour grading and landscape treatment. This is also consistent with the current standards. For the sixth row, at 6-feet in height, a retaining wall shall be separated by a minimum of six feet horizontally in width. This is consistent with the current standard. For the last row, this is just a cross-reference to the uniform retaining wall design criteria that was described earlier within this staff report.

Prominent Ridgelines Updates – Part 2
Please Note: Covered Under Discussion Item 4 from 1/25/23 PC Workshop Background:
39

Template Version 082020
Presently, MMC §16.24.60.G provides some parameters that structures are not permitted to be closer to a prominent ridge than fifty (50) feet as measured vertically on a crosssection or one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontally on a topographic map.

3. Structures shall not visually impair ridgeline silhouettes. Structures are not permitted closer to a prominent ridge than fifty (50) feet measured vertically on a crosssection or one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontally on a topographic map. whichever is more restrictive. Exceptions to this requirement for public facilities. utilities. and infrastructure necessary to serve the public health, safety, and welfare may be considered by the commission

3. In order to help address visual impacts at Prominent Ridgelines, use of the combination of natural occurring vegetation (trees/shrubs) and proposed landscaping shall be implemented to screen proposed structures at these locations. Additionally, any required Fuel Modification Zone and California Fire Code standards shall be considered in the design of this screening method blending with the terrain and existing vegetation.

Planning Commission Workshop – 1/25/23:

This was presented at the Planning Commission Workshop as Discussion Item 4. There was some concern from residents that have property within the Los Alamos Hills area that having this standard no longer makes sense as a number of properties have developed along the ridgeline areas. It was described by the residents the original intention was that it should only apply to ridgelines when the City was beginning to be developed as there was a much more naturalized context surrounding the Hillside Areas. It was suggested that if this standard were to remain should only apply to the properties located within openspace lots or other undeveloped land.

The challenge is how to balance this goal while providing property owners the ability to utilize their property; so staff suggested a few options to the Planning Commission including:
o Providing the opportunity for a landform depression/berming grading. o Utilization of muted earth-tone colors for exterior walls and roofing with the incorporation of exterior paint and roof elements with a low reflective value. o Utilization of natural occurring vegetation (trees/shrubs) to help screen proposed structures.

The takeaway from this dialog was with the utilization of natural occurring vegetation (trees/shrubs) to help screen proposed structures as a solution was the preferred solution for updating this existing standard.

Community Workshop – 4/11/23:

This issue area was presented at second time at the hosted community workshop. The dialog/feedback from the group was much the same as Planning Commission. Again, it 40

Template Version 082020
was noted with the utilization of natural occurring vegetation (trees/shrubs) to help screen structures, it would be an amenable solution for all.

Proposed Modifications / Discussion:

As proposed, staff believes with the implementation of the proposed modifications at these ridgeline locations, the end result will be largely the preservation the visual characteristics at these ridgeline locations while providing property owners the ability to utilize their property. Furthermore, any required Fuel Modification Zone and California Fire Code standards will be implemented. With the modification for enhanced landscaping at these locations, it would still meet the intent following General Plan Goals and Policies: Land Use Goal LU-22 “Natural and visual resources are valued resources to maintain the rural character of the Los Alamos Hills.” and the following corresponding Policy LU-22.2 “Encourage new construction and landscape design that utilizes grading techniques to mimic the natural terrain.” Additionally, the modifications would still meet the intent of Goal CSV-5 “Hills and ridges are protected for their environmental and aesthetic values” and following Policy CSV-5.1 “Promote compliance with hillside development standards and guidelines to maintain the natural character and the environmental and aesthetic values of sloped areas.” All in all, future development at these locations and would involve careful siting, grading, and landscaping techniques to minimize exposure and preserve vistas of these ridgelines.

Other General Updates to Section
o Updates to Table 16.24-1 (Hillside Development Standards) for criteria. o Updates to site design and roadway placement for consistency with current California Fire Code and City standards.
41

Template Version 082020
o Minor updates for cross-lot profiles which cover the building envelope for a structure on a downhill lot, the building envelope for an uphill lot, and for the building envelope at cross-lot slopes.
o Minor updates for walls and fencing criteria. Refers to Section §16.22.070.F (Retaining Walls) for additional criteria and for consistency with citywide design standards for retaining walls.
o Cross-referencing for consistency with citywide landscaping standards at sloped areas and use of drought tolerant and fire resistive landscaping materials. o Updates for grading techniques at hillside areas, drainage improvements at hillside areas, and for public safety.
 Updates to Section §16.24.070 Hillside Development Guidelines o Minor updates for the site design and building placement of a residence at a site on a slope. Buildings are encouraged to be placed parallel to the slope and not counter to it, which is the current guidance.
o Minor updates to roadway placement at hillside locations. Placement is encouraged to work with the terrain and not counter to it. These are the current parameters. o Minor updates to grading techniques which covers site situations with minimal grading, contour grading, landform grading, and drainage improvements in a more objective and naturalized manner.
o Cross-referencing of unifying standards for all zones with respect to landscaping on sloped areas.
 New Section §16.24.080 “Exceptions”
o Provide exceptions from requiring a grading permit in a Hillside Area if meets the current criteria as provided under Section §15.52.040 “Permit Exceptions”. These exceptions include exploratory excavations, installation of underground utilities, clearing and brushing when directed by the fire chief to mitigate a potential fire hazard, etc.
o Provides exceptions from requiring a grading permit for flatwork, pools, or spas, which results in the disturbance of 50 cubic yards or less, does not require a grading permit. o All other activities resulting in the disturbance of 50 cubic yards or less (excluding those areas that are identified within Section 16.24.060.G “Grading”), shall require the applicant to provide a statement to that effect, which shall be filed with the City Engineer including the following information: parcel boundaries, pad elevations, on or off-site existing grade elevations, vehicular access to and from the project site with 42

Template Version 082020
both private and public roadways, existing utilities, and, if applicable, septic system location(s).
 New Section §16.24.090 “Reserved”
o Reserved blank section for future hillside updates/amendments.  New Section §16.24.100 “Hillside Overlay Map”
o Codifies the Hillside Overlay Map within the MMC. This has been missing up to this point in time which has made it challenging for City staff and project applicants to reference.
o Provided that these updates are approved, staff will work with Code publisher on uploading a high-resolution image.
o This information will also be incorporated into the City’s online Geographic Information System (GIS) as a layer for future reference which will assist City staff and project applicants.
 New Section §16.24.110 “Prominent Ridgelines Map”
o Codifies where these locations would apply within the MMC. o Similar to the Hillside Overlay Map as described above, provided that these updates are approved, staff will work with Code publisher on uploading a high-resolution image. o This information will also be incorporated into the City’s online Geographic Information System (GIS) as a layer for future reference which will assist City staff and project applicants.

Conclusion
All in all, the changes proposed in this update are intended to reconcile the various code sections and achieve consistency throughout the Development Code (Title 16), as well as, the Municipal Code (Chapter 15.52) for hillside standards. With the implementation of these updates, it will bring clarity for residents and project applicants on what standards apply, and where, with respect to hillside development that is currently lacking. Lastly, with the application of the proposed modifications covered in this ordinance amendment, it will continue to preserve the visual and aesthetic quality of hillsides and ridgelines as viewed from the surrounding community and avoid and minimize site disturbance at these locations to the extent feasible.

General Plan Consistency
It should be noted that these updates will be consistent with Conservation Element - Goal CSV-5 by maintaining that “...Hills and ridges are protected for their environmental and aesthetic values.

To substantiate this determination, this ordinance update will remain consistent with Policy CSV43

Template Version 082020

5.1 in that it will “..Promote compliance with hillside development standards and guidelines to maintain the natural character and the environmental and aesthetic values of sloped areas.

Compliance with this goal and policy will be achieved in that future projects at hillside locations will be required to utilize landform, contour, and similar grading techniques which will be designed to blend with the natural existing site contours. This will be required to be demonstrated in future grading plans. Furthermore, proposed building pads and buildings with stem wall configurations will be sited in a manner to necessitate only minimal grading and to preserve open areas of the hillside areas as much as possible. Finally, naturally occurring vegetation (trees/shrubs) will be utilized at these locations, and confirmation will be verified on landscaping plans. This will help reinforce the natural aesthetic values of a given location.

It should be noted that the updates will be also be consistent with the following goal and policies with respect to the Los Alamos Hills community: Land Use Goal LU-22 with “Natural and visual resources are valued resources to maintain the rural character of the Los Alamos Hills” and implemented with the following policies: LU-22.1 “Encourage the preservation of natural and visual resources within Los Alamos Hills, such as rock outcroppings and scenic views of the local hills and valleys, to the greatest degree practicable” LU-22.2 “Encourage new construction and landscape design that utilizes grading techniques to mimic the natural terrain”; and LU-22.3 “Encourage development that minimizes impacts to existing water courses, mature trees, and natural features as much as possible. In those cases that these areas/features are impacted, the final design should provide adequate mitigation on-site and/or in nearby areas.” Projects in Los Alamos Hills will also be required utilize landform, contour, and similar grading techniques which will be designed and implemented in a manner to blend with the natural existing site contours which will be consistent with the description of LU-22.2. Lastly, projects in Los Alamos Hills will be placed in a manner to that minimizes impacts to natural features as much as possible to the community and mitigation for impacts will be assessed on project-level basis through CEQA review which is consistent with LU-22.1 and LU-22.3.

Moreover, the modifications for the utilization of naturalized landscaping for aesthetic purposes at hillside areas will be consistent with the following goal and policy: Goal CSV-9 “A community that promotes the growth of an urban forest and water-efficient landscaping, recognizing that plants provide natural services such as habitat, storm water management, soil retention, air filtration, and cooling, and also have aesthetic and economic value” and Policy CSV-9.6 “Maintain a guide to preferred trees, shrubs, and ground cover plants of noninvasive species, or refer private parties to an existing guide that meets City needs to assist private landscaping efforts.” Implementation of this policy supports our fire resistant standards for vegetation planting, maintenance, and for public safety for hillside development proposals as reviewed by Murrieta Fire & Rescue.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed action was reviewed for consistency with the citywide Comprehensive Development Code in 1998. These standards were originally evaluated and implemented under the adopted Negative Declaration for implementation of the Comprehensive Development Code on October 28, 1997. These updates have been evaluated for consistency for the current “Project” proposal utilizing this Negative Declaration and the Murrieta General Plan Final FEIR and Subsequent SEIR in 2021 (SCH No. 2010111084), by the City of Murrieta, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 44

Template Version 082020
Guidelines Section 15162. Based on this evaluation, Staff determined the project would not result in new impacts or changed circumstances that would require a new environmental document and the previous environmental document adequately covers these modifications (Attachments 5 and 6).

NOTICING
The Project was noticed in compliance with Section 16.76 of the Development Code, including sending the notice to all properties that lie within the Hillside Area Overlay and publication occurred within a newspaper a minimum of 10 Days prior to the hearing and posting of the agenda (Attachment 7).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Hillside Updates (PC Resolution)

1.1 Ex. A - Draft Ord. – Title 8 And 15 - Strike_Undl. (For Info. Purposes Only)

1.2 Ex. B - Draft Ord. – Title 8 And 15 - Clean (For Info. Purposes Only)

1.3 Ex. C - Draft Ord. – Title 16 - Strike_Undl

1.4 Ex. C - Draft Ord. – Title 16 - Clean

2. Riverside Co. Airport Land Use Commission, Approval Letter, June 2, 2023

3. Hillside Overlay Map Exhibit

4. Prominent Ridgelines Map Exhibit

5. Hillside Ordinance Updates 15162 Consistency Analysis

6. Hillside Ordinance Updates Subsequent NOD

7. Public Notice
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54

ADAMS AVE

WHITEWOOD RD

JEFFERSON AVE

LOS ALAMOS RD
IVY ST

WASHINGTON AVE

WINCHESTER RD

ANTELOPE RD

MADISON AVE

KALMIA ST
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I
T
H
R
D

NUTMEG ST HAYES AVE

HANCOCK AVE
M

URRIETA
HOT
SPR
I
N
GS
RD
FIG ST

CALIFORNIA OAKS RD
H
U
N
T
E
R
R
D
K
E
L
L
E
R
R
D

MAGNOLIA ST
L
I
N
N
E
L
L
N

CALLE DEL OS O
O
RO
MON
ROE
AVE

JACKSON AVE

LINCOLN AVE

VINEYARD PKY

LEMON ST
ELM ST

JUNIPER ST

LAS BRISAS RD

GUAVA ST
ALTA

MURRIETA DR

MARGARITA RD

MC EL WA NI RD
VIA
P
R
I
N
CESA

ADAMS AVE

JACKSON AVE

CLINTON KEITH RD
N
U
T
M
EG ST

MONROE AVE
ELM ST

JUNIPER ST

HAYES AVE
ELM ST

GUAVA ST
CityBoundary
MSHCPCriteriaCells
HillsideOverlay
.
55 ADAMS AVE

WHITEWOOD RD

JEFFERSON AVE

LOS ALAMOS RD
IVY ST

WASHINGTON AVE

WINCHESTER RD

ANTELOPE RD

MADISON AVE

KALMIA ST
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I
T
H
R
D

NUTMEG ST HAYES AVE

HANCOCK AVE
M

URRIETA
HOT
SPR
I
N
GS
RD
FIG ST

CALIFORNIA OAKS RD
H
U
N
T
E
R
R
D
K
E
L
L
E
R
R
D

MAGNOLIA ST
L
I
N
N
E
L
L
N

CALLE DEL OS O
O
RO
MON
ROE
AVE

JACKSON AVE

LINCOLN AVE

VINEYARD PKY

LEMON ST
ELM ST

JUNIPER ST

LAS BRISAS RD

GUAVA ST
ALTA

MURRIETA DR

MARGARITA RD

MC EL WA NI RD
VIA
P
R
I
N
CESA

ADAMS AVE

JACKSON AVE

CLINTON KEITH RD
N
U
T
M
EG ST

MONROE AVE
ELM ST

JUNIPER ST

HAYES AVE
ELM ST

GUAVA ST
CityBoundary
ProminentRidgeline
MSHCPCriteriaCells
HillsideOverlay
.
56 §¨¦215
I-215

LOS ALAMOS RD

WHITEWOOD RD

CLINTON KEITH RD

MARY PL

VIA MIRA MOSA
LA
S
B
RISA
S
R
D

CALLE ANDRAS
LIBER
T
Y
R
D

BUSMAN RD

CELIA RD
M
A
S
O
N
AVE

LA ALBA DR

YORKTON RD

RANCH HOUSE ST

PINYON ST

MURRIETA OAKS AVE

CARLTON OAKS ST

WRANGLER DR HAZEL GLEN RD

LONGBRANCH
AVE
R
U
T

H ELLEN
WAY

ANDROMEDA ST
HUNTER
RD

LA LUNE AVE
M
E
NIFEE
RD

MAXMILLIAN AVE

HUBBLE WAY
EA
RLY LN

BRONCO WAY
PIC
T
O
R
AVE

SKI RANCH ST

MANGROVE ST

BAKER LN

ARIEL ST

HYDRUS PL

POST OAK PL
GEMIN
A
AVE

SHANNON LN

PORTH RD

DONALD RD

OAK MEADOWS PL

CATT RD

RAVENNA ST

HACKBERRY ST

GALILEO LN

PERRY RD
A
S
H
W
O
O
D
L
N

SOCORRO ST

JESSIE CEAS
LN
VIA
CADIZ
C
RAWFO
R
D
CA
N
YO
N
R
D

SHEA LN

NEWCASTLE RD
ER
NES
T
WAY

AVENIDA SOMBRA

BIG DIPPER WAY

AVENIDA ACACIAS

HACHTEN RD

ALTA LOMA LN
C
O
U

NTRY MILL RD

CORTE SOMBRERO

STARFALL WAY
C
O
U
G
A
R PL

SPRINGHAVEN ST

SMOKEWOOD DR
TUCANA
PL
A
REN
D
T LN

ETIENNE CIR
VIA
LAR

SNOWFIELD ST
IN
D
U
S PL

MITCHELL
RD

VIA SANTEE
D
U
S
TER
R
D

ROSEMARY ST

BROKEN ARROW WAY
C
AMINO

HERMOSA

TREE RIDGE ST

VIA LAS QUINTAS

BILOXI PL

VIA SONRISA
LY
N
WOOD
AV
E
LU

M EI RE AVE
C
RY
S
TAL LA
KE C
T
VIA PA
MPLO
N
A

CANYON HILLS WAY

CALLE DE TRES AMIGOS

VIA CUENCA

SOMMERVIEW RD
C
A
R

D FI F R
D

EUCALYPTUS ST

WILLIE LN
C
REIG
H
T
O
N
AVE
WA
N
D
E
RIN
G
PL

TAMRACK WAY
FLO
R
A
C
T

CIRCINUS ST

VIA PERA

DOGWOOD ST
WAX
M
Y
R
TLE PL

HYPERION ST

WINTERGROVE WAY

CAMINO MERIDIANA

VIA LAS LADERAS

CARMEL HILL CT

HALF DOME CT

WALNUT CREEK CIR

LYRA CT

TRIESE ST

WILLOWBEND
DR

SWEETSPIRE TERRACE PL

DESERT WILLOW ST

STELLARVIEW AVE

SUNROSE DR

FIRE FALLS DR

MORNING STAR
D
R

CORTE ANACAPA

CRESTKNOLL CT

BRENTSTONE WAY

CALLE CASABLANCA
FAL
L
S

GROVEAVE

SUNLIGHT CT
WA
R
M
S
P
RIN
G
S
P
K
WY

MACLEAN AVE

VIA ZARGOZA

CORTE ANCHA
D
O
REEN
D
R
RED
R
O
B
NI R
D
P
O
N
DEROSA
CT

QUINTANIA DR

YELLOW WOOD WAY

TWILIGHT CT

STARDUST
W
A
Y

TUMBLEWEED CT
P NI T
O
WAY

COURTNEY BROOK LN

CAMINO MIRABELLA
B
R
ONC
O
C
O
U
R
T

ALYA CT
C
O
VIN
G
T
ON
CIR

ASCELLA LN
REDBUD
LN

RUSHING WIND CT
S
H
A
D
Y
M
APLE R
D

SUNSET WAY

VISTA ORIENTE

SCEPTRUM ST
LIN
D
S

TRAND AVE

PLYMOUTH RD
VIN
EYA
R
D
W
E
ST

AVI OR CT

SWEETGRASS CT

ADARA LN

TALITHA WAY

MOON B EAM
CT

SKIPPER RD

SUNNYGROVE
LN

FOREST CT
WAL
D
E
N
L
N

MOORFIELD ST
EL

LIPTICA
L
ST

POST OAK
PL

CATT RD
I-215
MSHCP Criteria Cells
Specific Plan Boundary
CNLM Owned Parcels
Prominent Ridgeline
RCA Owned Parcels
City-Owned Parcels
City Boundary
Focus Parcel

STRUCTURES
Undeveloped
Developed
City Parcels
.

Murrieta Springs
SP 309
57 §¨¦215
I-215

LOS ALAMOS RD

WHITEWOOD RD

CLINTON KEITH RD

MARY PL

VIA MIRA MOSA
LAS
BRISAS
RD

CALLE ANDRAS
LIBER
TY
R
D

BUSMAN RD

CELIA RD
M
A
S
O
N
AVE

YORKTON RD

RANCH HOUSE ST

LA ALBA DR

CARLTON OAKS ST

MURRIETA OAKS AVE

PINYON ST

WRANGLER DR HAZEL GLEN RD

LONGBRANCH
AVE
R
U
T

H ELLEN
WAY

ANDROMEDA ST
HUNTER
RD
EA
RLY LN

MAXMILLIAN AVE

HUBBLE WAY
M
E
NIFEE
RD

BRONCO WAY
PIC
T
O
R
AVE

SKI RANCH ST

MANGROVE ST

BAKER LN

ARIEL ST

HYDRUS PL
LA

LUNE AVE

POST OAK PL
GEMIN
A
AVE

SHANNON LN

DONALD RD

OAK MEADOWS PL

CATT RD

RAVENNA ST

HACKBERRY ST

PERRY RD
A
S
H
W
O
O
D
L
N

SOCORRO ST

JESSIE CEAS
LN

AVENIDA ACACIAS
VIA
CADIZ
C
RAWFO
R
D
CA
N
YO
N
R
D

SHEA LN
ER
NES
T
WAY

AVENIDA SOMBRA

BIG DIPPER WAY

HACHTEN RD

ALTA LOMA LN
C
O
U

NTRY MILL RD

CORTE SOMBRERO

RANGEVIEW DR

STARFALL WAY
C
O
U
G
A
R PL

VIA PERA

SPRINGHAVEN ST

SMOKEWOOD DR

ETIENNE CIR

PORTH RD
VIA
LAR

SNOWFIELD ST
IN
D
U
S PL

VIA SANTEE

ROSEMARY ST
A
REN
D
T LN

BROKEN ARROW WAY
CA
MINO

HERMOSA

TREE RIDGE ST

WILLIE LN

MITCHELL
RD

NEWCASTLE RD

VIA LAS QUINTAS

BILOXI PL

VIA SONRISA

SUNROSE DR
D
U
S
TER
R
D
LY
N
WOOD
AV
E
LU

M EI RE AVE
C
RY
S
TAL LA
KE C
T
VIA PA
MPLO
N
A

CANYON HILLS WAY

CALLE DE TRES AMIGOS

VIA CUENCA

MORNING STAR DR

SWEETSPIRE TERRACE PL
FLO
R
A
C
T

SOMMERVIEW RD
C
A
R

D FI F R
D

EUCALYPTUS ST
C
REIG
H
T
O
N
AVE
TUCANA
PL
WA
N
D
E
RIN
G
PL

TAMRACK WAY

MACLEAN AVE

DOGWOOD ST

WILLOWBEND
DR
WAX
M
Y
R
TLE PL

HYPERION ST

WINTERGROVE WAY

CAMINO MIRABELLA

CAMINO MERIDIANA

VIA LAS LADERAS

CARMEL HILL CT

SYCAMORE RIDGE RD

HALF DOME CT

QUINTANIA DR

GALILEO
LN

WALNUT CREEK CIR

LYRA CT

DESERT WILLOW ST

STELLARVIEW AVE
RED
R
O
B
NI R
D

FIRE FALLS DR

VIA LAS SINTRAS

CORTE ANACAPA

CRESTKNOLL CT

BRENTSTONE WAY

CALLE CASABLANCA
FAL
L
S

GROVEAVE

SUNLIGHT CT
VIA

ZARGOZA

RUSHING WIND CT

CORTE ANCHA
D
O
REEN
D
R
P
O
N
DEROSA
CT
S
H
A
D
Y
M
APLE R
D

YELLOW WOOD WAY
WA
R
M
S
P
RIN
G
S
P
K
WY

TWILIGHT CT

STARDUST
WA
Y

TUMBLEWEED CT
P NI T
O
WAY

COURTNEY BROOK LN
B
R
ONC
O
C
O
U
R
T

ALYA CT
C
O
VIN
G
T
ON
CIR

CIRCINUS ST

CALLE MAGDALE
NA
REDBUD
LN

SUNSET WAY

VISTA ORIENTE

SCEPTRUM ST
LIN
D
S

TRAND AVE
VIN
EYA
R
D
W
E
ST

AVIOR CT

SWEETGRASS CT

ADARA LN

MOON B EAM
CT

SKIPPER RD

SUNNYGROVE
LN

FOREST CT
WAL
D
E
N
L
N
EL

LIPTICA
L
ST

CATT RD CLINTON KEITH RD

POST OAK
PL
I-215

SUNROSE DR
MSHCP Criteria Cells
Specific Plan Boundary
Hillside Overlay
CNLM Owned Parcels
RCA Owned Parcels
City-Owned Parcels
City Boundary
Focus Parcel

STRUCTURES
Undeveloped
Developed
City Parcels
.

Murrieta Springs
SP 309
Highlighted Parcels are Conserved
and not in the Hillside Overlay
58 §¨¦215

ANTELOPE RD

LINNEL LN

MC ELWAIN RD

CLINTON KEITH RD

STEPP RD

CLINTON KEITH RD

CLINTON KEITH RD
I-215

GREER RD
A
N
T
ELO
P
E
R
D

LINNEL LN

MCELWAIN RD

EVANDEL RD

ABELIA ST

PABESU RD
N
U
TM
E
G
S
T

CHAMOMILE ST

VIA MADRID

CATT RD

HORSETAIL ST
D
U
S
TER
R
D

PUMPKIN ST

CRABAPPLE ST

HOLLINGSWORTH DR
D
A
R
C
Y
PL

CLINTON KEITH RD

SIERRA LN

BOTTLE BRUSH WAY

MURANO ST

TREFOIL ST
MIT
C
H
E
L
L
R
D

SONATA DR

CHIVE ST

STOCK ST
ORCHID
TRE
E
AV
E

SUMAC AVE

HACKBERRY ST

VIRIDIAN ST

EUCLID ST

PAPER BARK AVE

ALOE WY

BISHOP RD

TUBE ROSE ST
RED
B
L
U
F
F
P
L
C
O
R
TE REN
ATA

PEPPERMINT PL
FE
N
T
O
N LN

DESERT LOCUST ST

NEALA LN

HAZELHURST ST

TREE ROSE AVE
IC
EPLANT
L
N

BOWERVINE PL
LAJU
NE S
T

KETTLE RD

SAGE GLEN ST

RED MAPLE ST

PAPILLION ST

GRISHAM ST

MAHONIA WAY
LA
N
D
O
N LN

FERN PINE WAY

BELLA LN

ELDERBERRY ST
B
REC
KY
N LN

VINCA CT

BROGAN LN

CORNFLOWER PL

WEDGEWOOD WAY

LEMON GRASS WAY
B
EN
T
G
R
A
S
S
AV
E

DELANEY CIR

PECAN TREE LN

WOODROSE CT

RUBY GRASS CT

CLARISE LN

CHERRY BARK WAY

COUNTRYSIDE LN
C
O
R
A
L

GUM AVE

BLUEBELL CT

SOMERS RD

TRIANGLE ST

REDGRAVE WAY

GOLDEN CUP CT

SIRUS CIR

CAPE AIRE WAY
C
REIG
H
T
O
N
AVE
TWINLE
AF A
VE
K
ATELY
N
AVE

SPINDLE WAY
VIN
EYA
R
D
W
E
ST
RED
LEAF
LN

BELLWOOD CT

MERIW ETHER WAY
DOGWOO
D
S
T

TINDERBOX WAY

BAXTER RD
POST
OAK
PL

AUBRIETA ST

WHITE A LDER CT
PL
U
M
E
LN
MADIA
LN

PEONY LN
SU
N
D
EW
LN

VERBENA CT

WICKHAM LN

ROSEBUD ST

FAIRFAX CT

BINGLEY CT
WILC
O
X LN

SUNRAY CT
M
E
TALU
C
A
AV
E

PEPPERGRASS CT

WILMINGTON CT

CORTE PAVIA
C
O
R
T
O
N
A
C
T
GEN
TIA
N LN

CORTE CORUNA

SAN PAULO PL

CLINTON KEITH RD

CATT RD

DARCY PL
I-215
EVAN
D
EL RD

RED MAPLE ST
MSHCP Criteria Cells
Specific Plan Boundary
City Boundary
City-Owned Parcels
Focus Parcels
Undeveloped
Developed
RCA Owned Parcels
Hillside Overlay
.

Greer Ranch Specific Plan
Murrieta Hills Specific Plan
59 Murrieta Hills SP 4

ANTELOPE RD

ANTELOPE RD
I-215
A
N

TELOPE R
D

FERN PINE W

BOTTLE BRUSH WAY AY

TREFOIL ST

ORCHID TREE AVE

KELLER RD
I-215
A
N

TELOPE R
D
City Boundary
MSHCP Criteria Cells
Specific Plan Boundary
City-Owned Parcels
RCA Owned Parcels
Hillside Overlay
City Parcels .
60 CLINTON KEITH RD

CALLE DEL OSO ORO
City Boundary
MSHCP Criteria Cells
City-Owned Parcels
Focus Parcels
Privately-Owned--Open/Park Space
Developed
Hillside Overlay
.
61 IVY ST

HAYES AVE

JUNIPER ST

KALMIA ST

HAYES AVE
IVY ST

HAWTHORN ST

JUNIPER ST

BROWN ST

EDNA RD

CALLE ORTEGA ARJAY DR

JOSHUA TREE CT

TYLER PL

NEW CLAY ST

GRACE LN

TRUMAN PL

KALMIA ST

MANISTA WAY

ESTATE HILLS WAY

JERSEY PINE CT

RIVERVIEW LN

TRILOGY TRAILS LN

PATTON AVE
IVY ST

KALMIA ST
CityBoundary
City-OwnedParcels
MSHCPCriteriaCells
FocusParcels
Undeveloped
Developed
HillsideOverlay.
62 ADAMS AVE

ELM ST WASHINGTON AVE

JEFFERSON AVE
ELM ST
FIG ST

ADAMS AVE

DOUGLASS AVE
ELM ST

DE LUZ RD

CORNING PL

SHAW LN

MEADOWLARK RDG

WASHINGTON AVE

EASTMAN DR

JAN VALERIE RD

JOHN WAYNE RD

MANCE RD

LUCILLE
CIR
C
LE
RD
BAY

MEADOWS WAY

HAYES AVE

DATE ST

MILES ST

LONG ACRES WAY

DEERE CT

MCALBY CT

KELVIN CT

BECKMAN CT
BAS
S
PT

CORPORATE CENTER CT
W

HISPERING
C

REEK AVE
SAGE
GRAS
S
CT

MORNING
DEW
CT
ELM ST

HAYES AVE
CityBoundary
City-OwnedParcels
RCAOwnedParcels
City-OwnedParcels
HillsideOverlay
FocusParcels
Undeveloped
Developed
.
63

ATTACHMENT 12
Comparison Chart – Hillside Overlay Updates

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS

16.08.020 TABLE 16.08-3

RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE-FAMILY)
ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table that covers criteria such
as parcel size, setbacks,
heights, etc.

TABLE 16.08-3

RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE-FAMILY)
ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table remains
 New Footnote “4” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item

16.08.020 TABLE 16.08-4

RESIDENTIAL (MULTI-FAMILY)
ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table that covers criteria such
as parcel size, setbacks,
heights, etc.

TABLE 16.08-4

RESIDENTIAL (MULTI-FAMILY)
ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table remains
 New Footnote “6” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item

16.08.030 Wall Standards
 Section covers Single-Family
Residential Wall Standards
Wall Standards
 Adding a reference under
subsection “c” to go to the
retaining wall Section

16.22.070(F) for additional
criteria

16.08.040 Wall Standards
 Section covers Multi-Family
Residential Wall Standards
Wall Standards
 Covers Multi-Family
Residential Wall Standards
 Adding a reference under
subsection “c” to go to the
retaining wall Section

16.22.070(F) for additional
criteria
64

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS

16.10.020 TABLE 16.10-2

COMMERCIAL ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS
 Table that covers criteria such
as parcel size, setbacks,
heights, etc.

TABLE 16.10-2

COMMERCIAL ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS
 Table remains
 New Footnote “4” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item
for maximum height

16.11.020 TABLE 16.11-2

OFFICE DISTRICTS GENERAL

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
 Table that covers criteria such
as setbacks, heights,
landscaping, parking, etc.

TABLE 16.11-2

OFFICE DISTRICTS GENERAL

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
 Table remains
 New Footnote “6” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item
for maximum height

16.12.020 TABLE 16.12-2

BUSINESS PARK AND

INDUSTRIAL ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table that covers criteria such
as parcel size, heights,
setbacks, etc.

TABLE 16.12-2

BUSINESS PARK AND

INDUSTRIAL ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table remains
 New Footnote “2” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item
for maximum height

16.12.030(A)(4) Screen Walls/Fencing
 Section covers screening and
fencing standards
Screen Walls/Fencing
 Adding a reference to go to
the retaining wall section for
additional design criteria

16.13.020 TABLE 16.13-2

INNOVATION DISTRICT

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
TABLE 16.13-2

INNOVATION DISTRICT

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table remains
65

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS
 Table that covers criteria such
as setbacks, heights, parcel
size, building, massing, public
art, etc.
 New Footnote “7” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item
for maximum height

16.14.010 TABLE 16.14-2

SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table that covers criteria such
as setbacks, maximum heights,
etc.

TABLE 16.14-2

SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
 Table remains
 New Footnote “1” to refer to
Hillside Development Chapter

16.24 as an informational item
for maximum height

16.18.080 Height Measurement
 Applies standards Citywide on
how to measure height
 Currently, a complex way to
measure height on a slope
Height Measurement
 Proposed simplified way to
measure height on a sloped
property
 Pad measurement technique
stays the same

16.18.140(D)(4)(b) Setback Regulations and
Exceptions
 Two existing provisions for
retaining walls
Setback Regulations and
Exceptions
 New TABLE 16.18-2
RETAINING WALLS - NONHILLSIDE AREAS to make it
easier to follow
 Added references for line of
sight areas, new setback of six
feet in width at 12 feet in height
 New cross-reference to go to
the retaining wall section for
additional design criteria and
for walls located in Hillside
Areas

16.22.030 TABLE 3-3

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES,

HEDGES, AND WALLS
TABLE 16.22-1

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES,

HEDGES, AND WALLS
66

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS
 Existing Table covering
maximum height of fences,
hedges, and walls
 Relabeling the Table to make
it easier to locate / reference

16.22.040 Exceptions to Height Limitations
 Existing section covers fence
and wall height standards
Exceptions to Height Limitations
 Updates clarify that criteria
applies to Non-retaining walls

16.22.050 Measurement of Fence or Wall
Height
 Provisions on how to measure
the height of a fence or wall
when there is a difference in
elevation
Measurement of Fence or Wall
Height
 Subjective criteria under
Director were recommended to
be removed by City Attorney

16.22.060 Walls Required Between
Different Zoning Districts
 Section covers design options
with walls between different
districts
Walls Required Between
Different Zoning Districts
 Fixes typo with “c” to read “6”
feet
 Cross-references back to the
retaining wall section
 Addresses missing wall
standards at the Business Park
(BP), General Industrial (GI),
and General Industrial A (GIA)

16.22.070 Special Wall and Fencing
Requirements
 Section covers fencing for
permanent, temporary, and
construction activities
Special Wall and Fencing
Requirements
 Adding centralized retaining
wall criteria to make it easier to
reference and for consistency

16.24.010 Purpose
 Description of the purpose for
hillside criteria.

Purpose
 Minor typographical updates
and corrections

16.24.020 Applicability
 Applying hillside standards that
have a slope of twenty (20)
Applicability
 Main area of Confusion
67

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS
percent or greater and/or are
designated on the significant
features map on file with the
department
 Fixing application errors for
slopes of twenty-five (25)
percent or greater
 Designated criteria within the
boundaries of a Hillside
Overlay Map

16.24.030 Definitions
 Standard definitions as it
relates to Hillside Development
Definitions
 Removal of the Average
Slope Calculation Definition
and replacement with mapping
provisions
 Corrects/updates existing
definitions consistent with other
portions of the MMC

16.24.040 Application Submittal
Requirements
 Information (natural features
maps, technical studies) to be
provided as part of application
filing
Application Submittal
Requirements
 Minor updates covering
submittal information /
technical reports

16.24.050 Project Review Procedures
 Approval processes for
projects within designated
hillside areas
Project Review Procedures
 Adding cross-referencing to the
Hillside Overlay Map for
applicability
 Clarification of “Commission” to
mean “Planning Commission”
 Updates with referencing to
objective criteria versus
subjective criteria

16.24.060 Hillside Development Standards
 Existing criteria covering what
is a hillside condition, roadway
placement, site placement,
fencing criteria, grading,
drainage, and public safety
Hillside Development Standards
 Minor updates to existing
criteria
 Grading terminology updates
consistent with City standards
68

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS
 Fuel Modification updates
consistent with Fire standards
 Updated graphics

16.24.070 Hillside Development Guidelines
 Existing criteria covering
hillside development standards
Hillside Development Guidelines
 Updates covering criteria for
prominent ridgelines, general
hillside siting, landscaping,
building envelopes, and
grading techniques

16.24.080 N/A Exceptions
 New Section for Exceptions to
Hillside Standards

16.24.090 N/A Reserved
 New Section reserved for
future updates

16.24.100 N/A Hillside Overlay Map
 New Section with Hillside
Overlay Map
 Reference to the City’s online
Geographic Information
System (GIS) as an additional
mapping resource for project
review

16.24.110 N/A Prominent Ridgelines Map
 New Section with Prominent
Ridgelines Map
 Reference to the City’s online
Geographic Information
System (GIS) as an additional
mapping resource for project
review

16.28.080 Landscape Standards. Landscape Standards.
69

MUNICIPAL

CODE SECTION

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE AFTER PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS
 Relabels Table 3-5 to Table

16.28-2 to make it easier to
locate
 Adds percentages to table that
were missing from a prior code
update
70

ATTACHMENT 13

STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE VERSION
Section 16.08.020 (Residential Districts General Development Standards), Table 16.08-03 (Residential (Single-Family) Zones General Development Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“
TABLE 16.08-3

RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development
Feature
RR ER-1 ER-2 ER-3 SF-1 SF-2
(3)
Minimum
Parcel Size

2.5 acres(2)

1.0 acres

0.5 acres(1)
10,000
sq. ft.
7,200 sq.
ft.
4,350 sq. ft.

Density Range 0.1 - 0.4
dus/acre

0.4 - 1.0
dus/acre

1.0 - 2.0
dus/acre

2.0 - 3.0
dus/acre

2.1 - 5.0
dus/acre

5.1 - 10.0
dus/acre
Minimum
Parcel Width
100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 70 feet 70 feet 55 feet, 45 feet for parcels less than
5,000 square feet.

This parcel width
shall be increased
to a 50 foot width
for every fifth lot
on a non-cul-d esac parcel street
frontage.

Minimum
Livable Area
1,000
sq. ft.
1,000
sq. ft.
1,000
sq. ft.
1,000
sq. ft.
1,000 sq.
ft.
1,000 sq. ft.

Setbacks
Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Interior 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet 10 feet 7.5 feet per side.

For parcels less
than 5,000 sq. ft. =
A minimum of an
average of 12 feet
overall for the
combination on of
both interior sides
with no side
setback of less
than 5 feet.

Street Side 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Accessory
Structures
Consistent with Section 16.44.150
71

Maximum
Parcel
Coverage
25% 25% 35% 35% 35% for
twostory;
45% for
single
story
50%
Maximum
Building
Height(4)
40 feet(4) 40 feet(4) 40 feet(4) 35 feet(4) 35 feet(4) 35 feet(4) Minimum Onsite
Landscaping
25% of front yard area
Small Attached
Unit
Configuration
Refer to Section 16.16.020 “Planned Residential Development General Standards” for development standards and project review and 16.16.030 “Planned Residential Development Design Standards and Parameters.” Notes:
(1) A forty (40) foot wide buffer shall be provided along Washington Avenue (from Guava to Elm Street) in the public right-of-way. Landscaping to include six-foot high block wall, pedestrian trails and/or sidewalk, and landscaping berms to act as natural buffers. New residential projects will be allowed to access from Washington Avenue with residential lots abutting Washington Avenue are prohibited from taking direct access from Washington Avenue.
(2) The minimum parcel area for properties zoned RR can include adjacent area to the centerline of the public street right-of-way.
(3) For projects proposing a clustering configuration with detached single-family homes or within small attached unit configurations, please see 16.16.020 “Planned Residential Development General Standards” and 16.16.030 “Planned Residential Development Design Standards and Parameters” for requirements.
(4) For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
72

Section 16.08.020 (Residential Districts General Development Standards), Table 16.08-04 (Residential (Multi-Family) Zones General Development Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“
TABLE 16.08-4

RESIDENTIAL (MULTI-FAMILY) ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Feature MF-1
(5) MF-2 MF-3 MF-4
Minimum Parcel Size 5 acres 5 acres 5 acres 5 acres
Minimum Parcel Width 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet Density Range 10.1 - 15
du/acre

15.1 - 18.0
du/acre

18.1-29.0 duacreMin. 30
du/acre
Minimum Livable Area 500 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft.

Setbacks
Street 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Interior 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Maximum Parcel Coverage 35% 35% 50% None
Maximum Height Limit 50 feet 50 feet 60 feet 100 feet
Open Space (per dwelling unit)
Private Open Space 60 sq.
ft./upper floor
100 sq.
ft./ground
floor
60 sq.
ft./upper floor
100 sq.
ft./ground
floor
All units 50
sq. ft.(2)
All units 50
sq. ft.(2)
Common Open Space 200 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft.(3) 150 sq. ft.(3) Recreational Amenities For projects
containing 25
or more
dwelling units,
provide one
recreational
amenity for
each 30
dwelling units
or fraction
thereof(4)
For projects
containing 25
or more
dwelling units,
provide one
recreational
amenity for
each 30
dwelling units
or fraction
thereof(4)
Minimum On-site
Landscaping 10% of the site area
Notes:
(1) When adjacent to existing single-family residential use or zone, the building setback from the nearest property line shall be 10 feet for the first 25 feet in height, above 25 feet in height the setback shall be 20 feet, and above 50 feet, the setback shall be 30 feet. (2) For stand-alone multi-family residential projects or as part of a mixed-use development, each residential unit shall be provided with at least one area of private open space accessible directly from the living area of the unit, in the form of fenced yard or patio, a deck or balcony at 73

a minimum area of 50 square feet. The minimum dimension, width or depth of a balcony shall be 5 feet.
(3) All common open space shall be conveniently located and accessible to all dwelling units on the site. Common open space may include landscaping, pedestrian paths and recreational amenities. In projects containing fewer than 10 units, the common open space shall have a minimum width and depth of 10 feet. In projects containing 10 or more or units, the minimum width and depth shall be 20 feet.
(4) One common recreational amenity shall be provided for each 30 units or fraction thereof.

The following listed amenities satisfy the above recreational facilities requirements.

Recognizing that certain facilities serve more people than others, have a wider interest or appeal, and/or occupy more area, specified items may be counted as two amenities, as noted.

In all cases, each square foot of land area devoted to a recreational amenity shall be credited as common open space on a 1:1 basis.
a. Clubhouse (two)
b. Swimming Pool (two)
c. Tennis, Basketball or Racquetball court
d. Weightlifting facility
e. Children's playground equipment
f. Sauna or Jacuzzi
g. Day Care Facility (two)
h. Other recreational amenities deemed adequate by the director. (5) For projects proposing a clustering configuration with detached single-family homes or within small attached unit configurations, please see 16.16.020 “Planned Residential Development General Standards” and 16.16.030 “Planned Residential Development Design Standards and Parameters” for requirements.
(6) For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
74

Section 16.08.030(A)(5) (Single-family Residential Design Standards and Design Features) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in part to read as follows:

16.08.030 Single-family Residential Design Standards and Design Features. …
“5. Walls.
a. Standard: Walls shall be designed using masonry materials such as split face and slumpstone, with colors that complement the architectural design of adjacent buildings. b. Standard: Walls adjacent to streets shall run in a continuous plane for more than forty-eight (48) feet without incorporating at least two of the following design features:
1) A minimum two-foot change in plane for at least ten feet; 2) A minimum eighteen- (18-) inch raised planter for at least ten feet; 3) A minimum eighteen- (18-) inch change in height for at least ten feet; 4) Use of pilasters at forty-eight (48) foot intervals and at changes in wall planes and height; or
5) A section of open grillwork a minimum four feet in height for at least ten feet. c. Standard: Refer to Section 16.22.070(F) (Retaining Walls) for retaining wall criteria.” …
75

Section 16.08.040(D)(7) (Multi-family Residential Design Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in part to read as follows:

16.08.040 Multi-family Residential Design Standards.
…
“7. Walls.
a. Standard. Walls shall be designed using masonry materials such as split face and slump stone, with colors that complement the architectural design of adjacent buildings. b. Standard: Walls adjacent to streets shall not run in a continuous plane for more than forty-eight (48) feet without incorporating at least two of the following design features:
1) A minimum two-foot change in plane for at least ten feet; 2) A minimum eighteen (18) inch raised planter for at least ten feet; 3) Use of pilasters at forty-eight (48) foot intervals and at changes in wall planes and height; or
4) A section of open grillwork a minimum four feet in height for at least ten feet. c. Standard: Refer to Section 16.22.070(F) (Retaining Walls) for retaining wall criteria.” …
76

Section 16.10.020 (Commercial District General Development Standards), Table 16.10-2 (Commercial Zones General Development Standards Requirements) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

16.10.020 Commercial District General Development Standards. “
TABLE 16.10-2

COMMERCIAL ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS
Development
Feature

NC CC RC
Minimum Site Area(1) None None 30 acres(2)
Setbacks
Street 15 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Interior (adjacent to
commercially zoned
properties)
0 or 10 feet 0 or 10 feet 0 or 10 feet
Interior (adjacent to
residential zoned
properties)
20 feet minimum or
equal to the building
height, whichever is
greater
20 feet minimum or
equal to the building
height, whichever is
greater
20 feet minimum or
equal to the building
height, whichever is
greater
Interior (adjacent to a
freeway)
25 feet minimum 25 feet minimum 25 feet minimum
Accessory Structure Consistent with Section16.44.150
Maximum Building
Height(4)
35 feet(4) 50 feet(4) 50 feet(4)
Minimum On-site
Landscaping(3)
15 percent 20 percent 20 percent
(1) Site area means a parcel or group of parcels, which are considered a unit for purposes of development.
(2) Portions of a site may be developed prior to development of the entire site, if it can be demonstrated that the portion does not compromise the overall comprehensive development of the site.
(3) See Chapter 16.28 , Landscaping Standards for Water Efficient Landscaping. (4) For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
77

Section 16.11.020 (Office Districts General Development Standards), Table 16.11-2 (Office Districts General Development Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

16.11.020 Office Districts General Development Standards. “
TABLE 16.11-2
OFFICE DISTRICTS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(1) (2)
Development Feature Office ORP
Required Building Setbacks
Street Side 25 feet 25 feet
Interior 25 feet 25 feet
Interior (adjacent to residential zoned
properties)
Twice Building Height Twice Building Height
Interior (adjacent to a freeway) 25 feet minimum 25 feet minimum Building Height
Maximum Building Height(3)(6) 90 feet(6) 150 feet(6)
Accessory Structures Consistent with Section 16.44.150
Landscaping
Minimum On-site Landscaping(4) 20 percent 20 percent
Minimum Parking Area Landscaping Based on Parking Lot Size(5) 5 - 24 spaces 5 percent 5 percent
25 - 49 spaces 7.5 percent 7.5 percent
50 spaces plus 10 percent 10 percent
Parking Requirements
See Chapter 16.34, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (1) Portions of a site may be developed prior to development of the entire site, if it can be demonstrated that the portion does not compromise the overall comprehensive development of the site.
(2) Development standards may vary for mixed use projects and projects over ten acres in size when comprehensively planned in compliance with Chapter 16.64, Master Development Plans, or Chapter 16.66, Specific Plans.
(3) For structures greater than fifty (50) feet in building height and within 500 feet of existing residential homes, a public hearing shall be required, and the review shall include an evaluation of view sheds to maintain views for residential homes and a shadow survey to avoid buildings casting shadows on residential homes.
(4) See Chapter 16.28, Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient Landscaping. (5) Minimum required parking lot landscaping area is included in required minimum on-site landscaping area.
(6) For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
78

Section 16.12.020 (Business Park and Industrial Districts General Development Standards), Table 16.12-2 (Business Park and Industrial Zones General Development Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

16.12.020 Business Park and Industrial Districts General Development Standards. “
TABLE 16.12-2

BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Feature BP GI GI-A
Minimum Parcel Size 10,000 square
feet
20,000 square
feet
10,000 square
feet
Minimum Parcel Width 75 feet
(minimum
average)
75 feet
(minimum
average)
75 feet
(minimum
average)
Setbacks Required
Street 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Interior None None 10 feet
Interior
(adjacent to residential zoned
properties)
20 feet minimum or equal to the building height
Interior (adjacent to a freeway) 25 feet minimum
Accessory Structures Same as main structure
From Residential Areas 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Maximum Height Limit(2) 50 feet(2) 40 feet(2) 40 feet(2) Minimum On-site Landscaping(1) 15 percent 5 percent 5 percent (1)
See Chapter 16.28 , Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient Landscaping (2)
For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
79

Section 16.12.030(A)(4) (Business Park and Industrial Zoning Districts Design Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in part to read as follows:

16.12.030 Business Park and Industrial Zoning Districts Design Standards. …
“4. Screen Walls/Fencing.
a. Standard: If walls are not required for a specific screening or security purpose they shall not be provided. Walls provide hiding places for intruders and surfaces for graffiti. The intent is to keep walls as low as possible while performing their screening and security functions.
b. Standard: When security fencing is required, it shall not include barbed wire or razor wire. Chain link fencing is not allowed along street frontages. Security fencing shall be:
1) Masonry pillars with open metal grillwork;
2) Short (two-three feet) masonry walls with grillwork on top; and 3) Open grillwork or chainlink fence along side and rear property boundaries or used internally on the site if not visible from the public street. c. Standard: Long expanses offences and walls shall be offset and architecturally designed to create interest and avoid monotony. Landscape pockets, a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide and four feet deep, shall be provided at forty (40)-foot minimum intervals along the wall. These dimensions may vary somewhat, as long as the overall effect is the same, subject to approval by the director.
d. Standard: Refer to Section 16.22.070(F) (Retaining Walls) for retaining wall criteria.” …
80

Section 16.13.020 (Innovation District General Development Standards), Table 16.13-2 (Innovation District General Development Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

16.13.020 Innovation District General Development Standards. “
TABLE 16.13-2
INNOVATION DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) (2) Development Feature Standard
Required Building Setbacks
Front 10 feet minimum
Rear 10 feet minimum
Street Side(3) 10 feet minimum
Interior Side(3) 10 feet minimum
From Freeway 100 feet minimum
From Residential Districts 75 feet minimum when adjacent to a residential district Maximum Building
Height(4)(7)
150 feet(4)(7)
Minimum Ceiling Heights 14 feet - ground floor
10 feet - above ground floor
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet for 1 and 2 stories, 20,000 square feet for 3 and 4 stories, and 40,000 square feet for 5 or more stories Required Building Massing Stepbacks
Floors 3 and Higher Minimum 10 additional feet from face of second floor below Accessory Structures Same as main structure
Public Art Standards
Minimum Public Art One percent (1%) of construction costs (capped at $400,000) to public art for projects where a building permit value exceeds $5,000,000
Eligible Artworks Public art located at or near the site; no commercial messages, including designs and logos
Landscaping/Open Space Standards
Minimum On-site
Landscaping/Open Space(5)
20 percent of the project's lot area. Amenities such as court yards, roof top gardens, outdoor dining, food
trucks/vendors spaces, shade structures, plazas, and artwork on-site may count towards landscaping/open space
requirements.

Minimum Surface Parking Area Landscaping Standards(6)
5 - 24 spaces 5 percent of the parking area
25 - 49 spaces 7.5 percent of the parking area
50 spaces plus 10 percent of the parking area
Parking Requirements
81

See Chapter 16.34, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (1) Portions of a site may be developed prior to development of the entire site, if it can be demonstrated that the portion does not compromise the overall comprehensive development of the site.
(2) Development standards may vary for projects over ten acres in size when comprehensively planned in compliance with Chapter 16.64, Master Development Plans, or Chapter 16.66, Specific Plans.
(3) Measured from right of way line or property line.
(4) For structures greater than fifty (50) feet in building height and within 500 feet of existing residential districts, a public hearing shall be required, and the review shall include an evaluation of view sheds to maintain views for residential homes in the residential district and a shadow survey to avoid nonresidential buildings casting shadows on residential homes. No building shall exceed any Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. (5) See Chapter 16.28, Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient Landscaping. (6) Minimum required parking lot landscaping area is included in required minimum on-site landscaping/open space area.
(7) For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
82

Section 16.14.010 (Purpose), Table 16.14-2 (Special Purpose Districts General Development Standards) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

16.14.010 Purpose.
“
TABLE 16.14-2

SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Feature P&R C&I OS
Setbacks
Street 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Interior 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
From Abutting Residential District 15 feet
Accessory Structures Same as Primary Structure
Maximum Height Limit(1) 35 feet(1) 50 feet(1) 35 feet(1) (1) For structures located within a Hillside Area, see maximum height criteria as provided within Section 16.24 (Hillside Development) and applicability. “
83

Section 16.18.080 (Height Measurement and Height Limit Exceptions) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“All structures shall meet the following standards relating to height, except for fences and walls, which shall comply with Chapter 16.22 (Fences, Hedges, and Walls).

A. Maximum Height. The height of structures shall not exceed the standard established by the applicable zoning district in Article II (Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses) or for structures within a Hillside Area under Section 16.24.020.A. In addition, the Mmaximum height for structures on a specific parcel shall be measured as follows:the vertical distance from finish grade to an imaginary plane located the allowed number of feet above and parallel to the finish grade.

FIGURE 3-1

HEIGHT MEASUREMENT

1. Establishing the high point and low point on the property as reference grade points as follows:
a. A measurement is taken from the lower of existing or proposed grade, 5 feet away from the lowest grade point around the structure in accordance with Figure 16.18-1. This point shall be the low reference grade point. The highest point anywhere on the structure may not exceed the elevation of that low grade point by more than the allowable height plus the grade differential between the low point of structure and high point of structure (excluding items as detailed under Section 16.18.080(B) (Exceptions to Height Limits)), but in such case where the actual grade differential exceeds 10 feet, only a maximum of 10 feet may be added to the maximum allowable height per the zone. The measurement is the difference in elevation between the highest and the lowest adjacent ground elevation surrounding the building. 84

FIGURE 16.18-1

MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
b. If the difference in elevation is 10 feet or less, the reference grade point is established at the highest adjacent ground elevation. See Figure 16.18-2. If the difference in elevation is greater than 10 feet, the reference grade point is established at 10 feet above the lowest adjacent ground elevation. See Figure 16.18-3. For stepped or terraced buildings, the building height is the overall height as illustrated in Figures 16.18-4 and Figure 16.18-5.

FIGURES 16.18-2, -3, -4. -5

MEASUREMENT CRITERA
c. For a project with a proposed pad configuration, the height of the structure measured by the vertical distance from the finished grade to the height of the roof line. See Figure 16.18-6. 85

FIGURE 16.18-6

MEASUREMENT WITH PAD CONFIGURATION
B. Structures on Sloping Parcels. Where the average slope of a parcel is greater than one foot rise or fall in 7 feet of distance from the street elevation at the property line, structure height shall be measured in compliance with Chapter 16.24 (Hillside Development).

CB. Exceptions to Height Limits. Exceptions to the height limits identified in this development code shall apply in the following manner:

1. Roof-mounted Features. Roof-mounted features including chimneys, cupolas, clock towers, elevator equipment rooms, equipment enclosures, and similar architectural features shall be allowed, up to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet above the allowed structure height. The total square footage of all structures above the heights allowed in the zoning districts shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total roof area of the structure.

Greater height or area coverage may be allowed subject to the approval of a minor conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 16.52.

2. Parapet Walls. Fire or parapet walls may extend up to four feet above the allowable height limit of the structure.

3. Public Assembly, Hotels, Class "A" Office and Public Structures. Places of public assembly including churches, schools, assembly halls, Class "A" office buildings greater than three (3) stories, hotels and other similar structures may exceed the established height limit by one (1) foot for every two (2) feet that the minimum required front, rear and side yard setbacks are increased. The increase in the front, rear and side yard setbacks is determined by averaging the total of the increased building setbacks at the closest point on all sides. The maximum additional height allowed is thirty (30) feet above the height limit established for the applicable zoning district. This exception shall not apply when the site is adjacent to single-family zoned property. This exception may be used in conjunction with the height exception for rooftop equipment.

4. Telecommunications Facilities. Telecommunication facilities, including antennae, poles, towers, and necessary mechanical appurtenances, may be authorized to exceed the height limit established for the applicable zoning district, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in compliance with Chapter 16.52. 86

5. Basement. A basement is defined as a story that has its floor surface below the adjoining finished grade as both conditioned and unconditioned space per the California Building and Residential Codes.”
…
87

Section 16.18.140(D)(4)(b) (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in part as follows:

16.18.140 – Setback Regulations and Exceptions
..

4. Setback Requirements for Specific Structures:
..
“b. Retaining Walls. (Retaining walls up to four feet in height are exempt.)Refer to Table 16.18-2 (Retaining Walls – Non-Hillside Areas) below:
1) Up to Six Feet. Retaining walls up to six feet in height may be located within a required set-back provided the exposed side of the wall faces into the subject parcel; and 2) Over Six Feet. Retaining walls greater than six feet in height, or where the exposed side of the wall faces out from the subject parcel without regard to height, shall be subject to the same requirements as the main structure in the applicable zoning district.

TABLE 16.18-2

RETAINING WALLS - NON-HILLSIDE AREAS
Criteria
Facing Outward Within Front or
Street-Side Setback
For residential, mixed-use
locations, commercial and
industrial, retaining walls within
a front yard or street-side
setback shall not exceed four
feet in height.

Facing Inward Retaining walls up to six feet in
height may be located within a
required setback provided the
exposed side of the wall faces
into the subject parcel and shall
incorporate landscaping to
screen the wall(s).

Line-of-Sight Locations/Visibility
Triangles
For any required line–of–sight
locations or visibility triangles, a
maximum of thirty inches in
height shall be permitted.

Six Feet or Greater - Retaining
Wall Facing Outward
Retaining walls six feet or
greater in height, shall be
subject to the same setback
requirements as the main
structure in the applicable
zoning district and shall
incorporate landscaping to
screen the wall(s).

Required Offset At twelve feet in height, a
retaining wall shall be separated
by a minimum of six feet
88

horizontally to accommodate
landscaping.

Design Criteria Refer to Section 16.22.070(F)
(Retaining Walls).

Retaining Wall(s) within Hillside
Areas
Refer to Table 16.24-2
(Retaining Walls – Designated
Hillside Areas)
“
89

Section 16.22.030 (General Height Limitations), Table 3-3 (Maximum Height of Fences, Hedges, and Walls) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

16.22.030 General Height Limitations.
“Fences, hedges and walls may be erected/maintained to the heights shown in Table 3-316.22-

1. TABLE 3-3

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS
TABLE 16.22-1

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS
Location Maximum Height (within Setback Areas)
Rear and side yards (interior and street side) Six feet* Front yards Three feet*
At intersections of streets, alleys and
driveways within traffic safety sight areas.

Twenty-four (24) inches
* The director may approve additional height to enclose or screen areas.” 90

Section 16.22.040 (Exceptions to Height Limitations) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“16.22.040 Exceptions to Height Limitations – Non-Retaining Walls.

A. Fences and walls otherwise limited to three feet in height, may be allowed up to five feet in height with see-through (e.g., wrought iron or grille work) fencing material; B. Fences and walls otherwise limited to six feet in height, may be approved up to eight feet in height with see-through (e.g., wrought iron or grille work) fencing material; and C. Fences and walls may be allowed up to ten feet when the required setbacks are maintained. Heights greater than ten feet may be allowed subject to approval of the director.” 91

Section 16.22.050 (Measurement of Fence or Wall Height) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“16.22.050 Measurement of Fence or Wall Height.

Where there is a difference in the ground level between two adjacent parcels of less than two feet, the height of a fence or wall constructed along the property line shall be determined by using the finish grade of the highest contiguous parcel. When there is a difference in the ground level between two adjacent parcels of two feet or more, the height of a fence or wall shall be determined by the director.”
92

Section 16.22.060 (Walls Required Between Different Zoning Districts) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“16.22.060 Walls Required Between Different Zoning Districts.

Walls shall be provided and maintained between different zoning districts as follows:

A. Where a nonresidential or multi-family zoning district abuts a residential zoning district, a solid masonry wall C of six feet in height shall be constructed on the zone boundary line. Walls may be constructed higher than six feet if the viewshed is not impeded. This is and subject to the approval of the Ddirector. If retaining areas are proposed at these locations, please refer to the design standards as described under Section 16.22.070(F) (Retaining Walls); B. Where a Business Park (BP), General Industrial (GI), or General Industrial-A (GIA) IG zoning district abuts another zoning district, a solid masonry wall six feet in height shall be constructed on the zone boundary line. This standard may be applicable at a project location within Innovation District (INN) depending on the proposed site layout and pedestrian and vehicle access. Please see Section 16.13.030 (Innovation District Design Standards) for additional details and criteria;
C. Walls shall be of solid masonry construction and shall be of a decorative design when in view of public rights-of-way subject to approval of the director; and D. The director may waive or modify requirements for walls between different zoning districts where a solid masonry wall already exists on the contiguous property if the following findings can be made:

1. The existing wall meets or can be modified to conform to the intent of this chapter;

2. Suitable landscaping can be installed adjacent to the existing wall to supplement and enhance the de-sireddesired physical separation;

3. The existing wall can be protected to prevent vehicle damage, if necessary; and

4. Concurrence of the adjacent property owner can be obtained, to modify the existing wall to meet the requirements of this chapter.”
93

Section 16.22.070 (Special Wall and Fencing Requirements) of the Murrieta Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“16.22.070 Special Wall and Fencing Requirements.

A. Swimming Pools, Spas and Similar Features. Swimming pools, spas and other similar features shall be fenced in compliance with Chapter 15.48 (Swimming Pool Enclosures) of the municipal code.

B. Outdoor Equipment, Storage and Work Areas. Screening of outdoor uses and equipment and activities shall be provided in compliance with Section 16.18.120 (Screening and Buffering).

C. Temporary Fencing. Temporary fencing may be necessary to protect archaeological or historic resources and/or trees during site preparation and construction. Temporary fencing for these purposes shall be subject to the approval of the director.

D. Fence and Wall Design. Perimeter fences/walls adjoining public rights-of-way shall be articulated in compliance with subsection 16.08.030(A)(5)(b) (Walls). The design shall include an appropriate mix of materials and landscaping subject to the approval of the director.

E. Construction Fencing. Active construction sites shall be enclosed with a locked temporary construction fence or similar barrier to prevent ease of access into the site.

F. Retaining Walls.

1. Retaining walls may be allowed to reduce grading, preserve natural, features, or increase soil stabilization.

2. Crib walls, keystone, loffelstein walls, and other similar living wall systems are a design option as long as it can be demonstrated on the project plans that the walls are structurally acceptable and provisions are provided for acceptable landscaping. Such wall shall be subject to the following standards:
a. Utilization of a curvilinear slope pattern consistent with the appearance of the natural hillside terrain.
b. Planted with landscape material suitable for the climate and wall exposure relative to the sun.
c. The landscape aesthetic effect to be achieved by the overall development shall be emphasized and considered.
d. The color palette and materials selected for the retaining wall shall blend in with the adjacent hillsides and landscape plant palette.

3. Retaining Walls shall incorporate materials and colors used in an adjacent structures. All materials used to construct the retaining wall(s) shall consist of native stone, poured-in-place concrete, precast concrete block, color treated, textured or veneered to blend in with the surrounding natural colors and textures of the existing landscape and native plant materials. 94

4. Retaining Walls visible from the public right-of-way shall be designed to provide variation in placement, use of planters, differing materials, and modulation of the wall plane.

5. Retaining Walls shall follow landform grading shapes and contours.

6. Tubular steel or wrought-iron safety fencing may be necessary in conjunction with retaining wall locations. If necessary, these wall locations are to provide for landscape safety maintenance personnel. Construction shall be consistent with the California Building Code and related codes.

7. Refer to Table 16.18-1 (Retaining Walls) and 16.24-2 (Retaining Walls – Designated Hillside Areas) for additional criteria.”
95

Chapter 16.24 (Hillside Development) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“16.24.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide regulations for the development of areas in the cityCity that, because of their topography, require special consideration to ensure that they are developed in a way that substantially maintains their natural character and environmental and aesthetic values to implement the City’s Ggeneral Pplan, and to provide for the safety, health, and welfare of the public by:

A. Providing guidelines and standards for development in visually sensitive hillside areasHillside Areas to minimize the ad-verse impacts of gradinggrading and to promote the goals and objectives of the City’s Ggeneral Pplan;
B. Maintaining an environmental equilibrium consistent with existing vegetation, wildlife, soils, geology, slopesslopes, and drainage patterns, and to preserve natural topography and scenic character, including canyons, creeks, knolls, rock outcrops, and ridgelines whenever feasible;
C. Encouraging development proposals that feature water conservation and aquifer recharge techniques;
D. Encouraging development proposals that are sensitive to fire, flood, slide, erosionerosion, pollution, or other safety hazards;
E. Encouraging sensitive development through flexible design and innovative arrangement of building sites by utilizing variable lot sizes, clustering, and setback variations; F. Utilizing nontraditional design standards for streets and hillside gradinggrading where development quality and public safety are not affected; G. Encouraging developments that incorporate desirable existing features of land (e.g., natural vegetation, viewsheds, topographic features);
H. Protecting significant natural areas for ecologic purposes, educational, and other scientific study purposes; 1. Encouraging the use of drought-tolerant plant material to protect slopesslopes from soil erosionerosion and slippage, preserve natural watershed, minimize fire hazard, and minimize the scarring and deformation of the natural landscape; IJ. Limiting the impact of cutcut slopesslopes on adjacent developed and undeveloped properties; and
JK. Providing for appropriate intensity of development (e.g., density, massing, etc.) in hillside areas through a variety of design techniques to ensure that development intensity decreases as slopesslopes become steeper (e.g., lot sizes appropriate for steeper topography and separation of structures sufficient to preserve thea viewshed).
96

16.24.020 Applicability.

A. Hillside Area. The standards contained in this chapter apply to uses and structures within areas that have a slope of twenty (20) percent or greater and/or are designated on the significant features map on file with the department.

A. Location Consideration for Analysis. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, the standards contained in this chapter apply to uses and structures within HIllside Areas that have a slope twenty-five (25) percent or greater and as designated within the boundaries of a Hillside Overlay Map. Additionally, please refer to 16.02.020 (Exemptions from Land Use Permit Requirements), 16.24.080 (Exceptions) for activities and features exempt from review.

B. Basis for Slope Determinations. For the purpose of this chapter, slope shall be computed on the natural slope of the land before grading is commenced, as determined from a topographic map having a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred (100) feet and a contour tour interval of not more than five feet.Slope determinations shall be based upon citywide contour data as provided on the City’s website under the Geographic Information System webpage under Interactive Mapping.

C. Development Plan Permit Required. Hillside developments shall be subject to the approval of a development plan permit in compliance with Chapter 16.56, unless exempt per adopted City policy or State Law (Example: Accessory Dwelling Unit).

D. The development standards, guidelines and provisions of this chapter shall be applied to those portions of land with a predominance of significant natural slopes exceeding twenty-five (25) percent and areas that are integrally contiguous or slopes determined as significant by the director. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to projects relating to subdivisions, permits, uses, structures, specific plans, master development plans, and associated site plans for development review except as specifically exempted by Section 16.02.020.

D. The development standards, guidelines and provisions of this chapter shall be applied to those portions of land with a predominance of natural slopes exceeding twenty-five (25) percent or greater and areas that are integrally contiguous. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to projects relating to subdivisions, permits, uses, structures, specific plans, master development plans, and associated site plans for development review except as specifically exempted by Section 16.02.020 (Exemptions from Land Use Permit Requirements), and 16.24.080 (Exceptions).

16.24.030 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall apply:

City. The City of Murrieta, state of California, referred to in this development code as the “City.” City Engineer. The director of Public Works/City Engineer of the city or their duly delegated representative.

City Manager. The official employed by an elected council to direct the administration of the City. See Chapter 2.08 “City Manager”
Clearing. The removal of vegetation (grass, brush, trees, and similar plant types) by hand or mechanical means (e.g. also known as brushing, and/or grubbing). 97

Cluster Development. A concept where structures are grouped on certain portions of a site, frequently of different shapes and sizes, surrounded by large expanses of open space.

Contour. A line drawn on a plan that connects points of equal elevation.

Cut. The mechanical removal of earth material.An act by which soil, sand, gravel, or rock is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, or relocated, and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom.

Daylight Line. The line between the finished grade and natural terrain drawn by connecting points where pro-posed contours meet existing contours.

Director. See Section 16.46.050 “Director.”
Elevation. Height or distance above mean sea level.

Erosion. The process by which the soil and rock components of the earth's crust are worn away and removed from one place to another by natural forces (e.g., as wind, and water) Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.deposit of soil, sand, gravel, rock, or other material placed by artificial means.

Finished Grade. The final elevation of the ground surface after development, that is in conformance with the approved plans.

Grading. To bring an existing surface to a designed form by excavating, filling, or landforming operations in excess of fifty (50) cubic yards.

Contour Grading. A grading concept designed to result in earth shaping forms that resembles natural terrain characteristics. Horizontal and vertical curve variations are often used for slope banks.

Conventional Grading. A grading concept that results in simple, straight forward, cut and fill lines and even planed slopesslopes. This is the most basic type of grading often resulting in an "engineered or man-made" appearance attributable to a lack of curvilinear or natural-appearing shapes.

Landform Grading. A grading method that replicates the irregular shapes of the natural ground surfaceslopes. Landform graded land surfacesslopes are characterized by continuous series of concave and convex forms interspersed with mounds that blend into profiles, nonlinearity in plan 98

view, varying slope gradients, and significant transition zones, between man-made and natural land surfacesslopes.

Hillside Area. Land with an average rise or fall of twenty-five (25) percent or greater or a vertical rise of thirty (30) feet or more Means those areas specifically designated on a Hillside Overlay Map as adopted by the City Council under Section 16.24.100.

Mass Grading. The movement of large quantities of earth over large areas. Disruption of the majority of the on-site surface terrain resulting in a successive pad/terrace configuration.

Modification or elimination of natural landforms may result.

Minimal Grading. A grading concept designed to minimize excavation and filling. Allows the movement of earth for projects (e.g., as individual building foundations, driveways, local roads, and utility excavation). The concept is associated with roads conforming closely to natural contours and with structures being built on natural terrain.

Pad. A level area created by grading to accommodate development.

Prominent Ridge. A ridge or hill location that is visible from Interstate 15, Interstate 215, or from an arterial or secondary street, that forms part of the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of land and has been identified on a “Prominent Ridgelines” Map adopted by the City Council. Refer to Section 16.24.110.

Ridge. An extended, narrow, conspicuous elevation of land generally between valleys.

Slope. An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of the vertical distance (rise), or change in elevation, to the horizontal distance (run). The percent of a given slope is determined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by one hundred (100). 99

Slope, Average. The method of determining average natural slope of land using the following equation:

I x L x .0023 where
A
I = Contour interval in feet.

L = Combined length in feet of contour lines measured on the project site. .0023 = A constant that converts square feet into acres and expresses slope in percent.

A = Project site area in acres.

Slope, Man-made. A manufactured slope consisting wholly or partially of either cut or filled material. Slope, Natural. A slope that is not man-made.

Slope, Significant Natural. A slope that is not man-made that exceeds twenty-five (25) percent and a vertical rise of thirty (30) feet or more.

Slope Ratio. The relationship of a slope's horizontal length to vertical height, with the height specified as one (e.g. 2:1).

Slope Transition. The area where a slope plane changes to meet the natural terrain or a level graded area either vertically or horizontally.

16.24.040 Application Submittal Requirements.

Applications for development within the hillside overlay zoning district shall comply with the submittal requirements of this chapter. When a development project is a specific plan or master development plan, the submittal requirements shall be incorporated in the appropriate sections 100

of the corresponding documents. If adequate detailed studies are provided with the specific plan and/or master development plan, subsequent implementing development applications shall be reviewed for substantial conformance with these plans.

Application filing requirements are as follows:

A. A Natural Features Map. This map shall identify slope banks, ridgelines, canyons, natural drainage courses, United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) blueline streams, rock outcroppings, sensitive bioticbiological habitats, cultural resources, and other natural features for the purposes of project review and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysisdetermined to be worthy of consideration for preservation.

B. A Conceptual Grading Plan. A conceptual grading plan shall be submitted at a minimum scale of one inch to two hundred (200) feet (this scale may be adjusted with the approval of the department). The plan shall include the following items:

1. A legend with appropriate symbols indicating high point, low point, spot elevations, pad and finished floor elevations, top of wall, top of curb, change in direction of drainage, and planned drainage improvements;

2. A separate map with proposed fill areas and cut areas, depths of these areas clearly shown in five-foot topographic lines. Quantities of each cut and fill area shall be clearly marked and calculated as a percentage of the total site area. The fill and cut areas shall be either colored green and red, respectively, cross-hatched, or screened to delineate the separate areas;

3. Contours for existing and proposed land conditions. Existing contours shall be depicted with a dashed line with every fifth contour darker, and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with a solid line. Contours shall be shown at minimum intervals of five feet of change in elevation, with two-foot contours in the flatter areas (if using Riverside County flood control district topographic maps, a four-foot interval may be used); and

4. Additional information as required to assist department review of the project.

B. Overall Conceptual Grading Plan. An overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted at a minimum scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet). The plan shall include the following items:

1. A legend with symbols identifying the following, but not limited to: high point, low point, spot elevations, pad, top of wall, top of footing, top of curb, top of ground surface on both sides of a retaining wall, and planned drainage improvements;

2. A separate map shall be provided with proposed cut and fill areas, depths of these identified areas shown in five-foot topographic lines. Quantities of each cut and fill area shall be identified and calculated as a percentage of the total site area. The cut and fill areas shall be either colored green and red, cross-hatched, or screened to delineate each respective area;

3. Contours for existing and proposed topographic conditions shall be provided within submitted plan exhibits. Existing contours shall be depicted with continuous screened lines and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with a solid line. Contours shall be shown at minimum intervals of two feet of change in elevation. Elevations of less than two feet shall be depicted with spot elevations; and
101

4. Additional information as required to assist with review of the project.

C. Drainage Map. A conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map describing planned drainage improvements. The map shall utilize cityCity standards or an acceptable alternate as determined by the City Engineer or their designeecity engineer.

D. Slope Analysis Map. A slope analysis map for the purpose of determining the quantity amount and location of land as it exists in its natural state and for calculating average slope categories. A base topographical map forof the site shall be prepared and shall have a scale of not less than one inch to onetwo hundred (100200) feet. The base topographical map shall include adjoining properties within one hundred (100) feet of the site boundaries to portray the site's context. Slope bands in contrasting colors shall be delineated in the range of zero to twenty-five (0—25) percent, twenty-six to fifty (26—50) percent, and fifty (50) percent or greater.

A tabulation of the land area by slope percentage shall also be provided. A heavy solid line indicating the twenty-five (25) percent grade differential shall be clearly marked on the plan.

The exact method for computing the percent slope and area of each slope category shall be sufficiently de-scribed and presented so that a review can be readily made. A heavy solid line indicating the twenty-five (25) percent grade differential shall be clearly marked on the plan. An eight and one-half by eleven (8 1/2 x 11) inch legible acetate reduction of the slope analysis with appropriate legend shall also be provided.

D.E. Slope Profile Drawings. A sufficient number of slope profiles shall be provided to clearly illustrate the ex-tent of the proposed grading. A minimum of four cCross-section slope profiles shall be included with the slope analysis. Additional profiles may be required as determined by the city engineerCity Engineer or their designee. The slope profiles shall:

1. Be drawn at the same scale and indexed, or keyed, to the slope analysis map, gradinggrading plan, and project site map. Both vertical and horizontal scales shall be indicated;

2. Show existing and proposed topography, structures, and infrastructure. Proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures shall be drawn with a thin, solid line. Existing topography and features shall be drawn with a dashed line;

3. Extend at a minimum of least one hundred (100) feet outside the project site boundary to clearly show the impact on adjacent property. Additional distance may be necessary to determine off-site terrain and features;

4. Be drawn along those portions of the subject site where:
a. The greatest portion of the site where alteration of existing topography is proposed; b. The most intensive or massiveportion of the site where development is proposed (e.g. where structures are proposed);
c. The is most visible from surrounding land uses; and
dc. Where proposed gradinggrading willwould potentially impact existing natural drainage conditions.
102

5. At least two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel to each other and roughly perpendicular to existing contourcontour lines. At least one other slope profile shall be roughly at a ninety (90) degree angle to the other slope profiles and existing contour lines.

F. Indicate Source of Data. Both the slope analysis and slope profiles shall Indicate the datum, source, date, and scale of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles.

G. Geotechnical Report. A geotechnical and soils report, shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer to Citycity standards and provided in sufficient detail to substantiate and support the design concepts presented in the application as submitted. Additional environmental technical studies and investigations, including, but not limited to, hydrologic, seismic, access/circulation, cultural, tribal cultural, and biological resourcesbiota research may also be required to help in the determination of the buildable area of a subject site for consistency with project review and for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis.

H. Objective Design Guidelines. Objective Ddesign guidelines shall be provided for projects that are to be reviewed by the Planning Ccommission. Otherwise, illustrative building elevationselevations showing all sides of the structure shall be provided.

I. No Grading Proposed. In the event that no grading is proposed, (e.g., custom lot subdivision) a statement to that effect shall be filed with a plan that shows possible future house plotting, pad grading, driveway de-sign, and septic system location for each parcel proposed.

The plan shall be prepared on a topographic map drawn at a scale of one inch to two hundred (200) feet.

I. No Grading Permit Required. See 16.24.080 (Exceptions) for applicability.

J. Additional Information. The following items may be required if determined necessary by the directorCity Engineer or their designee to aid in the analysis of the proposed project:

1. A line of sight or view analysis;

2. Photographic and/or computer generated graphic renderings;

3. A topographic model and/or large scale detailed partial model; or

4. Other illustrative techniques determined necessary to aid in review of the project.

K. Exceptions to the filing requirements shall be determined by the director

16.24.050 Project Review Procedures.

Projects within designated hillside areas shall be subject to review and approval by the director or the commission in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

A. Director Approval. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny development proposal applications pursuant to the authority as referenced under Table 4-1 “Approval Authority and Public Hearing Requirements.” when the following conditions apply:

1. Development plan permits;
103

2. Extensions of time; or

3. Building permit reviews.

B. Planning Commission Approval. The Planning Ccommission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny development proposal applications pursuant to the authority as referenced under Table 4-1 “Approval Authority and Public Hearing Requirements.” when one or more of the following conditions apply:

1. When padded building sites are proposed; or

2. Proposals referred to the commission by the director.

C. Modification of Requirements. The Planning Ccommission may modify or waive a development standard:

1. Wwhen an improved or more environmentally sensitive design willwould result. Further, where it can be demonstrated that imposing the objective hillside development standards would either render a parcel unbuildable and create a loss of its reasonable economic use, or place an undue restriction on the improvement of the property, development consistent with the City’s Ggeneral Pplan shall be allowed subject to approval by the Planning Ccommission, if the following findings can be made:
a. The site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development.

The proposed development will result in minimum disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas;
b. The gradinggrading proposed in connection with the development would will not result in soil erosionerosion, silting of lower slopesslopes, flooding, severe scarring, or create other geological instability conditions, or a fire hazard condition that would affect the public’s health, safety and general welfare for the City, as determined by the city engineerCity Engineer or their designee;
c. The proposed development retains the visual quality of the site, the aesthetic qualities of the area, and the neighborhood characteristics by utilizing proper structural scale and character, varied architectural treatments, and appropriate plant materials; and

16.24.060 Hillside Development Standards.

The following are minimum standards and shall apply to a use, development, or alteration of land in compliance with Section 16.24.020 (Applicability). These standards are supplemented by the provisions of the development guidelines contained in Section 16.24.070 (Hillside Development Guidelines) of this chapter.

A. Hillside Slope Categories. The following descriptionscategories serve as guidelines general standards for determining the applicability of hillside slopeconditions at a subject site categories to ensure that development will compliment the overall character of the landform. 104

TABLE 16.24-1

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
% Natural
Slope
Category
Standards
UnderUp to
25%
This is not considered a hillside condition and the provisions of the Chapter shall not apply.

Over 25% but
less than up
to 50%
This is a hillside condition. Development within this slope category is limited to the less visually prominent slopesslopes of a subject site, and then only where it can be showndemonstrated that gradinggrading, vegetation removal, safety, and environmental and aesthetic, and other environmental impacts are can be minimized. Potential iImpacts of from site access and roadways shall be minimized by following natural contourscontours or using grade separations.

Proposed sStructure(s) shall blend with the natural landform through their shape, material, and utilization of naturally occurring color(s). Special hillside architectural and design techniques are required, which may include the use of larger lots, variable setbacks, and variable building structural techniques and clustering. Padded building sites may be considered in some instances. Where this occurs, the commission may consider padded building sites adjacent to special features when it is found that grading of padded building sites will create a better relationship between the special feature(s) and the building sites. 50% and
over(1)
This is an excessive slope condition and development is prohibited. (1)This applies to the property as a whole.

B. Site Design.

1. Projects located in hillside areas shall incorporate clustering, variable setbacks, multiple orientations, and other site planning techniques to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and offer views to residents.

2. When clustering techniques are utilizedused, the minimum lot sizes may be decreased to five thousand (5,000) square feet when it is necessary to preserve sensitive lands (e.g., hillsides, creeks, habitat areas, etc.). Lots may be allowed smaller than five thousand (5,000) square feet, but not smaller than four thousand (4,000) square feet, for up to twenty (20) percent of the total approved lots and only under an approved specific plan when absolutely necessary 105

to preserve sensitive and hillside areasHillside Areas. Lots under five thousandthou-sand (5,000) square feet are prohibited in slope areas of twenty-five (25) percent or greater.

C. Driveways and Roadways.

1. Driveways shall be designed in a manner as to when a vehicle is entering a public/ and/or private streets, maintaining adequate sight distance shall be maintained as determined by the city engineerCity Engineer or their designee.

2. Driveways shall not be located within three feet of a side property line. Exceptions to this standard may be considered based on lot size, percentage of slope, appropriate drainage facilities and use as a common (joint) driveway by the City Engineer or their designee.

3. Only slopesslopes less than fifty (50) percent (2:1) shall be allowedpermitted adjacent to driveways.

4. Driveway grades above fifteen (15) percent may only be considered by the City Engineer or their designee when driveways are aligned with the natural contourscontours of the land, and are necessary to achieve effective site design, and safety considerations are met to the satisfaction of the building and safety official, City Engineer or designee, and fire code official. building and safety official, city engineer, and the fire department. Proper dDesign considerations shall be employed, including the use of vertical curves. On proposed driveways that may be approvedwith a slope greater than fifteen (15) percent, a coarse, all-weather paving material (e.g. asphalt or concrete), or grooves for traction, shall be incorporated into the designconstruction.

5. Roadways shall conform to the natural landform. Significant alterations to the physical and visual character of a hillside shall be avoided by eliminating large notches in ridgelines and wide straight alignments. Modified or reduced width roadroad width sections and split sections shall be considered in the layout of hillside streets to reduce gradinggrading and cutscuts in topography while allowing access for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. 106

FIGURE 16.24-1

ROADWAY PLACEMENT

6. Where road construction is proposed in hillside areas, the standards shall be consistent with those identified for high fire hazard areas, the California Fire Code, and with City design standards.

7. The extent of vegetation and visual disruption shall be minimized by the combined use of retaining structures and regrading to approximate natural slopesslopes. The view along a street frontage shall be buffered withprovide a pleasant appearance with a sense of open space 107

and landscaping and the maintenance of views shall be preserved as demonstrated on the project plans. The use of terraced walls and landscaping to reduce grading impact associated with retaining walls is a recommended design technique to address this visual impactencouraged.

8. Wet utilities shall be placed in the road right-of-way, where feasible and approved by the reviewing agency.

9. Scaled roadway drainage facilities and grades shall be provided consistent with City design standards.

D. Architecture.

1. The building envelope for primary structures, except for padded building sites, The maximum structure height shall be thirty (30) feet. Refer to Section 16.18.080.A (Maximum Height) for additional criteria on how to calculate the maximum height for a sloped parcel. as follows:
a. Downhill Lot. The maximum structure height shall be thirty (30) feet, measured from finished grade at the front setback line extending towards the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the side setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet extending up toward the center of the lot at a forty-five (45) degree angle to a maximum height of thirty (30) feet as measured from finished grade.

FIGURE 3-4

BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR DOWNHILL LOT
b. Uphill Lot. The maximum structure height shall be fifteen (15) feet, measured from finished grade at the front setback line extending up towards the rear of the lot at a forty-five- (45-) degree angle to a maxi-mum height of thirty (30) feet. The maximum height at the side setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet extending up towards the center of the lot at a forty-five- (45-) degree angle to a maximum height of thirty (30) feet as measured from finished grade. 108

FIGURE 3-5

BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR UPHILL LOT
c. Cross Slope Lot. The maximum structure height shall be thirty (30) feet, measured from finished grade at the maximum front setback line extending towards the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the side setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet extending up towards the center of the lot at a forty-five-(45-) degree angle to a maximum of thirty (30) feet as measured from finished grade.

FIGURE 3-6

BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR CROSS LOT SLOPE
ad. Architectural Projections Allowed. Architectural projections and variations in roof design are encouraged. Projections above the maximum height limits for architectural features may be allowed subject to approval by the directorDirector.

2. In steeper terrain, Rreduction of front yard setbacks may be considered in order to minimize rear yard grading.

3. Architectural treatments shall be provided on all sides of a structure. Elements of the architectural treatment used on the front facade shall be repeated on all sides of a structure with additional emphasis on those elevations visible from public rights-of-way.

34. Building materials and color schemes shall blend with the natural landscape. Colors shall be of earth tones and the value (lightness or darkness) of the specific hue shall be as close to that of the immediately surrounding landscape as possible as demonstrated on the project plans. Where exterior stucco is used, it shall have a final coat of integrated color in a muted earth tone. Contrasting color accents shall be kept to a minimum. 109

45. Treated wood or materials of a wood-like appearance, having the necessary fire retardant characteristics. are encouraged for a design option for exterior surfaces. Use of other natural materials (e.g., river rock) is a design option as wellalso strongly encouraged. The reflectivity of exposed surfaces (walls, roofs, windows, frames, and paved surfaces) shall be mitigated with the incorporation of by overhangs, trellises, planting, and similar features.

56. Exterior lighting shall be located and shielded so as to not impact adjacent property owners in terms of glare and privacy in compliance with Section 16.18.100 (Lighting).

E. Walls and Fences.

TABLE 16.24-2
RETAINING WALLS – DESIGNATED HILLSIDE OVERLAY
AREAS
Criteria
Up to Three Feet Within Front or
Street-Side Setback
Walls within the required front
yard or street-side setback shall
not exceed three feet in height,
shall be separated by a
minimum of three feet, and shall
incorporate landscaping to
screen the wall(s).

Line-of-Sight Locations/Visibility
Triangles
For any required line–of–sight
locations, or visibility triangles, a
maximum of thirty inches in
height shall be permitted.

Up to Six Feet. Where multiple terraced
retaining walls are designed to
retain larger slopes, they shall
not exceed six feet in height.

Refer to Figure 16.24-2.

Over Six Feet Prohibited
Over Six Feet and as Part of
Structure.

Walls that are an integral part of
the primary structure may
exceed six feet in height;
however, their visual impact
shall be mitigated through
contour grading and landscape
treatment. Refer to Figure

16.24-3.

Required Offset At six feet in height, a retaining
wall shall be separated by a
minimum of six feet horizontally.

Refer to Figure 16.24-2.

Design Criteria Refer to Section 16.22.070.F
(Retaining Walls).
110

1. Retaining walls, not exceeding six feet in height, may be allowed to reduce grading, preserve natural features, or increase soil stabilization. Within the required front yard setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed three feet in height.

2. Where multiple (terraced) walls are designed to retain larger slopes they shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of six feet horizontally. A maximum of two walls shall be placed together. Walls within the required front yard setback shall not exceed three feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of three feet and shall incorporate landscaping to screen the wall(s).

FIGURE 3-716.24-2

HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS

111

3. Walls that are an integral part of the primary structure may exceed six feet in height; however, their visual impact shall be mitigated through contour grading and landscape treatment.

FIGURE 3-816.24-3

RETAINING WALL AS PART OF PRIMARY STRUCTURE

14. Refer to Section 16.22.070.F (Retaining Walls) for additional criteria.Crib walls may be approved on a case by case basis if it can be demonstrated that excessive height is not being created and provisions for extensive landscaping are incorporated.

5. Walls and fences shall incorporate materials and colors used in an adjacent structures.

Naturally occur-ring materials (e.g., river rock, flagstone, etc.) shall be used whenever possible. 112

6. Walls and fencing visible from the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate visual interest through variation in placement, use of planters, differing materials, and modulation of the wall plane.

7. Walls and fences shall follow landform grading shapes and contours.

F. E. Landscaping. Revegetation in hillside areas shall reflect the visual patterns found naturally in local canyons and valleys. The landscaping as viewed from urban areas and arterial roadway system shall mask and screen man-made structures. 1 . Indigenous, or naturalized plants that blend naturally with the landscape shall be utilized in areas where planting is required. Plant selections shall be deep-rooting, drought tolerant, and fire resistive.

2. Natural landform planting shall be used to soften manufactured slopes, reduce the impact of development on steep slopes or ridgelines. and provide erosion control. These landscape techniques shall serve to reintroduce landscape patterns that occur naturally in the hillsides.
113

FIGURE 16.24-4

NATURAL LANDFORM PLANTING

3. A "vegetative backdrop" shall be maintained by replanting with native trees or the same vegetation that was removed. The vegetation should screen structures to the extent possible at maturity and preserve the appearance of the natural skyline.

3. A "vegetative backdrop" shall be maintained by replanting the site with native trees and/or providing the same vegetation that was removed consistent with City landscaping standards. As demonstrated on the project plans, the proposed vegetation shall be sized and 114

spaced appropriately to screen structures for growth of the species at maturity and to preserve the appearance of the natural skyline.

4. The surface of graded or disturbed slopes with three feet or greater vertical height shall be protected against damage by erosion through the planting of deep rooted ground cover as demonstrated on the project plans. Slopes exceeding eight feet in vertical height shall be planted with ground cover and a combination ofof shrubs and trees that have a high "root-toshoot" ratio. The size of shrubs and trees shall be determined based on the individual project area as deemed appropriate by the department and/or commissionPlanning Commission.

5. Jute mesh or an equivalent shall be required when planting occurs between August fifteenth and April fifteenth, and when determined, as necessary, by a soils engineer and/or licensed landscape architect. Jute mesh shall be used in combination with required plantings, as outlined in the Slope Landscaping guidelines available on the City of Murrieta website for optimal long-term slope stabilization.

6. Indigenous, native vegetation shall be retained and supplemented within canyons and along natural drainage courses where grading does not occur, provided that it conforms with fuel modification and tire prevention plans.

7. Common open areas and front and side yards adjacent to a street shall be adequately landscaped and irrigated. The areas shall be provided with native plant materials that blend with the natural character of the surrounding landscape.

7. Common open areas and front and side yards adjacent to a street shall be landscaped and irrigated consistent with City landscaping and fire protection standards. These areas shall be provided with native plant materials that blend with the natural character of the surrounding landscape.

8. In order to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and to facilitate revegetation, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed on slopes with planting. Design and operation of the irrigation system shall respect the special conditions that exist in hillside situations specific to maintaining slope stabilization and integrity. In all cases, the emphasis shall be toward using plant materials that may eventually not need to be irrigated: therefore, temporary irrigation systems may be used as approved by the city's landscape architect and city engineer. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized (e.g., drip irrigation, alluvial rockscape, etc.) Where irrigation systems are installed above ground, ultraviolet light resistant. brown line or other approved color, shall be used.

8. In order to protect slopes from soil erosion and failure, and to facilitate revegetation, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed on slopes with planting. Design and operation of the irrigation system shall respect the special conditions that exist in hillside situations specific to maintaining slope stabilization and integrity. In all cases, the emphasis shall be toward using plant materials that may eventually not need to be irrigated: therefore, temporary irrigation systems may be used as approved by the city’s landscape architect and city engineer.

Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized (e.g., drip irrigation, alluvial rockscape, etc.) Where irrigation systems are installed above ground, ultraviolet light resistant, brown line or other approved color, shall be used.
115

9. A permanent fuel modification area shall be required around development projects that are adjacent or exposed to hazardous fire areas for the purpose of fire protection. The fuel modification area shall be maintained by its owners, a homeowners' association, or other public nonprofit agency or conveyed in a public easement. Adequate provisions shall be made for the continual maintenance of these areas and the fire chief may require brush, vegetation, or debris to be removed and cleared consistent with the provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the municipal code.

Where feasible, fuel modification areas shall be designated as common open space rather than private open space. The recommended width of the fuel modification area shall be based on applicable building and fire codes and the recommendations of the fire chief with consideration given to:
a. A worst-case Santa Ana wind condition;
b. The natural ungraded slope of the land within the project and in the areas adjacent to the project;
c. Fuel loading:
d. Access to the project by fire suppression equipment. and access directly to the fuel modified area, and egress out of the project in case of evacuation; e. The on-site availability of water that can be used for fire fighting purposes with regard to fire flows, water pressure, and duration:
f. "Built-in" fire protection within structures (i.e., sprinklers etc.); g. Soil erosion and sediment control measures; and
h. The fire department fuel modification policy document.

10. Fuel modification areas shall also incorporate soil erosion and sediment control measures to alleviate permanent scarring and accelerated erosion.

9. A permanent fuel modification area shall be required around projects that are located within high or very-high fire severity zone, adjacent to a high or very-high fire severity zone, or exposed to hazardous fire areas for the purpose of fire protection. The fuel modification area shall be maintained by its owners, a homeowners' association, or other public nonprofit agency, or conveyed within a public easement. Adequate provisions shall be made for the continual maintenance of these areas and the fire code official may require brush, vegetation, combustible item(s), or debris to be removed, cleared, and maintained, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code. Where feasible, fuel modification areas shall be designated as common open space rather than private open space. The recommended width of the fuel modification area shall be based on applicable building and fire codes and the recommendations of the fire code official with consideration given to:
a. A worst-case Santa Ana wind condition;
b. The natural ungraded slope of the land within the project and in the areas adjacent to the project;
c. Fuel load;
d. All weather access to the project by fire suppression equipment and personnel, access directly to the fuel modified area, and egress out of the project area in case of evacuation; 116

e. The on-site availability of water that can be used for firefighting purposes with regard to fire flows, water pressure, and duration;
f. "Built-in" fire protection within structures (i.e., sprinklers etc.); g. Soil erosion and sediment control measures;
h. The fire department fuel modification policy and the Wild Urban Interface Undesirable Plants & Trees list;
i. Fuel modification zones for landscaping as outlined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

10. Fuel modification areas shall also incorporate soil erosion and sediment control measures to alleviate permanent scarring and accelerated erosion.

G. Grading.

1. GradingGrading shall not take place on natural slopesslopes that exceed fifty (50) percent.

2. SlopesSlopes created by gradinggrading of the site shall not exceed fifty (50) percent or 2:1., withoutSlopes exceeding 2:1, but less than, or equal to 1.5:1, may be considered upon additional analysis by a licensed geotechnical engineer. a soils report and stabilization study indicating a greater permissible slope. SlopesSlopes shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height between terraces or benches, except that the Planning Ccommission may permit slopesslopes exceeding these dimensions where the slopesslopes will result in a natural appearance and will not create geological or erosionerosion hazards. The soils report and stabilization study shall will be subject to third party review prior to approval by the cityCity. Refer to the hillside development guidelines (16.24.070) for methods to accomplish this standard.

3. Structures shall not visually impair ridgeline silhouettes. Structures are not permitted closer to a prominent ridge than fifty (50) feet measured vertically on a cross-section or one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontally on a topographic map. whichever is more restrictive.

Exceptions to this requirement for public facilities. utilities. and infrastructure necessary to serve the public health, safety, and welfare may be considered by the commission

3. In order to help address visual impacts at Prominent Ridgelines, use of the combination of natural occurring vegetation (trees/shrubs) and proposed landscaping shall be implemented to screen proposed structures at these locations. Additionally, any required Fuel Modification Zone and California Fire Code standards shall be considered in the design of this screening method blending with the terrain and existing vegetation.

4. ClearingClearing and/ or grubbing, excavation, orand other earth disturbances shall not be permittedinitated on hillside areashillside areas prior to the issuance of a gradinggrading permit,. with the exception of county/state authorized soils remediation operations, drill holes, and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data or for weed abatement activities. Trenches are to be properly backfilled and in addition, erosionerosion treatment provided where slopesslopes exceed twenty-five (25) percent. 117

5. Manufactured cutcut and fillfill slopesslopes exceeding ten feet in height which willwould be either exposed to public view, or are adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, shall be landformlandform or contourcontour graded, where physically feasible, so that their ultimate appearance will resemble a natural slope. This will include slopesslopes alongadjacent to streets and highways, slopesslopes, adjacent to parks, schools, open spaces, and other public facilities and other prominent slopesslopes. Refer to the hillside development guidelines (16.24.070) for methods to accomplish this standard.

6. LandformLandform gradinggrading shall be used where zero to twenty-five (0-25) percent (nonhillsidenon-hillside) slopesslopes intersect with twenty-five to fifty (25-50) percent (hillside) slopesslopes. Proper transitioning from manufactured slopesslopes created by conventionalconventional gradinggrading methods to natural slopesslopes shall be achieved gradually and naturally through the use of radii or irregular curvilinear shapes that will blend into the adjoining topography tangentially and not create abrupt changes.

7. FillFill slopesslopes shall not be placed perpendicular across a canyon. Straight line cutcut ofF fillfill slopesslopes shall not be made to appear like a dam. The terminus of the fillfill shall, instead, be concave in shape to restore the can-yoncanyon appearance. This concave configuration shall be in combination with the use of substantially flatter slope ratiosslope ratios (4:1, 3.5:1, 3:1I ) at or near the center of this indentation. Symmetrical or unsymmetrical concave configurations shall be used depending upon the adjoining or underlying topographic characteristics.

8. Minimal radius rounding at the edges of cutcut and fillfill slopesslopes is not an acceptable method. ProperTtransitioning from manufactured slopesslopes to natural slopesslopes shall be achieved gradually and naturally through the use of radii or irregular curvilinear shapes that will blend into the adjoining topography tangentially and not create abrupt changes.

9. In the planning, design, and development of public utilities and infrastructure, every reasonable effort as demonstrated shall be made to minimize gradinggrading impacts and incorporates a design that followsharmonize with the natural contourscontours and character of the land.

10. Side yard slopesslopes and low (less than twenty (20) feet in height) rear yard slopesslopes (less than twenty (20) feet in height) whose view is blocked by future structures need not have landform design applied.

11. GradingGrading shall be phased so that prompt revegetation or construction will control erosionerosion. Where possible,. only those areas that will be built on, resurfaced, or landscaped shall be disturbed. Top soil shall be stockpiled during the rough gradinggrading phase and usedutilized on padspads or revegetated habitat areas, upon the recommendation of the soils engineer. Refer to the hillside development guidelines for methods to accomplish this standard.

12. Applicable requirements of the cityCity and state shall be complied with in conjunction with the latest a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the issuance of a gradinggrading permit. This , which may include, but is not limited to, a Grading Plan, an ErosionErosion Control Plan, Best Management Plan (During Construction and PostConstruction Phases), (including Notice of Intent to be filed with the state Water Resources Control Board) and Construction Monitoring Program.
118

H. Drainage.

1. Debris basins, energy dissipating devices, and down drains shall be provided, where necessary, to reduce erosionerosion when gradinggrading is undertaken in the hillside areashillside areas. Natural drainage courses shouldshall be retained where health and safety can be maintainedare not jeopardized. Drainage courses retained in a natural state shall be protected from gradinggrading activity. In instances where a crossing is required,. a natural crossing and bank protection shall be a preferreddesign option over steel and concrete systems.

Where drainage structures are required, they shall be naturalized with coloration, plant materials, native rocks and/or concealment with gradinggrading techniques.

2. Drainage channels, slope drainage devices, interceptor drains, and terrace drains shouldshall be placed in less visible locations as demonstrated on the project plans and evaluated for erosion. Down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. In this manner they will be built into the overall landform of the slope. They shouldshall also receive a naturalizing treatment, which may include native rock, colored concrete, and/or landscaping so that the structure appears as an integral part of the environment. In all cases, a concrete liner shall be used in addition to a naturalizing treatment as demonstrated on the project plans and evaluated for erosion. 119

FIGURE 16.24-5

NATURALIZED VERSUS CONVENTIONAL LANDFORMING

3. Cross lot drainage usage shall be minimized. In situations where this is not possible using conventional design,. optional techniques (e.g., single loaded streets, reduced densities, etc.) shall be considered. Use of cross lot drainage may be considered only after demonstrationdemonstrating that this method will not adversely affect the proposed lots or adjacent properties, and that it is absolutely required in order to minimize the amount of gradinggrading which would result with conventional drainage practices.

4. Where cross lot drainage is utilized, the following shall apply:
a. Project Interiors. One lot may drain across one other lot if a maintenance easement is provided within either an improved, open “V”-swale gutter which has a naturalized appearance, or within a closed drainage pipe that shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in diameter. This drainage shall be conveyed to either to a public street or to a drainage easement.

If drainage is conveyed to a private easement, it shall be maintained by its owners or a Homeowners' Association; otherwise,. the drain-agedrainage shall be conveyed to a public easement. The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. Irrigation lines shall be placed above swales to minimize the impacts in the event of a system failure. When irrigation lines cross an open “V”-swale they shall be placed into a galvanized pipe, which is to be clamped to the soil on both sides of the swale subject to the review of the City Engineerdirector or designee.
b. Project Boundaries. On-site drainage shall be conveyed in an improved open “V”- swale gutter, which has a naturalized appearance, or within an underground pipe in either a private drainage easement, that is to be maintained by its owners or a homeowners' association, or it shall be conveyed in a public easement. The easement width shall be a minimum oftenof ten feet. A greater width may be determined necessary on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. 120

I. Public Safety.

1. Residential developments shall be constructed in a manner so as to reduce the potential for spread of brushfireswildfires as follows:
a. In the case of a conflict where more restrictive provisions are contained in the adopted and/or locally adopted versions of the California Building Code,uniform building code or in the California Fire Codeuniform fire code, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. b. Roofs shall be covered with noncombustible materials (e.g., clay tile, concrete shake, tile, or similar materials). Open ends shall be stopped in order to prevent bird nests, or other combustible material, lodging within the roof and to prevent entry of flames. c. Exterior walls and fences shall be surfaced with noncombustible or flame resistive materials. Alternate surface materials may be approved subject to the approval of the fire code officialchief and bBuilding oOfficial. Except as otherwise provided herein, exterior walls shall extend to the ground.
d. Balconies,. patio roofs, eaves and other similar overhangs shall be of noncombustible or flame resistive materials.
e. Plastic webbing, split or whole bamboo, reed or straw-like materials, corrugated plastic or fiberglass materials, and similar flammable materials are not permitted for use on patio covers.
f. Vents for attics and underfloor areas shall be designed and located to minimize the likelihood of spreading of fire.
g. Chimneys shall be provided with approved spark arresters.

2. Adequate water supply and pressure for proposed development shall be required in compliance with the adopted California Fire Codedepartment Standards.

3. The fire code officialchief shall require brush, vegetation, or combustible debris to be removed and cleared within ten feet on each side of every roadway and access drive, and may enter upon private property to do so. This requirement shall not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or cultivated groundcover provided they do not form a means of readily transmitting fire.

4. If the fire code officialchief determines in a specific case that difficult terrain, danger of erosionerosion, or other unusual circumstances make strict compliance with the clearance of vegetation undesirable or impractical, he or she may suspend enforcement thereof and require reasonable alternative measures designed to advance the purposes of this chapter.

5. Site design shall provide for all-weather equipment access to publicly maintained slope areas for maintenance and emergency purposes. Secondary access shall be provided, or a reasonable alternative method may be considered by the fire code official to ensure public safety.

6. Structures and facilities shall be restricted in geologically hazardous areas. 121

7. Special construction features shall be required in the design of structures where site investigations con-firmconfirm potential geologic hazards.

8. Development not on public sewers shall be permitted only after site specific investigations have been conducted that demonstrate the soils are suitable for on-site wastewater disposal and the disposal of wastewater will not degrade the subsurface water quality.

9. Due to the hazard associated with saturated soils in areas of steep slopesslopes, irrigation systems in critical areas that have the potential for failure in the judgement of the city engineerCity Engineer or designee shall be required to be equipped with potentiometers to make sure that the systems will not operate when there is sufficient moisture in the soil.

16.24.070 Hillside Development Guidelines.

The hillside development guidelines are intended to illustrate and amplify the appropriate development concepts for designated hillside areasHillside Areas. The guidelines are not intended to be an exhaustive list of standards, but rather policy statements, to encourage development that is sensitive to the unique characteristics common to hillside properties. The guidelines allow for flexibility and they encourage creativity, especially where a specific plan is prepared. HoweverHow-ever, the objective development standards provided in Section 16.24.060 shall be considered as a "benchmark" against which hillside development proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the purposes of this chapter.

The guideline's purpose is to allow for innovative or alternate methods of design in hillside areaHillside Areas. Innovation is encouraged as long as the end result is one that respects the natural character of the hillside and is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the goals, objectives and policies of the City’s Ggeneral Pplan.

Conformance with the guidelines willshall be incorporated in the preparation and approval of subdivisions and individual site developments. During the application review process, the cityCity will evaluate the consistency of the proposal with the purposes of this chapter. Prior to the start of the design effort, it is recommended that the project design team members read the City’s Ggeneral Pplan and become familiar with its policies.

A. Site Design.

1. Design of building sites shouldshall be sensitive to the natural terrain. Structures shouldshall be located in a way that minimizes gradinggrading and preserves natural features (e.g., prominent knolls, ridgelines, etc.)
122

2. Preserve views of significant visual features. See Section 16.24.110 “Prominent Ridgelines Map.”,the hillside overlay zone map as seen from both within and outside a hillside development. When designing lots and plotting homes, the following provisions should be considered:
a. Dwellings should be oriented to allow view opportunities. even though views may be limited. Residential privacy should not be unreasonably sacrificed; and b. A significant public vista, skyline, open space corridor, or vertical open space corridor as seen from an interstate, an arterial, or a secondary street should be a major design element in the site planning process.

3. Where possible, graded areas should be designed with manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of structures.
123

FIGURE 16.24-6
EXHIBIT 2 - BUILDING PLACEMENT AT A SITE

4. To the extent possible,. the width of a building, measured in the direction of the slope, shouldshall be minimized in order to limit the amount of cutting and tilling and to better "fit" the house to the natural terrain. The degree of slope will dictate how this is accomplished and shall be demonstrated on the project plans (See Figure 16.24-6 “Exhibit 3 - Building Placement at a Site.”
124

FIGURE 16.24-6
EXHIBIT 3 - BUILDING PLACEMENT AT A SITE

5. Clustering of development is encouraged. in hillside areas regardless of size. This is particularly important in environmentally sensitive areas in order to reduce the potential for tire hazard, erosion and excess runoff, and to preserve existing natural features and open space.

B. Driveways and Roadways.

1. Driveways that serve more than one parcel are encouraged as a method of reducing unnecessary gradinggrading, paving, and site disturbance. 125

FIGURE 16.24-7

ROADWAY PLACEMENT AT A SITE
C. Architecture.
126

1. The form, mass, and profile of the individual buildings and architectural features shallshould be designed to blend with the natural terrain and preserve the character and profile of the natural slope. Techniques that should be considered to accomplish this include:
a. Detaching the garage from the residence;:
b. Integrating retaining walls into garage walls on sloping lots to reduce gradinggrading and minimize visibility of walls;: and
c. Including architectural enrichments and variations in roof massing. Roofs should haveshall incorporate low profiles (for example 3:12 slope) to minimize their visual impact. On sloping land, the roof pitch shouldshall follow the slope of the hill-side, instead of being perpendicular to the hillside or opposing hillside slope. Care should be taken to avoid the use of gabled ends on downhill elevations.Gabled ends shall not be used on downhill elevations.

Upper stories shouldshall not be cantilevered out of the opposite direction of the hillside slope.

2. The design of the structure shouldshall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuildingbuilding scale and to minimize the blocking of views as demonstrated on the project plans. For example, within a development, the majority of the units should not be designed with minimum setback to minimum setback. See additional criteria as provided under Section 16.08.030 “Single-family Residential Design Standards and Design Features” and Section 16.08.040 “Multi-family Residential Design Standards”.

3. Large expanses of a single material on walls, roofs, or paving areas should be avoided.

Create interesting, small scale patterns by breaking up building mass, varying building materials, and through design and placement of windows and doors. Building plans and elevations should be varied throughout a development to avoid a monotonous "cookie-cutter" look.

D. Walls and Fences.

1. Walls and fences can be used to define a sense of place and create an attractive appearance. However, walls should not dominate a view, and their height should be limited adjacent to a street or trail or within a rear yard. Extensive landscaping should be used to 127

reduce the visual impact of walls. In addition, street front walls should incorporate varying design and natural materials. The use of open view fencing is encouraged, so long as adequate public safety and residential privacy are maintained.

1. In Hillside Areas with slopes greater than 25 percent and in order to maximize view opportunities, fencing on sloped areas shall incorporate the use wrought-iron, tubular steel, plexi-glass (for noise attenuation or aesthetics), or similar materials consistent with the maximum height criteria as provided under Section 16.22 “Fences, Hedges, and Walls.” Masonry walls may be provided at locations that contain refuse and recycling enclosures, playgrounds, or similar.

2. When possible, walls and fences shouldshall be designed as an integral part of the building in order to minimize the visual impact on surrounding areas.

3. Visually obtrusive solid fencing should be avoided in highly visible areas (unless required for sound attenuation), with the preference being for open (wrought iron) fencing.

E. Landscaping.

1. Street trees shouldshall be provided in select areas to enhance the natural character of the areas and to create a more rural appearance. Street tree species selection, and spacing of trees, shouldshall be sensitive to the context in which they are planted. Species selection shall be considered to minimize potential impacts to infastructureshould also be respectful of potential impact on infra-structure improvements (i.e. root damage to streets, sidewalks, etc.).

2. SlopesSlopes shouldshall be designed with informal clusters of trees and shrubs to soften and vary the slope planes, consistent with landformlandform gradinggrading concepts. 128

FIGURE 16.24-8

BUILDING ENVELOPE ON SLOPE
F. Grading.

There are three distinct types of gradinggrading proposed in these guidelines, each with a unique quality, and each with an individual and appropriate application as determined by the City Engineer or designee. Larger sites will most likely incorporate all three concepts in various parts of the plan.

1. Minimal Grading. This is typically used for large lot single family homes, custom homes with variable foundations that conform to the existing slopesslopes, and other uses that utilize 129

the least amount of gradinggrading in order to get the facility and structures built. This technique embraces the following concepts:
a. GradingGrading shouldshall be limited to individual flat graded pad areas for residential building sites. GradingGrading shouldshall be limited to only the required building areas and adjacent outdoor amenities in steep hillside areashillside areas; b. Foundation systems that require little or no gradinggrading are encouraged, forcing the architecture to con-formconform to the land rather than the land to conform to the dwelling:
c. Roadways, driveways, and individual building pads should be designed to conform with the contours and to attempt to daylight in the center of the road or building pad to ensure a minimum cut and fill situation; and
c. Cut and fill lines delineating the grading activity whereby cut areas adjoin next to fill areas shall be situated outside of areas where differential settlement is not desirable (e.g., roadways, building pads, driveways, etc.).
d. The balancing of gradinggrading is the concept to minimizes the amountvolume of cubic yards of earth excavated and filled.

2. Contour Grading. This concept results in post-development landforms that exhibit many of the characteristics present within natural landforms. ContourContour gradinggrading is typically used in situations where conventional, terraced, gradinggrading with benches and slopesslopes might be used but a "softened" gradinggrading look is desired. This would be desirable for areas that are limited in public view (i.e. concealed rear yards). Typically, contourcontour gradinggrading can reduce required cutcut and fillfill volumes as compared with traditional, terraced, gradinggrading. The design elements associated with this type of gradinggrading include: (See Figure 3-916.24-9 “Contour Grading”) a. The use of horizontal and vertical curve variations for slope banks creating a curvilinear pattern;
b. Post-development landforms that exhibit natural terrain characteristics (without the heavy modeling effects of landformlandform gradinggrading); c. A general rounding of slopesslopes at slope intersections and transition zones with natural grade;
d. PadPad configurations that are curvilinear; and
e. SlopesSlopes that are designed with contourcontour gradinggrading techniques (e.g., the location of slopesslopes behind structure (not in side yards), slopesslopes in hidden locations, or slopesslopes less than ten feet in height).

FIGURE 3-9

CONTOUR GRADING
130

FIGURE 16.24-9

CONTOUR GRADING
131

FIGURE 3-10

LANDFORM GRADING
FIGURE 16.24-10

LANDFORM GRADING

3. Landform Grading. Graded slopesslopes in this category will replicate the irregular shapes of natural slopesslopes. LandformLandform gradinggrading techniques shouldshall be used whenever slopesslopes are created that will be open to public view. This is particularly true for slopes that exceed ten feet in height.

The intent of these gradinggrading guidelines, is to incorporate the basic principles of the landformlandform gradinggrading concept as the preferred method in the design and construction of hillside development projects. so that they w ill be in harmony with the natural 132

topography and reflect natural plant distribution patterns. (See Figure 3-1016.24-10 (Landform Grading))
LandformLandform gradinggrading techniques embraceshall incorporate the following conceptsfeatures:
a. Land plans shouldshall flow with the natural topography rather than against it. This means that street pat-ternspatterns and building padpad configurations shall follow the underlying topographic features rather than cutting across them:; b. Landform graded slopesslopes are characterized by a continuous series of concave and convex forms interspersed with mounds that blend into profiles with varying slope gradients and with significant transition zones between man-mademan-made and natural slopesslopes; c. Pad configurations are irregular. Slope down-draindrainage devices shall either be placed to follow the natural topographic lines of the slopesslopes, or shall be are tucked awaylocated in special Sswale and berm combinations in order to conceal the drains from view.

Exposed segments in visible areas, as determined by the City Engineer, shall beare treated with natural rock for a more aesthetically pleasing appearance; d. TheThis technique shouldshall be used wherever possible to provide for a variety of both slope percentage, slope direction, and topographical detailing in a three-dimensional, undulating. pattern similar to existing terrain:; and
e. Manufactured cutcut and fillfill slopesslopes exceedingin excess of ten feet in height that will be either exposed to permanent public view, or are adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, shouldshall be designed with features characteristic ofof natural slopesslopes., This design shall be implemented,where physically feasible as determined by the City Engineer, so that theirthe ultimate appearance will resemble a natural slope. This will includeis applicable to, but not limited to, slopesslopes along streets, and highways, adjacent to parks, schools, open spaces,. other public facilities, and other prominent and visible slopesslopes.

4. The following basic gradinggrading guidelines and techniques serve to implement preferred landformlandform gradinggrading techniques and to help avoid unnecessaryeliminate or minimize cutcut and fillfill:
a. CutsCuts. When convex shaped natural features. (e.g., protruding minor landforms) are cutcut, the residual landform shouldshall be in a form to maintain positive and resemble the original slope. not be a flat slope face, but rather should be restored to resemble the original.

This will require more than just rounding at the edges but, in effect, reconfiguring it so the final result will give the appearance of a protruding ridgeline. b. Use of variable slope ratiosslope ratios. Because Landform grading designs require the use of variable slope ratios at greater than 2:1 and may create valleys or concave indentations on building pad areas, they may result in loss of usable area. In addition, engineering and construction costs may increase. Be-cause of this, segments of a cut or fill slopes may be designed with variable slope ratios less than 2:1, but not less than 1.5: I within the following guidelines and subject to third party review at the applicant's expense: Because landform grading designs require the use of variable slope ratios, this may result in loss of usable area near building pads. Therefore, only cut slopes may be steeper than 2:1, but not steeper than 1.5:1 and shall meet the following guidelines:
133

1) A geotechnical engineer shall certify that slopesslopes will meet standard stability requirements;
2) A licensed landscape architect shall certify the plantability of the slopes, with an emphasis on the slopes steeper than 2:1; and
32) The overall ratio from top to toe will be 2:1 or flatter; and 43) Ratios flatter than 2:1 will also be used in the slope design. c. GradingGrading operations should be plannedshall occur to avoid the rainy season, October fifteenth (15th) to April fifteenth (15thI 5th). GradingGrading permits shall only be issued when a plan for erosionerosion control and silt retentionsediment control has been approved by the cityCity without regard to time of year. Additionally, those projects also requiring a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall obtain approval of the SWPPP prior to any grading permit issuance.
d. A rRounded and smooth transitions should be madeshall occur where when the planes of man-mademan-made and natural slopesslopes intersect. Where cutcut or fillfill conditions are created, slopesslopes shouldshall be varied. rather than left at a constant angle or create an unnatural, rigid, `'engineered" appearance.The angle of a graded slopeslope shouldshall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. e. Manufactured slopesslopes adjacent to roadways shall be consistent with the landformlandform gradinggrading and revegetation techniques. where physically feasible to create visually interesting and pleasing streetscapes. The higher the slope becomes, the more important the modeling effect of landform grading becomes. f. Top of slope berms shall be used to eliminate the possibility of drainage sheet flow over the slope that would potentially cause an unstable condition. Tops of slopes should be rounded in conformance with landform grading techniques, or increased in size to reduce the visual impact of the back of a home.
f. Slopes shall implement drainage measures as detailed within Sub-article 11 of the City of Murrieta Grading Manual.

G.G. Drainage.

1. Natural drainage courses shallshould be preserved and enhanced to the extent possiblemaximum extent practicable. Rather than filling them in, drainage features should be incorporated as an integral part of the project design in order to enhance the overall quality and aesthetics of a site, to provide attractive open space vistas, and to preserve the natural character of the site. Encourage the use of natural drainage courses as natural boundaries between neighborhoods.Rather than eliminate existing natural drainage features and courses, preservation of existing natural drainage features and courses is encouraged. Moreover, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requires this of all projects, to the maximum extent practicable.

2. Storm drainage runoff resulting from project development should be minimized. Where possible, flood control plans for storm water should encourage the detention of water for percolation in to the ground-water to conserve it for future uses and to mitigate downstream flooding.The NPDES Permit also requires project’s stormwater runoff to be retained onsite via infiltration to the maximum extent practicable under California law. Runoff not retained onsite 134

shall be conveyed offsite per general standards and practices, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

16.24.080 Exceptions.

A. No Grading Permit Required. A grading permit is not required if the project meets the criteria as provided under Section 15.52.040 (Permit Exceptions). Additionally, flatwork, pools, or spas, which results in the disturbance of 50 cubic yards or less, does not require a grading permit. For the purpose of this section, flatwork is hardscaping (such as concrete or pavers) for patios, walkways, etc. All other activities resulting in the disturbance of 50 cubic yards or less (excluding those areas that are identified within Section 16.24.060(G) (Grading)), shall require the applicant to provide a statement to that effect, which shall be filed with the City Engineer including the following information: parcel boundaries, pad elevations, on or off-site existing grade elevations, vehicular access to and from the project site with both private and public roadways, existing utilities, and, if applicable, septic system location(s). The plan may be prepared on a topographic map drawn at a scale as large as one (1) inch to one-hundred (100) feet subject to the satisfaction of City Engineer.

B. Residential Accessory Structures and Accessory Dwelling Units. This Chapter shall not apply to development of residential accessory structures and accessory dwelling units on parcels with existing development approvals when the new construction:

1. Requires the removal of no more than 50 cubic yards of soil;

2. Does not require the use of a retaining wall;

3. Meets the criteria as described within Section 16.44.150 (Residential Accessory Uses and Structures) and Section 16.44.160 (Accessory Dwelling Units); and, 4 . Satisfies the criteria as identified within Section 16.24.060(G). 135

16.24.090 (Reserved).

Reserved for future updates
136

16.24.100 Hillside Overlay Map.

A. Refer to the City’s online Geographic Information System (GIS) as an additional mapping resource for project review.
137

16.24.110 Prominent Ridgelines Map.

A. Refer to the City’s online Geographic Information System (GIS) as an additional mapping resource for project review.”
138

Section 16.28.080 (Landscaping Standards) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“16.28.080 Landscape Standards.

Landscape areas and materials shall be designed, installed, and maintained in compliance with the following:

A. General Design Standards. The following features shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed landscape and shown on required landscape plans:

1. Landscaping shall be planned as an integral part of the overall project design and not simply located in excess space after parking areas and structures have been planned;

2. Pedestrian access to sidewalks and structures shall be considered in the design of all landscaped areas;

3. Landscape planting shall be provided for all adjacent public rights-of-way, in compliance with Chapter 16.108 (Improvements);

4. With the exception of single-family residential units, landscape adjacent to driveways and parking areas shall be protected from vehicle damage through the provision of minimum six (6) inch high concrete curbs or other types of barriers as approved by the director;

5. Landscaped areas shall not be less than five (5) feet in width, except where determined by the director;

6. Concrete strips, a minimum of four (4) inches in width, shall be provided to separate all turf areas from other landscaped areas, except for single-family residential landscape projects;

7. Permeable surfaces shall be used wherever permissible in place of impervious paving, to encourage on-site water infiltration and support water conservation measures. Permeable surfaces shall be identified on plans; and

8. Protective tree grates shall be provided for trees planted in pedestrian areas, except for single-family residential landscape projects and as determined by the director.

B. Plant Materials. Plant materials shall be selected and installed to comply with the following requirements:

1. A mix of plant materials shall be provided in compliance with the following table (Table 3- 516.28-2). Calculations documenting the required mix shall be shown on the landscape plan; Table 3-5TABLE 16.28-2

MINIMUM REQUIRED MIX OF PLANT MATERIALS
Plant Material Minimum Required Percentage
Trees
Twenty-four (24) inch box 35%*
Fifteen- (15)-gallon 65%
Shrubs
139

Five- (5-) gallon 70%
One- (1-) gallon (herbaceous only) with city
approval
30%
Groundcover
Coverage within two (2) years 100%
A greater percentage of specimen trees may be utilized with a corresponding reduction in the number of fifteen- (15-) gallon trees subject to the review of the director.

2. Trees for shade shall be provided for buildings/structures, as well as for parking lots and open space areas. These trees can be deciduous or evergreen and are to be incorporated to provide natural cooling opportunities for the purpose of energy and water conservation;

3. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures, at an equivalent of at least one (1) tree per thirty (30) linear feet of structure. Other areas shall provide trees at a ratio of one (1) tree for each three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area. The clustering of trees is encouraged;

4. Mature specimen trees in thirty-six (36) inch and forty-eight (48) inch boxes shall be provided for large projects in sufficient quantity subject to the approval of the Director, to provide variety and emphasis at main focal areas;

5. All trees shall be staked or guyed (on a case-by-case basis) subject to the review of the director and in compliance with city standards;

6. Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with service lines and traffic safety sight areas;

7. Trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in a manner that protects the basic rights of adjacent property owners, particularly the right to solar access;

8. Trees planted near public sidewalks or curbs shall be of a species and installed in a manner that prevents physical damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and other public improvements; and

9. Groundcover shall be of live plant material. Limited quantities of gravel, colored rock, bark, and similar materials may be used in combination with a living groundcover.” 140
1 Tracy, Christopher
From: Tracy, Christopher
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:11 PM
To: McDonald, Cristal; Ramirez, Kimberly; Garcia, Sylvia Cc: Chantarangsu, David; Stiehl, Carl
Subject: FW: Hillside Ord - Please Distribute for Council Workshop Attachments: Ltr to Council Hillside Grading Ord.pdf
Hi Cristal,
Please ensure that this is distributed to the Council for the workshop:

Thank you,
Chris Tracy, AICP

SENIOR PLANNER

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CITY OF MURRIETA
O: (951) 461-6046
[email protected]
1 Town Square | Murrieta, CA 92562
www.MurrietaCA.gov | Connect with us
From: A Long <[email protected]>
Date: August 15, 2023 at 8:29:00 AM PDT
To: "Warren, Cindy" <[email protected]>
Subject: Hillside Ord

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please see my attached letter regarding the workshop on the Hillside Grading Ordinance.

Also, I appreciate staff's effort on retaining walls, but this is a good example of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." While there are examples of tall retaining walls that are an eyesore. There are more examples of tall retaining walls that work well, but you can't see. This is my point. What difference does it make if a retaining wall is 5' or 50' if you can't see it??? I can think of several commercial site that would not be able to build unless the built a very tall retaining wall that can't bee seen. Also, if fire codes keep widening road standard, there may be many rural residential homeowners needing to widen their driveways with retaining if they propose to build accessory structures like a bar,
141
2 Please keep in mind, this ordinance and direction being sought is not mandated by the region, state, or federal agencies. It is one of the few items you can exercise local control over. Please consider those residents you are placing this map upon.

Respectfully,
Alan
142
Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tem, and Council members,
I am writing you out of grave concern, due to the damage that the proposed Hillside grading ordinance will cause my family, business, and neighbors.

The current Hillside Ordinance is to be applied citywide as written and originally adopted in 1998. Admittedly, the city has not been consistent when and where they enforce this ordinance. Development has been approved within and outside of the proposed Hillside Overlay Map (HOM), Prominent Ridgeline Map (PRM) and current unofficial map the city periodically uses to enforce the Hillside Ordinance. Also, it’s worthy to mention, the city claims it was not the intent for the policy to be enforced citywide, yet it is written as such.

While I cannot opine on what everyone’s past intent was/is, I can tell you the General Plans (GP) mentions viewshed and views from the major freeways of the “NATURAL SETTING.” While I agree with staff, the GP lacks detail and is vague. However, it clearly places value on the “views from major freeways” for “people passing through the area” on major freeways. The GP also mentions “the Valley Floor” to be a protected viewshed, but that’s another confusing topic. In either case, the views from the I15 & 1215 freeways have changed since 1998. Frankly, you only get peekaboo view of our hills due to all the development that has occured. The better question is to be asking is, with all the development along the I15 and I215, does this section GP and Hillside ordinance still make since?
The vagueness and ambiguity of this topic should not be a surprise, but the recommendations being made should be. In July 2019, I had several conversations and emails with the Murrieta Planning Director regarding the wording in the Conservation section of our GP and Hillside Grading Ordinance. Specifically, I informed staff that the vagueness and wording would cause confusion for future staff and governing bodies. I suggested that, since the GP was being opened, this language be cleared up. After staff reviewed the language, I was assured that development could occur on my property and the current CUP and past Tentative Tract Map (TTM) approval set the precedence.

Well, here we are fighting again.

BACKGROUND: On January 6, 2005, an application was filed by DFC Family Limited Partnership for a tentative tract map, for property located west of the intersection of Los Alamos and Mason Roads on the southernmost hill of what is known as the Hogbacks, to allow for a fifteen (lot) residential subdivision of 37.86 acres (38 acres). Several workshops and discussions were scheduled regarding the Hillside Grading Ordinance and potential development. On July 26, 2006, the Planning Commission met in a study session workshop to consider the DFC Family Limited Partnership for a tentative tract map and one other property owner proposing to develop on the Hogbacks in the Los Alamos District. Neighboring residents near the project overwhelmingly spoke in favor of the project. Feedback was requested from the Commissioners at the workshop on “the feasibility” of the project. It was the Commission’s consensus that “a subdivision on the 143
Hogbacks in the Los Alamos District will be possible. The project and CEQA documents were later approved.

Since this time, I purchased the above-mentioned property and applied for a CUP. Again, the CEQA documents and CUP were approved. We have made significant investment in time and funding to get through the CUP process on properties that have been significantly developed and are NOT in their natural setting. This can be said about my adjacent neighbors at the bottom of slope (42 Lots).

In fact, the property I own had a slope analysis done for the approved TTM. Most of my property is less than 25%, yet is identified in both the HOM and PRM. The areas that are greater than 25% has been placed into conservation through the CUP process.

Also, I do not support using the “Technology” available to the city to determine whether a parcel should be in a definitive map. This “Technology” has already proven not to be reliable as there are several lots identified on the HOM that are completely flat.

As you know, the same areas identified in the HOM and PRM are within the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan, another layer of conservation requirments. The MSHCP has been the primary vehicle used to gain most conservation land in Murrieta. Most of the land identified in the PRM has already been placed into conservation and the remaining land already developed. In essence, the MSHCP accomplished more than what was identified in the conservation section of the GP. The developed parcels identified on the newly proposed HOM and PRM should not be singled, preventing them the use their property like the rest of the city.

To summarize, most of my property is not more than 25% slope, the areas that are greater than 25% has already been conserved, the previous staff and governing body aproned TTM, there is a current CUP for commercial business, and land has been every portion of land that remains has been disturbed by way of grading, imported dirt and/or structures and is NOT in its “natural setting.” For these reasons, and many others, I am asking to be removed from the Hillside Overlay map and Prominent Ridgeline Map.

The following picture is my property. We have 9 lots, an underlying tract map of 15 lots, 6 SFD units, multiple accessory structures, water tanks, and an active commercial business. Every square foot of the parcels on top of this hill has been developed by grading, trenching, importing fill dirt, and/or built upon. Additionally, many of the adjacent parcels (42 lots) can say the same, some having little to no slope. See picture below with yellow stars indicating homes mid-slope.
144
Also, the growth around the city has blocked the viewshed of these areas and now only offers a “peekaboo” view from few areas. Many of these areas have approved development projects that will continue to block the view. See following pictures:
145
146
147
148
Yellow stars indicate homes
Yellow stars indicate homes
149
150
The following pictures are some of the development and homes that cannot be seen from most viewsheds
151
152
153
Again, every square foot or our property has been graded, trenched, built on and/or had imported fill dirt. Clearly, our properties are NOT in the natural ridgeline state. Placing us in these HOM and/or PRM, restricting our use of land that has already been developed will cause us hardship and will significantly impact our business and family that has been here for 5 generations.

There are several ridgelines that are still in their natural state. However, as development continues the viewshed will continue to dwindle. Nevertheless, if the city council continues to support a PRM. I suggest preserving undeveloped ridgelines that are in their natural state as stated in the General Plan. See below picture:

The Center Hogback is the tallest and largest Hogback and the ridgeline is in its natural state.

This Ordinance is not being mandated from the region, state, and/or federal government. On the contrary, it is a local decision, one of the few you get to make these days.

We ask that you reconsider our property and remove it from the HOM, PRM or any other map that would cause us restrictions the rest of the city is free from, and instead focus on preserving undeveloped ridgelines that are in their natural state, such as the below picture:
154
Respectfully.

Alan Long
Resident
Heritage Hill, Owner
155
Hillside Updates Workshop 2
(DCA-2021-2396)
Item WS1.

March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Item WS1 Staff Presentation
156
 Directed by City Council in 2022 at annual priority goals workshop to address the Hillside Development standard
inconsistencies.
 When the standards were initially adopted in 1997, they were applied on a citywide basis.

Why is staff evaluating
the standards?
3 157
 Address inconsistent standards that may challenge
the interpretations of the current standards.
 City’s Hillside standards and general height standards are overly complicated and not consistently applied.
 Inability to streamline project reviews that are
consistent with General Plan and Development Code.

Why is the City proposing
these modifications?
2 158
 The overall goal for these updates is to provide concise and accurate direction for all involved.

Why is the City proposing
these modifications?
4 159
5 160
6 161
7 CURRENT PROPOSED
162
• 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.

Hillside Areas - Mapping Exercise Updates
Key Takeaways
14 163
• 22 parcels are developed and are privately owned.
• 21 parcels are developed, are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
• 8 parcels are undeveloped and privately owned.
• 7 parcels are undeveloped, privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.

Prominent Ridgelines Areas
Mapping Exercise Updates
Key Takeaways
17 164
10 165
11 166
“Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading
- Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters
18 • Both the General Plan and Municipal Code address preservation of “ridgeline-related” visual resources covering both natural and manmade areas.
• Policy CSV-5.1 speaks to maintaining the aesthetic values of sloped areas in which the ridgeline would be a component of a slope where the ridgeline would be a slope component.
167
“Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading
- Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters
19 • For the Los Alamos Hills Area under LU-22.1, calls for the preservation of both natural and visual resources.
• LU-22.2 speaks to encouraging new construction and landscape design that utilizes grading techniques to mimic the natural terrain. • Again, the ridgeline would be an aesthetic component under both of these implementing policies.
168
“Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading
- Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters
20 • The Development Code calls for the preservation of significant visual features - whether natural or manmade.
• …structures shall not visually impair ridgeline silhouettes with setback criteria.
• ..manufactured cut and fill slopes with prominent and visible slopes need to be designed in a manner that emulates natural conditions. 169
15 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Building Height Less Restrictive – more flexibility for building height measurement as a result of sloped topography.

Retaining Wall Height Change in approach - more restrictive in non-hillside areas to improve aesthetics by eliminating walls over 12 feet in height, with provisions for additional setbacks, and landscaping requirements.

Applicability Change in approach – eliminates uncertainty by replacing a formula applicable to any property to properties that are predominantly greater than 25% slope.
170
16 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Prominent Ridge Definition Information only – establishes a reference map representative of the City’s past and current General Plan descriptions of significant landforms in the City.

Clarification of Zoning
Application Requirements
for Hillside Development
Adds clarity - Updates language adopted in 1997 that has never been updated, and that does not reflect current best practices for depicting information.

Slope Categories Adds clarity – eliminates code inconsistencies Site Design Adds clarity - Updates graphic exhibits and identifies reviewing parties for driveways/ roadways. Specifies use of landscaping as a recommended design technique with roadways.
171
17 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Architecture Change in approach – modifies existing building height approach to follow the proposed building height measurement change. Net effect could be slightly higher buildings, but with more cohesive architectural design.

Walls and fences Change in approach - more restrictive in hillside areas to improve aesthetics by eliminating walls over 6 feet in height, with provisions for additional setbacks, and landscaping requirements.

Graphics also updated.

Landscaping Adds clarity – adds objective language requiring consistency with specific standards already required and replaces other
terminology to eliminate conflicts.
172
18 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Grading Change in approach – requires analysis by a licensed engineer.

Eliminates ridgeline restriction for structure placement and adds requirements for landscape screening of structures instead. Other non-substantive changes made for clarity.

Drainage Adds clarity – makes non-substantive changes to existing requirements.

Public Safety Adds clarity – incorporates fire and building codes, identifies fire and building personnel, and establishes a requirement for secondary access or other alternative method.
173
19 CURRENT PROPOSED
174
20 o Utilization of vegetation (trees/shrubs) to help screen proposed structures.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
175
21 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Hillside Development
Guidelines
Adds clarity – updates graphics, incorporates references to the proposed Prominent Ridgelines Map, incorporates references to residential design standards elsewhere in the Zoning Code, eliminates subjective design suggestions and makes them mandatory, and makes other non-substantive text changes. Some grading requirement updates could be considered more restrictive but are likely safer and reduce the visual impacts of grading.

Exceptions New – identifies work or activities not subject to the proposed standards.

General Landscape
Standards
New – identifies a plant size mix of one (one) gallon and five (5) plants to be 30%/70%, respectively, for new planting, which would apply throughout the City, including in hillside development projects.
176
22 177
23 178
24 179

1. Receive a presentation by staff, discuss the Ordinance overview, and provide direction related to policy options under the proposed Ordinance framework; and

2. Receive public comments.

Recommendation
180

1. City Council – Ordinance Introduction – 1st Reading

2. City Council – 2nd Reading
Next Steps
181
39 PROPOSED - RETAINING WALLS
182
55 New Section §16.22.070.F “Retaining Walls”
o New centralized design criteria on a citywide basis for retaining walls. o Parameters for crib walls, keystone, Loffelstein walls, and other similar living wall systems are a design option.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
183
78 Pros:
• Flexibility to account for subterranean areas (i.e. crawl space areas below a stem wall).
• Flexibility for someone to have a covered elevated deck or balcony within this envelope.
• At steeper slopes, where the reference point is 10 feet or greater, the measurement envelope tightens as height
would pull back with the slope. This would minimize the overall height.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
184

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - Presentations
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/25/2024
powered by Legistar™185
Explore the many museums and
cultural venues in Riverside County!
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Staff Presentation
186
1 Aviation Division Overview
Angela Jamison
County Airports Manager
Riverside County owns and Operates 5 General
Aviation Airports on more than 7,000 acres of land
• French Valley Airport
• Jaqueline Cochran Regional Airport
• Hemet-Ryan Airport
• Blythe Airport
• Chiriaco Summit
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Staff Presentation
187
2 Riverside County Airports
Hemet Blythe
French Valley
Thermal
Chiriaco Summit
188
3 311 acres
Runway 18/36 - 6,000 ft x 75 ft
240 Hangars
211 Tie Downs
French Valley Airport Overview
189
4 Flighting training, business operations, and tourism to visit nearby golf courses, resorts and spas, fine restaurants, award-winning wineries and shopping.

French Valley Airport (F70)
190
5 Authority Over Aircraft
• Riverside County has authority of aircraft while on the ground. • The County does not have authority over aircraft in flight, taking off or landing. • The County cannot dictate when, where, or how aircraft fly. • FAA has jurisdiction of aircraft above the ground
• Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) – rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States. The FARs are part of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). • Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) is the FAA’s official guide to basic flight information and air traffic control (ATC) procedures.
191
6 What is a Contract Air Traffic Control Tower ?
• A partnership between the airport sponsor and the
FAA to improve airport safety.
• The airport sponsor (County) provides the facility
and equipment
• The FAA reimburses staff cost
• The primary purpose of a control tower is to separate air traffic, expedite the flow of air traffic and increase the level of safety for pilots and surrounding local
communities
• Contract Towers represent 49% of all Federal air traffic control towers in the US.
192
7 Air Traffic Control
• Air Traffic Control will provide increased safety and operational efficiency
• FAA Contract Tower Program:
▪ Accepted into program in 2022 for TRM and F70
▪ Have 5 years to build towers
▪ FAA to reimburse staff cost
193
Thank You
8 194

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - City Manager Admin Update CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/25/2024
powered by Legistar™195
2023YEAR IN REVIEW
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
City Manager - Administrative Update
196
2023 INCIDENT BREAKDOWN

YEAR IN REVIEW
11, AL
154

FIRE INCIDENTS
Structure, Vegetation, Vehicle & Dumpster �lia "''; 528 filllJii1 & TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS TECHNICAL RESCUE
6 � u� 277

LIFT ASSIST

OVERPRESSURE,

EXPLOSION, OVERHEAT
82 HAZARDOUS CONDITIO � 1,622

GOOD INTENT
7,877

EMERGENCY

MEDICAL INCIDENTS

INCIDENTS (NO FIRE)
�., 627
·to O PUBLIC ASSIST (I.I) 431

FIRE ALARMS
h24 � WEATHER&OTHER
197
198
2023 CALL VOLUME ANALYSIS
11,628
Murrieta Fire & Rescue responded to a total
of 11,628 calls for service in 2023. This
represents a 0. 10% increase from 2022.

Approximately 72% of calls were for
emergency medical service; 1 % were fire.
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
What’s going on in
Murrieta!
Cristina Davies, Public Information Officer
March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
City Manager - Administrative Update
208
2 Events
Murrieta Market Nights • Date: March 7 & March 21 • Time: 5 p.m.-9 p.m. • Location: Washington Ave. in Downtown Weather • Cool • Grab those jackets!
209
3 Events
Spring EGGstravaganza and
Recreation Expo • Date: Saturday, March 23, 2024 • https://www.murrietaca.gov/Events Master Plan Workshops • Parks & Rec Master Plan Workshop: March 19 • Trails Master Plan Workshop: March 28 • Location: 28610 Baxter Road, Murrieta, CA 92563
210
4 Events
Household Hazardous Waste
Collection • Dispose of hazardous materials safely and
responsibly
• Date: Saturday, March 30, 2024 • Time: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. • Location: 1 Town Square, Murrieta, 92562 • https://www.rcwaste.org/hhw 211
5 News
Jobs
• Recreation Coordinator – Youth Programming
• Recreation Leader (Part-Time)
212
6 Stay Connected
https://www.murrietaca.gov/Jobs
https://www.murrietaca.gov/Connect
213

B E R N A R D M O L L O Y I I

M U R R I E T A F I R E C H I E F

M U R R I E T A F I R E & R E S C U E
2 0 2 3
ANNUAL
REPORT

SCAN TO VIEW OUR

REPORT ONLINE
Received After Agenda Printed
3/5/2024 - Regular Meeting
City Manager - Administrative Update - Handout
214
F I R

EF I GHTER/PARAMED I CANTHONYHALLWORTH
215

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

MISSION, VISION, VALUES & MOTTO

OUR MISSION
Murrieta Fire & Rescue is a progressive team
committed to serving our community by providing
all-risk emergency and non-emergency services.

OUR VISION
To become the standard from which other
progressive fire departments are measured.

OUR VALUES
Professionalism · Responsiveness · Integrity · Dedication · Excellence

OUR MOTTO
Neighbors Helping Neighbors
PAGE 3
216
217
Murrieta Fire & Rescue is pleased to bring you the 2023 Annual Report. This past year saw our organization achieve many things, but, arguably the most impactful was the recognition from the Commission on Fire Accreditation International and the Center for Public Safety Excellence, which granted Murrieta Fire & Rescue renewed accreditation status. This recognition is an impressive accomplishment for any organization and demonstrates excellence on all levels from our entire team. We find ourselves as one of only 22 fire departments in the state of California to have this esteemed level of distinguishment, and it is a responsibility we do not take lightly.

What sets us apart will become apparent on the following pages, where we will provide insight into the great work we do for the community every day. The fire department does far more than respond to fires, and the following pages will showcase the work our whole team does to ensure we remain one of the safest and most well-protected cities in the state. You will see our annual statistics for Fire, EMS, Community Risk Reduction, Public Education, Disaster Preparedness - Emergency Management, Personnel Training, and many of the highlights of our staff’s outstanding accomplishments. It takes an incredible team to achieve all we have over the past year, and I am happy to say that your fire department is equal to the challenge and much more.

As you travel around our city, you can see it is changing, and we owe it to all of you to ensure that we grow our fire department to serve the city as it will be, not as it once was. I can assure

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

A MESSAGE

FROM THE CHIEF

BERNARD MOLLOY II

FIRE CHIEF
you that you have a team in place that is dedicated to
honoring our roots and traditions as a fire department
and evolving our services for the future that is coming.

Striking that balance of a local fire department and an industry-leading innovative organization is what
Murrieta Fire & Rescue does best!
Leading this incredible team for the past year has
been an honor. Witnessing their dedication, resilience, and passion for serving our community inspires me
every day. The level of trust and support we receive
from our residents is genuinely humbling, and for that, we thank you. We are happy to demonstrate all we
achieved in 2023 and have our sights set on even
more for 2024.

PAGE 5
218

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
FY23

OPERATING
BUDGET
$21.8M

MEASURE-T
BUDGET
$3.7M

DEPARTMENT

OVERVIEW
The City of Murrieta was incorporated in 1991 and is
located just north of San Diego County. Murrieta
Fire & Rescue is an all-risk, all-hazard, career fire
department and serves a population of
approximately 116,000 people, covering 35.4 square
miles, and is consistently ranked the top place to
live in Southwest Riverside County.

Murrieta Fire & Rescue services to the community
include fire and rescue operations, emergency
medical services, fire investigations, hazardous
materials, community risk reduction, and
education programs. In 2023, the daily minimum
staffing was 20 personnel with seven “front-line”
apparatus in service daily; four engines, one truck,
two medic patrol units, and one command vehicle.

PAGE 6
219
FIRE
CHIEF

ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES
SENIOR

MANAGEMENT

ANALYST

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

DISASTER

PREPAREDNESS

COORDINATOR

FIRE INSPECTOR

FIRE OPERATIONS
DEPUTY

FIRE CHIEF

FIRE INSPECTOR

COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
FIRE

MARSHAL

OFFICE ASSISTANT II

ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ANALYST

BATTALION CHIEF

A-SHIFT

BATTALION CHIEF

B-SHIFT

BATTALION CHIEF

C-SHIFT

TRAINING

CAPTAIN

CREW / PERSONNEL
Engineers (5)
Firefighters /
Paramedics (9)
STATION 1-5
Captains (5)

CREW / PERSONNEL
Engineers (5)
Firefighters /
Paramedics (9)
STATION 1-5
Captains (5)

CREW / PERSONNEL
Engineers (5)
Firefighters /
Paramedics (9)
STATION 1-5
Captains (5)

PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES

DIVISION
CHIEF

FLEET MECHANIC
EMS

COORDINATOR

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ANALYST

FIRE INSPECTOR

FIRE INSPECTOR
DEPUTY

FIRE MARSHAL

ADMINISTRATIVE

ASSISTANT

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

DEPARTMENT

OVERVIEW

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Murrieta Fire & Rescue has five
strategically-located fire stations to provide
adequate coverage to the City. Murrieta
Fire & Rescue (MFR) has a long history of
providing progressive services to its
community. The genesis of the department
dates back to 1947, when the citizens of
Murrieta voted to form the Murrieta Fire
Protection District. At its inception, the
department had only one station and one
crash truck. As the city continued to grow,
MFR grew and transformed into a
combination department in 1987.

Today, MFR is an all-risk, all-career fire
service organization driven by a culture of
continuous improvement. Our 76 dedicated
professionals are at the heart of this
commitment. Internationally accredited by
the Commission of Fire Accreditation
International (CFAI) since 2018 and
reaccredited in 2023, we demonstrate our
unwavering dedication to excellence in all
aspects of service.

PAGE 7
220

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

COMMAND & SENIOR STAFF

BERNARD MOLLOY II

FIRE CHIEF

MIKE LOPEZ

DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF

DAVE PEREZ

DIVISION CHIEF

STEVE KEAN

BATTALION CHIEF

MIKE RAMOS

BATTALION CHIEF

ERIC ACKERMAN

BATTALION CHIEF

PHONG DANG

TRAINING CAPTAIN

JENNIFER ANTONUCCI

EMS COORDINATOR
SEAN DeGRAVE

ACTING BATTALION CHIEF
PAGE 8
221

RACHEL HOLLINGER
DISASTER PREP.

COORDINATOR

SUE ANN HERRING
ASST. MANAGEMENT ANALYST

FINANCE

TERRI AYLWARD

EXECUTIVE

ASSISTANT

DOUG STROSNIDER

ACTING FIRE MARSHAL
DR. DIANA LOZANO
SR. MANAGEMENT ANALYST

FINANCE

DAWN MORRISON

MANAGEMENT ANALYST

PUBLIC INFORMATION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

COMMAND & SENIOR STAFF
PAGE 9
222

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

YEAR IN REVIEW

CALL VOLUME ANALYSIS

OF INCIDENTS REQUIRED

EMERGENCY RESPONSE
95%

TOTAL CALL VOLUME
INCREASE FROM 2022

0.10%
Murrieta Fire & Rescue responded to a
total of 11,628 calls for service in 2023.

This represents a 0.10% increase from
2022.

Approximately 72% of calls were for
emergency medical service; 1% were
fire.

Stations 2, 3 and 4 responded to the
greatest percentage of incidents
compared to all other stations with
30%, 27% and 20% respectively.

Together, stations 2 and 3 responded
to 57% or 6,543 of all incidents.

Stations 1 and 5 had the lowest call
volumes of all districts, with
approximately 22% of the total annual
call volume.

Of the total 11,628 calls for service,
11,596 required emergency response.

Total response time at the 90th
percentile for the first-arriving unit to
all types of emergency runs in 2023
was 9 minutes and 02 seconds.
90% TOTAL RESPONSE TIME

TO ALL TYPES OF

EMERGENCY INCIDENTS
9:02
EMS

71.6%

GOOD INTENT

14.7%

SERVICE CALL

7.8%

FALSE ALARMS

3.7%

HAZ MAT

0.7%
11,628
FIRE

1.32%
PAGE 10
223

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

YEAR IN REVIEW
2023 INCIDENT BREAKDOWN
431

FIRE ALARMS
627

PUBLIC ASSIST
528

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
& TECHNICAL RESCUE
154

FIRE INCIDENTS
Structure, Vegetation, Vehicle & Dumpster
82 HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS

INCIDENTS (NO FIRE)
1,622

GOOD INTENT
7,877

EMERGENCY

MEDICAL INCIDENTS
277

OVERPRESSURE, LIFT ASSIST

EXPLOSION, OVERHEAT

WEATHER & OTHER
24 6
Auto-Aid Given 22
Auto-Aid Received 26
Mutual-Aid Given 68
Mutual-Aid Received 30
2023 AUTO / MUTUAL AID

GIVEN/RECEIVED SUMMARY
11,628 CALLS
TOTAL
PAGE 11
224

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

YEAR IN REVIEW
2023 INCIDENT RESPONSES
13,345

TOTAL UNIT RESPONSES &

INCIDENTS BY STATION
Station
1 1,684

INCIDENTS
1,987
UNIT

RESPONSES
Station
2 3,473

INCIDENTS
4,887
UNIT

RESPONSES
Station
3 3,070

INCIDENTS
3,842
UNIT

RESPONSES
Station
4 2,376

INCIDENTS
1,329
UNIT

RESPONSES
Station
5 857

INCIDENTS
970
UNIT

RESPONSES

PREVENTION OFFICERS
3 FIRE MARSHAL
6 PREVENTION-2
20 PREVENTION-3
3 PREVENTION-4
CHIEF

OFFICERS
11 - CHIEF-2
73 - BATTALION-1A
129 - BATTALION-1B
75 - BATTALION-1C
4 - CHIEF-1
6 - TRAINING/SAFETY
168

OTHER OR OUTSIDE
AGENCY

INCIDENTS
225

FIREFIGHTER / PARAMEDIC ANTHONY HALLWORTH
226

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

STRUCTURE FIRES

31.1%

MOBILE PROPERTY

24.7%

WILDLAND FIRES

23.4%

OUTSIDE FIRES

20.8%
FIRE

SUPPRESSION PROPERTY VALUE SAVED
PRE-INCIDENT VALUE: $21M
PROPERTY SAVED: $19M

90.62%
FIRE INCIDENT TYPE BREAK DOWN:

Murrieta Fire & Rescue is committed to
serving the community by providing allrisk emergency and non-emergency services to those who live, work, and play
in Murrieta, California through rapid,
aggressive fire attack. In each and every
emergency incident, the top priorities of
MFR fire suppression response are life
safety, incident mitigation, and property
conservation.

PAGE 14
227

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
FIRE

SUPPRESSION
ACTUAL 90% FIRST-ARRIVING

UNITS RESPONSE TIME FOR

STRUCTURE FIRE INCIDENTS
(NFIRS/111)
8:35
ACTUAL 90% TOTAL RESPONSE

TIME FOR ALL FIRE INCIDENTS
9:06

BENCHMARK
For 90% of all moderate and high-risk
structure fire responses, the total
response time for the arrival of the firstdue unit, staffed with three firefighters shall be: 9 minutes and 0 seconds in all
districts.

Components of the benchmark:
1:00 call processing
1:20 turnout time
4:00 travel time

CAPTAIN BRANDON ROACH
PAGE 15
228
FIR

EFIGHTER/PARAMEDICJEREMYRANDALL
229

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
ACTUAL 90% FIRST-ARRIVING

RESPONSE TIME FOR EMS

INCIDENTS
7:18
IN 2023, EMS INCIDENTS
MADE UP 72% OF THE
DEPARTMENT’S ANNUAL

INCIDENTS
72%

BENCHMARK
For 90% of all emergency
medical services (EMS)
responses, the total
response time for the arrival
of the first-due unit, staffed
with three firefighters shall
be: 8 minutes and 0
seconds in all districts.

Components of the
benchmark:
1:00 call processing
1:00 turnout time
6:00 travel time

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is a vital
service dedicated to providing medical care to
individuals who are experiencing illness or
injuries outside of a hospital setting. The EMS
system comprises several key components,
including 9-1-1 dispatchers, and paramedics.

Murrieta Fire & Rescue is well-equipped to ensure
a prompt response to any emergency situation.

Jennifer Antonucci, RN, serves as the agency's
Emergency Medical Services Coordinator,
Infection control officer and educational
coordinator. Dr. Zeke Foster serves as the
medical director for Murrieta Fire & Rescue.

Together, they work diligently to ensure the
highest standards of care and safety within the
EMS system.

PAGE 17
230

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Q1 Q2 Q3
2 0
1 7
2 0
2 3
2 1
3 3
Q4
2 2
3 2
EMS Incidents by Quarter
2015
4,9
2 0
5,0
3 2
5,6
0 5
6,2
2 3
2016 2017 2018 2019
7,0
2 6
7,1
1 7
8,2
7 8
8,6
3 4
2020 2021 2022
8,4
0 5
2023

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
EMS Incidents by Year

TOTAL EMS
INCIDENTS 8,405

CARDIAC
ARRESTS 175
STROKE
(CVA) 147
DROWNING or
SUBMERSION 8

PATIENTS
TRANSPORTED 5,347

PATIENTS
INTUBATED 9
PAGE 18
231
1,3
0 8
SICK
1,3
2 1
FALLS
7 2
6 BREATHING

PROBLEMS
6 1
5 FAINTING
4 7
2 CHEST
PAINS
2023 Top 5 EMD Triaged Calls by Category
EMD

INSTRUCTED

CHILDBIRTH
1 LIVES SAVED BY

EMD INSTRUCTED
CPR
8 TOTAL EMD

CERTIFIED

DISPATCHERS
37 EMD
MENTORS 8
EMD Q’s
11 TOTAL EMD

TRAINING
HOURS 715.5

EMD TRIAGED

MEDICAL

INCIDENTS
7,717

EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
(Quality Assurance)
PAGE 19
232

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
In the heart of Murrieta Emergency
Communications Center, a unique tree
grows, forged from resilience and second
chances.

The "Tree of Life," a testament to the
extraordinary work of the Murrieta Police
and Fire Communications Center's
Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) team.

Since the launch of emergency medical
dispatch on August 4, 2020, these dedicated
individuals have been the first link in the
chain of survival for countless individuals.

With established EMD protocols, they guide
callers through life-saving measures until
emergency personnel arrives.

Each leaf on this symbolic tree is a story of
survival. It represents a moment where a
dispatcher's calm voice and expert
instructions bridged the gap between life
and death. In these critical moments, the
EMD team became the lifeline, holding
steady until help arrived.

In addition to leaves, the tree is adorned with
delicate butterflies, each one a symbol of the
children brought into the world with the
gentle, reassuring guidance of a dispatcher
on the other end of the line, guiding and
supporting parents through childbirth.

Each symbol holds stories of courage,
resilience, and the precious gift of time or a
second chance at life. Even in the darkest
emergencies, hope can bloom, nurtured by
the dedication of those who answer the call.

L-R: MICHELLE FOUNTAIN, MICHELLE CASTRO,

CIARA FARREN & JENNI BARNETT
PAGE 20
233

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

NARCAN / NALOXONE
EMS
Narcan administration on EMS
incidents has been tracked since
2018. By specifying Naloxone usage,
MFR can better evaluate areas of risk,
training and education.

NARCAN / NALOXONE WAS
ADMINISTERED 121 TIMES IN 45
EMS INCIDENTS DURING 2023
121
PAGE 21
234

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
ACTUAL 90% FIRST-ARRIVING

UNIT RESPONSE TIME FOR

TECHNICAL RESCUE

INCIDENTS INCLUDING

VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
9:56

TECHNICAL RESCUE TRAINING
HOURS IN 2023
610

BENCHMARK
For 90% of all Technical
Rescue responses, the total
response time for the arrival
of the first-due unit, staffed
with three firefighters shall
be: 9 minutes and 0
seconds in all districts.

Components of the
benchmark:
1:30 call processing
1:30 turnout time
6:30 travel time

TECHNICAL RESCUE
MFR provides technical rescue capabilities,
including the safe rescue of victims trapped in
trenches, swift water, confined spaces, vehicles,
and building collapses. The equipment utilized
during technical rescue incidents is located on
a 20-foot trailer at Station 2. The technical
rescue trailer can be transported by a one-ton
utility vehicle that is kept connected to it for
rapid response. The unit is cross staffed by
three members assigned to Truck 2.

Of the 64 operations personnel, 12 are members
of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency Urban Search and Rescue (FEMA
US&R), California Task Force 6.

TECHNICAL RESCUE

INCIDENTS INCLUDING

TRAFFIC COLLISIONS
528
PAGE 22
235

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
ACTUAL 90% FIRST-ARRIVING

RESPONSE TIME FOR

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

INCIDENTS
7:46

HAZ-MAT TRAINING HOURS IN
2023
366
HAZ-MAT INCIDENTS IN 2023
82 BENCHMARK
For 90% of all hazardous
material incidents, the total
response time for the arrival
of the first-due unit, staffed
with three firefighters shall
be: 9 minutes and 0
seconds in all districts.

Components of the
benchmark:
1:30 call processing
1:30 turnout time
6:30 travel time

HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
MFR responds to hazardous materials incidents
at the operations level. The department’s sworn
personnel are trained to the First Responder
Operations (FRO) level to recognize a hazardous
materials emergency, isolate the incident , make
the appropriate notifications, and perform basic
decontamination operations. Each apparatus is
equipped with an Emergency Response Guide
(ERG) for reference regarding hazards and
evacuation distances.

MFR Chief Officers are trained to the Hazardous
Material Incident Commander Level, providing
them with the skills needed to command these
very complex hazardous materials incidents.

PAGE 23
236

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
ACTUAL 90% FIRST-ARRIVING

RESPONSE TIME FOR

WILDLAND FIRE INCIDENTS
9:08

WILDLAND FIRE TRAINING
HOURS IN 2023
186

BENCHMARK
For 90% of all wildland fire
responses, the total
response time for the arrival
of the first-due unit, staffed
with three firefighters shall
be: 9 minutes and 0
seconds in all districts.

Components of the
benchmark:
1:30 call processing
2:00 turnout time
7:00 travel time

WILDLAND FIRE

WILDLAND FIRE INCIDENTS IN
2023
36 CAPTAIN GREG HULL
Murrieta is located in a fire-prone region of
Riverside County and the majority of the city of
Murrieta’s city center is built out with small
pockets of wildland and open space mixed
between structures. MFR responds quickly and
efficiently to contain the blaze and protect lives
and property.

Each MFR engine is equipped with wildland
hoses and nozzles and is capable of making an
initial attack on a wildfire. Three of the five
stations are cross-staffed with a Type-3 brush
engine, and one station houses a Type-6.

The department also works closely with other
agencies, such as the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to battle
large wildfires.

PAGE 24
237

TRAINING

DIVISION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

TOTAL DEPARTMENT TRAINING

HOURS IN ALL CATEGORIES
22,300

TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS

PER FIREFIGHTER
228

TOTAL NUMBER OF

EMS CE HOURS
1,748

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACADEMY

ORIENTATION HOURS
2,788
Captain Phong Dang has come full
circle within Murrieta Fire and Rescue.

Once a rookie firefighter among the
first paramedics hired in 2000, he's
now Training Captain, responsible for
keeping Murrieta's firefighters at the
top of their game.

PAGE 25
238

TRAINING DIVISION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
PAGE 26
239
1 PLAN UPDATES

LOCAL HAZARD

MITIGATION PLAN
206

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND

OUTREACH HOURS
2 EOC ACTIVATIONS
WINTER STORM 2023

HURRICANE HILARY
10 EOC POSITION

TRAINING HOURS
2 DISASTER EXCERCISES

ACTIVE SHOOTER

GREAT SHAKE OUT
1 NEW EQUIPMENT

FIRE AM RADIO
1 NEW MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS

MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT (MVUSD)
11,500

PUBLIC EDUCATION ATTENDEES
Disaster Preparedness prepares, trains, and plans for natural and man-made disasters that may directly or indirectly impact our community. The division is managed by the agency’s disaster preparedness coordinator who reports directly to the fire chief.

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
PAGE 27
240
596

EMPLOYEE TRAINING HOURS

COMPLETED
1,192

FIRE PLAN REVIEWS
558

ANNUAL PERMITS
ISSUED
690

NEW CONSTRUCTION

INSPECTIONS
153
AB-38 INSPECTIONS
1,560

ROUTINE & BUSINESS

LICENSE INSPECTIONS
16,786

DEFENSIBLE SPACE

INSPECTIONS
18 FIRE INVESTIGATIONS

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
The mission of the Community Risk Reduction division is to provide a reasonable amount of fire and life safety through a professional balance of education, engineering, and compliance.

The programs within Community Risk Reduction include Fire Plan Review, New Construction and Tenant Improvement Inspections, Development Services, Annual Business Inspections, Annual Fire Code Permits, State-Mandated Inspections, Weed/Brush Management, and Public Education.

For information and to schedule a Defensible Space or
Business Inspection, visit:
https://bit.ly/CommunityRiskReduction
PAGE 28
241
PUBLIC

EDUCATION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
Murrieta Fire & Rescue believes that public
education is essential for building a “firewise”
and disaster-ready community. We offer a
variety of programs to educate residents of all
ages on fire safety, disaster preparedness, and
other safety topics. These programs have been
effective in increasing residents' confidence in
handling emergencies and raising awareness
of local fire risks. Murrieta Fire & Rescue
encourages residents to take charge of their
safety and the safety of their loved ones by
learning more about our education programs
and becoming involved in their community.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

ATTENDEES
11,500

PUBLIC EDUCATION HOURS
110

PUBLIC EDUCATION

PRESENTATIONS
93 Station Tours & Demonstrations
CPR & First-Aid · Fire Extinguisher Training ·
Disaster Preparedness ·
PAGE 29
242

AWARDS & RECOGNITION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
On October 12, 2023, Murrieta Fire & Rescue Department held its annual employee awards ceremony at the Town Square Park Amphitheater. The ceremony was a time to honor the department's outstanding employees for their accomplishments, achievements, and acts of service throughout the year.

CORY WHEELER
2023 FIREFIGHTER OF THE YEAR
On December 13th, 2022, Cory Wheeler and his team
responded to a distress call involving a 10-year-old girl who found her father unresponsive. Despite their
efforts, her father couldn't be saved. After returning to the station, Cory initiated a department-wide initiative to bring joy to the girl's holiday season. His selfless efforts raised $6,490, allowing them to fulfill her
Christmas wish list and secure funds for her future.

Cory demonstrated genuine commitment to making a
positive impact during a challenging time, highlighting his exceptional, humble nature. His actions embody the
core values of the department and the concept of
"neighbors helping neighbors," reminding us of the
noble reasons for choosing this profession and the true meaning of making a difference.

PAGE 30
243

AWARDS & RECOGNITION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
2023 Firefighter of the Year
Engineer
Cory Wheeler
2023 Civilian Employee of the Year
Acting Fire Marshal
Doug Strosnider
2023 Distinguished Service Award
Emergency Dispatcher
Michelle Fountain
PAGE 31
244

INTERNATIONAL RE-ACCREDITATION

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
On August 30, 2023, Murrieta Fire & Rescue
proudly announced its renewed accredited
agency status from the Commission on Fire
Accreditation International (CFAI). This
recognition is a result of MFR's commitment
to excellence demonstrated through the
voluntary self-assessment and accreditation
program established by CFAI. Including
MFR, there are only 22 accredited agencies
in all of California and 308 worldwide
recognized by CFAI and the Center for
Public Safety Excellence, Inc. (CPSE). In
2018, Murrieta Fire & Rescue became the
first fully accredited fire agency in Riverside
County. In 2019, the City of Riverside Fire
Department joined this distinguished list.

Only 13% of the U.S. population is served by
an accredited fire agency.

The re-accreditation process was led by
Battalion Chief Eric Ackerman. MFR's
dedicated personnel left no stone
unturned in pursuing this recognition.

Every facet of the agency's plans,
deployment, and performance was
evaluated. This comprehensive evaluation
process led to updates in the MFR fiveyear Strategic Plan and the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover.

An agency-wide self-assessment was
meticulously prepared and submitted
alongside essential documents for review
by expert fire service peers nationwide.

These peers, possessing significant
expertise, conducted an in-depth site visit
in April 2023 to validate the findings in
the report.

Photo L-R: Captain Joe Bourque, Management Analyst Dawn Morrison, CFAI Commissioner Steve Dirksen, Fire Chief Bernie Molloy, City Manager Kim Summers, Captain Eric Ackerman, and Team Leader Ken Horn 245

EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
Bachelor of Science
Fire Administration
Columbia Southern Univ.

Engineer Brad Aarts
Associate of Science
Fire Science
Columbia Southern Univ.

Capt. Eric Ballard
Associate of Science
Fire Science
Columbia Southern Univ.

Capt. Andrew Hamilton
Associate of Science
Emergency Medical Services
Victor Valley College
Firefighter / Paramedic
Austin Lemoine Bachelor of Science
Summa Cum Laude
Fire Administration
Columbia Southern Univ.

Capt. Brandon Roach
PAGE 33
246

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

CITY OF MURRIETA ELECTED OFFICIALS
DR. LISA DeFOREST, COUNCIL MEMBER / DISTRICT 3
LORI STONE, MAYOR / DISTRICT 4
JON LEVELL, COUNCIL MEMBER / DISTRICT 1
RON HOLLIDAY, COUNCIL MEMBER / DISTRICT 2
CINDY WARREN, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE / DISTRICT 5

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE COMMAND STAFF

BERNARD MOLLOY II, FIRE CHIEF

MIKE LOPEZ, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF

DAVE PEREZ, DIVISION CHIEF

STEVE KEAN, BATTALION CHIEF

MIKE RAMOS, BATTALION CHIEF

ERIC ACKERMAN, BATTALION CHIEF

DOUG STROSNIDER, ACTING FIRE MARSHAL

JENNIFER ANTONUCCI, EMS COORDINATOR

ANNUAL REPORT PREPARED BY

DAWN MORRISON, MANAGEMENT ANALYST

CONTACT US

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
41825 JUNIPER STREET,

MURRIETA, CA
951-304-3473 (FIRE)
MURRIETAFIRE.ORG
@MURRIETAFIRE
#NEIGHBORSHELPINGNEIGHBORS

PHOTOGRAPHY CREDIT

JOE FANASELLE & MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE

PHONG DANG, TRAINING CAPTAIN
PAGE 34
247
PAGE 35

FIREFIGHTER / PARAMEDIC JEREMIAH BAILEY
248

MURRIETA FIRE & RESCUE
41825 Juniper Street
Murrieta, CA 92562
951-304-3473 (FIRE)
www.murrietafire.org
@murrietafire

FIRE STATIONS
Station 1
41825 Juniper Street
Station 2
40060 California Oaks Rd
Station 3
39985 Whitewood Rd
Station 4
28155 Baxter Rd
Station 5
38391 Vineyard Pkwy
Station 6

COMING SOON
Sign-up for our
news & updates
249

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - GBR
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/25/2024
powered by Legistar™250

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Stone
March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBR)
251
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Stone
[email protected]
February 26, 2024 Attended the Southwest Riverside County Elected Leaders Collaborative group meeting. 252
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Stone
[email protected]
Legislative Workgroup Subcommittee
For a list of recent letters signed in opposition and support please visit the Legislative Affairs page:
https://www.murrietaca.gov/352/Legislative-Affairs
253

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBR)
254
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
February 22, 2024
Attended the Riverside Transit Agency Commission Meeting. Meeting Recap:

Ridership is up
Total ridership for January was up 8.2% compared to the same time last year. Fiscal Year 2024 total ridership was also up 12.6%.

Equity Day Success
In honor of Equity Day, February 4th RTA gave 8,574 free rides on all local, CommuterLink, and GoMicro busses. In addition, the front seat was reserved on every bus in honor of Rosa Parks’ birthday.

Honoring an RTA Hero
RTA honored the heroic actions of Coach Operator Deja Cage. Ms. Cage witnessed a massive traffic accident at a nearby intersection as she waited for her customers to board. A pickup truck had plowed into a tanker truck, and both were on fire as the drivers ran away. Without hesitation, Ms.

Cage evacuated her bus and radioed dispatch. Her quick thinking kept her passengers safe. 255
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
February 22, 2024
GoMicro Pilot Program Update
After one year of service to the San Jacinto and Hemet area, the GoMicro Pilot Program has been a huge success. This program has transported more than 55,000 customers with an average rating of 4.7/5 stars. RTA staff will continue to monitor ridership, travel patterns, and adjust as needed to further improve efficiencies and meet growing demand.

Autonomous Shuttles
The City of Riverside has recently approved a partnership with shuttle company Ohmio to move its international headquarters from New Zealand to Riverside. RTA was approached by the City and asked if the Agency would be interested in providing the safety operators for a 2-year pilot program. Thanks to the Board’s approval, staff will begin conversations with the City of Riverside and Ohmio for a potential operations and maintenance service partnership. We are excited to provide updates in the upcoming months. 256
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
February 26, 2024
Attended the Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget & Implementation Committee Meeting.
257

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member Holliday
March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBR)
258
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member Holliday
[email protected]
February 26, 2024 Participated in a regional traffic discussion at the Southwest Riverside County Elected Leaders Collaborative meeting.

March 4, 2024 Attended a meeting for the Regional Conservation Authority. 259

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member DeForest
March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBR)
260
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member DeForest
[email protected]
March 4, 2024 Attended the Western Riverside Council of Governments Executive Committee Meeting. 261
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member DeForest
[email protected]
If you need to reach me, please feel free to contact
me via email at [email protected]
or for faster response call or text me at
(951) 323-8497
It’s my honor to serve Murrieta’s Residents.
262

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - Public Comments
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/25/2024
powered by Legistar™263
Received After Agenda Printed
3/5/2024 - Regular Meeting
Public Comment - Handout - Aimee Edgeworth
264
265
. ..
.. . . ��� .. �.· ...

Frank in the lead on Doubt Me in The Saugus Hand.leap in 1928 at the Baker and Anderson Ranch in Saugus, California. Doubt Me won easily. 266

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
6/4/2024
Agenda Item No. 1.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
PREPARED BY: Kimberly Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on the Agenda and Read by Title Only

RECOMMENDATION
Waive reading, by title only, of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/30/2024
powered by Legistar™267

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
3/5/2024
Agenda Item No. 2.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
PREPARED BY: Kimberly Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Minutes

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the minutes of the February 20, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. February 20, 2024 Minutes
CITY OF MURRIETA Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/29/2024
powered by Legistar™268
CITY OF MURRIETA Tuesday, February 20, 2024
1 TOWN SQUARE 3:45 PM CLOSED SESSION
MURRIETA, CA 5:00 PM WORKSHOP
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES
The City of Murrieta intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Persons with special needs should call the City Clerk Department at (951) 461-6031 or email at [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Murrieta’s equipment must be submitted to the City Clerk’s department 24 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA; via email at [email protected] or call (951) 461-6031. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

Lori Stone
Mayor
Cindy Warren Lisa DeForest
Mayor Pro Tem Council Member
Jon Levell Ron Holliday
Council Member Council Member
Kim Summers, City Manager
Tiffany Israel, City Attorney
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL (CC)

MURRIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (CSD)

MURRIETA FIRE DISTRICT (FD)

MURRIETA LIBRARY BOARD (LB)

MURRIETA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY (RSA)

MURRIETA HOUSING AUTHORITY (HA)

MURRIETA FINANCING AUTHORITY (FA)
*** The City is utilizing a new agenda management system. If you have any questions, please reach out to the City Clerk Department at (951) 461-6030 or via email at [email protected]. 3:45 PM CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER 3:47 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present:

Absent:

Council Member Jon Levell
Council Member Ron Holliday
Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Warren
Mayor Lori Stone
Council Member Lisa DeForest (Arrived at 3:53 pm)
269
City of Murrieta February 20, 2024