Murrieta council workshop narrows focus on retaining‑wall design, landscaping and citywide standards

Murrieta City Council on Nov. 18 continued a multi‑meeting review of a proposed Hillside Ordinance, focusing on retaining‑wall design, terracing and landscaping standards. City senior planner Chris Tracy presented wall systems used in Southern California — concrete masonry units (CMU), geogrid‑reinforced walls and keystone/gravity block walls — and asked council four policy questions about system preference, finished materials, color palettes and whether standards should be citywide or limited to the hillside overlay.

Why it matters: Council members said they want objective, enforceable standards that protect views and avoid eyesores while preserving property‑owner flexibility. Several members urged minimum finish and coloration standards (no exposed cinderblock; muted earth tones), mandatory planting and maintenance bonds, and the ability to allow taller walls where landscaping provides screening.

Tracy walked council through pros and cons of each wall type and presented draft terrace/stepback proposals — for example, a recommendation that a 12‑foot wall include a 6‑foot horizontal stepback — and that landscaping could justify greater heights. He said current code allows stacked 6‑foot walls with stepbacks and that director approval can permit taller walls outside setbacks.

Council discussion centered on four issues: whether to prefer specific wall systems (members favored flexibility but stronger material/finish minimums), how prescriptive the code should be about materials and colors (council favored muted tones and limited palette choices), the timing and size of required plantings (staff noted existing 3–5 year monitoring and suggested starting sizes of 3–5 gallon or larger; council asked staff to evaluate requiring larger starter plants and earlier planting schedules), and whether the standards should apply citywide or only to designated hillside areas (several members supported citywide rules with targeted exceptions for specific plans or already‑developed parcels).

Public commenters urged caution about broad application and asked whether the Hillside map would 'layer' or exclude developed parcels; a public speaker urged council to consider making general‑plan findings that would remove the ordinance only by formally amending the general plan — a step the city attorney said would be required to change the underlying land‑use policy.

What council directed: Staff was asked to return with clearer, objective language distinguishing rural and tract‑home contexts (including a clearer definition of “front yard” for rural properties), options for required planting sizes and bond/monitoring periods, and recommendations on whether to apply standards citywide or only in visibly prominent hillside areas. The council did not adopt final ordinance language at this meeting; the workshop will continue in future sessions when staff brings more prescriptive drafts.

A note on authority and limits: The city attorney told the council that any change to the general‑plan land‑use policy itself — for example, a determination that the land‑use goal has been met so the hillside ordinance could be removed — would require a general‑plan amendment and could not be achieved solely by changing the hillside ordinance.

Next steps: Staff will draft objective standards for retaining‑wall materials and colors, provide options for minimum planting sizes and monitoring/bonds, clarify definitions for rural/front‑yard situations, and present revised language and maps at a subsequent workshop for further council direction.