Murrieta council directs staff to map hillside overlay, favors 25% slope threshold

Murrieta City Council held a workshop Oct. 21 to review proposed changes to the city's hillside ordinance and gave staff direction to codify a hillside-overlay map, generally favor 25% as the threshold for special review and to use GIS as the primary measurement with an AutoCAD/average-slope formula available if a property owner contests the GIS result.

Staff framed the revision as a four-part exercise: define which slopes trigger the ordinance, decide whether the definition applies citywide or only inside a mapped overlay, reconcile inconsistencies between the code's 20% reference and other 25% references elsewhere in the code, and adopt an objective measurement method with an appeals path. Senior Planner Chris Tracy told council that a 25% threshold is more consistent with other code sections and that adopting a codified map would reduce uncertainty and streamline reviews.

Why it matters: a citywide 20% rule would subject many more parcels to expensive technical review and delay permitting, staff said; a mapped 25% overlay would shrink the area where the ordinance applies and make it clearer both for property owners and staff which properties require additional design review.

Council members split on emphasis but agreed on process. Councilmember Stone framed his position as a property-rights advocate and urged design standards that allow reasonable development: "For me, for you to take those rights away is unconscionable," he said. Councilmember Holiday said he "certainly support[s] the 25% number" as the threshold and pressed for different design standards for developed versus undeveloped parcels.

A number of public commenters and development stakeholders urged codifying the map so property owners know whether they are inside the overlay. Several speakers asked staff to identify parcels by APN and to use color coding (developed/disturbed vs. undeveloped) to avoid confusion for future applicants. Members of the development community also raised technical questions about whether the ordinance applies to parcel-average slopes or to localized peaks and asked staff to clarify the rounding/decimal rules used to compute slope.

Measurement and appeals: staff recommended using a city GIS-generated slope map as the primary screening tool because it is efficient, objective and integrates with other spatial data; if a property owner contests GIS results, the city would allow an AutoCAD-based average-slope calculation as a second, objective method and have the city engineer or hearing body review the evidence. Council asked for a clear, auditable appeals path so applicants can challenge the GIS output.

Specific plans: staff recommended mapping existing specific-plan areas on the overlay and including a footnote directing users to the specific plan, with the council generally agreeing that a specific plan's project-level analysis should supersede a citywide ordinance where there is an explicit conflict.

Next steps: staff will return with draft ordinance language, a codified overlay exhibit that distinguishes developed and undeveloped parcels, proposed design guidelines for properties inside the overlay (separate standards for previously developed parcels and undeveloped parcels), and procedures for GIS contests. No ordinance was adopted; the workshop provided direction to staff.

The council recessed to closed session following the workshop and revived the regular meeting in the evening to hear other agenda items.