The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast v.3 (UCERF3) model (Field et al., 2014) considers epistemic uncertainty in fault‐slip rate via the inclusion of multiple rate models based on geologic and/or geodetic data. However, these slip rates are commonly clustered about their mean value and do not reflect the broader distribution of possible rates and associated probabilities. Here, we consider both a double‐truncated 2σ Gaussian and a boxcar distribution of slip rates and use a Monte Carlo simulation to sample the entire range of the distribution for California fault‐slip rates. We compute the seismic hazard following the methodology and logic‐tree branch weights applied to the 2014 national seismic hazard model (NSHM) for the western U.S. region (Petersen et al., 2014, 2015). By applying a new approach developed in this study to the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using precomputed rates of exceedance from each fault as a Green’s function, we reduce the computer time by about 10^5‐fold and apply it to the mean PSHA estimates with 1000 Monte Carlo samples of fault‐slip rates to compare with results calculated using only the mean or preferred slip rates. The difference in the mean probabilistic peak ground motion corresponding to a 2% in 50‐yr probability of exceedance is less than 1% on average over all of California for both the Gaussian and boxcar probability distributions for slip‐rate uncertainty but reaches about 18% in areas near faults compared with that calculated using the mean or preferred slip rates. The average uncertainties in 1σ peak ground‐motion level are 5.5% and 7.3% of the mean with the relative maximum uncertainties of 53% and 63% for the Gaussian and boxcar probability density function (PDF), respectively.