1. M ORAGA H ILLSIDES AND R IDGELINES P ROJECT T OWN C OUNCIL M EETING, M ARCH 11, 2015

2.  Objective  Clarify and improve Town’s hillside and ridgeline policies and regulations  Process  Background Analysis (Completed)  Hillside Regulation Options (Mid 2015)  Draft Regulations (Late 2015)  Review and Adoption (Early 2016) Project Background

3.  Draft published in June, 2014  Clear, understandable summary of existing regulations, physical conditions, and technical background  Revised document incorporates comments solicited from public  Final report will be published after acceptance by Town Council Final Background Report

4. Draft Landslide Hazard Maps  Two maps  Landslide inventory Map (detailed)  Landslide Hazard Areas (simplified)  Provide planning-level data for particular areas of interest in the town  Steering Committee, Planning Commission, and Town Council will provide direction on future use of maps

5. Draft Landslide Inventory Map Detailed Landslides Inventory

6. Draft Landslide Hazard Map Landslide Hazard Potential

7. Steering Committee Recommendation for Further Study: 1. Ridgeline Protection – How is “protect” defined? What is the breadth/applicability of protections? 2. Definition of Development – Do grading and limited surface facilities qualify as “development?” 3. Development on Steep Slopes – How do slope limitations address slope variability within parcels and the potential for re-grading? Key Project Issues

8. 4. Calculation of Slope – Should slope calculation methods be revised? If so, how? 5. Remediation in High Risk Areas – Can “high risk” areas be remediated to become lower risk areas in which greater development is permitted? 6. View Protection – What methodologies and standards should be adopted to protect views? 7. Hillside Development Permit (HDP) – Are HDPs redundant? What projects should require HDPs? 8. High Risk Area Map – Should the High Risk Area Map be updated? How will it be used in the future? Key Project Issues

9.  Project is now at an important decision point:  Move forward as currently scoped  Take a different approach  Public input suggested desire for more comprehensive General Plan amendments  Staff, Steering Committee, and Planning Commission recommend continuing with the current approach Project Approach Moving Forward

10. Public Outreach  Public Meetings in Original Scope:  Stakeholder Meetings  Steering Committee Meetings (7)  Public Workshops (3)  Join Planning Town Council/Planning Commission Meetings (3)  Review and Adoption Hearings (4)  Recommended Additional Outreach  Steering Committee meetings (3)  Community workshop to receive input on draft regulations (1)  Presentations to community organizations (6)  Focus groups coordinated with town surveys (4)  Increased use of on-line tools  With Council direction, staff will return with revised project scope containing additional outreach

11. Steering Committee  The terms of three Steering Committee members on the bodies that appointed them expire this year  The Steering Committee charter requires these members to step down from the Steering Committee  Staff is concerned about loss of continuity and project delays if three Steering Committee members step down  Staff recommends amending the charter to allow members to continue on the Steering Committee  Amended charter and draft resolution for Council consideration is attached to staff report

12.  Steering Committee and Planning Commission Recommendations:  Accept the Background Report as complete  Continue with the original project approach (focused amendments to improve existing regulations)  Focus on the eight issues recommended by the Steering Committee and Planning Commission  Town Staff Recommendations  Augment the original public outreach program and return to Council with revised scope  Amend the Steering Committee charter to allow existing members to continue Requested Council Direction

13. M ORAGA H ILLSIDES AND R IDGELINES P ROJECT T OWN C OUNCIL M EETING, M ARCH 11, 2015