Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PC Agenda Packet 2022-02-09
NGELE S DEPARTMENT OF P DRT A j- X- WASH I NGTON , U , S , COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Held Virtually:jit s:/ ) )v) .,, tutu February 9, 2022 6:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL 111. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2022. V. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION 1. DCED Plannine Division and Plannine Commission 2022 proiects. Continued discussion of 2022 DCED Planning Division and Planning Commission projects. VI. STAFF UPDATES VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers Port Angeles,Washington 98362 January 26,2022,6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Schwab opened the regular meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Andrew Schwab (Chair), Ben Stanley (Vice Chair), Colin Young, Steve Luxton,and Richie Ahuja City Staff Present: Emma Bolin (Interim Director of Community and Economic Development) Ben Braudrick(Associate Planner) Nathan Docherty(Assistant Planner) Chris Cowgill (Assistant City Attorney) Public Present: PUBLIC COMMENT: None Chair Schwab closed public comments 6:12 pm APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of October 27, 2021, November 10, 2021, and January 12, 2022. ACTION ITEMS 1. Climate Resiliency Strategies and Actions Development. Planning commissioners to discuss input on Climate Resiliency Strategies and Actions and multi criteria analysis approach. Possible action on individual or collective comments. Commissioner Young discussed the cost and feasibility associated with climate resiliency plans. Commissioner young discussed and presented his comments for the Climate Resiliency Plan. Commissioner Young agrees housing is a top priority, discussion followed. Vice Chair Stanley discussed needing more time to have comments in. 2. DCED Planning Division and Planning Commission 2022 projects. Review planning division draft work plan and discuss 2022 DCED Planning Commission Minutes Januavy 26,2022 Page 2 Planning Division and Planning Commission 2022 projects. Interim Director Bolin presented the Planning Division and Planning Commission projects to work on for 2022. There are some current projects that will not require Planning Commission input-these are grant application for the Housing Action Plan that will help in updating development fees,also development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit prototype to help find a path for pre-approved designs,and Multi-family Housing Tax Exemption update. There might be an advisory role to the Planning Commission to help engage with the development community. Interim Director Bolin opened the discussion for Phase Two Development Code Update. The goal is to have a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting to discuss this more in depth in March. There are work sessions that occur once a month on the 4th Tuesday in the month. Wants to start working with a consultant to adequately plan for this meeting. Chair Schwab discussed looking at signage and fixing and updating the sign code. Chair Schwab added Commissioner Luxton's items of discussion to the next meeting. Vice Chair Stanley. Vice Chair Stanley supports prioritizing affordable housing and housing density over the urban canopy plan. Discussed focusing on creating affordable housing that would allow the option to live in the community and get around town without a car.Would like to understand the barriers to development amongst the development community. Commissioner Ahuja agreed with Vice Chair Stanley more time would be needed to have comments turned into staff. Commissioner Ahuja discussed following up with departments about concerns to understand motivations and affirms we should go all in on housing as it is closely tied to jobs and much more. Commissioner Luxton Discussed affordable housing as being the number one problem we are facing right now, discussion followed. We still need to focus on Residential Building Capacity and Urban Standards, discussion followed. Is working on compiling a list of five items to discuss at the next meeting,discussion followed. Commissioner Young At some point we should revisit the code we implemented specifically in reference to block frontages. Commissioner Young would like to focus on parking requirements,discussion followed STAFF UPDATES Interim Director Bolin spoke of the Health Officer's hope that COVID case rates may reduce in mid-March. There is no plan currently for hybrid meetings. The Building Residential Capacity Ordinance is signed and in effect. Planning Commission still has one vacancy. Chair Schwab and Vice Chair Stanley's terms are expiring in March and both are encouraged to re- apply. Planner Braudrick reports that he is planning to have a workshop in March for climate resiliency that will likely take place during a regular Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Januavy 26,2022 Page 3 REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Nathan Docherty, Secretary Andrew Schwab, Chair PREPARED BY:Nathan Docherty,Secretary nog„r1��il��fJJJ„„�;l11%lr„ PLANNING COMMISSION WASH I N G T' O N , U .S, MEMO Date: February 9, 2022 To: Planning Commission From: Emma Bolin DCED Interim Director Summary:At the January 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Young requested a future agenda discussion of items to deliver to City Council for review and guidance. At the January 26, 2022 meeting Commissioner Luxton requested a discussion on five items to recommend to Council. His recommended items for discussion tonight are included in the packet. Staff information is provided to address his discussion items. Recap:At the January 26, 2022 meeting, staff introduced 2022 Planning Commission projects and suggested that the Planning Commission in addition advise if they would like to be involved with public engagement and advisory roles.The Planning Commission indicated they would like to review the ADU prototypes deliverables should the City receive a Housing Action Plan Implementation grant. Similarly, Planning Commissioners would like to be involved with the multi-family tax exemption update. Finally, the Planning Commission suggested examining the effectiveness of the Building Residential Capacity Code update and to continue learning about barriers to development in the City. Commissioners suggested their top Phase 2 code update scope of work: Streamlining subdivisions, sign code update, and further refinements to parking minimum requirements to ensure appropriateness. List of 2022 Planning Commission Projects('items'iri red reflect .1/26 Il[�iaii'irmlii'ig Corn rn°� iiss'iori°eedlbaclo 1. Climate Resiliency Plan (continued) 2. Climate Implementation Plan 3. Update of Floodplain Maps and Adoption of State Model Flood Plain Ordinance 4. Phase 2 Zoning and Development Regulations to Incentivize Housing Stuff ilc nxoirlldllg 01 ayawllIE:&111ihig a Joint Naninihig toll"Tlll"nl sslloln and Gty COL11111dll nxoirlk SE SSiloua Mairawlh 22, 5. Annual Training and bylaws update 6. Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Review 7. Ongoing Development Regulation Amendment Application Review 8. Ongoing Facade and Sign Grant Review 9. .-0LISV ng ActVon Nan Ilurnllnll&rn<afi011 (Vf giraunt a aair&d)to irEMM ADU IlnirataylpEE S, 10, MLIIfi fiarnVly II10LIShlg i ax yxa:^urnlpfioun tlllpd ata: I'll REa Scl&Iltilall BLIV hng talpacw ty awha^awllk. 111 )IlnocSVbl lE: Vulaw LISu oua Vua yh,)SE^ y co& nxoirlk allnooa:^) Response to Commissioner Luxton's Discussion Items: 1. Unnecessary second sewer connection to city main Public works is requiring ADU to have separate connection to the city sewer. Both Sequim and Port Townsend recommend that ADU and main dwelling share sewer lateral.The first sentence of 13.62.010 is used as justification for this unneeded second connection. 3.ADU sewer and water development fees Prior to 2019 sewer and water development fees were not assessed on ADU/ARU. In 2019 PW began charging a water development fee and sometimes both a sewer and water development fee on ADUs.There was no code change and PW was not directed by council to start charging these additional fees. Recommend add 17.21.020: B"Standard" New line 9.When an independent water meter is provided to an ADU, the ADU shall be exempt from water and sewer development fees. Staff Response: The Director of Public Works and Utilities specifically has authority under Chapter 13.60 and 13.62 relating to utility connections. City Council delegated discussion on determining appropriateness of separate connections to the Utility Advisory Council(UAC). The UAC at their January meeting directed staff to research a range of alternatives, which will be presented at the March 8r", 2022 meeting. Planning Commissioners as members of the public are encouraged to attend the public meeting. There are 3 vacancies on the UAC. 2.Two car driveways not allowed on new narrow lots Two car parking off street is prohibited by this section of USSG, should have been updated with code update but was not. Current USSG Driveways 11 11. Driveways shall be separated by a minimum of 15 feet and shall be no closer than 7%feet from the property line. Recommend Strike this language: Staff Response: There is significant interest to include changes to Chapter 16 Subdivisions as part of Phase 2 code work. This presents the opportunity to collaborate on the alignment of subdivision regulations with Urban Services and Standards Guidelines (USSG) and could potentially inform best practices for updating Port Angeles Municipal Code and USSG requirements in the future. Tuesday Feb 1 Planning Commission Discussion Items - Luxton 1. Unnecessary second sewer connection to city main Public works is requiring ADU to have separate connection to the city sewer. Both Sequim and Port Townsend recommend that ADU and main dwelling share sewer lateral. The first sentence of 13.62.010 is used as justification for this unneeded second connection. 13.62.010 - Separate connection required. Current: A separate and independent building sewer shall be provided for every building; provided that, where one building stands at the rear of another on an interior lot and no private sewer is available or can be constructed to the rear building through an adjoining alley, court, yard, or driveway, the building sewer from the front building may be extended to the rear building and the whole considered as one building sewer; and provided further that the Director may approve single connection for multiple buildings in appropriate circumstances. In no event shall the City assume any responsibility for damage caused by any such aforementioned single connection. Proposed: A separate and independent sewer shall be provided for every lot; provided that, where one premises stands at the rear of another on an interior parcel and no private sewer is available or can be constructed to the rear premises through an adjoining alley, court, yard, or driveway, the sewer from the front lot may be extended to the rear premises and the whole considered as one sewer; and provided further that the Director may approve single connection for multiple premises in appropriate circumstances. In no event shall the City assume any responsibility for damage caused by any such aforementioned single connection. 2. Two car driveways not allowed on new narrow lots Two car parking off street is prohibited by this section of USSG, should have been updated with code update but was not. Current USSG Driveways 11 11. Driveways shall be separated by a minimum of 15 feet and shall be no closer than 71/z feet from the property line. Recommend Strike this language 3. ADU sewer and water development fees Prior to 2019 sewer and water development fees were not assessed on ADU/ARU. In 2019 PW began charging a water development fee and sometimes both a sewer and water development fee on ADUs. There was no code change and PW was not directed by council to start charging these additional fees. Recommend add 17.21.020: B "Standard" New line 9. When an independent water meter is provided to an ADU, the AD shall be exempt from water and sewer development fees. Vice Chair Stanley's notes PC & CAPG Comments N.[bn lnfarmrtlan Renewer In u 0uilding'&Enegy ,,cave rcvl"cncy,! 2 Cm "tyrb—tblc nvb t,ttlp ts that dcvcbp 2019 Clmmc Rcslcncy Cap B Addcsscd pubic w,rkvh,p ,uld focus th"v actin nergy systems ner8y grid er8y prgecu(e.g.,loaf mmendationv vPe<ifiallY on l,al L, re th renewable vo8r� n dv) ensuere s i energy in Pr,leciv that ner8y Pr,leciv(voter,wind, supply redundancy,especially with the develop community energy tidal geothermal)t„dd to the neighborhoods love paver. prgects to ensure there iv sting grid and not on rergy supply redundancy, cr,8ridv only because it may ,,,blly when the Cty(,r ,'t be ec,n,miallyand neighb,rh„ds)l,ve techrally feasible for the City powers" of PA to develop micr,8rid, ,,.ut federal and state vupp,rVguidance.Maybe there should be a ve W rate ,specify that the city supports micr,8rids and stands ready to participate in ny larger programs to help laal places introduce ,grids. Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 3 E,,rgy Atciency retr,fty ,,date redevelopments to include 9 Climate Resiliency Reg Public workshop action G emissions nergy efferent rev,fity,such,v mmendations eatherizati,n and energy Ali-b, w li,nces. Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 4 nergy Ali-,home ze homeowners to switch 9 Climate Resiliency Vol G emissions heating v,ueeev hea burces from wood burning mmendations and pro W ne to h.gl Aficienc, electrial heaters and other less carbon Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 5 EPA renewal agreement sand renegotiate Bonneville 2019 Climate Resiliency S %of EPA iv nuclear power. While hydropower iv mostly G emissions power fra,chiveagreemenxand ensure mmendations Dependent on EPAagreemenL dean in terms of GHG wabl,,revtient,and I,w GHG A,Icady F,va really Ilea, it leads m ,lean sources. nergy source due to —,,gi al problems and hydropowe, should not be considered a Imgterm solution.Any review ,!the BPA agreement should eco8nize this. Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 10 NILmct ring monitoring ring uses to track 9 Climate Resiliency Reg This could be paired with an Gemissiunv pr,gret'sngr,wthcand cM,gev. mmendationv , on pr,gtimth,t (Potumbel large energy se urs of PA,Olympic Medial .)t,disclose their pr sate energy use per building this would provide vtI.— data that an be used to target reduclionvin more GHG ,leans in the private vector. Building)&Energy MtLgateenergyrelated 11 en Bui r dbgvtt,dtrdv eveop dnate smart Green Butdi,g 9 Climate Resiliency Reg vuPp,rtgreen butding G cmissiunv vt.trdv for all Cityowned buildings 111bb,ionv t„dtrdv,but LEED silver and develop a green building program. might be a little pricey as a This vMuld incude. baseline standard l,r all city Climatesmart permitting.Incorporate buildi,gsinthivc,mm,,i,,,I future climate change scenarios when would hate to see delayed alculating level of service for permitting v not ity lacilitiev and services. nergy cite ent buoildings BUEED(,co ti r mpable cer) tifi 1- because the city a„ot afford Id all new City buildings and develop the standard that would be at least a LEER Silver criterion for nterpr,ductive. nergy,water and waste conservation trategiev(e.g.Archixecxure2030). ,,duct energy audits for each city or ed buildings and nlravtrtcancture to develop and implement a plan to reduce energy consumption. Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 12 cn inccnt ve program revelop green pr incentive ,gtimsf,r 9 Climate R esilie ncy Vol G emissions esidential and commercial mmendations develo m 0uildingv&Energy Reduce vulnerability 48 Climates'martfnana Update Ciry development policies to 9 Climate Resiliency Reg TFiv seem really vague policies addressfnancev for development in highR mmendationv should make thism,re specific risk areas(eg.,require longterm about the e-,tf—b-1 bonds. levers. Building)&Energy Reduce vulnerability 52 Aquisiti,n pr,gti evelopm funding program for,cquisiti,n 2019 Climate Resiliency Lap C Is this r,4,, hour of high ri,k structures in coastal or mmendationv Which structures rine flood zones. y of PA would be relevant here?Limited city fun mig ds ht be better spent elsewhere on climate action. Buildings&Energy Reduce vulnerability 64 item etrofL buildings for ir,ftinlravtructure for coastal 9 Climate Resiliency Cap Addressed public workshop This action is closely tied vulnerability flooding and sea level rise Consider hard R mmendationv ,the City's uK-tte decision shoreline praecti,n b certain areas, Ralcign and protect n the DDT vegmentfr,m such as bluff crests where infrastructure infrastructure along bluff leve downtown to eastern border needs to be realigned and protected. vts against sea l rive" of the city,and should be ntegrated with any ,mprehenvive plan or city ncil plans that already provide guidance. Buildings&Energy Mitigate energyrebted 69 impact development Eliminate barriers that prevent tMuse 9 Climate Resiliency Reg G emissions ,f,_mpact development techrquev mmendations and BM Ps,such av vegetated roofs, permeable pavement,and bi,retenti,n, while maintaining valety and aesthetic quality i,the butding process.(eg.work with financial institutions to lower barriers to non traditional,green building practices.) Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 71 cn energy .rely,,green energy from the grid. 201 9 Climate Resiliency Vol Need to specify the audience TFiv seems v,interewined with G emissions mmendations for this action.Also unsure the Cty's contract wth EPA, what specific policy lever to and with any efforts to build is change ,ct this ba r w eneable energy production,that s am not sure needed as a eparate Buildings&Energy Mitigate energy related 74 Efficient outdoor lighting eetlights to LED and install2019 Climate Resiliency Cap M W,need to vpecifal1y G emissions photovoltaic panels on exist,,building)R mmendationv -this,cxi,n item many and far standalone I&bb on streets data the City has on is existing and b parks where appropriate and e of LED and PV. r,ductive. 0uildingv&Energy Mtigateenergyrelated ]5 Buvincv Set g„Isf,r government departments 9 Climate Resiliency S G emissions ceftifiati,nan and encoutige all bal bulbs-,elm mmendations become certified by the Green Buvi,evs program of Jefferson County Heahh. Building)&Energy Mtigateenergyrelated 83 EV parking M,,db1 that all multifamty Fouling ember 2D21 CAPG Reg C tiered by—Clean Need mch,,k with Housing Thu type of mandate might G cm"'bnv and other types of housing have EV Bien, Buildings Act for new ME. Authority to check fe,sibilt, rtve development costs. parking a W city. Affordable housing iv a bigger priority.Planning for an EV dominant future should be ,mplished in other ways, such as programs to install electric infrastructure next to public,on street parking or b public parking structures/lots. evindy unity 9 City price on carbon evebp a City of Port Angel,i carbon 9 Clitate Resilienry Reg Public work-p action Idisagree wlththis action item lence& adaptive capacity pricing pdkh,'.and invest revenue imo R otmendations because)do mtthih,it ix Wellbeing nergy effciency and clean energy realiai<or feasible w projects.Build lids price on carbon into implement carbon Pricing at City procurement decisions. the municipal or manly scale. Aby carbon Pricing within our mall,arbhrary 6 andantes would simply drive GHG ve business oiidetof city boundaries.This a good example of a polity that would-"make sense at IM slate or federal scales. evinity unity 13 tamable agriculture ,signal,funding to promoteaM 9 Clitat,Resilienry Cap —is a good action,and lence& adaptive capacity stablish urban sustainable omrtie.ations could IM enhanced by spent, Wellbeing agriculture/food forest, wn oFencouraging partnerships with local farrtn/larrtiers thatcan.lp educate resid, aM see up I¢al food production projects. evinity Prepare for extreme events 14 Wildfre urban interface update tunkipal codes to-scout for 9 Oil,—Resilienry Reg Need<larifkations on what 1e this action 1111110w lence& enhancedfirerisk atfor,st/residential omrtie.ations specifkally needsto be priority because additbnal Wellbeing Berta,,where needed. updated. regulation will add xo housing Publk_11hop action devebptent costs,aM becausex.wlldland-urban inert-,,is rtiore relevane on unty land than within my boundaries. evinity unity 1] vulnerablhily Cond urea sea level rise evaluaxbn xo 9 Clitat,Resilienry 5 Public workshop action TH,s it.type ofprojectthat lence& adaptive capacity ,sstent ,valuat,x.vulnerability of City asses ottendations should onH be conducted in Wellbeing including roads(rtiotorized&non),M.r R obub withClak— jbbt uctur,(sewage-It""water, .btyta.IM NOOC-acdy - buildings�,and marine access.This based study alone would IM a includes: sfe ofmoney. Analyze sewer sy-t,-panty and vulnerabllity to sea level rise,and identiH actionsxo increase —ire-valuate roads and IldIldss along bluff crests for erosion threat wnh SlFt or reab nrt evinity unity 36 Climne migration polky Ineegraxe considerations fow<limate PG Recomrtie.axbn Reg lence& adaptive capacity change hd into,riding City Wellbeing polkies land use policies,housing ofcies e ' unity 115 zard Mitigation Plan F plemenickey provisions oft.2019 9H-zard Mitigation 5 anbinedp3&44 anbined actionsxo evilence nit& adaptive capacity nrpementation zard Mitigation Plan PIan -thine list Wellbeing se e building designfor n x'.Vision Masxer Plan a hk—ing Progra— evebp ahernat,water supplies xo provide reserve water sources xo be used in event of drought or water s ortage. -ebp advaed warning syssms. Idveem nc iH Elders and M.r vulnerable populations xo prioritizefortitigation aM disassr assiAam,. evebp and/or improve Etergenry Plans wch as Evacuation Plain,Tribal cords P'—don Plan,Conti—y of Operatdns Plan,etc. -hp-,flood assessment. and expand water efficiency/conservation program, ,wmty unity 45 City assevulnerabihily loot to,valuate vulnerabllity of 9 Clitat,Resilienry Vol ]already ens,& adaptive capacly City-assets',Projects and activities. ommendaxions deal-1,, ._,of thi,bb Wellbeing bdhlM as tool into City workflow(,& buildings&energy salon). permits and exPandituss).Irklude nting fin city staff,Council,and imitl.,in t.use to t.tool. evimty Prepare do'""events 47 Flood vulnerability and risk E urage FEMAtoimorporat,clitas 2 9Clitat,Resilienry 5 s updating t.NFIP. TWs is afederalgovernrtiene lence& c.nge in rare maps and guidarce. omrtie.ations Also,unsure t.level of polity aMl don't--IM Wellbeing agency that t.City has with City of PA is rd—bl.s. FE-Awork 11th1a11 partners to do this too. Ch""' unity 59 supply m—bring&IdemiH rti oring needs and enhance 9 Oil,—Resilienry 5 TH,—Id be conducted ax evilence& adaptive capacity enhaencertiene supply mo.lorib&(,&improve otmendations ft county and slate level with Wellbeing for-sing for future water supply and t.appopriat,agencies so demand under d 11kh,change,study ehis could ba amended to say enhance water storage and Work wIthlo-ty and state gr undwater aquaf,r recharge inx. partners xo identiH monitoring city). needs.".Maybe t.re should M a separate action item about getting IM—data on t.state Mour local aqudei(d dto dovetail with any currene nssieneif< —111011udy our aquifer. evimy t unity 121 ter regulations se regbnal capacity forwater anbined#15,p5], T.s propo e sed projectsare lence& adaptive capacity Drag,through key regulations and and p63 into both,l—dyitportam and Wellbeing caphal projects: p121 relaxiveH feasible at t., my and regulate rainwater level,andsMuld be given high harvesting Pilot, r e regulations that require water effii ene appliances(was.rs, dishwas.rs,xollees,eec.) En.me sormwat,r retention in upsxrearti areas w.re appopriate and fea961, evebp code and iMrasxruceure for rz lamed waters stem. Ch""' unity 62 ntumty Rating Syssrti Prtkipaxe in FEMA's Community Rating 2 9Climate Resilienry Vol ,whatt.Purposof evilence& adaptive capacity '.. otme.ations this will bet Wellbein Ch, nit' unity 119 anpsheblwv chit eve O ate bp acompre.nsive chimaxe Vol bine and#16,FdF, evilence& adaptive capacity reach&education climas outreach&education progrart1, inb new 11 Wellbeing TWs includes: wabl,energy tours:Create a wable energy'or"en,rgy Miighbo odm dur,likea neighborhood garden lour or Masxer Gardener progtrti,fin neighbors to learn from each M.r on how to implemene renewable energy or energy ,ff,i,m upgrades inxMF homes1 mty conversations in cl mate vulnerable locations xo educate aM train community on how xo adage xo those climate impacts. nvolve high school studnis in climate work and developing a y—y Climax, w Report Card." evidnity unity "Inityba'ed evebp and implement major climax, Vol anbinedC70and ence& adaptive capacity oneabllity olaxed even¢to raise awareness and ]rota new pl Wellbeing a adoption of 11beseiriendly slulilid,beginning with e Climte Week sod food waste reduction ompetitioo. Couese a Climate Change Week to de,ignaxe a week each year for City and unity evolution of the progress made on meeeirg mmmubity and goals relaxing to reducing ourmnvlbutiobeod vulnerability to climate change. e e food waste reduction ompelde,Led by City s'k eestaumou tube creative m how to reduce food we,do;differentneighborhood,doing dlffd eut suaaioebiby actbb(e.g.,how far your food traveled). Co"b"" unity 116 sing Action Plan Implul—key provision' bo Port eg Angeles Housing R onubined#79 81 StIlsiblomg draft till.These This is extremely important. evidence& adaptive capacity mph Angeles Housing Acbn Plat,This ion Plan p116 i-highlebbe to may wane to pull out Wellbeing includes: public xurvey vidualprovlsionsfrom the Implemem Cottage Housing Houliog Action Plan e, aeedeprtiebt(CHDd that allows small lot separate climate actions so as ngle family housing developers to emphasise them. <t these types othousing produces infeasible and appropriate ,lob family neighborfnods including esidebtel Single Pamty(ES-7,RS 9,sod wi11)lo ,where the added density ll benefit frorti walkable ditancesto sting Peo,it,school,-bp,b,,.eb, unity facility,and other supporting SExpand toe debulde,of allowable ve,functional,ande dive houtng products such as dupldplex, Cached single family,town or row houses,tandem houses,manor houses, 'ets"gate housing,bkro hou,ibg, mall effcierey dwelfbg uods(SEOG�, ant mixeduse structures artiong others to the Residential Medium bebity (MD)sod Residential High Debit, (RHOdznn -Expand toe debulde,of allowable Cou"b"" unity 84 obuprehebsive Plan see Comprehensive Plan to reinforce N ember.11 CAPG Reg Added 1165 This-till climate action evidence& adaptive capacity prbritie, climttlate resilience eetibg etegy needsto be rtierged Wellbeing Include a climate change resifence on otthe ebmentiothe Port Angeles ou'p Plan,rwt jut these auprehen,ile Plan. proaisions.This is le"e evebp policy in mmpre—wu don specific climate ion,and that sites iofm'tructure outside of ore of a larger practdo,tPe, andfuturehazard areas. the PC and Clt C ncil. evidnit, unity 85 obtyCity coordination ordinate and partner with Colleb ember M21 CAPG suggest that,when toese ence& adaptive capacity obN to implementregbnal climate stung ore finalised,we Wellbeing esifence polktes. id btify each action th't is best accomplished alongside Clallarti County and NoOC and make It explkd that we need a partnership to make city sluet,worthwhile. evidnit, Prepare for extreme events 86 Climate resifeuse& Cdlaborate with em nry erge planning ember M21UPG ence E, rtiergenry planning partners to integrate climate stung Wellbeing rt'idertiob into emergency and hazard mibgesioo donning. evidnity ublty 8] City volunteer coordinator H volunteer coordinator for toe City N ember M21 CA. Vol bider making this e ence& adaptive capacity to help ssppb",[.matd re'ifence actbb Meeting psid p ube,perhep,with Wellbeing that require mmmubltyor volunteer funding shared by the City, capadty. Coubt,and any other private evidnity Prepare fe"treme even¢ 8R Climate resifenry hub, eclimaxe resilien cy hub,t key ember M21 CAPG Cap Public workshop action TIP, a good idea and should ence& locaxiob(e g.,bbmry M to support stung be ireluded many hazard Wellbeing elideb,during extreme events such s, preparation plans. foodin or he at waves. CI nity ublty 89 sing access and a affordable housing and access ember M21 CA. Vol This is toe highest priority Teem evidence& adaptive capacity north hou thet belp,support community wellbeing Meeting ntoe plan,and should be Wellbeing EdR,climate migration concerns, graded s,a highly"multi- f cialmhesbn. benefit"lanitem. Cnsumption and miote sustainable > City'u'tsinabb purchasing Cul ea screen Team"model to develop 2019 Climate Resilieby Vol Public workshop action Waste umption finable purchasing policies for the ommendations Cnsumption and e rotated 19 Watewater fxilityGHG Evaluate wastewater facility to reduce 2019 Climate Resflebry c w SPP Public action Waste GHG dibis , GHG emissions. Roobbilteodtim, Cnsumpulb and mints sustainable 20 Commercialfeedwaste Dolubp food waste diversion programs 2019 Climate Resilieby Vol Public bolk,hopshoo Would be good to-uipo Waste doodsonphoo diversion programs for commercial businesses,such as ReloubbieudItim, "Reduce organic food waste larger program like this with diverting two waste to donation throughfood donation the County that would programstoreduce dimatechabgil programs,greenwaste bins, specifically tap into firms and gasesthatare emitted when organics rot ant composting programs." ompost use outside of City in landfills. boundaries. Cmsumpulb and miote sustainable 21 Dolubt,two waste diversion program 2019 Climate Resilieby Vol Public bolk,hopacblo Waste umption diversion programs for households such as using gree—aste R ommendations 'Reduce organic food waste bins for compost to eliminate laudhRog throughfood donation offoodwastethtcause methane programs,greenwaste bins, -ccm Cnsumption and miote sustainable 22 Asphalt recysling plant Work with state legislators to encourage 2019Climate Resiliency see Waste doodsonpulb support for asphalt recysling plant for Relobilteodatim, oral areas. Cnsumption and miote sustainable 56 wade,oo5sdp,ibb Reduce water consumption through 2019 Climate Resilieby Combine./similar CRW Waste doodsonpubb education/incentives educationand incentive programs.For Rolemmendations allots, - bible: Create a smarigrld water use system a—hare dais with consumers to irraeom and ibcantM m re'art igation technologies for got courses ant arks. Cnsumption and Eliminate/reduce single use 105 Single use plastics Work toward limiting 01 banning single Nov UPG Meeting evised UPG notes to include Waste plastics use plastics. public workshop action: work towards banning or limiting single use plastics." N ,"umption and se diversronfrom 106 Circular erooe" When bdbgibgtrashtolabdfll,various o,UPG Meeting sthis bean"work with Waste Isndflls groups/orgs can pull Out different types (ntnie]gr0ups to divert of materials Out.What's leftoer goes to landfill waste to bemfcial landfill.Waste diversion and focus on es'?If so,what groups use/circular econonry. would do this?Or does it an"Establisha program at the landff to identity and divertlandb`waste for benefuisl uses.", Cnsumption and miote sustainable 108 Producer responsibility Actimbob,a kesellersresponsiblefor Nei,UPG Meeting Cold leverage state policy TNsdoesn'tseem feasible at Waste doodsonpubb to-lopoit and establish City EPP to themunicipalorcountyscale- wate/pla tic/etc. address this this needs state 01 federal d on Ecosystem HealPF Res(re ant protet natural 9 Ufb nt ee<atrop/,p£rks, Prarect urbartbee—1,pa ks,z9d 2019 GIunatpReul enry Reg :Pubic wo kshop act on Shoukd include medAtonof habits, ant OPdbs-b open space Rewmmendat ons bud" nng or emourag0g rbsubee Astktng-spec lily 0 p bl c sues,I k,stree, "boubs,s Ecosystem Health Res(re and protect natural 24 —ice nc,dustedmsteehangemom 2019Cbma,e Res lenry Reg belult up., explctly MO Rite Shorebue Master: R—didiend}tons Pro ram Pubic si..,,actcR Erns}:Yem HealPh 11.1—and protdcY natVral 25 Cit cW area protecbop. Addclmate unpacCw OW,—Ming 2019 CI enat¢Resl eexy Reg hdb@dt Cr Pcal Areas".Creates ala oAfbod Rewmmend'atons mappng b,Wb FEMA'shstircal flood data Ecosystem HealPh Restre I.proPecC.hod—1 2d Harmful algal bid— ase"Idi,Co..dl.,harmful 2019 CIunateReliod,Cap FeeLsl tea o,dypr strte habitat min CorE algalblooms ej the Port Aneebs.1bor Row C`dd'ators le el nth['.regterng spec sized c s eiR t, knowledge from tins de Ecosystem Health Restre aml p.Dd hod-1 V Shc on habtat protect on MnuCor aro dhol,ddi to change 2019CIunWReslenry SPP Unsure fthswfll beC[y"led hab{tdt mpactaCaalmb Aem esYorat oh Rewmmend'atons Also,wh—Ills? stesand h creeks iIthe CO. Ecosystem Health carbon 28 Ektenson of tinbo,harves E—diptlb mpaeuds ko ex end 2019CIun.R.Nodoy SPP �D ware fthswll beC ky led TIY CYy MPAdoe3 eroYhave aegijestrat onpoYeM'al' rgfat on tunber harvest ontmes azlorge+ Rewmmend'at ons -Publcw«kshopactinn '.bmbu harvest ngleeYs aged trees hillsequese m <a Don boueWar es so th5actonis onlyrelo,rdif t;pecfaally eeIX ons wnrk ng with Me eduetty onth s Ecosystem Health Restre aml phdod hod-1 32 Co'akl eroson reduNbn Eremwage sMfa mo ng Afsho[el M1css Co 2019ClIi R.Aod,SPP Should the be a Coen Res habitat P—d eMrastiueYumand idth.0 Ho._ond'at ons '�etoetY Couldl bergmbred mP o.—natiaveg—orardother with BEor Phtcoastalrsk ual es aregement practeces tedu@onacbons? ro rdducelanaadesa a oastaleros on Ecosystem Health Restore andpotect IA,,,l 49 Nbtve plats laroscaPde ncdMMee use df Iodil plants 2019 CImate:Reslenry habitat landscaPidg iI r ldental,o ia, Rewmmend'atons aro end'strwl dod ngs w th nthe City tog-1.,With the Gossett,ana Clallam Corse-Od Distrectl Ecosystem Health Res(Band Pro—nattiral 50 S4bmerged habtat Complete survey Af se s Ne1-1,11ged 2C19Cbmate Reslency C,ld DNR help) 0Do they TN,def nDly feel,morelkea habltdt Anne habtrts aro the spec es that utbo¢them R—di.odddt ons ahead/baud th,urfp? DNR or unverstyprole&IIt aro_dHA,rihom fornnanee rthe a ty sadope Ecosystem Health Restre and proCecC tat-1 % Wildlfd.odors EHH, efes o,aro plHodwldlrce 2019 CH-Wr,dray habitat Audits to hElp wldlfe adapt Yo Rewmmend'{tons lm eem a Ecosystem Health Restore and prAtect natural 53 CGmatese sb.D.i lltbre ci mate'jove(ad ptaN,)Do, 2019 CImateResl dray habitat s Iod speeds�nr pawn buffers Rewmmend'atons Ecosystem Health Restore ad protect'Id-1 54 Cill.D reph..o,d Replacounrk dAh,DtA,rojdpIH,2019 CImat Zili ' Should be paredwth actors habit. di—toeMluedced run oft ohls RecommoddIt ons Ckeo.—I. for fish populot ons Ecosystem Health Restore and protect'hod-1 55 LandD—ol p.11.0 Reduce Ia dWbasedpo1luh.0,o1 2019 CImateResleevy habitat redact on ohldm acdifli iIm(r waters Recommend'atons Ecosystem Health Restre ant phdod hod-1 .1 0jol WON,Plan mplom keyproHsoes If the AW2 Herrera C-VI.d490A3, TIHse Yemsare et(Uemely habitat rtjploino ton 202?Noln-y Opidl Fae lto,Plan N103 did.11 ap cfc we lm there TraespI1DdoetlmPro lid Plan lhs nt Itto,pqullly unport,l enclutles ko mwater dra rage sues? H SbeetsYor�mwaler Autfdll denkiPy an TWstem should simply akernath,"gnmoett for falnep Pe efeenceal Igo,sYormwdter between Ma iho Dr ve and reduce phr o tM Comp Plan that flooding near It-Park ereNWtborLrood would Provrdea "N R,,,t Out Wk Improvethe NSDIdt omprehe s ye l s OulPall tAmihlm efuue localced aliowfA m one aka n mnaro ,a orose "Frax,s O,,t IIRepar Repafrtlfe Dow,D.10hffd1l The WN t s entry bur ed n beach sod meertand should be a p pe cn the r prop bank:.th a dkspate Valley creek LuNeeY&OuYfall Raise the valley creek CnNoH&Outfall Curredly,sedimeett repeatodly fills the calve C,edholoT"Potty WasYewate+Pump SYabon 3 Upgrade between Mar im Dim and Hill St— Ecosystem Health AddF dod,le el ni, 1. Retlene If dod—psi.Evaluate anaaad ealeelrsein I_W.d494,98 local clean upStes Thseraludes : 191 MA 4118 Ra io,Mill'Evaluate the RayrAw Mllcoettam otil remdd at orsfe and setting pond Pq ea le dfli hod—arty vurere ab tesfound Ad. Do,evaluatron West ern Pon'All",Harbor LR Add— S n Clean apAtt om "K PN Properties Clean up phh1fpr K Hy propeh esshould address SW ne Dr It Clean up ph,h,,W address 1. M.H.Trades Area C111 up 1holld addreu SlR Ecosystem Health AddF dod,le el ni, W CRAMarmor repass CUWuck BeeredPcosk9nalyssM TlvsacYon tom roods Yo also sh oho armor"PI"1,Ig Olymp,, e gr.the repeated sues .—INT/dl wlh atve m b anwwl An the Zol ne and must rco poste those well Ecosystem Health Addissealvelrse 104 ll.t J-1,repae Rep,r the boot launch at Ed,Hook, Herrera should the bo-ne&E?0, ncorporat ng se level sea a oastal W. rmProle .do hdi1loceto h are cord t ons Ecosystem Health 1--ppolItitios for 114 FdidsC and mar re habtat Panne l"d$ansdtons(eg, Workshop adt on :P blc workshop scrod cargo sques�ton apd Pre .ton Natoral Park1o"i",Natoo,l"'n ere "d,.Ae Sarctuary)Co llese ofo ds na 4ianre N23 crow covered her hab tab,developine new atrateg e, where hooded Transprtaton nsportafon 1 Tra "f's re, Expand publict F's d 9 CI'mate Resiliency Cap anbimdw/42 rt of pWh,workshop bl'c trans[should be driven CHI emissions I'O y,&sdho,y a to busese ommendations IA. by demand,not planning.This vailable stall timesand decrease the °Enurethatall residentshave might be rophalod 0 say need for travel in singlo oeeupaery multiple "Stall ready to expandpublk vekcles.This includes: cniponation options, with new, vebpstrategiesthatpromotetra h erspe Wly walking,biking,and housing development" equity andcommuniN safety by public transit." rtsid,idg the most vulnerable,then "Expand publi<transit design ant implementtran dw support inbrastructure and services to pedestrians,bky,l,%masstransit and dec need for single individual cars,in that order. lld_cars." use of the park and ride sY,Ad,h anbldiA actions gives d"Itim for infrastructure Cap IM Transportation ansportation 1. se EV use for general Dvebpstrategiesandexpand 9Climate Resiliency Public workshop action CHI eamissrions public infrastructure to increase use ofebetric 11 ommendations vekcles.This includes: Added detail evebp and implement an EV infrastructure plan -Identify top barriers to EV adoption and ""bp plaI to address them Transportation p itom- R CHOe ansportation 31 Hikieg andwalhiA vebp and expand to infrastructure 9 Climate esiliency Cap of plic workshop tion ac Very imponanta ctionamiuions iMrastructure 50uport biking and walking,including ommendations Pat ub Ensure that all residents have should be high priority. walkabiluy and bikeablhd a< c multiple ectlyrelatesto theabiluy of highways,by ietterchangesr andot., ansponation options, the city to developnew busy streets(e.g.,elynl, especially walking,biking,and housing that is congruent with public transie." pedestrian lHesNles. transportation ansportation 32 tmpal fleet Support and i—i-Iviee electrification 9 Climate ResilieM.y Cap GHG eamissrions ektrif<at III&idle ant lower emissions of transportation in R ommendations reduction the City: City a iportateontfleet�ow�d 'id lt,ffication in order to reduce GHG and improve local air qualiey (e.gssreduce local car tabs for electric vekcles and devebp electrical charging d.the Clty). S roE t blish ared,,didling polity for all gaernmentvehicles transportation ansportation 33 EncourageelecriFication of Ercourage County,School District, 9 Climate Resilid-Vol m I—Id like asp,fi,action GHG eamissrions regional transport nal Park,private sector(e.9. ommendations n that would specifcally delivery) and others to move towards urage mass transit and electric fleets. ele trifed trans port for Ridge RoarditWkle the road d utside city boundaries,the i"'t uc rture for supporting this shat wowd surety be nside the city and repesents n opportunity for economic development as well. transportation ansportation 35 Transportation Expandthe WSDoiclimate vulnerability K e Climate Action SPP Public wIfthip action Idon ee how this is relevant esilie- vulnerabiluy include�wmstate roads Plan-draft othe City of PA ant other traniportationsystems to e that transportation investments resilient to future climate impacts. transportation GHG emissions Re 68 fine fossil fuel eve by a poliNthat prohibits the 9 Climate Resilie g tks s i awellintentioned but fits aostructure o pansion of infrastructure in support of R ommendations fossimisguided action Atotalban fossil fuel transport in the Harbor. ne l Nell might be terrproduc Ye (di—aging trucking over shipping,etc.).Tks should be re the electrtif[ale on of Port of PA iMrastructure and specifcally allo'sd marineelectrification (plugs on docks for idling ships).Could be part of Bing other green iatrves at the port. transportation GHG emissions 76 City empbyee commute Implement vehicle trip reduction polity 2019 Oil—Resilie veryone already have fissions ncorporating teleconferencing/ ommendations omputers,internet,ant video teleco ring and alternative work coderercing sofwaret scheduleswhem practical.Establish video and/or web coderencing CAPG abilities in all major City and County h<ilities transportation relev ansportation 113 Medium ant heavy duty Work with state and local partners(e.g., N CAPG Meeting ve Dbped ac ase on bd on tks doesn't se em ant at GHG eamissr. vekcle decarbonization Ecobgy vehicle sellers)to support CAPG comment"action re: the city level. implementaton of the WA Advanced medium and heavyduN Clean Trucks(ACT)policy,whkh requires vekcle decarbonization' >5%oF medium-0uN vehicles(e.g.,box ucks)and—If heavy duty vehicles (e.g.,semis)delivered to WA to be 2EV 2035. Commissioner Young"s Notes rg�varera`a` z rg ewabe e ar;B as or re barn a ae oab a�rba�oo of are ro w�or e��erFl r, �a�es C �ee.aerF���a��a�al a��aaesegewr o 11-1 Ib oa ga�--�� .11CA w 0 or�m aIly r• e -Rework r• clryproarerneY�ea8lons.�rbonin o unlry 13 uinab ag Iture and i p fornverneev La �flre urhaninrerfaae fores[/resde 1 ornmen�aooru- eikro be a 0 or�m >_, work r• u u v e�rr�er�r aenm�r orr�o�erwaoor� ,e tam e ,a-rr�--aim, 0 or�m 36 �a a r• v Ib s u u v sestesr r• gee.r,o P111 11 11 b, .p —Ify 11-11 -11—blk PIP, 11 PZIII�17"I ......... n Cun[Ir arty of —p— ly 12 I'll,lens h6(In lb, g `kb,`�" 1-1-P lynorI I—Ifyan =y ..—Pply".b g,(—p— .1111=1111.1.11111 .,ha,,k b ha.....g =p P— �g "I I-hbl=wbbl"b'p`e-f 'y b 'Pa"y "g-,- Ih, hllh —bbp C111 b k p C1111 Ih k=_ch 1=1Y 1111111111-11 gal, be 1.be h —gh-h— ff—bl 1—babIlly-1-1( f-d'.b.d, � key P111 -g C111 b 'f hIll PZIIII�1�1.111.1��Ilall h bl"" gk y p h—I h—I be,1.11 C .1— P- —bbp plab be, 'Pa"y C—bly.,Mplb a. -e,bg plabb,,�, be, lb 1.9 11. Ih h ha,- g�,—plabbbg, Nl�Pal b—Ify1bg g,— p g ----d I ly =y ldb-�g IIIII.. be 11—,1111.. h- k, p -lh�—k-p �g —h —d 1111,hl�pl.,,�P�Pll,.1111,1�1_1,1,1 1"WIllb-�9—11, im g Ily—l—bl,P h rWaalrp r enb1. pp.1- Z,rre on bl, g h, omroenmWrn Zll�lllll P, d— a...-,, p.— Blain pmroenmWrn lh—gh —1— 4—h-9�1�9 "", g� .—p-,P_.M, oea .......p r 9-1— .'g.—Wd— n,,,t.,—p- —1— .t Wd PN, glell.—b1l., _p —P _—.-g, CP-- pbl.. mbar g., P-- c W. 9—p,/- fr.amel¢wd- -b.h. , .............p—bl-, aches Mee r¢ g' -g— 'Pa", lk,kh.111.1 10.111— and PI.-ar mfutalgalb uum fuMm¢m mun Lr hat fpl eory -P eandpuearar 11 1—Fwb-I.— u Man ly eii marevkwgemqo.--k— 'p, A,_ -11, =11- utrrmber dmb 11— —ld 1 IIP -UZII—�-c 191, --d'.. P�rk.—P- -1h pl.el non M' pl--1,- -h andy ueanaru t rvep(anr.MaP�,g yeFanu20-11—R11.1— k—,0 bob car —p.e-- =--Iged R �R 1p pe ZZ, P-1 Rerleocy 1p—Ilt,-pl. mendarwro I alrenry 'p— r w anh fiery —l— Ne ehP_ habrrata ld P-1 1-11 51IaM bayed pul want ReCurx lend bled puluGo rrer ,p I.P11-1 key Pl—,,", —b—d— hob Me TI—P-1-1—I.I.—Thl, mdlutler cr-I k—ghll—W N 51-O-tl,11pl—1F N S— _tatj,.--1 I urnural Bed Au f I,hticpWertw and db 1p......P,bank wnh divpare V ley C''kC"e'" I—I.Y"Ilk ,—Ily,,d—,p—dlyfi— up eeaywer ...d —1-1 Red re ulrwleb 1pe'fuupd from SlR -———p P p'-pl-I kI, :leanatltlrev I CIA I DF, nddreVsaealeve r se ��chrepa r Reya r[t bV t o nc a filf Hu k, 1 s be n 1-11 M rlGsea e e l sml es Uerketu s[artd ma�ab u[ uganu[uny)g [wrW Wu kskpattw PU YowurluMuu attwn ca bupaeque[a wnaM Peik Se vrce,n ary�t efuv�d e bab[Ms,tleveluV"new Vu w Wr 1 re, dw/ cwurksfV emnswns qu[ry�&s ey ummendauurrs pia inv. n as eslden[s ba ri rwludese- Vary ii iv unlryseb, rar g, c YrslderN e,tFn ivVui uvunv deslg roc nsitan defcreas n m,e - sa use ut1.V3rkand ride V cV s emrsswns le Viu�eaz useutelect ummendaWrrs pddedderzil 'Ilene VatlUVrWn Vu arwn Wn 31 I¢fVac emnswns azvucrure uI, ummendauurrs eslden[s ba b-tlltykardblkeaV-ilk[yacr�lsdir eers R,Vrb'ang rxl - Vu arwn emrsswns W 32 n&Wle ud lUwe mrsswnsut[r Vu arwn ummendaWrrs ucrwn e Clty ueder u deg aril dove Ic4m[rpi,rig C[y�cmca Vu arwn emrsswns Wn 33 a Im Vu urn ley ummendauurrs delNery�arxl.."It muve[uwards Vu arwn Iie cV Vu [wn 3S rwra V include rw n-draft eAm Lcwur V oun Vu arwnG.emnswns slurs ccng/V ummendatwrs ru Ellblllh vltleuarxl/ura r v 11 ial fur L7ry aedcuuntyG i Vu arwn [wn 113 rid heavy rid wca rs�e.g vCAPG Mee rrp, n emnswns wledecarbun¢arwn ers�[u sY[hew rid heavy[du[y ks�ACi�VVII wledecarbun¢arwn s uckslare ury- vehlcles deg mts�deMered uVdWA[u be ZEV / I50RII AIING11 II SIR11 SIIII III INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach Cascadia will lead a qualitative multi-criteria analysis(MCA)of—35 actions from the draft actions list to arrive at a prioritized shortlist for the City and CAPG's consideration.The MCA assigns qualitative numerical scores to each evaluated action and criterion to arrive at an overall priority score for each action. This memo provides an overview of the proposed MCA approach.It includes: In An overview of the evaluation steps for the multi-criteria analysis. In Detailed descriptions of the evaluation criteria,including sub-criteria definitions and criteria weights. The Cascadia team and the CAPG developed the draft actions list,using the following key sources: In Review of City plans,policies,and programs In 2019 Climate Resiliency Recommendations 1111 November CAPG meeting In November public workshop The initial actions list contained approximately 120 actions.Cascadia grouped similar actions together to improve implementation potential and clarify how the City plans to pursue resiliency.The draft actions list contains 71 actions.Approximately 35 actions are included in the multi-criteria analysis budget.Therefore, CAPG will prioritize which actions are evaluated with the MCA;remaining actions can still be included in the Resiliency Plan,but will not include evaluation results. CASCADIA DE.CE.MBE.R 17, 2021 ( 1 / I50RII AIING11 II SIR11 SIIII III INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH IM 11 Briefly,the steps are: 1. To arrive at a priority score,each criterion is clearly defined and assigned a weight.These weightings are determined based on relative priorities as indicated by City staff,stakeholders,and the public.This includes survey input from CAPG members.Criteria are divided into subcriteria to inform the scoring process.These subcriteria ensure that the evaluation considers the various facets of the criterion;for example,"feasibility' could consider an array of constraints ranging from the City's level of control,to regulatory,political,and technology constraints. 2. Cascadia develops qualitative score matrices to allow for a consistent,objective ranking process.We assign scores for each action based on the criteria definitions and professional judgement drawing from available literature,peer city case studies,our knowledge of City context,engagement results,and consultant experience.Our team also records a brief rationale for each action to provide further substantiation. Actions that land on different values for a subcriterion are assigned an average score;each criterion is evaluated on a 1(low)to 5(high)scale. 3. Cascadia uses priority scores to arrive at a prioritized shortlist of actions for inclusion in the Resiliency Plan. However,it is possible all actions will be moved forward,pending City discretion,CAPG direction,and other ongoing community and stakeholder input. Example:Distinguishing between two actions Below are two actions Cascadia evaluated to prepare the City of Everett's(WA)Climate Action Plan(CAP). While both actions have the same impact,cost/affordability,and co-benefits scores,the second action is substantially more feasible and somewhat more equitable.As a result,the second action received an overall higher score and better achieves the City's climate goals. Action Priority Impact Equity Cost/ Feasibility Co_ Score Affordability benefits .......................... ............................ ......................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,................. d........................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... Advocate for regional congestion estion 2.6 4 1 4 2 3 pricing authority. Accelerate the implementation of the 3.4 4 2 4 4 3 "Complete Streets policy. Example:Evaluating sub-criteria In this example,the action's score for the Impact criterion would be based on where the action lies within the two subcriteria shown below. CASCADIA DE.CE.MBE.R 17, 2021 1 2 / I50RII AllNG11 II S II11I SIIII III INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Score Impact Likely to address goals? Addressing a major need? 1 Very unlikely-voluntary/indirect action with Addresses a very minor need-very low emissions limited reach/scaling source or very low priority goal for City/community 2 Unlikely-voluntary/indirect action with Addresses a minor need low emissions source or low broad reach/scale priority goal for City/community 3 Somewhat likely-voluntary/indirect,but with Addresses an average need-average emissions source financial incentives or average priority goal for City/community 4 Likely-regulatory/infrastructure project,but Addresses a higher-than-average need-high emissions with limited reach/scaling source 5 Very likely regulatory/infrastructure project Addresses a very major need very high emissions with broad reach/scale source The action"introduce incentives for electric heat pumps,"addresses the high emissions from the buildings sector but is an incentive,which is less impactful than a regulatory or infrastructure project.Therefore,the average score is a 3: Action Impact Likely to address goals? Addressing a major need? Total Impact Score Introduce incentives for 2 4 3 electric heat pumps. CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 ( 3 / 10IRII All"1G E II I S IR E SIIII II E INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH IM IN G4U°°III�IIIIIIIII 114 1111 Based on input from CAPG,best practices,and our expertise and experience,we have proposed the following criteria to evaluate the draft strategies supporting the Port Angeles Resiliency Plan.Each subcriterion is evaluated on a 1(low)to 5(high)scale. Criterion Weight Definition/Subcriteria .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Impact I 0.30 What is the scope and likelihood that the action will reduce GHG I�■■' emissions or enhance resiliency?By when?Can impact be measured and tracked? ............ ,.. ........ Does the action address a major need(i.e.,high GHG emissions source or climate risk)? Cost �0.151 What is the cost to the community and City? 1 Commented[CYxl]:Cost weighting could be higher.The city budget is always limited,grant money is hit or miss.If we look for What are the costs of inaction for this action? low cost alternatives,there may be a better chance of the project Community F� 0.15 Do residents support/agree with the action? getting done Support Do community stakeholders/partners support/agree with the action? Feasibility �0.101 What is the City's level of control over implementation? I Commented[CYx2]:Feasibility could be weighted higher.If it 1 has low feasibility,aren't we saying it really isn't going to happen? Are there regulatory,political,or technological constraints related to Something could have high impact,equity,community support and action implementation?Is the action adaptable to new technologies? co-benefits,but if it is not feasible,it is not worth considering. Equity 0.20 Does the action reduce vulnerability for all populations?Is it fair? Are benefits distributed equitably across the community?Do they redress historic inequities? Co-benefits or 0.10 Does the action support public health,the green economy,and other synergies City priorities?Does it present an opportunity for alignment or implementation with City and regional priorities?Does it have an adaptation or mitigation co-benefit? Impact The three proposed subcriteria evaluate impact according to whether the action is focused on the City's highest-emissions sources and/or greatest climate risks,how broadly the action would affect the City/community,how likely it is the impact will be realized,the timeline of that impact,and the ease of measuring and tracking the impact. Likelyto address goals(i.e.,scope and Addressing a major mitigation Addressing a major adaptation likelihood of impact)? need? �needh Commented[PT3]:Do these definitions seem right for what is ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, a minor vs mayor adaptation need Very Low-VOLUNTARY strategies(e.g., Addresses a very minor need Addresses a very minor need education/outreach)that INDIRECTLY very low emissions source very low climate risk for reduce emissions and/or enhance (water&wastewater, City/community resilience;limited ability to scale(i.e.,very municipal) low impact/reductions);will be difficult to measure/track impact. CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 14 / P0RII All"1G E II I S IR E SIIII II E INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Likely to address goals(i.e.,scope and Addressing a major mitigationAddressing a major adaptation likelihood of impact)? need? �needh Commented[PT3]:Do these definitions seem right for what is 1 l 11 mm, , ........... , ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, .................... ,,,,,,,,, a minor vs major adaptation need? Low non-,,,,,,.monetary incentives,,,,regulation, Addresses a minor need-low Addresses a minor need low or capital project that DIRECTLY reduce emissions source(energy) climate risk for City/community emissions and/or enhance resilience; (extreme heat,extreme cold) VOLUNTARY with ability to scale(i.e.,low impact/reductions);may be difficult to measure/track the impact. Moderate-VOLUNTARY/indirect programs Addresses an average need- Addresses an average need- that DIRECTLY reduce emissions and/or average emissions source average climate risk for enhance resilience,but with FINANCIAL (waste,process&fugitive City/community(wildfire,grid INCENTIVES(i.e.,moderate emissions) resilience,supply chain;risks to impact/reductions);likely able to part of the economy) measure/track impact. High-REGULATORY/INFRASTRUCTURE Addresses ahigher-than- Addresses a higher-than- projects that DIRECTLY reduce emissions average need-high emissions average need-high climate risk and/or enhance resilience,but with limited source(land use) for City/community(flooding; reach/scaling by any year(if primarily indirect risks to overburdened adaptation)or with broad reach/scale that communities;risks to most of will be realized AFTER 2030(if primarily economy) mitigation,i.e.,high impact/reductions);will be able to measure/track impact. Very High-REGULATORY/INFRASTRUCTURE Addresses a very major need- Addresses a very major need- projects that DIRECTLY reduce emissions very high emissions source very high climate risk for and/or enhance resilience with broad (transportation,consumption) City/community(shoreline reach/scale in any year(if primarily change;direct risks to adaptation)or that will be realized BY 2030 overburdened communities; (if primarily mitigation,i.e.,very high risks to entire economy) impact/reductions);will be able to measure/track impact. Cast The cost criterion focuses on financial costs.The three proposed subcriteria assess affordability for the City and community,and the costs of inaction. Direct�costto community(over 10 ICostlto city(including startup and Costs of inaction Commented[PT4]:Could you suggest cost ranges for each of years) ongoing maintenance for 10 years) these ratings per household?For example,"very high"might be 7^^ ^^^. ^^^^ --..---^ ,, ....V'e ^^^. ^^^^. ^^^^. ^ry ai >$200 per household while very low might be$0/household. Very high—SIGNIFICANT costs Very high MAJOR Very high failing to implement -- across the ENTIRE community INFRASTRUCTURE/capital this strategy will risk SIGNIFICANT Commented[PT5]:Do you have cost ranges for the types of projects listed here We often use<$100K for Low,$100K 1 million improvement project. costs/damages to the ENTIRE for Mode rate,$110mil for High,and>$10miI for Veryhigh. community. High—SIGNIFICANT costs toSOME High—MODERATE High—failing to implement this in the community INFRASTRUCTURE projects and strategy will risk SIGNIFICANT large programs. costs/damages to SOME in the community. Moderate—MODERATE costs Moderate-SMALL Moderate—failing to implement across the community INFRASTRUCTURE projects and this strategy will risk MODERATE LARGER PLANS,policies,and small costs/damages to the ENTIRE programs. community. CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 1 5 / P0II1II All"1G E II I S 111 E SII II II E INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Direct�costto community(over 10 lCosttto city(including startup and Costs of inaction ,.. - Commented[PT4]:Could you suggest cost ranges'or each of years) ongoing maintenance for 10 years) these ratings,per household?For example,"very high'might be ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ , (>$200 per household while very low might be$0/household. Low MINIMAL costs across the Low—SIMPLE policy changes, Low failing to implement this -- - community studies,and small plans. strategy will risk MODERATE Commented[PT5]:Doyou have cost rangesforthe types of costs/dams es to SOME in the projects listed here?We often use<$100Kfor Low,$100K 1 million b for Moderate,$1 10 mil for High,and>$10 mil for Very high. community. Very low will NOT present any Very low planning strategy or Very low failing to implement additional costs to the community; MINIMAL TO NO CITY INVESTMENT, this strategy will risk MINIMAL may save money. City may already be working on it. costs/damages to the community. Community support may vary among residents,stakeholders,and other partners(e.g.,implementation partners like Clallam Transit,the business community,the environmental community).Therefore,we propose subcriteria tailored to these sectors of the community.The"stakeholder&partner support/agreement"subcriterion is intended to assess the level of political and other support from partners and stakeholders in the community; political support from government is assessed in the Feasibility criteria. To evaluate level of support,we consider input from CAPG and City staff input on community perspectives.We may also consider how an action is typically viewed in peer jurisdictions.For example,we may justify a rating by indicating that CAPG is strongly supportive,overall community support is mixed,and that these trends are consistent with peer jurisdictions. ... Resident support/agreement Stakeholder&partner support/agreement �,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, wwwwwwwwwwwwww ,,,www w ,,, wwwwwwwww wwwwwww„ ,,,,,,,,, Very low-MOST residents STRONGLY OPPOSE the Very low-MOST stakeholders/partners STRONGLY strategy. OPPOSE the action. ................. Low SOME residents STRONGLY OPPOSE the Low SOME stakeholders/partners STRONGLY OPPOSE the strategy. action. Moderate-SOME residents OPPOSE and SOME Moderate-SOME stakeholders/partners OPPOSE and SUPPORT the strategy. SOME SUPPORT the action. High—there is SUPPORT within the resident High—there is SUPPORT among stakeholders/partners for community. the action. Very high-residents STRONGLY SUPPORT the Very high-stakeholders/partners STRONGLY SUPPORT the strategy. action. easi ffi�y The feasibility criteria assess the degree of City control over an action's strategy success and the likely regulatory,political,and technological constraints to implementation.Political constraints are specific to those that are not covered by the Community Support criteria,which focuses on support from community partners and stakeholders such as Clallam Transit and the business,environmental,social justice,and other community perspectives.Political constraints assessed as part of Feasibility include the level of City Council support and direction,City staff support and capacity,the regulatory role and level of support of Clallam County,the level of support from local Tribes,whether funding or other needed resources from state and federal entities is easily acquired,and whether the outcome of a legislative process may affect the feasibility of a strategy. When evaluating constraints,we consider both the number of likely constraints,the likely severity of the constraint,and how difficult the constraints may be to overcome,including how adaptable the action is to new CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 1 6 / I50II1II AllNG11 II S II11I SII II II 11 NCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH technologies.For example,a rating of"moderate"could be selected if there are regulatory and political constraints(but no or minimal technological constraints)that would be moderately difficult to overcome.In cases where the variables are in two different ratings(e.g.,unlikely to encounter challenges,but they would be moderately difficult to overcome),the brief rationale will explain the choice made. City role(i.e.,level of control) Regulatory,political technological constraints Very low-City's role would be largely as Very high—action currently U N V I A B L E given current regulations, ADVOCATE(i.e.,action led by external politics,and/or technologies and anticipated opportunity windows.If implementing entity) encountered,challenges are VERY DIFFICULT or IMPOSSIBLE to overcome and/or unable to adapt to new technologies. Low-City would be VOLUNTARY High-action LIKELY to encounter challenges given current PARTNER with implementing entity regulations,politics,and/or technologies and anticipated opportunity windows.Ifencountered,challenges are DIFFICULT to overcome and/or difficult to adapt to new technologies. Moderate-City would be OFFICIAL Moderate—action MAY encounter challenges given current PARTNER(e.g.,MOU)with implementing regulations,politics,and/or technologies and anticipated opportunity entity windows.Ifencountered,challenges are MODERATELY DIFFICULT to overcome and/or moderately difficult to adapt to new technologies. High-City would be FUNDER of Low—action UNLIKELY to encounter challenges given current implementing entity regulations,politics,and/or technologies and anticipated opportunity windows.Ifencountered,some or most challenges are RELATIVELY EASY to overcome and/or are relatively easy to adapt to new technologies. ....... .... ........_...., .... Very high-City would be IMPLEMENTER Very low MINIMAL to NO challenges anticipated given current or REGULATOR regulations,politics,and/or technologies and anticipated opportunity windows.Ifencountered,most challenges are EASILY overcome and/or easily adaptive to new technologies. The proposed equity subcriteria focus on addressing climate vulnerability,historic inequities,and distributive justice.Procedural equity is addressed separately,primarily through development and implementation of the Resiliency Plan. Reduces vulnerability?Fair? Distribution of benefits Very low-action w"i'I F DEFINITELY INCREASE Very low-ALL benefits and costs are accruing to different vulnerability for ALL and is UNFAIR to ALL sectors of the community and are perpetuating historic inequities Low-action DEFINITELY INCREASES vulnerability Low-SOME benefits and costs are accruing to different for SOME and is UNFAIR to SOME sectors of the community and are perpetuating historic inequities Moderate/Neutral-action DOES NOT AFFECT Moderate/neutral action DOES NOT distribute benefits and VULNERABILITY or FAIRNESS costs in the community in a way that perpetuates historic inequities High-action DEFINITELY REDUCES vulnerability High-MOST benefits are accruing to the sectors of the for SOME and is FAIR to SOME community that face historic inequities;other sectors of the community may accrue benefits as well Very high-action will DEFINITELY REDUCE Very high MOST or ALL benefits are accruing to the sectors vulnerability for ALL and is FAIR to ALL of the community that face historic inequities;other sectors J of the community accrue benefits as well CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 17 / P0RII AIIw1G E II SIR E SII II II E INCY II."II..AIIk'M MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH oI Benefits Commented[PI Are we missing any high-pnority co .... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... -' benefits for Port Angeles Many actions will have benefits beyond greenhouse gas emissions reduction or building climate resilience. Public health,for example,is a very high priority in Port Angeles.Based on City input and context,we have prioritized public health and three other high-priority co-benefits for evaluation in the MCA: Public health:Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,public health is a commonly evaluated co-benefit in climate action planning processes.Given its importance to the Port Angeles community,public health is evaluated separately.This provides greater transparency around the public health impacts of actions in the Resiliency Plan.To avoid double-counting,the equity components of public health are addressed by evaluating the equity criteria. Green economy:A green economy preserves natural capital while maintaining or strengthening other forms of capital(e.g.,human,physical);it achieves balance between forms of capital.Since other criteria evaluate natural and human capital,we focus the subcriterion on the economic components of the green economy(jobs,infrastructure,markets).If applicable,the rationale will include information on supporting recovery from COVID-19. Adaptation/mitigation:If a strategy is designed to reduce emissions but also builds resilience,it has an adaptation co-benefit;conversely,if a strategy is designed to build resilience and also reduces emissions,it has a mitigation co-benefit. Alignment with City and regional priorities:This includes alignment or reinforcement of other City, County,and regional policies,plans,programs,and initiatives.It includes opportunities for shared implementation. .......................... ...,. . Supports public health Advances other high priority co-benefits? �,,,, ,,,,,,,,, wwwwwwwww wwwwwwwww wwww w wwwwwwwww .................. Very low—NO to MINIMAL support for public health Very low-action does not advance ANY other high- and may negatively affect public health. priority co-benefits. _11111111111111111111111__. Low—Benefits the public health of SOME,but the Low-action may INDIRECTLY advance ONE other high- benefits are likely short-term(i.e.,<1 month). priority co-benefit and/or the overall magnitude of other co-benefits is LOW. Moderate—Benefits the public health of SOME for Moderate-action DIRECTLY addresses ONE OR TWO some time(i.e.,1 month to a few years)or benefits the other high-priority co-benefits and/or the overall public health of a SIGNIFICANT portion of the magnitude of other co-benefits is LOW to MODERATE. population,but the benefits are likely short-term(i.e., <1 month) High—Persistently benefits the public health of SOME High-action DIRECTLY addresses THREE other high- (i.e.,5+years)or benefits the public health of a priority co-benefits and/or the overall magnitude of SIGNIFICANT portion of the population for some time other co-benefits is HIGH. (i.e.,1 month to a few years). Very high—Persistently benefits the public health of a Very high DIRECTLY addresses THREE other high SIGNIFICANT portion of the population(i.e.,>5 years). priority co benefits and/or the overall magnitude of other co benefits is VERY HIGH. Criteria IW�qhts We propose the following criteria weights.Survey respondents answered two questions about criteria weights, one qualitative and the other quantitative(see results below).We gave the quantitative results greater influence in the weighting,since the question more strongly encouraged consideration of tradeoffs. CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 18 / I50II1II AIING11 II S II11I SII II II 11 NCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Respondents to both questions rated impact highest,followed by"other"(qualitative question)and equity (quantitative,points-based question). The"other"criteria suggested in the survey included a focus on the most vulnerable,viewing resiliency from the lens of ROI and cost-benefit,and aligning with other North Olympic Peninsula plans,neighboring jurisdictions,and businesses.The first one is addressed in the subcriteria for equity.The ROI approach is addressed by the MCA itself,as impact will be rated most highly and actions with high impact and low cost will be easily discerned in the results.Aligning with other North Olympic Peninsula plans and jurisdictions was added as a co-benefit. Criterion Weighting Rationale Impact 0.3 Highest rated in both questions;primary purpose of the Resiliency Plan Cost 0.15 Third-highest rated in the points question,but lowest rated in the qualitative question;suggests an average Feasibility 0.1 Overall lowest rating across both questions,but still—3 out of 5. Equity 0.2 Highly rated in both questions;about two-thirds of the rating of Impact in the points question Community 0.15 Rated slightly behind cost in points question,but higher in qualitative support question;priority for CAPG ......... _........................... ............. ..... .........._ ..... Co-benefits 0.1 Lowest-rated in the points question,but highest rated(after impact and equity)in the qualitative question;suggests an average comparable to feasibility. Survey results CAPG members evaluated criteria weights in two ways: In Qualitatively,by being asked what they thought was most important to consider when choosing actions to build resiliency to climate impacts and reduce carbon pollution in Port Angeles. In Quantitatively,by being asked to assign 20 points to indicate what is most important to consider when evaluating actions and narrowing down an actions list. Results from the points-based question show a strong preference for impact;the remaining criteria evened out in their ratings compared to the qualitative question. CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 19 / I50RII AllNG11 II S II11I SIIII III INCY II."II..AIIN MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Figure 1.Responses to the qualitative question about criteria weights. LEAST (NO MODERATELY (NO MOST TOTAL WEIGHTED IMPORTANT LABEL) (IMPORTANT LABEL) IMPORTANT AVERAGE Impact€emel If I1'.0% t 0'Y6 tO.F 31,5dfa� si'f`c re IIIency bLOIt or ,. 1'I ..BSI emissions reduced Cost.t.hoo, 2t% 36.64 t. much money o on ill. 1 - '9 ocst Ec[l xhs rhe# I:00% 2c E, 21.10515 4''—Jr`,,, F :i9ts slid I .. 1 4 cl C, If-d.sn will be distributed fairly 11 S'o communities at mrethe actions cieap:ra�pc¢ti�mereh/ affecting the most vilnerable in our carnmun'ities Support:laruel of E.2hh I0511°4, r;1.50 5 community,', s,. stak,holder support F a IL1lity bor/ 10 53% 21.105% 21 2 I eaGy It Mlll be to -4 - �u 'p lefiieftt R aketi©n of Go- C,00% 0.5,31, 4 Y:. I3L:10fltS Such as I'mprw,d publ.l'c health,Job cream,',,arld racnvery f—, COVI0-19 Other ,escrllo.in r.,10% 0 '(1;1 16.67,m 50 01", 1346 comment btt.d 1 CASCADIA DECEMBER 17, 2021 ( 10 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS APPROACH Figure 2.Responses to the quantitative,points-based question. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII cost:hmv much whledlp�cost... - ! . IIIIIIIIII� I