At the July 21 meeting the Environmental Action Committee discussed the city’s Climate Resilience Score tool and whether the resiliency score should be used within the planning commission’s review process.

EAC member Stacy Buff noted that the parcel under discussion scored a 3 using the city tool and asked how to obtain a more formal survey. Stacy said, “I looked up our climate resiliency scores for this land parcel, and it's only a 3. That seems a little low to me.” Environmental staff and planning representatives explained the score is a desktop screening tool with heavy weighting for water and tree canopy and not intended to capture all geologic hazards. Peter (environmental director) explained the tool “was not meant to be a ground truth tool” and said that geotechnical testing would be required to assess fault lines, steep slopes, or subsurface conditions.

Members discussed potential next steps: use the resiliency score as a flagged item in planning packets; brief planning commission members on the tool; and identify parcels needing deeper field assessment. Planning staff noted the city’s infill score is currently a primary metric for planning review and that the resiliency score could be presented alongside existing planning metrics with caveats about its desktop nature.

Why it matters: Committee members said integrating ecological and resiliency screening into land‑use review would help surface environmental constraints earlier in the process, though staff warned that the desktop score does not replace geotechnical or site‑level surveys.

What’s next: Committee asked staff to follow up with planning on whether resiliency scoring can be presented to planning commission and to develop caveats explaining the tool’s limitations.