Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />prior plan and determine which actions are to be carried over to this plan update. For each action, the jurisdiction <br />must identify: <br /> The hazard(s) the action will address <br /> Whether the Action will address new of existing assets <br /> The lead agency responsible for implementation <br /> Any support agencies <br /> The objectives the action will meet <br /> The sources of funding for the action <br /> Timeline for completion <br />Recommendation: For those planning partners that chose the enhanced protocol for risk ranking, they will screen <br />each action they identify for equity considerations that may result in a reframing of the action. This approach was <br />utilized with success on the City of Portland’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Tetra Tech developed 2 tools to support <br />this process: an equity screening review tool (Table 1.0) and an equity screening question matrix (Table 2.0). Both <br />tools were applied by the departments in the development and framing of each action in the action plan. <br />Both tools could be adapted specifically to address the needs for the San Mateo County planning effort. It is <br />important to note that this recommendation includes no changes to the prioritization of the action. Tetra Tech <br />feels that the current prioritization protocol is adequate and is supportive of both options being proposed. For <br />those partners that chose to use the Enhanced protocol, their action plan matrix would be expanded to include the <br />identification of which “equity category” (Procedural, Distributive, or Structural) each action meets.