Adaptation Planning for Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County An Examination of 11 Bayside Cities

Transcription

1 Adaptation Planning for Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County An Examination of 11 Bayside Cities Alex Enrique, Isabelle Foster, and Will La Dow Public Policy 200B: Senior Practicum March 2018 Prepared for San Mateo County s Office of Sustainability

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Acknowledgements 5 Context, Motivations, and Objectives 6 Research Methodology 8 Review and Synthesis of Local Planning Documents Survey of External Jurisdictions Interviews with County Stakeholders Research Findings and Analysis 12 Policy Review of Publicly Available City Documents Analysis of Risk and Preparedness for SLR Measures of Risk Measures of Preparedness Considerations of the Preparedness and Risk Analysis Analysis Limitations Analysis Relativity Intention versus Commitment Application of Analysis: Prioritize County Efforts SLR Flood Scenario Planning Stakeholder Interviews External Jurisdictions Research Findings and Analysis 25 Recommendations 28 Guide: establish a unified, high level vision Prioritize: initially focus County resources on certain communities Facilitate: support jurisdictional collaboration and information sharing Develop standards for SLR projections Create public resource to consolidate SLR strategies and guide future progress Track progress across cities to sustain coordinated, timely action Future Considerations 33 Expansion to Coastal Cities and Land Ownership Integrate Forecasting of Macro-Factors Evaluate Political Context Appendix A 35 External Jurisdiction Profiles 35 1

3 Southeast Florida San Francisco Boston New York City Seattle Charleston Appendix B 48 Additional Interviews and Questions 48 Foster City Parks and Recreation Department Brisbane Baylands Community Advisory Group The Center for Sustainability and Economic Growth Coastside State Parks Association Midcoast Park Lands 2

4 I. Executive Summary Located between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, San Mateo County (SMC) is often referred to as Ground Zero for sea level rise (SLR) vulnerability. Estimates predict that a mid-level scenario with 3.3 feet of sea rise in the County will impact about 22,000 acres of land, 1 30,600 residential parcels, 5 wastewater facilities and more. To confront this significant threat, in 2017, the County s Office of Sustainability commissioned and published a draft Sea Level 2 Rise Vulnerability Assessment to identify and assess risks within its 455 square miles of land. The County is now beginning a second phase that is focused on developing actionable steps to proactively address SLR. Creating an adaptation framework is critical to this next phase of the County s work. According to County staff, when complete, the adaptation framework is intended to guide decision-makers responsible for adapting to the risks of SLR by: A. Synthesizing key climate change impacts projected within the County; B. Describing and discussing the County s goals and objectives related to adaptation; C. Outlining the County s approach to identifying, planning, and selecting adaptation strategies to address climate change impacts. This adaptation framework is intended to be a countywide resource that facilitates coordinated action among and across different levels of government along the coastal and bayside area of the County. Because the County s jurisdiction is limited to only unincorporated areas, the County is interested in learning how it can advance SLR planning by working together with its 13 incorporated bayside and coastal cities that individually determine permitted land use within their boundaries. As the Office of Sustainability begins work on this climate change adaptation framework, the County has requested assistance from Stanford Public Policy to understand and synthesize the cities plans for future land use along the San Francisco Bay, determine what goals and priorities the adaptation framework should incorporate, and how to engage stakeholders within the County to inform SLR planning about adaptation planning. Acting as consultants on behalf of the County s Office of Sustainability, our research focused on answering the following questions: - What, if any, SLR policies currently exist within the County s 11 bayside cities? What areas are planned for development? - How can the perspectives of local stakeholders inform what the County adopts as its values and priorities for SLR planning? - How should the County approach choices about adaptation strategies 1 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. City of San Mateo. March pages x, xi 2 The research conducted for this paper was completed before the Board of Supervisors adopted the Final Vulnerability assessment in early March

5 (accommodation/protection/retreat) based on the experiences of other jurisdictions that are farther along with SLR planning? Our research and the following report provide recommendations to inform the creation of a county-wide adaptation plan. The key findings can be summarized, as follows: 1. In developing strategies for SLR adaptation, other cities across the U.S. have created a guiding mission statement that outlines a vision for how their city will look in the future. San Mateo County can similarly guide development by establishing a clear timeframe for achieving SLR adaptation planning milestones. 2. As part of our analysis, our team created a matrix that assesses cities based on their risk and preparedness levels. Using this matrix, the County can prioritize efforts and resources to work with two groups of high-risk cities. Redwood City, Burlingame, and Foster City have been early leaders with SLR planning, and the County can consolidate these cities SLR strategies and policies, which can serve as a resource for the rest of the County. At the same time, the County can also focus on San Mateo, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park, which are cities that lacked actionable SLR-related policies and would benefit from additional County guidance to help further enhance their projects and efforts to mitigate SLR impacts. 3. Cities within SMC have acknowledged SLR as a threat; however, most treatment of this topic has been exploratory and does not specify actionable steps for policymakers to address SLR. This provides an opportunity for the County to facilitate coordinated future action and fulfill stakeholder requests for more cross-city collaboration. Increased awareness and discussion of SLR has provided an impetus for more cities to start thinking about rising sea levels and how they can adapt. As a result, many cities have expressed a desire for more guidance on how to plan for this environmental challenge. Our research and analysis reveal that SMC is uniquely positioned to facilitate coordinated action within the County. By prioritizing work with San Mateo, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park and sharing the lessons learned from early actions of Redwood City, Burlingame, and Foster City, the County can help guide all cities and create a more cohesive, unified effort. Our examination of six external jurisdictions reveals the importance of regional cooperation, long-term planning timelines, specific and technical construction plans, extensive community outreach, consideration of equity and the environment, and community SLR mapping tools. These lessons can be integrated into the County s adaptation framework and considerations moving forward. Building upon our analysis and recommendations, the County should also consider expanding our work by replicating our analysis for coastal cities. Since SLR is a dynamic threat, it would be valuable to forecast how unexpected changes might influence progress towards developing SLR strategies. Accounting for macro-factors, such as economic recessions and natural disasters, could be defer needed SLR planning, as these changes affect existing infrastructure and future construction projects. Similarly, changes in the political context--at the federal, state, as well as city level--could greatly affect progress and interest in SLR adaptation. Awareness by 4

6 staff and policymakers of these different conditions in the future could increase the effectiveness and longevity of the County s adaptation framework. I. Acknowledgements Our Public Policy team would like to recognize Preeti Hehmeyer, our instructor, for her guidance throughout the quarter. Her dedication and insight has been pivotal as our team prepared this report, and we are grateful for all her advice and commitment. We are appreciative for the support from the Stanford Public Policy Program and Bill Lane Center for the American West, including: Brenna Boerman Professor Bruce Cain Katie DuPlessis Iris Hui Professor Gregory Rosston Kathleen Tarr The Stanford Sustainable Urban Systems (SUS) Initiative, our engineering counterpart in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Derek Ouyang Professor Leonard Ortolano Max Evans Our special thanks goes to the following individuals at San Mateo County s Office of Sustainability: Hilary Papendick Jasneet Sharma 5

7 II. Context, Motivations, and Objectives The National Research Council has predicted that California could face 1 foot of sea level rise 3 by 2030 and nearly 5.5 feet by With over 56 miles of coastline and 54 miles of bayshore, 4 San Mateo County is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. Estimates by Stanford s Sustainable Urban Systems team indicate that in the County s 11 bayside cities, about 114,000 5 people of the County s total 765,000 population and $53 billion dollars worth of assets would be 6 exposed to flooding within the projected six foot sea level rise inundation areas. Located south of the city and county of San Francisco and north of Santa Clara County, San Mateo County is arguably the heart of Silicon Valley. The significant threat of future SLR would have serious implications for the economic productivity of the region and nation. SMC is home to many of the world s leading technology firms and global businesses, including Facebook and GoPro s headquarters. Many of these tech companies are located along the County s bayshore, and would be directly vulnerable to rising water levels. This regional threat would have national consequences on the broader U.S. economy because so many of these tech companies are responsible for generating new jobs. According to research conducted by Joint Venture Silicon Valley, in 2017 alone, Silicon Valley (defined as Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties) created 7 47,000 new jobs. Roughly 25% of this job growth occurred in SMC. As Silicon Valley increasingly attracts more capital investment for tech companies, housing demand in this expensive region far outpaces the region s limited and expensive housing supply. Between 2007 and 2017, the Silicon Valley--once again defined as Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties--experienced a shortage of over 31,000 housing units required for the area s growing 8 population. At the same time, the median sale price of a house in Silicon Valley was roughly $968,000 in This was a 7.4% increase from 2016, indicating that the value of financial 9 assets at risk will only continue to increase as SLR damage becomes more likely. SMC s critical contribution to the economic and technological advancement of the country further underscores the necessity of creating a SLR action plan that can address previously identified SLR challenges before they become too costly. The County can initiate progress by first creating an action plan that builds upon the threats identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. Since its creation in 2014, the County s Office of Sustainability has embraced a mission of improving the sustainability, efficiency, and conservation of San Mateo County and its 3 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. City of San Mateo. March Page 26 4 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. City of San Mateo. March page 73 5 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. City of San Mateo. March Page 29 6 Progress Report: San Mateo County Risk Study. Stanford University - Sustainable Urban Systems. Feb 12, Silicon Valley Index. JointVenture Silicon Valley. Institute for Regional Studies p Silicon Valley Index. JointVenture Silicon Valley. Institute for Regional Studies p Silicon Valley Index. JointVenture Silicon Valley. Institute for Regional Studies p 56 6

8 10 communities. This broader vision has led the Office to take the initial step in coordinating the actions of government entities and operations to address SLR challenges regionally. After completing its comprehensive SLR Vulnerability Assessment, the County is now looking to develop actionable steps to proactively integrate SLR considerations in local development efforts. The County has decided to create an adaptation framework, which is intended to provide guidance to decision makers who ultimately are responsible for determining if, how, and when new construction projects should be approved, and what fortifications or changes should be made to protect existing infrastructure. Although the County does not have final jurisdiction over the land use decisions in incorporated areas, the County could play a pivotal role in providing high level guidance, recommendations, and support to these local governments. Our research and analysis builds upon the five objectives outlined in the County s Adaptation Planning Considerations, which include: 1. Ensuring that adaptation approaches meet the specific needs of particular locations or sectors 2. Meeting the specific needs of particular locations or sectors 3. Planning is coordinated and information is shared across different scales (i.e. community, city, county, or region) 4. Adopting a plan that is flexible and have adaptive capacity such that they can be modified to accommodate future SLR 5. Functions as a multifunctional strategy which can have multiple roles within 11 community Over ten weeks, our team conducted research and analysis to inform the County s adaptation planning by examining other vulnerable jurisdictions and synthesizing what actions have already been taken by bayside cities that could serve as a model for coordinated, countywide action. Our main goals and objectives were to: 1. Help the County understand what local jurisdictions have currently done to plan for SLR and what future development is planned along the SMC bayside; 2. Identify best practices in external cities and assess how these steps could apply to the County; 3. Speak with key stakeholders within the County to identify values and priorities. Integrate this information into the countywide values and priorities for SLR adaptation planning; and 4. Suggest a framework for approaches that the County can use when crafting countywide recommendations for future development. Our policy team worked alongside students in Stanford s Sustainable Urban Systems (SUS) project-based learning course. These engineering students have worked to develop a risk tool 10 Office of Sustainability, County of San Mateo website Adapted and taken from the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. City of San Mateo. March

9 or computational model capable of quantifying the potential expected monetary loss from SLR to the county. Using GIS shapefiles, this tool developed risk metrics that have been integrated into our team s risk assessment. In particular, the SUS team s Average Annualized Loss (AAL) risk metric estimates potential monetary damages that could occur based on different flooding probabilities. AAL estimates from this tool have been incorporated into our analysis. Our team also interacted with the County s consultants responsible for developing the next phase of the adaptation framework. The Natural Capital Project (NatCap) provided feedback on our midterm report, helping contextualize how our work would feed into the County s future efforts. Our team acknowledges that the nature of and response to SLR continually changes over time. Therefore, we emphasize that this work will be an ongoing process. Continuing to interact with stakeholders and local city officials will be necessary for advancing and assessing progress toward SLR adaptation within the County. III. Research Methodology Situated between San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean, San Mateo County faces challenges from rising water levels at both its eastern and western boundaries. Understanding and planning for the impacts of SLR is a relatively new policy topic, and the body of academic literature is still developing. Given the highly localized nature of our project, our research relied on publicly available documents focused on the County. This research is intentionally narrow, tailored to understanding how and what local cities are doing to plan for SLR impacts. To begin investigating, our team created a work plan that prioritized several resources, which were agreed upon at our client meetings and adjusted based on ongoing feedback. Our initial research goals were to develop an understanding of: 1. What, if any, policies cities have currently adopted related to SLR? 2. What future plans these cities have for developing along the County s bayside? This information allowed us to infer how relatively prepared the cities are for SLR impacts, and furthermore, how the Office of Sustainability s role as a facilitator could be most effective by filling in the gaps of SLR preparation. Though the original project scope tasked our team with looking at adaptation planning along the County s coastline and bayshore, due to time constraints and limited team capacity, only 12 bayside jurisdictions of San Mateo County are included in this research and project. The following research and recommendations are based on an evaluation of 11 incorporated cities -- San Bruno, South San Francisco, Millbrae, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, San Mateo, San Carlos, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City -- and the unincorporated area of North 8

10 12 Fair Oaks. The exclusion of coastal jurisdictions from this report is strictly due to our team s resource constraints, and we recommend future research and analysis be extended to include the coastal areas. Our research can be divided into three stages of data collection: 1) Review and Synthesis of Local Planning Documents The first stage of research was a comprehensive review of General Plans (GPs) and Climate Action Plans (CAPs). State law requires cities adopt a General Plan that provides a local 13 government s long-term blueprint for the community s vision of future growth. We wanted to understand each bayside city s visions for growth as well as community principles around land use as we immersed ourselves in the topic. We systematically reviewed these plans so we could more accurately gauge the relative extent of SLR planning among the 11 bayside cities. Each General Plan was manually searched for key terms related to SLR adaptation planning, and then references to these key terms were gathered in a research matrix. Similarly, the Climate Action Plans were searched using a technique called web scraping, which was performed by a Senior Researcher at the Bill Lane Center for the American West. By law, Climate Action Plans focus on greenhouse gas reduction strategies, and because of this our team was unsure how much information (if any) would be included about adaptation strategies related to SLR. Web scraping allowed us to electronically scan hundreds of pages for key terms and passages of interest to our work on SLR. The key search terms we used were flooding, development, sea level rise, climate change, global warming, bayside, and damages in the General Plans and adapt, flood or flooding, greenhouse gas, mitigate, and sea level rise in the Climate Action Plans. Each team member reviewed the data and summarized cities policies, goals and future development objectives in our working research matrix. During the comprehensive review of the GPs and CAPs, our team became aware of several GPs that were less current than the others (adopted before the 2000) and contained potentially outdated information. We wanted to find a supplement for our documents that would best inform the County on current SLR-related policies. With this in mind, we turned back to supplemental public documents from the bayside cities and found Specific Plans for three of the cities. South San Francisco s Oyster Point plan and Brisbane s Baylands plan were much more up to date than the respective GPs. We incorporated these two Specific Plans and Redwood City s Inner Harbor Specific Plan into our SLR policy review. Table 1 provides a brief summary of each bayside city in San Mateo County included in the project, the corresponding miles of bayshore exposure, and the type of plan(s) primarily researched along with its date of adoption. All plans were accessed in late January 2018, so any edits or revisions posted after January 31, 2018 are not captured in our work. 12 While SFO is located within the area of our study, the City/County of SF is leading improvements, not SMC, so it is not a major focus of our research. 13 General Plan Guidelines from the CA Governor s Office of Planning and Research; 9

11 Table 1: Summary of Jurisdictions and Plans Reviewed Jurisdiction 14 Bayshore (miles) Plan Date (Status) San Bruno 0 (however, city is subject to riverine flooding) General Plan 2009 (Adopted) South San Francisco 6.0 Specific Plan: Oyster Point 2011 (Adopted) Millbrae* 0.5 General Plan 1998 (Adopted) 2018 (update in progress) Brisbane* 2.4 General Plan Specific Plan: Baylands Plan 1994 (Adopted) 2011 (Adopted) Burlingame* 2.9 General Plan August 2017 (Draft) Foster City 8.2 General Plan February 1, 2016 (Adopted) San Mateo 9.9 General Plan October 18, 2010 (Adopted) San Carlos 0.4 General Plan October 12, 2009 (Adopted) East Palo Alto* 1.1 General Plan Oct 4, 2016 (Adopted) March 2017 (Final) Menlo Park* 11.7 General Plan November 2016 (Adopted) Redwood City* 38.2 General Plan Specific Plan: Inner Harbor 2010 (Adopted) 2016 (Draft) SMC North Fair Oaks 0 Community Plan November 15, 2011 (Adopted) *Cities with CAPs that specifically identified Sea Level Rise planning are marked with an asterisk. As the project progressed, our team also consulted the County s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and current bayside adaptation projects regarding SLR (found on the Sea Change San Mateo County website). In total, the team reviewed 10 General Plans, 8 CAPs, 3 Specific Plans, 1 community plan, and 7 current bayside adaptation 14 SUS calculations of bayshore exposure from the GIS shapefiles, from: Sustainable Urban Systems Project, Economic and Social Costs of Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County: Stanford Sustainable Urban Systems SMC Risk Study, Winter Update, 2018, Stanford University, Stanford, California 10

12 projects. The team used these documents to develop a more holistic understanding of future development plans along the bay, the level of consideration each jurisdiction has given to SLR, and what approaches and methods these cities propose for adapting to these challenges. To summarize our relevant research findings for the County, our team prepared detailed Jurisdictional Profiles for each of the 11 bayside cities and the 1 unincorporated area of North Fair Oaks. In each city s profile, the reader will find information on the following items pertinent to SLR: SLR-specific policies from the GPs, CAPs, and Specific Plans Identified risk areas of flooding and SLR Statements pertaining to SLR in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Current and future development priorities as stated in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Summaries of current bayside adaptation projects as found on the County s Sea Change website Notable critical infrastructure assets as stated in the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment 2) Survey of External Jurisdictions Guided by our client s interests, we researched adaptation frameworks from six other U.S. cities, including Southeast Florida, San Francisco, Boston, New York City, Seattle, and Charleston. We identified each city s primary documents for SLR planning. Some cities combined SLR planning with general climate change planning, while other cities had plans specifically designated for SLR planning. When extracting relevant information from each of these documents, we prioritized gathering a broad overview of current efforts as well as noting any specific and relevant tools and documents. The primary focus was to extract relevant areas and tools of SLR planning from other cities that the County could use in its own SLR planning efforts. These jurisdictions provided a broader context to inform the thought process of what possible adaptation approaches currently exist and what high-level objectives and values could be incorporated into SMC s adaptation framework. 3) Interviews with County Stakeholders We conducted nine stakeholder interviews to gather further insight into the values and priorities of various cities, individuals, and organizations within SMC. These interviewees were selected and contacted with guidance from the client. The interviews lasted minutes, and stakeholders answered questions relating to their values, priorities, and barriers pertaining to SLR planning. They also were asked for their feedback on how the County should play a role in planning efforts moving forward. Eventually these discussions informed recommendations pertaining to the County s role as a facilitator and helped develop preliminary goals and objectives that the County might want to incorporate into its adaptation framework. 11

13 IV. Research Findings and Analysis The following section contains our research findings and analysis, including: A synthesis of SLR policies obtained from city documents. These policies have been sorted into five categories within the Sea Level Rise Policy Table, which illustrates current SLR planning approaches by the bayside cities. An analysis of the relative levels of risk and preparedness for each city. This ranking helps the County prioritize initial resource deployment and work with certain communities. A summary of key stakeholder interview themes, which helps identify a sampling of SLR priorities and concerns Key takeaways from six external jurisdictions, which informs how the County might incorporate relevant tools and strategies from other vulnerable cities. A) Policy Review of Publicly Available City Documents Our review of publicly available documents revealed a range of awareness to the threat of SLR. Five cities have begun incorporating design and building standards into their municipal codes, demonstrating actionable steps to minimize risk: Millbrae, Burlingame, Foster City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City. In contrast, San Bruno and North Fair Oaks do not have documented policies pertaining to SLR. Using publicly available documents described in the Methodology Section, we developed five categories to summarize the types of actions cities are pursuing to address SLR. These broad categories reveal the areas where cities are beginning their SLR-planning efforts by adopting policies related to: 1. Design and Building Code Standards 2. Infrastructure Improvement and Replacement 3. Community Engagement 4. Partnership development and collaboration 5. Financing Sources and Strategies In Table 2, we organized the categories in order of most commonly found policy grouping, and include specific examples of policies adopted from the 11 bayside cities. Our assessment of the policies in Table 2 suggest that design and building codes is the most prevalent approach with infrastructure directly following. In general, cities are the farthest along in their development of policies fitting these two categories, which suggests new construction and critical infrastructure 12

14 assets are the leading priorities for cities. In contrast, only two cities (Redwood City and Menlo Park) referenced a need for funding policies to pay for SLR improvements, but did so in vague terms. The lack of policies related to identifying new or existing funding sources for SLR projects suggest that cities are still in the earliest phases of identifying risk, and not yet planning for 15 action, which is consistent with the Fall 2017 Public Policy Practicum team s research findings. Most of the SMC cities we reviewed acknowledge the issue of SLR. However, few cities have defined actionable next steps to address this threat. The results from our policy survey showed that most cities do not go beyond a broad plan or policy statement, which is revealing. In our analysis, our team gave preference to cities for have any kind of written SLR policies, no matter how detailed or actionable. Regardless of how advanced a policy is, we viewed an acknowledgment of SLR as an essential prerequisite to community awareness and action. This assumption was repeatedly confirmed in our stakeholder interviews. For example, Half Moon Bay has used citizens interest in more immediate environmental issues--such as increased wind-blown waves and coastal erosion--as an opportunity for educating the public about long-term SLR threats. The city organized a community event where stakes were used to represent different sea level rise scenarios. In doing so, more people became aware of the scope of SLR threats and were more interested and eager to participate in SLR adaptation efforts. More detailed information about city-specific policies can be found in the Jurisdiction Profiles Appendix, which is a compilation of detailed city profiles for each jurisdiction we reviewed. Table 2: Sea Level Rise Policy Table Design and Building Codes Burlingame: Require that new and existing development along the Bayfront address sea level rise and flood risks via attractive and effective shoreline barriers. Enforce a minimum 75-foot waterfront setback requirement, with setback areas used for active and passive open space to minimize structural damage during flood and storm events. Design new buildings with habitable areas elevated to minimize potential damage from exceptional storm events. Foster City: No construction within the 100 year floodplain (due to their protection from their levee) East PA: No development within 100 ft of the top of San Francisquito creek bank East PA: Structures must be elevated 18in above height of flood waters Menlo: Establish development requirements based on State Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Redwood City: Ensure that development in Waterfront Neighborhoods considers and plans for potential impacts associated with climate change and sea level rise Infrastructure Millbrae: Policy S1.1 Location of Future Development- only allow development in areas where potential danger to health, safety, and welfare of the residents can 15 Paying for Climate Change Adaptation in San Mateo County. By Chelsea House, Daniel Marx, Peter Litzow, Justin Roberto, and Jacqueline Wibowo. Stanford Public Policy Senior Practicum, Fall

15 be mitigated (specifically SLR) Burlingame: GP lists 4 ways to deal with SLR: retreat from shoreline; flood-proof structures; build levees; & restore nature. San Mateo: Any new wastewater Treatment Plants must take into account potential sea-level rise East PA: Improvement/replacement of Pump Stations, Dam infrastructure, and Storm Drainage Redwood City: Update levees according to FEMA standards Community Engagement Millbrae: S2.3 Hazardous Awareness- ensure the public is aware of the possibility of disaster plans Burlingame: ED-1.6: Community Benefits of Development- Ensure that major commercial development projects contribute toward desired community benefits of urban design, land use, sustainability, resiliency, affordable housing, and community health while also expanding the economic base of the city. [DR, FB, SO, PA] [ED-3] Partnerships Millbrae: S1.19 Rise in Sea Level: Coordinate with local, regional, State and Federal gov regarding SLR Menlo: Align with SAFER (Strategy to Advance Flood Protection Ecosystems and Recreation along the SF Bay) bay project so that Menlo Park SLR objectives are adequately considered Financing Menlo: Work with emergency service providers to develop an adaptation plan, including funding mechanism, to help prepare the community for potential adverse impacts related to climate change, such as sea level rise Redwood City: "Global Warming Response Plans" - explore funding and opportunities Our policy review and comparison indicated that higher risk communities are farther along in SLR policy development, and also appear to have greater community engagement. The jurisdictions of San Bruno, and SMC North Fair Oaks lacked any SLR policies. This exploration of city policies helped inform several of our final recommendations for the County s role as a facilitator to help create a unified set of actionable policies that establish a shared foundation for all cities to advance proactive leadership at the city level. Using the policies we discovered, SMC could begin by working with by county leaders Redwood City, Foster City, and Burlingame to share their policies with the rest of the county in order to work towards a more unified effort. We see the County as a central agency to bring the cities together for coordinated action. A standardized set of SLR policies authored by SMC that can be adopted by each city would be a promising first step. B) Analysis of Risk and Preparedness for SLR Following our policy survey, our team performed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the level of risk for each city. We generally defined risk by the number of valuable assets that would 14

16 be susceptible to SLR damage under existing conditions. This risk and preparedness analysis was intended to provide the County a useful resource for determining where to initially focus its efforts and resources. Our hope was that by identifying which cities are at highest risk and which cities appear to be less prepared, our analysis could aid in directing resources effectively. Table 3 shows the results of our risk and preparedness analysis. Our definitions of risk and preparedness are elaborated later in this section. It is also important to emphasize that this categorization is relative. By this we mean that cities are only compared with other cities within San Mateo County, and not against cities in other jurisdictions. Additionally, we acknowledge that every city has the opportunity to make additional changes to better prepare their jurisdiction for SLR. Table 3: Risk v. Preparedness Preparedness Low Medium High Low Brisbane San Bruno North Fair Oaks San Carlos Millbrae South SF Risk High San Mateo East Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Burlingame Foster City Measures of Risk Several quantitative and qualitative measures were used to determine the risk level of a city. To assess risk quantitatively, we considered five primary factors (described below) for capturing the magnitude of damages from sea level rise. Large potential damages signify a higher risk to the city in the absence of SLR adaptation planning. Once we completed this quantitative analysis and determined the preliminary risk level, we then completed qualitative assessment, which looked at the magnitude of expected future development. Below are the five risk factors our team used to provide a quantitative and relative ranking of a city s risk and our source for obtaining this data: 15

17 16 Percent of total population within 6 foot sea level rise inundation areas (Hazard Mitigation Plan) Number of Critical Facilities within 6 ft sea level rise inundation areas (Hazard Mitigation Plan) Monetary Value of Structures within 6 ft sea level rise inundation areas (Hazard Mitigation Plan) Number of Class 4 infrastructure Assets (SMC s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment) Monetary Average Annualized Loss (AAL) risk metric (SUS Team Data) The Stanford SUS team working parallel to our team provided the AAL data for our risk analysis. AAL is a risk metric that the SUS team developed and is continuously refining. AAL estimations assess the potential expected damages within the County that take into account current infrastructure on the shoreline, including differentiations between building type, vulnerability, 17 future planning development, and factors such as transportation disruption. For each risk factor, cities were given a numerical ranking if they were of the lowest tertile (1), middle tertile (2), or highest tertile (3). The rankings for each risk factor were summed for each city. The six cities above the median were deemed as high risk and the six below the median were low risk. For example, San Mateo is one of the high risk cities because it was in the highest tertile in all five of these risk factors. In fact, San Mateo has a relatively large percentage of the population (39.3%), number of critical facilities (8), and value of structures ($12,581,511,596) within the 6 foot SLR inundation area as well as many Class 4 infrastructure assets (313.7) and a large AAL ($321,689,641). These quantitative risk factors allowed our team to group six cities into the high risk category and six cities into the low risk category. To further refine our risk assumptions, our team then analyzed expected future development. Cities planning to have extensive future development along the bay side may be susceptible to increased risk, particularly if new buildings do not adhere with building codes that incorporate SLR considerations. We evaluated a city s expected bayside change by reading through the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Much of the information we focused on was contained in Table 4. Overall, we found that this information further supported our initial classification of high and low risk cities. For example, Menlo Park and Redwood City have a relatively higher number of future development plans, which reinforces their status as high risk cities. On the other hand, development projections are low for cities such as SMC North Fair Oaks and Brisbane, thereby enforcing their ranking as low risk cities. 16 The 6 foot sea level rise inundation figure most closely aligns with the high-end scenario described in the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, which is 1% annual chance flood of SLR. 17 Sustainable Urban Systems Project, Economic and Social Costs of Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County: Stanford Sustainable Urban Systems SMC Risk Study, Winter Update, 2018, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 16

18 Table 4: Expected Bayside Change CITY EXPECTED BAYSIDE CHANGE San Bruno 401 increase in the number building permits issued from 2009 to 2015 Adopted Transit Corridors Specific Plan in 2013 to improve transportation Adopted Measure N in 2014 Increased building heights, residential densities, and above ground parking garages South SF Development projections are moderate to high New development within the downtown core and the Caltrain commuter station Development of a new library, police, and fire facilities Millbrae Commercial and residential development along the rail line and State Highway 82/El Camino Real Brisbane Development projections are low to moderate for the next five years, primarily infill There are new housing opportunities in the city s center Parkside at Brisbane Precise Plan A significant development in the Sierra Point subarea east of the 101 Burlingame Demand near transit oriented areas for: Multi-family Office space Foster City San Mateo Note: Foster City did not participate in San Mateo County s joint Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In reviewing this city s individual Mitigation Plan, there not was a section that outlined future development. Similar to Foster City, San Mateo also did not participate in the SMC Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. San Carlos 411 newly approved units, construction expected soon 34 units currently under construction 700,000 sq ft dedicated to non-residential use East Palo Alto Development projections are moderate Centered around the tech sector Constructing a new 41-unit senior housing facility 17

19 Menlo Park Development projections are high 1,347 residential units, 1.9 million square feet of office space, approximately 113,000 square feet of retail, and 373 hotel room Redwood City Development projections are high Downtown development caps for office and residential have been reached, but development trends are expected to continue Ten additional projects (already under construction) and seven approved projects One 130,000 square foot mixed use facility, a 177 room, 109,000 square feet hotel, and 67,000 square foot office building SMC North Fair Oaks Development projections are low The area is fully urbanized, with moderate to high densities of development Housing construction in the unincorporated area has remained stable but slow over past few years Measures of Preparedness The preparedness categories of low, medium, and high are based on two components. The first measure of preparedness was the number of SLR-specific policies that we extracted during the comprehensive review of publicly available documents. The second measure of preparedness was the current city-led and county-led adaptation projects, found on the County s Sea Change website. These preparedness rankings were made so that the County can assess the relative positioning of each SMC city and how the County can best tailor its approach when working directly with the cities. Although some cities are classified as high preparedness, we stress that these rankings are relative to the other cities within the County and that each city still has the opportunity make additional changes. From our policy review of the GPs, CAPs, and Specific Plans, we could more easily differentiate cities based on the amount of SLR-specific policies they had instituted. Our team made the assumption that these explicitly stated policies signified a greater level of preparation for SLR. Therefore cities with a large number of written SLR policies were ranked as more prepared than cities with less policies. For example, referring back to the Sea Level Rise Policy Table, Redwood City and Burlingame had many specific and actionable policies that we believe signified noteworthy initial steps towards preparing for SLR. As a result, these cities were deemed more prepared than cities lacking SLR-related policies. Many cities fell somewhere in between high and low preparedness, such as Millbrae and East Palo Alto. These two cities had some specific policies regarding flooding but did not address SLR as frequently. 18

20 When determining preparedness, we also considered the number of current adaptation projects underway in these bayside communities (as listed on the Sea Change website). These projects include both County-led and city/regional projects that are ongoing efforts to prepare for SLR. Many of these projects are still in draft or initial stages but overall demonstrate a significant awareness and intention to make infrastructural changes along the bayside. In-depth information on each of the projects can be found in on the Sea Change website. Our team specifically looked at the following projects: SAFER Bay EPA & Menlo Park Foster City Levee Project Foster City Navigable Slough Feasibility Study South San Francisco & San Bruno Belmont Creek Watershed Management Plan Belmont & San Carlos Bayfront Canal and Atherton Channel Flood Management and Restoration Project Redwood City & Menlo Park Coyote Point Eastern Promenade Project San Mateo South Bay Salt Pond Restoration multiple jurisdictions Many of these current projects indicate an additional level of preparedness beyond the policy review. For example, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park had only a few SLR-related policies in the GPs and CAPs, but the work of SAFER Bay demonstrates a greater level of preparedness and planning efforts because it evaluates many options for dealing with SLR threat. This final source was incorporated into the thought process for preparedness rankings. Considerations of the Preparedness and Risk Analysis 1) Analysis Limitations data skewed towards recently adopted publicly available documents The scope of our research was limited to a defined universe of documents agreed upon with the client, and only 10 weeks to conduct research. Therefore, it is likely our team review did not capture every SLR strategy and/or project in progress along the bayside, particularly those projects not included on the Sea Change website. Similarly, because our research is a snapshot in time and all documents were collected in January 2018, any progress that cities published after the time of data collection has not incorporated into our analysis. Due to our methods of defining preparedness, our rankings are skewed toward cities with recently adopted policies because they were more likely to capture and explicitly state the city s most recent SLR efforts. This caused our preparedness ranking to more favorably rank cities with recently adopted GPs and CAPs (e.g. Burlingame), and it may not fully capture cities that have in-progress SLR strategies but less recently adopted public documents (e.g. San Mateo). 19

21 2) Analysis Relativity All SMC bayside cities could benefit from greater SLR planning The rankings of city risk and preparedness are primarily to aid the County in prioritizing its resources and efforts. It is vital to note that the rankings are done relative to the other cities in the analysis. In terms of risk, while our analysis provides only a relative estimate based on some factors that can quantify risk, the data also highlights the greater importance of asset protection in SLR planning. For all cities, this strikes a sense of urgency that can be harnessed into conscious motivation to plan for SLR. Furthermore, our relative preparedness analysis indicates that all cities have areas to improve upon in order to be fully prepared for SLR. There are gaps in knowledge surrounding financing resources and consideration of higher level principles such as adaptation planning flexibility and social equity. The County is uniquely poised to give guidance, coordinate efforts, and address the barriers to progress that cities are facing. 3) Intention versus Commitment iterative progress updates required While performing this risk and preparedness analysis, we became aware of the distinction between intention versus commitment. Because our analysis is a snapshot in time, our analysis primarily centers upon the intentions of cities as stated in their publicly available documents. However, intention is not the same as the actions cities will take to follow through and commit to planning for SLR. Though the public documents may state intentions to incorporate policies that help mitigate SLR impacts, ongoing and iterative monitoring of SLR planning actions will be necessary to ensure that these plans are fully implemented. 4) Application of Analysis: Prioritize County Efforts risk and preparedness analysis allows the County to initially prioritize certain communities and tailor efforts The risk and awareness matrix synthesizes our research into an applicable resource for the County to prioritize and tailor efforts when monitoring and facilitating cities. We recommend that the County prioritize six High Risk cities because they have many valuable assets to protect. First, we recommend that the County prioritize the High Risk and Medium Preparedness cities, which are San Mateo, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. These cities have critical assets to protect from SLR but appeared to lack developed SLR plans to mitigate damages. Secondly, the County should turn towards the High Risk and High Preparedness cities, which are Redwood City, Burlingame, and Foster City. These early actors are at a pivotal moment where coordinated leadership could 20

22 strengthen regional efforts for a unified SLR approach. Additionally, these model cities have valuable lessons learned that the County can consolidate and present to the less prepared cities as adoptable adoptions. These recommendations are elaborated upon in the Recommendations section. C) SLR Flood Scenario Planning The SLR Flood Scenario Planning Table (Table 5) summarizes the various SLR and flooding scenario each city is planning for. Overall, our research found a wide variation among scenario planning. Generally, we saw that the least vulnerable cities were preparing for less intensive SLR scenarios, while most of the vulnerable cities prepared for more severe scenarios. Additionally, most cities use 100 and 500 year floods rather than direct SLR metrics. San Bruno and SMC North Fair Oaks do not plan for SLR inundation, while South SF use 100 year flooding as their measurement. By contrast, Redwood City, Brisbane, Burlingame, and Foster City use direct sea level metrics. Burlingame, for example, forecasts as far out as 2070, many years beyond the County s focus on 2030 sea levels. However, the County s Vulnerability Assessment suggests that.8 meters of SLR is possible as soon as 2030, nearly 40 years sooner than Burlingame s prediction of.8 meters of SLR rise by Because each city is planning for a different scenario, it makes collaboration across cities difficult. If the County were to mandate standardized SLR scenario(s) planning across all cities, it could drastically improve coordinated preparation moving forward. Establishing a uniform scenario is the groundwork for a successful SLR plan and would make future collaboration much easier. Table 5: SLR Flood Scenario Planning CITY SLR FLOOD SCENARIO PLANNING 18 San Bruno 19 South SF 20 Millbrae 21 Brisbane 22 Burlingame Does not specify 100 year flood Millbrae 2040 Plan Draft references up to 1.4m in SLR 1.4m SLR Forecasting 0.8m by San Bruno General Plan. City of San Bruno, 19 City of South San Francisco. General Plan City of South San Francisco, 20 Millbrae 2040 General Plan. Millbrae 2040, 21 Baylands Draft Environmental Impact Report. BAYLANDS - DEIR City of Brisbane, brisbaneca.org/baylands-deir. 22 Envision Burlingame General Plan Draft. Envision Burlingame, 21