Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-03 e-packetMeeting will be held at: CITY MANAGER CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA MONDAY AUGUST 3,2015 3:00 P.U,. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the Environmental Subcommittee of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, the 3rd day of August 2015, at 3:00 P.M., at City Hall, City Manager Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Purpose of the meeting: [WMI [ErIle-Irom 2. Roll Call. 3. Public Comments. 4. Review of the Grand Jury Report "Flooding Ahead: Planning for Sea Level Rise" (Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works). Ira Tupper City Clerk, Cijy jf outh San Francisco DATE: August 3, 2015 TO: City Council Environmental Subcommittee FROM: Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ,�',UBJECT: REVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT "FLOODING AIIEAD: PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE" It is recommended that the Environmental Subcommittee of the City Council review the Civil Grand Jury report titled "FLOODING AHEAD: PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE" and the draft response from staff and provide input on changes to be incorporated for full City Council consideration at the August 26, 2015 meeting. BACKGROUND/DISC US SION A Civil Grand Jury issued a report (Attachment 1) on June 4, 2015 entitled "Flooding Ahead: Planning for Sea Level Rise," The report includes 12 findings along with 7 recommendations to address the effects of sea level rise (SLR) over the remainder of this century. The report generally finds that San Mateo County is at severe risk for SLR and that a coordinated countywide approach does not exist to address associated flooding, The Grand Jury requires a response from the governing body of every municipality within San Mateo County, the County of San Mateo, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. The City Council must respond to the findings and recommendations in the report by September 3, 2015 (see Attachment 2 beginning on page 31). Staff has reviewed the findings and recommendations and has prepared a response letter for your consideration (see Attachment 3 beginning on page 33). In general, the response letter indicates the City agrees with most findings and disagrees partially with a few, and that many of the recommendations require coordination with other agencies and cannot be implemented within the six months required by the Grand Jury. There would be no fiscal impact associated with responding to the Grand Jury. Future funding considerations will be brought to the City Council in conjunction with implementation of any of the recommendations of the Grand Jury. Staff Report Subject: REVIEW OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT" FLOODING AHEAD: PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE" Page 2 oft CONCLUSION The Grand Jury report on SLR places this regional concern before all agencies within San Mateo County. Staff will incorporate any recommended changes to the draft response to the Grand Jury and present the revised letter to the full City Council at the August 26, 2015 regular City Council meeting. This will allow sufficient time to submit the final response from the City by the September 3, 2015 deadline established by the Superior Court of San Mateo County. By: Approved: Brian McMinn City M ike Futrell Director of Public Works/City Engineer City ana Attachment: Civil Grand Jury Report issued June 4, 2015 Letter from the Superior Court Draft Response to the Grand Jury UE 11 1 1 1 A 11: 10, Issue I Summaryl Glossary Background I Methodology I Discussion I Findings Recommendations I Requests for Responses I Bibliography I Appendix I Responses I Correction ISSUE What actions can the County of San Mateo, and the 20 cities and two relevant local special agencies within the county, take now to plan for sea level rise? SUMMARY San Mateo County is at severe risk for sea level rise (SLR) over the period 2015 -2100. The County, and the 20 cities and two relevant local special agencies within the county, I do not have a coordinated approach to address existing problems related to flooding and are not prepared for the added challenge of SLR. This investigation documents the countywide risk that SLR poses to people, property, and critical infrastructure. For example, wastewater treatment plants are highly vulnerable to SLR and this vulnerability presents significant problems for all cities, not just those along the coast and bay. This Grand Jury report discusses ways to get organized to plan for SLR, as well as alternative sources of funding for SLR-related projects, Based on this investigation, the Grand Jury recommends that a single organization undertake SLR planning on a countywide basis. This report also examines ways to address SLR as part of local land use planning and recommends including SLR-related policies in local General Plans. It also recommends implementation of a coordinated program to raise public awareness of SLR, particularly as to how it may impact this county. Finally, the report highlights the need for effective and coordinated advocacy at the regional, State, and federal levels. The Grand Jury strongly urges action now to undertake countywide planning for SLR. By acting now, SMC may be able to reduce future costs by integrating SLR-related projects with other programmed levee projects, such as those that may be triggered by new FEMA flood hazard maps. By acting now, San Mateo County jurisdictions may apply land use planning measures to mitigate future exposure to SLR. Finally, by acting now to address SLR, San Mateo County can also address the lack of coordination among jurisdictions that is evident in existing flood prevention efforts. Notably, this lack of coordination places the county at a severe disadvantage when applying for federal or State monies for flood protection. GLOSSARY County of San Mateo or County. County government under the Board of Supervisors San Mateo County or SMC, or county: the geographic entity. Local governments and residents collectively. I The two relevant special agencies with responsibilities for flood prevention are the County Flood Control District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury -1- Levees: includes levees, horizontal levees, walls, dikes, and similar structures designed to prevent flooding along the coast, bay shoreline, and along creeks subject to tidal flows Local officials: elected and appointed officials and staff of the County, cities, and special agencies within the county, interviewed by the jury CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act. A law governing the environmental review process, including the preparation of environmental impact reports, to be used by local governments when considering proposed new developments. JPA: Joint Powers Authority. A separate government agency created by its member agencies (such as cities and counties), typically with officials from the member agencies on its governing board. JPAs are formed for specific purposes and to exercise powers commonly held by the member agencies. For example, two or more cities may form a JPA to manage a common government function, such as fire protection for their jurisdictions, where it is more cost- effective to act together than separately, Specific Agencies BCDC: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. A State agency with permit authority over new development along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. BCDC requires an SLR risk assessment for any new development within its jurisdiction. It published the report Living with a Rising Bay. Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on Its Shoreline (2011). C/CAG. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. A JPA formed by the County of San Mateo and all 20 cities within the county for various purposes including, for example, oversight of a regional transportation Congestion Management Program. CCC: California Coastal Commission. A State agency with permit authority over new development along the coast. CCC requires an SLR risk assessment for new development within its jurisdiction. CEC: California Energy Commission. A State agency responsible for energy policy and planning, including research. It published the reports The Impacts qf'Sea Level Rise on the San Francisco Bay (2012) and Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estiniatesfibr California (2009). CO-CAT: Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team. A working group of senior staff from 17 State agencies with ocean and coastal resource management responsibilities. It issued the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document (2013) for use by State agencies as pail of their assessments and decisions. FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Administration. A federal agency whose responsibilities include preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps that depict areas subject to 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury IN inundation by a "100 -year stonn."2 At present, FEMA does not map flood hazards based on anticipated future sea levels. NRC: National Research Council, An operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, a private nonprofit institution. It published the report Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past, Present and Future (2012). SCC: State Coastal Conservancy. A State agency that purchases, protects, restores, and enhances coastal resources. Currently supports preparation of local coastal plans and vulnerability assessments in San Mateo County that address SLR. BACKGROUND San Mateo County (SMC) residents are at severe risk for flooding due to projected sea level rise (SLR) over the period 2015-2100. In fact, SLR is already occurring. Measurements at the San Francisco Tide Station at the Golden Gate show eight inches of SLR between 1897 and 2006, consistent with figures from around the world.3 The precise amount and rate of SLR are unknown, but State agencies have consistently advised that seas are rising at "accelerating rates," and project SLR ranging up to 65 inches (167 centimeters) by the year 2100.4 One scientist advised SMC officials of the possibility of even greater SLR, nearly 15 feet, during this Century.5 2 A "100-year-storm" is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. However, it is riot the storm that will occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the rainfall totals that have a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. 3 Matthew Heberger et a]. (Pacific Institute) 2012, The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the San Francisco Bay, California Energy Commission (CEC) Publication No. CEC-500-2012-014, pp. 2.3; and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on Its Shoreline, Staff Report, October 6, 2011, p. 18. 4 in 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an executive order requiring State agencies to prepare SLR scenarios for the years 2050 and 2 100 to "assess project vulnerability, reduce expected risks, and increase resilience to sea level rise," In response, the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT), representing 17 State agencies, proposed interim SLR projections for the year 2 100 ranging from 31 to 69 inches, grouped into "low." "medium, " and "big])" models (based on a 2009 CEC study). For some planning purposes, agencies such as BCDC focused on 55 inches of SLR, the average projection in the "high" model. However, CO-CAT urged agencies to "select SLR values based on agency and context-specific considerations of risk tolerance and adaptive capacity," (See BCDC, Living with a Rising Bay, pp, 9, 2022.) In 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Fast, Present and Fulare. The report projects SLR ranging from about 16 inches to 65 inches (42 to 167 centimeters) by the year 2100. The NRC report was commissioned by California, Oregon, and Washington State agencies, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S, Geological Survey. CO-CAT now considers the NRC report to be the "best available science" on SLR for this state, but allows State agencies to use the projections "in a flexible manner" in their assessments or decisions. (See CO-CAT, Sea-Level Rise Guidance Docinnent, March 2013, p, 1, and California Coastal Commission (CCC), Draft Sea Level Rise Poliqy Guidance, October 14, 2013, p. 4.) 5John Englander, Conference Speech at Jackie Speier, Rich Gordon, and Dave Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County," December 9, 2013, College ofSan Mateo Theatre, San Mateo, CA. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury In Scientists have identified the major sources of SLR: an increase in water temperature causing expansion of the oceans, plus the addition of water from melting glaciers.6 Based on scientific studies, State agencies warn that additional SLR is now inevitable.? Most discussions of SLR focus on the cause (climate change) and means of prevention (such as reducing carbon emissions). This Grand ,fury report is not about preventing SLR, but rather about adaptation to SLR. Adaptation includes measures such as constructing or modifying levees, elevating structures, restoring wetlands, or abandoning low - lying areas. This report addresses SLR that is projected to gradually increase through the year 2100, Although this may seem to stretch far into the future, it is within the Iifespan of younger residents and the useful life of many existing buildings and infrastructure. Substantial areas of the county are already within existing FEMA flood insurance rate maps, Unless better protected, these areas could feel the first impact of SLR at any time. Over the last 20 years, there have been incidents of severe flooding in SMC. In December 2014, low -lying basins and levee over - topping were contributing factors when a moderate "five- year "s storm left hundreds of residents homeless.9 If the County, cities, and two relevant local special agencies are struggling to address existing flood conditions, how will they handle worse conditions in the future? 10 t �1 Documents See Bibliography for a detailed list: Federal, State, and regional agency reports 0 Consultant studies prepared for government agencies 6 The risk is not just SLR alone, that is, a slow rise in sea level until one day the levees are topped. For one think, SLR can undermine the integrity of existing levees. Even more, the risk lies in the combination of SLR., plus the yearly high tides ( "king" tides), plus a l 00 -year storm that causes a storm surge and crave action in the Bay, plus heavy rainwater runoff in creeks. Other factors that influence the risk of hooding due to SLR include changes in land elevation due to earthquakes, and the subsidence, or sinking, of land such as that caused by excess pumping of groundwater. See BCDC, Living with a Rising Bay, p. 4; and see Schaaf & wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers, Climate Charge lmpacts foz- San Mateo, California, February 2, 2009, pp. 4 -10 (report commissioned by the City of San Mateo). 7 "Perhaps the most notable finding from the 1PCC is that the effect of GBG emissions will continue long after emissions are reduced. The 1PCC projects that global temperature will continue rising for a few centuries before stabilizing, Sea level rise from thermal expansion will continue for centuries to millennia. Sea level rise from ice -sheet melting will continue for several millennia." BCDC, Giving with a Rising Bay, p, 9. 8 A five -year storm statistically is a storm whose magnitude has a 20% chance of occurrence each year, 9 Angela Swartz, `.`Cleanup Begins: Some Still Can't Return to Homes Damaged from storm, CSM Shelter Available," San Mateo Dailv,lournaal, December 16, 2014; a 45 -year flood in 1998 that damaged about 1,700 properties was a factor that led to the creation of the San Francisquito Creek JPA. See http: ". sfcjpa.org /web /about /agcncy- overview /. 10 The two relevant local special agencies with responsibilities for flood prevention are the San Mateo County Flood Control District and the San Francisquito Creek Joint. Powers Authority. 2014- 2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4 0 • Information from government websites • City and county planning documents • Newspaper articles • Videos of two conferences on SLR held in San Mateo County Site Tours Silicon Valley Clean Water wastewater treatment plant (Redwood Shores) Interviews In conducting this investigation, the jury interviewed 14 individuals including two elected officials; four city managers or assistant city managers; four executive directors, general managers, or assistant general managers of three joint powers authorities; and four County of San Mateo appointed officials. San Mateo County's Exposure to Sea Level Rise As noted earlier, State agencies project SLR within a range of up to 65 inches by 2100. A 2012 report, prepared by the Pacific Institute for the California Energy Commission (CEC), documents the potential impacts on areas around San Francisco Bay of sea level rise of 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100.1' The results of the CEC study are startling. Of all the counties in California, SMC is by far the most exposed to SLR, in terms of both the residents and economic value at risk. Assuming 55 inches of SLR, the replacement value of buildings and contents at risk of flooding along the bay is estimated to exceed $23 billion, while that along the coast is valued at $910 million (land value is not included in these figures), 12 This is about one-quarter of the statewide total and nearly 40% of the Bay Area total. The dollar figure only hints at the threat to the people and structures within SMC due to SLR: 120,000 residents at risk of losing their homes to flooding (also nearly one-quarter of the statewide and 40 percent of the Bay Area totals) 13 a 110,000 employees at job locations at risk I I Hebergeret al., The Impacts of Sea Level Rise, pp. 6-21. As noted in the discussion in footnote 4 of this Grand Jury report, 55 inches is the average of "high" model projections. Thus, it represents a close-to-worst-case scenario (excluding catastrophic SLR discussed elsewhere in this report). 12 SCC, "San Mateo County Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment," Staff Recommendation, January 29, 2015, p. 2. Valuation of coastal property at risk was not included in the Heberger et al. report but was provided by the Pacific Institute. 11 Pacific Institute, "Thematic Maps." htip://vvAw.pacinst.org/publications/sea-Ieve]-7-ise-theniatic-i-naps /, Based upon 2010 U.S. Census data, the website updates the I 10,000 population figure for SMC that was included in fieberger et al, 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury -5- 0 6 wastewater treatment plants at risk 0 1 power plant at risk 0 72 miles of highways at risk 0 420 miles of roads at risk 0 10 miles of railroads at risk ® 78 EPA-regulated hazardous material sites at risk 0 75% of existing wetlands at risk of being "enviable" The Grand Jury reviewed SLR flood maps prepared by the Pacific Institute, which show the impact of 55 inches of SLR, 14 These maps are included in the Appendix. All of Foster City and substantial areas of Redwood City and San Mateo could be inundated. Serious flooding could also occur in East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Belmont, Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. The 55-inch SLR flood zone covers important commercial centers including part of South San Francisco's biotech industrial area, the hotels along Burlingame's shoreline, numerous shopping areas, business parks, and recreational spaces. Within this floodplain are the headquarters of Visa International in Foster City, Franklin Templeton Investments in San Mateo, Oracle in Redwood Shores, and Facebook in Menlo Park. Fifty -five inches of SLR waters would flood San Francisco International Airport and the County's Half Moon Bay and San Carlos Airports, Other County facilities at risk include the new jail under construction and the Government Center, both in Redwood City, The Caltrain line in San Mateo, Burlingame, and Millbrae is threatened. The Port of Redwood City and marinas operated by the County Harbor District at Pillar Point on the coast and at Oyster Point in South San Francisco could be flooded. The new Kaiser Foundation hospital in Redwood City, the Kaiser Foundation medical office building in San Mateo, the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation medical office building in San Carlos, and the Stanford Health Care medical office buildings in Redwood City are all within the 55-inch SLR flood zone. On the coast, parts of Half Moon Bay and Peseadero could be flooded. In Pacifica, the potential for SLR has "very serious implications ... areas of the Sharp Park Golf Course, the Rockaway Beach district, and the West Linda Mar and West Sharp Park neighborhoods could be inundated." 15 Further, "coastal erosion processes that have caused damage along the high bluffs of Pacifica's northern neighborhoods would very likely increase in magnitude . . . while there 14 Pacific Institute, "Impacts of Sea ].,eve] Rise on the Califiorma Coast." http://www2.pacinst.org/report,,,'sea_leve]_rise/gmap.httni. 15 Dyett & Bbatia (consultants), City ofNeffica Draft General !'lair, March 2014, pp. 7-8. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury M could be new risks of erosion along the length of Pacifica's coastline in areas that are not currently exposed to wave action erosion.... "16 CountMide Impact—Tax Revenue Although no exact figure has been calculated, it is evident that the impacts identified above would also have a severe effect on tax revenues from a variety of sources. In particular, a reduction in property tax revenue from SLR flood zones would affect all taxing entities in the county. This might affect the provision of County and city services throughout the county. !Countywide Impact—Wastewater Treatment Plants The impact of SLR is not limited to jurisdictions touching the ocean or bay. Inundation of wastewater treatment plants would pose severe countywide environmental and health threats. Since sewer systems rely on gravity, treatment plants are often located at sea level, with outflow of treated wastewater into the bay or ocean. The CEC report identified the following plants in SMC as vulnerable with 55 inches of SLR: 17 • Mid-Coast Sewer Authority (includes the city of Half Moon Bay) • City of Millbrae • San Francisco International Airport • City of San Mateo (includes the city of Foster City and part of the town of Hillshorough) • South Bayside System Authority (now Silicon Valley Clean Water) (includes the cities and towns of Atherton, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, and Woodside) • South San Francisco/San Bruno (includes the town of Colma) In addition to the threat of flooding, it is likely that these plants, and others that pump their treated water into the bay or ocean, will also need to install stronger pumps in order to deal with the increased water pressure at depths That will have increased due to SLR, Is The State CO-CAT advises that shoreline wastewater treatment plants with no space to relocate inland have "low adaptive capacity and high potential impacts from flooding." For such facilities, preparing for a higher projected SLR would be prudent, 19 The Grand Jury toured the largest treatment plant, located in Redwood Shores, operated by Silicon Valley Clean Water. It serves 200,000 south county residents. At the plant, key 16 Ibid. 17 Heberger et a]., The Impacts of Sea Level Rise, p. 16. Note also that the City of Brisbane is served by the southeast Water Quality Control treatment facility in San Francisco, which also appears to be vulnerable to SLR. 18 Source; Interview. 19 CO-CA'r, Sea-Level Rise Guidance, pp, 3-4. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury -7- components have been elevated to protect against possible levee failure. However, this does not take into account SLR. Also, staff noted that the treatment plant receives wastewater from four pumping stations, all of which are in the SLR flood plain,20 Catastrophic Sea Level Rise A 2013 National Geographic Magazine article described potential SLR of 212 feet, over many centuries. 2 1 In a presentation to SMC officials, oceanographer John Englander said that a I0 -foot rise over just 10-15 years is possible this century if two west Antarctic glaciers break loose into the ocean. 22 This would be in addition to the SLR already projected by State agencies. This Grand Jury report looks at the local planning required for up to about 55 inches of SLR. At this level, SLR impacts SMC to a much greater extent than other Bay Area counties, and it makes sense to look at this county separately. However, SLR on the order of 15 feet or more would severely impact the entire Bay Area and planning may need to be addressed primarily at the regional level. SLR Is a Countywide Issue A key question is whether SLR should be viewed as a countywide threat or only as a risk to areas threatened with actual inundation. The answer to this question has important implications for how the problem is addressed—and who pays for it. Currently, flood control, whether along creeks or shorelines, is the responsibility of each city, as cities have responsibility for public safety and for land use. In fact, exposure to SLR is partly the result of land use decisions by cities to develop tidal wetlands and other low-lying areas. However, as detailed above, the impact of SLR will fall on all county residents. In particular, the exposure of wastewater treatment plants and the loss of countywide tax revenue are serious countywide threats. Public Awareness of the Threat Developing a plan to adapt to SLR will require broad support arnong, elected officials and other government policymakers and, most importantly, the general public. This, in turn, requires greater public awareness of the issue. Two forums on SLR sponsored by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Assemblyman Rich Gordon, and Supervisor Dave Pine have served to educate many local elected officials and government 20 Source: Interview. 21 Tito Folger and George Steinmetz, "Rising Seas: How They Are Changing Our Coastlines," National Geographic, September 2013. 22 John Englander, Conference Speech at Speier, Gordon, and Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise­; see also Will Travis (former Executive Director of BCDC), Conference Speech at Speier, Gordon, and Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise.'" Travis noted that at some Point higher levees may not be viable and suggested that we may need to look at the Dutch model of "living with water": see also Larry Golftband (Executive Director of BCDC), Conference Speech at Speier, Gordon, and Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of'Sea Level Rise." He noted the possibility of addressing SLR at the Golden Gate, rather than along the entire length of the bay shoreline. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury M staff 23 However, as one city manager noted, continuing education is necessary as elected officials rotate off their councils. Moreover, despite some press coverage of the two forums, it appears that the public at large is not well informed on the issue. At present, the Grand Jury is not aware of any on-going educational efforts by local governments to inform county residents about SLR, particularly as it may impact SMC. Preparing for SLR Existing Flood Protection in San Mateo County Cities and two special local agencies are responsible for construction and maintenance of levees within their jurisdictions, 24 Often, they pay the entire cost of levee projects. They work closely with various regional, State, and federal permitting agencies to meet design standards, both for the structures themselves and the adjacent shoreline enviromnent.25 Presently, there is a chain of levees along the bay. Each link in the chain is the responsibility of a different city or special agency. However, flood risk is based on topography, not political boundaries. Thus, the safety of properties in any given city often depends on levee projects undertaken by its neighboring cities. The public is protected only so long as the "weakest link" in the chain of levees is able to meet the threat. Officials interviewed by the Grand Jury identified a number of existing "weak links." Currently, no countywide agency has oversight of the levees as a whole. No agency provides countywide planning, coordinates cities' construction and maintenance efforts, or assists with grant applications related to existing flood problems, much less preparing for SLR. Cities do not contribute money to pay for projects outside their jurisdiction, even though their own residents may benefit. The San Mateo County Flood Control District is "countywide" on paper but its tax base is limited by the California Water Code to certain "subzones," which were specified prior to the voters' adoption in 1978 of Proposition 13. The District's revenue strearn is small and limited to funding flood control along the Colma, San Bruno, and San Francisquito Creeks. The District has no staff of its own, contracting with the County's Public Works Department on all as-needed basis for necessary staffing. 23jackie Speier, Rich Gordon. and have Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County," College of' San Mateo, December 9, 2013, and "Planning for Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County," Foster City City liall., June 27, 2014. 24 The cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, the city of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have formed the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to address flooding, enhanced ecosystems and recreation along that creek in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The San Mateo County Flood Control District also has responsibility for flood control along Colma and San Bruno Creeks, 25 Other agencies may be involved in particular situations. For instance, Caltrans is responsible for protecting State highways and airport owners may be responsible for protecting certain airports, (Source: Interviews.) 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 01 Current Efforts in San Mateo County to Plan for SLR2-1 The County has taken the lead in trying to jump-start the process of planning for SLR. Along with working groups of elected officials, city staff, and special district personnel, the County has commenced (a) conducting a vulnerability assessment, (b) exploring options for a countywide governance organization to address flood control and SLR, and (c) identifying sources of funding. In January 2015, the County's Office of Sustainability received a grant from the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) to jointly manage an SLR vulnerability assessment for SC. The study will cover the entire bayside and the coast from Half Moon Bay north,27 VAfile there is currently no guarantee, staff is confident that the Office of Sustainability will continue working on SLR beyond the period of the grant. Characteristics of a Possible Orizanization to Address SLR Plannin Almost every local official interviewed by the Grand Jury acknowledged the need for greater coordination among jurisdictions to address SLR. Each person was asked about options for "getting organized" to address SLR. Sorne of the characteristics identified by many of those interviewed include: • The organization should be countywide, including upland and coastal communities. • The cities should participate in decision-making by the organization. • The organization should have afiocus on SLR and have a staff with expertise in the subject. • The organization must be sustainably funded. Interviewees also identified a number of existing needs related to planning for SLR that should be met. ® Identify consistent SLR-related projections and flood control project standards for all jurisdictions * Help coordinate jurisdictions regarding SLR-related flood control projects and seek a commitment by Jurisdictions to implement projects in a timely fashion 26 Other important SLR-related efforts in SMC include the "SFO/San Bruno Creek/Colma Creek Resilience Study," a joint effort of the airport, affected cities, and the County to assess SLR impacts in the vicinity of San Francisco International Airport (Brendan P. Bartholomew.. "Peninsula Sea-Level Study to Focus on Flood Threats Surrounding SFO," San FralWiSCO Examiner, February 13, 2014). The San Francisquito Creek JPA is undertaking two SLR- related projects: the SAFER Bay project will protect property within the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park from Bay 1017 -year tides with up to three feet of SLR and enhance and create Bay marshes; and the San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 project along San Francisquito Creek that will protect the tidally influenced areas of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto from a 100 -year creek flow coincident with an extreme tide and 26 inches of SLR (http: 'sfcjpa.org/projects). In addition, the SCC is funding Local Coastal Plan updates for Half Moon Bay and Pacifica that will address adaptation to SLR (SCC, "San Mateo Count), Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment" RFP, February 18, 2015). 27 SCC, "San Mateo County Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment," Staff Recommendation, January 29, 2015. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10 Im Assist with grant applications (State and federal agencies prefer to provide grants to projects that demonstrate a multi-jurisdictional approach) 0 Seek to broaden the revenue sources for SLR projects However, several city managers and others questioned whether the cities are ready for a new organization to assume direct control of levees, since such an organization might impinge on city authority regarding public safety, land use, and use of eminent domain. Organizational Options The Grand Jury discussed the following organizational options for SLR planning with the interviewees: • Expanding the role of the County Flood Control District (SMCFCD) and/or the County Office of Sustainability • Creating a new independent special district with an elected board (such as the Santa Clara Valley Water District) • Expanding the role of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) • Creating a new joint powers authority (JPA) with an appointed board of elected officials from the cities and County (and possibly- relevant special agencies) The County option (first bullet point) offers advantages. As an existing agency, the Flood Control District would not need to be created anew (although legislative action would be required to expand its role). Its existing jurisdiction extends countywide, at least on paper. County staff already has expertise in matters relating to flood control. Although separate, the SMC Office of Sustainability is also developing staff with knowledge about SLR. The relevant functions of the Office of Sustainability and County's Public Works Department (which staffs the County Flood Control District) could easily be coordinated or merged. Both the Flood Control District and the Office of Sustainability are responsible to the County Board of ' Supervisors. Therefore, a way would need to be found to ensure that cities may participate in decision-making. Given its other responsibilities, some interviewees were also concerned that the County Board of Supervisors might not be able to give SLR the focus it requires. In the case of an independent special district with its own elected board (second bullet point), neither the cities nor the County Board of Supervisors would have decision-making authority. It is not a near-term option, since it would require voter approval, hiring of staff and acquisition of office space, among other things. The Grand Jury's investigation also suggests that the creation of a new district would be an expensive choice, particularly if the district's responsibilities are limited to SLR planning. An independent special district might be a more appropriate option if responsibilities included actual levee construction and maintenance, The Grand Jury inquired as to whether C/CAG, which already has committees on several environmental subjects, could expand its role to include planning for SLR. However, local officials felt that C/CAG is strongly focused on congestion management and does not have 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury ago expertise in SLR/flood control. C/CAG staff has not proposed to the agency's Board of Directors that the agency take on S LR. 28 Creating a new JPA (fourth bullet point) would allow the cities (and County) to have a voice. A JPA for SLR could hire staff with expertise in the field and, as a single-purpose agency, could stay focused on SLR. One negative factor is the need to create a brand new governmental structure and the added expense to do so. However, it is possible that the JPA could contract for administrative services and staffing with another agency, such as the County. A second concern expressed by local officials is the need to structure the JPA so that a membership that includes the County, 20 cities, and possibly other relevant local agencies does not become unwieldy. Based on this analysis, the Grand Jury concludes that, under current circumstances, there is no perfect choice for an organization to undertake countywide SLR planning. However, it appears that either enlarging the role of the County Flood Control District or creating a new JPA would be viable options. What is critical is that a coordinated countywide approach be agreed upon soon. The costs of an organization that only focuses onplanning-type functions such as coordinating local jurisdictions, conducting studies, developing standards and timelines, and preparing grant applications would be much less than the cost of actual construction of levees. It could be funded by member contributions, grants, and contributions from industry and wastewater treatment agencies. This would be similar to the general fiend revenues that C/CAG currently collects from member contributions and grants. Funding of Projects to Protect against SLR At the Grand Jury's first interview, a local official posed the following question regarding SLR, "how are we going to pay for it?" Levee construction is extremely expensive. Projects recently completed or proposed in the county, just to address existing needs, have run into the tens of millions of dollars.29 Current Funding for Levee Protection in San Mateo Count Currently, funding for levee projects comes mainly from local general funds or capital improvement funds, plus, in some cases, an assessment on property owners who directly benefit from such projects. Where relatively few properties are involved, the assessment per parcel can be prohibitive. 28 Sour= Interview. 29 For example, in 2012 the City of San Mateo completed $22.7 million in levee improvements to protect 8,000 properties and faces raising another $22.35 million for levee improvements to protect 1,500 properties that remain in FEMA flood insurance rate maps (Larry Patterson, Conference Speech at Speller, Gordon, and Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise"). The San Francisquito Creek JPA has secured State and local funding for its $37.5 million project for the portion of that creek between the Day and Highway 101 (Germady Sbeyner, "San Frzncisquito Creek Project Sees Breakthrough after Permit Stall.."Pa/0 Alto Online, November 3, 2014„ and interview). 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12 NN The cost of flood insurance to property owners is also expensive. As a result, cities focus on projects that remove residents from FEMA flood zones (which determine the need for insurance). Savings on insurance helps offset the cost of a property assessment. Potential Countywide Sources of Funding for SLR Proiects City general funds and assessments on properties that directly benefit may also be used for SLR- related projects. However, since SLR has countywide impacts, spreading part of the cost countywide appears justified, Some potential sources of countywide revenue include: 30 * Wastewater agencies may impose fees on customers within their service area to help pay for levee projects that protect wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations threatened by SLR. * Officials interviewed doubt that, at present, SLR levee projects could secure the 66,7% voter approval required under Proposition 218 for a special tax (i.e., a tax imposed to raise revenue for a specific purpose). However, this could be a source of funds in the future, when the threat of SLR becomes more evident, * The County and cities may raise funds through general taxes, such as County Measure A (2012), which require approval of a simple majority of voters, and distribute aportion of such revenues to protect against SLR, so long as the measure does not include a specific commitment to fund SLR projects. * C/CAG used the simple majority voter threshold to win approval for County Measure M (2010), a vehicle registration fee used for a variety of transportation projects and for mitigation of transportation-related stormwater pollution.31 Any organization, such as the County Flood Control District or a new JPA, that addresses SLR and other related issues such as groundwater management and water pollution, might be able to use a similar approach. * State law (SB 628, 2014) allows for the formation of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts within cities and counties with the authority to issue bonds, with 55% voter approval, for purposes such as "flood control levees and dams, retention basins, and drainage channelS."32 In certain circumstances, such districts may be formed within SMC jurisdictions to serve as a source of funding for SLR projects. * Contributions may be solicited from business parks or agencies responsible for facilities such as airports or highways that are within SLR flood plains. For example, the Facebook headquarters campus in Menlo Park will benefit from the San Francisquito Creek JPA's SAFER project, and the company has contributed $275,000 toward its design and EIR. 33 * Mitigation fees may be imposed on new developments in areas subject to SLR. 30 Source: Interview. 31 C/CAG, Funding- Local/Measure M. http: ✓ ecag,ca.gov/fundijigimeasure-m/. 32 California Legislative IDformation, SB-678 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts. 33 Renee Batti, "Stemming the Tide." Almanac. The Hometown Newspaperfor Menlo Park, Atherton, Poriola Valley ond Woodside, March 10, 2014, and interview source. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13 M Potential Regional, State and Federal Sources of Funding for SLR Projects To date, local cities have received little federal or State funding for levee projeCtS.34 Several officials advised that granting agencies typically prefer projects that show multi-jurisdictional cooperation, placing the local government entities in San Mateo County at a significant competitive disadvantage in securing such funds. However, even for a multi-Jurisdictional project, grants are highly competitive. SLR-related projects face a further difficulty if the granting agency does not yet recognize the risk of SLR.. Finally, since SMC is by far the county most vulnerable to SLR, it may be difficult to find other counties With similar needs with which to collaborate on a regional basis. However, there is one new source of funding: a The State of California's Climate Resilience Account, created in 2014, is a source of grant funding directed specifically at SLR. Although only $2.5 million has been allocated statewide in the first year, it may be enlarged in the future. Reducing Costs by Integrating SLR-Related Projects with Other Levee Projects Given that the amount and rate of SLR are uncertain, local officials may be reluctant to spend large amounts of money for projects that may never be needed. Possible cost-saving options that cities and relevant special agencies may examine on a case-by-case basis include: 35 • Integrating SLR-related protection with existing planned or proposed levee projectS36 • Developing SLR-related projects in stages, with specific "triggers" required before undertaking each stage of construction In order to take advantage of these cost-saving options, however, SLR planning should begin now. For instance, a FEMA representative has advised county officials that new FEMA flood hazard maps will be forthcoming in the near future. These maps will reflect a new higher calculation of bay wave action during storms. This new calculation, which is independent of any SLR effect, may trigger the need for new levee projects to keep properties in SMC from being subject to flood insurance requirements. Incorporating consideration of future SLR in these new projects may result in cost-savings later. 37 SLR Is a Land Use Issue Levee projects are a common solution to SLR. However, they may not be feasible everywhere, due to financial, environmental, or technical reasons. If the risk of flooding due to SLR cannot be completely eliminated, the County and cities will need to examine land use measures to help mitigate the threat of SLR.38 Possible land use measures include the following: 34 Notably, San Francisquito Creek JPA has received an $8 million State Water Resources Board grant for a multi - jurisdictional project. (Source: Interview.) 35 Craig CODDef-_ U.S. Aimy Corps of Engineers.. Conference Speech at Speier, Gordon, and Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise." These suggestions were supported by local officials interviewed by the Grand Jury. 36 The San Francisquito Creek JPA"s San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 flood protection project will address, in combination, a I 00-year creek flow coincident with an extreme tide and 26 inches of SLR, (Source: Interview.) 37 Kathleen Schaefer, FEMA, Conference Speech at Speier, Gordon, and Pine, "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise.'" 38 Flood control levees themselves are local land uses, sometimes offering public trails, and vista points, and other recreational options. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14 M * Jurisdictions can include adaptation to SLR in the Safety Element of their General Plans. While not required by State Guidelines,39 several cities in the county do mention SLR in their Safety Elements and/or Climate Action Plans.40 * Jurisdictions may restrict new development or types of land use in areas subject to SLR. * Jurisdictions may use building codes to mitigate SLR flood risk. For instance, they could require habitable areas and key building equipment be placed above flood level, * Jurisdictions may identify areas suitable for environmental resource protection and habitat enhancement, in light, of the threat of SLR. * Jurisdictions may need to identify certain areas to be abandoned to SLR. * Jurisdictions may impose SLR mitigation fees as a condition of approval on major residential or commercial projects in undeveloped areas subject to future SLR. * Jurisdictions may use the CEQA environmental review process to ensure that exposure to SLR is considered, and mitigation measures identified, when major residential or commercial projects are proposed within a SLR flood plain. Actions Needed at the Regional, State, and Federal Levels While focused on SMC, this investigation points to the need for action on SLR at other levels of government. The County, cities, and relevant local special districts, through their representation at regional agencies, memberships in state associations, lobbyists, and elected State and federal legislators, could advocate on our behalf. Some examples include: 0 Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, do not currently recognize SLR in their flood control mapping and/or fanding.41 a Federal and State funding is extremely limited for all stages of adaptation to SLR: studies, planning, and actual levee projects. 39 California Govemor's Office of Planning and Research, State of Cal General' flan Guidelines, 2003. 40 The City of Pacifica's draft Safety Element has a particularly comprehensive discussion related to SLR. However, the City will wait for "an adequate model with sufficient local detail" to project specific impacts of SLR (see Dyett & 13hatia, City of Pacifica Draft General Plan, March 2014, pp. 8-11 – 8 -10). The City of San Carlos approved a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a component of the City's General Plan update. The CAP includes a BCDC map of the city showing SI.R of 16 and 55 inches. The City's approach to SLR is to cooperate with regional agencies, such as BCDC. (See City of San Carlos, Climate Action Plan, October 12, 2009, pp. 2, 87 -91.) The City of Sari Mateo commissioned a report that includes a description of the potential effects of SLR on that city and has appended the report to the City's General Plan. However, the General Plan states that "considering that there is no definitive estimate and that sea level rise will occur slowly overtime, the City will continue to address FEMA's current certification standards" (see City of Saar Alateo 2030 General Plan, 2010, pp. VII-6 and Appendix V, Schaaf & Wheeler, Climate Change In7pactsfir San Mateo, Califoi-iiia). 41 This may change. "In accord with the Biggert-Water Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, FEMA is to establish a Technical Mapping Advisory Council that will provide recommendations to FEMA on flood hazard mapping guidelines— including ... the impacts of sea level rise.. , , FEMA will be required to incorporate future risk assessment in accordance with the recommendations of the Council," (See FEMA. http://www.fema.gov'coasta1-ftequcntly-asked- questions#CoastafFloodHv,aTdMappingQuestions, pp. 10-11.) 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15 -15- 0 With just $2.5 million in this year's budget for statewide use, funding of the California Climate Resilience Account, dedicated to SLR, is inadequate. 0 California General Plan Guidelines (2003), prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, do not require that SLR be addressed in the Safety Element or elsewhere in local general plans, a, Regional agencies, such as BCDC, could provide a forum for discussing SLR, including alternatives for addressing catastrophic SLR greater than 10 feet. While these and other actions at the regional, State, and federal levels are important, it must be emphasized that San Mateo County cannot afford to wait for planning and resources to appear from outside the county. They may never come. F1. SMC is at severe risk for flooding due to the gradual rise in sea level, projected at up to 65 inches (167 centimeters) by the year 2100. Catastrophic SLR of nearly 15 feet is a possibility this century. F2. SLR is a threat counom4de, including the upland areas. All residents depend on public infrastructure, especially wastewater treatment plants. Also, a significant portion of the countywide property tax base is within the area threatened by SLR. F3. Although many local officials are now familiar with and concerned about the threat of SLR, there is inadequate public awareness of SLR's potential impacts on this county. F4. Levees, including their financing, are currently the responsibility of each individual city or special agency with jurisdiction along streams, bay, and coast (the County is responsible for unincorporated areas). F5. Flood risk is based on topography, not political boundaries. The safety of properties in one jurisdiction often depends on levee projects undertaken by another jurisdiction. F6. Currently, no countywide agency exists to provide planning, facilitate coordination among jurisdictions, or to assist with securing funding for existing flood control projects. The same is true for future SLR-related projects. F7. To the Grand Jury's knowledge, no local jurisdiction has adopted SLR projections or maps for specific local land use planning purposes.42 No consistent SLR projection has been adopted countywide by the County and cities. F8. There is a recognized need for a countywide approach to SLR planning and coordination among jurisdictions, F9. Several city managers and others interviewed did not support having a new countywide organization assume direct control of levee projects at this time. F10. The County and cities can address SLR in their General Plans and Climate Action Plans, can map the threat, and can adopt relevant policies, 42 See discussion of SLR planning in several San Mateo County cities in footnote 39. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16 -16- Fl 1. Many actions to address SLR are within the authority of regional, State, and federal agencies. F12. By acting now, SMC may be able to reduce future costs by integrating SLR-related projects with other programmed levee projects, and by using land use planning measures to mitigate future exposure to SLR. The Grand Jury recommends increased public education about SLR: RI, The County, each city in the county and relevant local special agencieS43 should conduct a public education effort to increase awareness of SLR and its potential effects on this county, The Grand Jury recommends identifying a single organization to undertake SLR planning: RI The County, each city in the county and relevant local special agencieS44 should identify a single organization, such as a new joint powers authority or an expanded SMC Flood Control District, to undertake countywide SLR planning. It should be structured to ensure that: 0 The organization is countywide in scope 0 The organization is able to.focus on SLR Both the County and cities (and possibly relevant local agencies) are able to participate in the organization's decision-making45 0 The organization is sustainably funded R3. The organization's responsibilities should include: a Adopt consistent SLR projections for use in levee planning countywide • Conduct and/or evaluate vulnerability assessmentS46 • Provide a forum for inter-jurisdictional coordination and exchange of information related to SLR • Undertake grant applications for SLR - related planning and projects • Facilitate raising funds on a countywide basis for SLR-related projects, to be passed through to agencies with direct responsibility for project construction 43 San Mateo County Flood Control District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, 44 Ibid. 45 The organization could also create a technical advisory committee with representatives of departments responsible for levee construction and management, as well as representatives of public facilities at risk, such as airports and wastewater treatment plants. 46 A vulnerability assessment could (a) inventory areas at risk f!).r SLR (commercial, residential, public facilities, and infrastructure), (b) detennine the adequacy of existing levee protection, and (c) identify and prioritize the projects that will be needed to adapt to SLR, 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17 M • Monitor actual SLR over time and any changes in SLR projections, based upon the latest federal, State, or regional government reports and scientific studies • Through the CEQA environmental review process, comment on major new developments proposed in the SLR floodplain • Advocate on behalf of the member jurisdictions with federal, State, and regional agencies regarding SLR issues • Assist the County and cities in public awareness efforts, as described in RI R4. The County, cities and two relevant local special agencieS47 should consider expanding the role of the organization beyond SLR to include planning and coordination of efforts to address existing flooding problems along the Bay, coast, and creeks that are subject to tidal action. It may be cost-effective to integrate SLR protection with other levee-improvement programs. The County and cities may also consider expanding the role of the new organization to include potentially compatible functions such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), currently managed by C/CAG, and the new (2014) State requirements for local sustainable groundwater planning. R5. The organization—its administration, staffing, and program expenses—should be funded on a sustainable basis by: • Member contributions • Contributions solicited from parties threatened by SLR, including corporations and agencies that operate public facilities such as wastewater treatment plants • Grants solicited from available potential sources such as the California Climate Resilience Account • Reducing administrative costs by contracting for services with the County or another agency The Grand Jury recommends that SLR be addressed in local land use planning: R6. The County and each city should amend its General Plan, as needed, to address the risk for SLR. The Safety Flement48 should include a map of any areas vulnerable to SLR, as determined by measurements in the countywide Vulnerability Assessment [R3]. Further, it should identify policies that apply to areas threatened by SLR. 47 San Mateo County Flood Control District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. 48 As an alternative, the City of San Carlos has addressed SLR in its Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City states that the CAP was developed as a "component of the 2009 General Plan update . , . a legally defensible approach to ensuring that the Climate Action Plan is implemented'" (see City of San Carlos, Climate Action Plan, 2009, p. 2). 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18 ff".1 The Grand Jury recommends that local governments champion SLR issues before regional, State, and federal governments and agencies: R7. The County, cities, and relevant local special agencies, through their representatives on regional agencies, membership in state associations, lobbyists, and elected State and federal legislators, should pursue SLR-related issues with government bodies outside SMC. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: Responses to recommendations RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 are requested from: a The County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors 0 The City and Town Councils of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside Reponses to recommendations RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R7 are requested from: 0 The Board of Directors of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Response to recommendation R4 is requested from: The Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the conu-nent or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act, 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19 -19- Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. Bartholomew, Brendan P. "Peninsula Sea-Level Study to Focus on Flood Threats Surrounding SFO." San Francisco Examiner, February 13, 2014. http://www.sfexaminer.com/saiifrancisco/peninsula-sea-level-study-to-focus-on-flood-threats- surrounding-sfo/Coiitent?oid=2703933. Batti, Renee. "Stemming the Tide: Creek JPA Steps up to Tackle Threat of Rising Bayside Water." Almanac,• The Hometown Newspaper for Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley and Woodside, March 10, 2014, http://www.almanacnews.com/pn'nt/story/2014/03/05/stemming-the- tide. California Coastal Commission (CCC). Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, October 14, 2013. http://www,coastal.ca.gov/climate/sir/guidance/CCC—Draft—SLR—Guidance—PR—1 0142013.pdf. California Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the Climate Action Team (CO-CAT). State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document. March 2013. http://www.opc.ca-gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/2013—SLR—Guidance—Update—FINALl,pdf. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. 2003. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Gencral—Plan—Guidelines-2003,pdf California Legislative Information. SB-678 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml;jsessionid=651694fa45e5c3efb597ef d I 85ad?bill_id=20l 32014058628. California State Assembly Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy. Sea-Level Rise: A Slow-Moving En7ergency, August 2014. bttp://sea]evelrise.assembly,ca,gov/sites/sealevelrise.assei-nbly.ca,gov/files/Select Committee Sea-Level Rise Report.pdf California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), "Inner Bair Island Wetland Restoration." Staff Recommendation. May 29, 2014. http://sec.ca.gov/webi-naster/ftp/pdf/seebb/2014/1405/20140529Board03G—Inner—Bair—Island.pdf California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC). "San Mateo County Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment." Request for Proposals. February 18, 2015. http://sce-ca-gov/files/2015/02/20150218—P,FP—San-Mateo-County-Shoreline-Vulnerability- Assessment.pdf 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20 -20- California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC). "San Mateo County Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment." Staff Recommendation. January 29, 2015. http://sce.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/Pdf/sccbb/2015/1501/20150129Boardl3—San—Mateo—County—S horeline—Vulnerability_Assessment.pdf Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick. "Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment." California Climate Change Center. California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program, CEC-500-2009-014-D. August 2009. http://www.energy.ca,gov/2009publications/CEC-500-200:9-014/CEC-500-2009-014-D,PDF. CBS San Francisco and Bay Cities News Service. "San Mateo County Planners Grapple with Expected 3-Foot Sea Level Rise." June 27, 2014. http://sanfrancisco.ebslocal.com/2014/6/27/san-mateo-cotinty-plan-ners-grapple-with-expected-3- foot -se a-level-rise/. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). http://www.coag.ca.gov. City and County of San Francisco Civil Grand Jury 2013-2014. Rising Sea Levels at Our Doorstep. June 2014, http://civilgrandjury.sfgov,org/2013-2014/2014—CGJ_Report_Rising_Sea_Levels—w—col-rection. pdf, City of Redwood City. "Latest Update: Redwood Shores Levee Project: Construction Complete." January 2011. http://www.redwoodcity.org/bit/infrastructure/leveelOO8.html, City of Redwood City, Public Safety Element. Redwood City General Plan. October 11, 2010. http://www.redwoodcity.org /phed/plaiming/generalplan/FliiaIGP/04—PublicSafety_FINAL.pdf City of San Carlos. Climate Action Plan. San Carlos General Plan: Envision 2030. October 12, 2009. http://www.cityofsanearlos.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=5883. City of San Mateo. Safety Element, City of San Mateo 2030 General Plan. 2010. http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/7168. City of South San Francisco. Safety Element. South San Francisco General Plan. October 1999. http://www.ssf.net/360/Read-the-Plan. Cote, John. "Unprepared? Who, Us? San Francisco Lacks Plan for Rising Sea Level," SFGate (blog). June 25, 2014, http: //blog.sfgate-com/cityinsider /2014/06/25/­unprepared-who-us-san- franci sco -lacks -pI an-far-ri sing-sea-level/. County of San Mateo Public Works. "Flood Control Districts." http://publieworks.smegov,org/flood-control-distriets. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21 -21- Dyett & Bhatia (consultants). Safety Element. City of Pacifica Draft General Plan. March 2014, http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobED=6557, Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). "Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping Questions." http://www.fema.gov/coastal-frequently-asked- questions4CoastalFloodHazardMappingQuestions, Folger, Tim, and George Steinmet7. "Rising Seas: flow They Are Changing Our Coastlines." National Geographic, September 2013. http://ngm.nationalgeograpfiie.com/2013/09/rising- seas/folger-text. Heberger, Matthew, Heather Cooley, Eli Moore, Pablo Herrera (Pacific Institute). The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the San Francisco Bay. California Energy Commission (CEC) Publication No. CEC-500-2012-014. July 2012. http : / /www. energy. ca. gov /2012publications /CEC -500- 2012 - 014 /CEC- 500 - 201.2- 014.pdf. Kazakoff, Lois. "Rising Seas—Civil Grand Jury Finds San Francisco Needs to Do Much to Prepare." SFGate (blog). June 27, 2014. http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2014/06/27/rising- seas-civil-grand-jury-finds-san-francisco-needs-to-do-much-to-prepare/. Louisiana Resiliency Assistance Program. "San Mateo, CA—Levee Construction Success Story,'-' October 2012. http://resiliency.Isu.edu/planning/san-mateo-califomia-levee-construction- success-story/. National Research Council (NRC). Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past, Present and Future. 2012, Summary. http-Hdels.nas.edu/reso-urces/static- assets/materials-based-on-repoits/reports-in-brief /sea-level-rise-brief-final.pdf Pacific Institute. "Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast." http://www2.pacinst.org/repor-ts/sea–level–rise/gmap.html. Pacific Institute. "The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast: Thematic Maps. http://pacinst.org/publications/sea-level-rise-theinatic-maps/. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Living with a - Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on Its Shoreline. Staff Report, October 6, 2011. http://www,bcdc,ca,gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). "New Sea Level Rise Policies Fact Sheet." October 2011. http://www,bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate–change/SLRfactSheet.shtmi. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, http:Hsfcjpa,org/web/about/agency-overview/. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, Projects Overview. http://sfcjpa.org/web/projects/projects-overview/. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22 -22- Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers. Climate Change Impacts for San Mateo, California, February 2, 2009. http://www.cityofsa=ateo.org/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/7183. Sheyner, Gennady. "San Francisquito Creek Project Sees Breakthrough after Permit Stall." Palo Alto Online, November 3, 2014. http://paloaltoonline.coin/news/2014/1 1 /01 /san-francisquito- creek-project-sees-breakthrougb-after-pennit-stall. Speier, Jackie, Rich Gordon, and Dave Pine. "Meeting the Challenge of Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County," College of San Mateo, December 9, 2013 (conference). Video: pentv.tv/videos/specials/sea-level-rise, Speler, Jackie, Rich Gordon, and Dave Pine, "Planning for Sea Level Rise in San Mateo County." Foster City City Hall. June 27, 2014. Video: pcntv.tv/videos/specials/sea-level-rise. Swartz, Angela, "Cleanup Begins: Some Still Can't Return to Homes Damaged from Storm, CSM shelter available." San Mateo Daily Journal, December 16, 2014. http://www.sindailyjoumal,corri/articles/Inews/2014-12-16/cleanup-begins-some-still-cant- retum-to-hoines-dainaged-from-stonn-csm-shelter-available/I 776425135053.html. Weeks, Jennifer, and the Daily Climate. "How Should San Francisco Plan for Sea-Level Rise?" Scientific American, September 21, 2010. http://www,scientificamerican.com/article/how- should-san-fran-plan/. Weigel, Samantha. "After Report, Planning Begins for Sea Level Rise: County Officials Hopeful about Policy Recommendations in Assembly Document about 'Slow-moving Emergency." Sail Mateo Daily Journal, August 11, 2014. http: / /www,smdailyjoumal.com /articles /Inews /2014 -08- I I /after-report-p lanning -begins -for- sea-1 evel-ri se- county- offici als-hopeful-about-po licy- recommendations - in- assembly-docum ent-about-slow-moving-emergency/ 1776425128189.1 tml. Weigel, Samantha. "City Seeking Voter Input on Financing: San Mateo Will Survey Public on How to Fund $48.5M in Street, Flood Control Improvements." San Mateo Daily Journal, October 8, 2014. http:/Iwww.smdailyjoumal.coin/articles/Inews/2014-10-08/city-seeking-voter- input-on-financing- san-mateo -will -survey-public-on-how-to-fund-4 8 5 M-in-strect-flo od- control- improvements /1776425131307.html. Weigel, Samantha. "FEMA Targets Lagoon Residents: San Mateo Neighborhood Hit with New Insurance Regulations. "' San Mateo Daily,Journal, July 30, 2014. http://www.sindailyjoumal.com/ai-ticles/Inews/2014-07-30/fema-targets-lagoon-residents-san- mateo-neighborhood-hit-with-new-insurance-regulations/I 776425127489.html. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23 PAII Weigel, Samantha. "Sea Level Rise Focus of Conference: Federal, State, Local Officials to Highlight Potential Impact on San Mateo County." San Mateo Daily Journal, December 7, 2011 http://speier.house.gov/index.php?optioii=com — content&view=afticle&id=1305:sea-level-rise- focus-of-conference-federal-state-local-officials-to-higlilight-potential-impact-on-san-mateo- eounty&catid=2&Itemid=I 5. Weigel, Samantha. "Surfer's Beach Erosion Prompts Joint Effort: Half Moon Bay, County, State Discuss Improvements to Seawall." San Mateo Daily Journal, October 22, 2014. http://www.smdailAoumal.com/articles/Inews/2014-10-22/surfei-s-beach-erosion-prompts-joint- effort-half-moon-bay-county-state-discuss-improvements-to -seawall/ I 776425132038.html. Worth, Katie. "Redwood City Knee-Deep in Levee Quagmire," San Francisco Examiner, May 6, 2008. http://www.sfexaininer.com/sanfrancisco/redwood-city-knee-deep-in-levce- quagtnire/Content?oid=2153354. 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24 M, Sea level rise inundation maps for selected areas of San Mateo County are presented below. The turquoise-colored zones represent the "current area at risk" to flooding during a 100 -year storm, without consideration of existing flood protection levees. The magenta-colored zones represent the area at risk during a I00 -year storm with 1.4 meters of SLR (140 centimeters or about 55 inches). The green - colored zones represent areas at risk of erosion from 1.4 meters of SLR, but are not clearly distinguishable at the scale used in this Appendix. These maps were prepared by the Pacific Institute, with specific infrastructure and major government and commercial facilities identified by the Grand Jury with an *,symbol. SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND VICINITY A So ttre Fra Sh4 ^�at Tanforan 'h& W1, Af kr" Maps from Pacific Institute at "http://wNNw2.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level — rise/gmap.btmi" Modified by the Grand Jury to show facilities at risk Area at dd,, from a 100-year coastal flood �-,vent 1=,, Current area at iisk IM, Area at risk vAth a 1.4 i-netei- sea-level rise Erosion Area- at Hsh from erosion in 2100 �,iith a 1.4 meter sea-te\,el rise 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25 -25- SAN MATEO AND VICINITY Maps from Pacific Institute at "http://www2.p,acinst.org/reports/sea — level — rise/2—map.litnill, Modified by the Grand Jury to show facilities at risk Area at risk from a 10D-year coastal ft2gd event Current area at risk. Area at risk, iAth a 1,4 meter sea-level rise Erosion MKv Area at risl. fmm erosion in 2100 Nvitli a 1,4 roeter sea -level r8e 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26 IN REDWOOD CITY AND VICINITY Maps from Pacific Institute at "bttp://www2.pacinst-org/reports/sea_level — rise/gmap,htmlll Modified by the Grand Jury to show facilities at risk Area at risM, fi-oin a 100- rear ,coastal flood event IM-Current area at risk W, Area at risk with a 1.4 meter sea -level rise Erosion Area at Hsl, from erosion in 2100 Nvith a 1A meter sea- level rise 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27 IP49 PACIFICA Maps from Pacific Institute at "http://www2.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.htmill Area at risk fi -oin a 100 coastatfood event C u rre r, t area. at ris Area, at iisk Mth a 1A ureter sea-te\,et rise Erosion Area at dst, fi-om ervsim ire 2100 \%,dth a 1,4 meter sea- level H5,e 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28 No 140' Mn, 11"7� &J Hthway 92 n. Maps from Pacific Institute at "http://www2.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level—rise/gmap.htmill Modified by the Grand Jury to show facility at risk Area at ijt-. from a 100-year coastat flood event W, &/,', 'Current area at rill, jW§ Area at risl, with a 1.4 meter sea-levet rise Erosion Area at Hsi, from erosion in 2100 ivith a 1.4 meter ,ea-[e-vel rise Issued: June 4, 2015 2014-2015 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29 -29- June 4, 2015 A typographical error was discovered following the distribution of advance The first bullet point at the top of Page 6 should reference 6 wastewater treatment plants, not 5. Those six wastewater treatment plants are listed M� -30- Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 JOHN C. FITFON COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLERIC & JURY COMMISSIONER June 4, 2015 City council City of So. San Francisco P, 0. Box 711 So. San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Grand Jury Report: "Flooding Ahead: Planning for Sea Level Rise" Dear Councilmembers: (650) 261-5066 FAX (650) 261-5147 WVvW,SZnMate"0Urt,0Tg The 2014-2015 Grand Jury filed a report on June 4, 2015 which contains findings and recommendations pertaining to your agency. Your agency must submit comments, within 90 days, to the Hon. Susan 1. Etczadi. Your agency's response is due no later than September 3, 2015. Please note that the response should indicate that it was approved by your governing body at a public meeting. For all findings, your responding agency shall indicate one of the following: 1, The respondent agrees with the finding, 2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Additionally, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, your responding agency shall report one of the following actions: L The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. I The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Please submit your responses in all of the following ways: 1. Responses to be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court by the Court Executive Office. Prepare original on your agency's letterhead, indicate the date of the public meeting that your governing body approved the response address and mail to Judge Etezadi. Hon. Susan I. Etezadi Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2 °a Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 -1655. 2. Responses to be placed at the Grand Jury website. Copy response and send by e-mail to: rand`ur sanmateocourt.ar > (Insert agency name if it is not indicated at the tole of your response.) 3. Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency. File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to the Court. For up to 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and the foreperson's designees are available to clarify the recommendations of the report. To reach the foreperson, please call the Grand .fury Clerk at (650) 261 -50% If you have any questions regarding these procedures, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Okada, Chief Deputy County Counsel, at (650) 363 -4761. Very truly yours, J n fCFittcn0 Court Executive Officer' 9CF:ck Enclosure cc; Hon, Susan 1. Etezadi Paul Okada Information Copy: City ]Manager -32- CITY COUNCIL 2015 RICHARD A. GARBARINO, MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, VICE MAYOR PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., COUNCILMEMBER KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER LIZA NORMANDY, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER August 27, 2015 Hon. Susan I. Etezadi Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Subject: "Flooding Ahead: Planning for, Sea Level Rise" Dear Judge Etezadi: The City of South San Francisco (City) has reviewed the above referenced Grand Jury Report filed on June 4, 2015. The following is the City's response to the findings and recommendations of the report. Submission of this response was authorized by the City Council at the August 26, 2015 meeting. Fl. SIVIC is at severe risk for flooding due to the gradual rise in sea level, projected at up to 65 inches (167 centimeters) by the year 2100. Catastrophic SLR of nearly 15 feet is a possibility this century. The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City acknowledges that there have been numerous studies on projected sea level rise. The reports vary in projections but consistently indicate future sea level rise, so the City cannot confirm the specific figures Cited. The City agrees that areas of San Mateo County are at severe risk for flooding due to gradual rise in sea level, F2. SLR is a threat countywide, including the upland areas. All residents depend on public infrastructure, especially wastewater treatment plants. Also, a significant portion of the countywide property tax base is within the area threatened by SLR. The City agrees with this finding. In addition to the public infrastructure and property tax base, the affected areas also generate a large number of jobs and economic activity that benefit the entire county. -33- F3. Although many local officials are now familiar with and concerned about the threat of SLR, there is inadequate public awareness of SLR's potential impacts on this county. The City agrees with this finding. F4. Levees, including their financing, are currently the responsibility of each individual city or special agency with jurisdiction along streams, bay, and coast (the County is responsible for unincorporated areas). The City agrees with this finding. The City does not currently have any levees. Under the current jurisdictional responsibilities, any future levee construction would be the responsibility of the City or the Colmadreel�' Flood Control District. F5. Floodl risk is based on topography, not political boundaries. The safety of properties in one jurisdiction often depends on levee projects undertaken by another jurisdiction. The City agrees with this finding. F6,. Currently, no countywide agency exists to provide planning, facilitate coordination among jurisdictions, or to assist with securing funding for existing flood control projects. The same is true for future SLR-related projects. The City agrees with this finding conMtent OL 1, cities. The City agrees with this finding with regards to South San Francisco. F8. There is a recognized need for a countywide approach to S,LR planning 7nd coordination among jurisdictions. The City agrees with this finding. F9. Several city managers and others interviewed did not support having new countywide organization assume direct contro,l of levee projects ihis time. The City was not a party to those discussions, so it cannot comment on them, -34- FIO. The County and cities can address SLR in their General Plans, and Climate Action Plans, can map the threat, and can adopt relevant policies. The City partially disagrees with this finding. As indicated in finding number 5, the problem of sea level rise crosses political boundaries. While the City agrees that it imakes sense to address SLR in its General Plan, policies will need to be coordinated with neighboring agencies to be effective. F11. Many actions to address SLR are within the authority of regional, State, and federal agencies. The City agrees with this finding. F'12. By acting now, SIVIC may be able to red ' uce future costs by integrating SLR - related projects with other programmed levee projects, and by using land use planning measures to mitigate future exposure to SLR. The City agrees with this finding. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations: R1. The County, each city in the county and relevant local special agencies should conduct a public education effort to increase awareness of SLR and its potential effects on this county. The recommendation has not yet been implemented by the City, The City agrees that more public education is needed. There has to be a consistent message about sea level rise or education efforts will be dismissed by a significant number of the community members. Education efforts should be coordinated on a county or regional level and are contingent upon R2 and R3. The Grand Jury recommends identifying a single organization to underta SLR planning: i -35- The recommendation has not yet been implemented and cannot be implemented by the City without the cooperation of other agencies. The City is supportive of an evaluation of the various governance options to address sea level rise, but does not control the timing of when the study would be complete, Besides the options that the Grand Jury mentions above, another possibility is the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). R3. The organization's responsibilities should include: • Adopt consistent SLR projections for use in levee planning countywide • Conduct and/or evaluate vulnerability assessments • Provide a forum for inter jurisdictional coordinati'din and exchange of information, related to SLR a ry - Undertake grant applications for SLR- related pla'anrithng and projects • Facilitate raising funds on a countywide basi, '4or SORm"re late d projects, to be passed through to agencies with direct respon't , foility for project construction • Monitor actual SLR over time and any changes in SLR projections, based upon the latest federal, State, or regional government reports and scientific studies • Through the CEQA environmental review process, comment on major new developments proposed in the SLR floodplain, • Advocate on behalf of the m I )q mb'er-Ju'risdictions with federal, State, and regional agencies regarding SI-R,,"issues, • Assist the County and cities in public awareness efforts, as described in RI The recommendation has not yet been implemented and cannot be implemented by the City without the cooperation of other agencies. The City is supportive of an evaluation of the various governance options to address sea level rise, but does not control the timing of when the study would be complete. R• . The County, cities and two relevant local special agencies should cons,ider expanding the role of the organization beyond SLR to include planning and coordination • efforts to address existing flooding problems 21ong the Bay, coast, and creeks that are subject to tidal action., It may be cost-effective to integrate SLR protection with other levee-improveiment programs. 'The County and cities may also consider expanding the role of the new organiization to include potentially compatible functions such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), currently managed • C/CAG, and the new (2014) State requirements for local sustainable groundwater planning. The recommendation has not yet been implemented and cannot be implemented by the City without the cooperation of other agencies. The City is supportive of M. an evaluation of the various governance options to address sea level rise, but does not control the timing of when the study would be complete. The City agrees that these responsibilities should be considered in a countywide entity's scope. R5. The organization –its administration, staffing, and program expenses— should be funded on a sustainable basis by: • Member contributions • Contributions solicited from parties threatened by SLR, including corporations and agencies that operate public facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants • Grants solicited from available potential source such as the California Climate Resilience Account • Reducing administrative costs by contracting"'11"If r services with the County or another agency The recommendation has not yet been implemented and cannot be implemented by the City without the cooperation of other. agencies. The City is supportive of an evaluation of the various governance options to address sea level rise, but does not control the timing of when the study would be complete. Funding sources should not be limited to those identified. Alternative and new funding sources should be an addition to the list of funding sources. The City agrees that a sustainable source of funding and'staffihg","is critical to its success. The Grand Jury recommends that SLR be addressed in local land use planning: R6. The County and each city should amend its General Plan, as needed, to address the risk for SLR. The Safety Element should include a map of any areas vulnerable to SLR, as determined by measurements in the countywide Vulnerability Assessment [R3]. Further, it should identify policies that apply to areas threatened by SLR. The City agrees with this concept, but does not believe it can be implemented within the timeframe allowed by the Grand Jury. Many of the studies to map vulnerable areas and draw a nexus for mitigation fees will take considerable time. The studies should be conducted on a regional basis and are tied to R2, R3, R4, and R5. The City is supportive of an evaluation of the various governance options to address sea level rise, but does not control the timing of when the study would be complete. The Grand Jury recommends that local governments champion SLR issu before regional, State, and federal governments and agencies: i • �County, cities, and relevant local special agencies, through their representatives on regional agencies, membership in state associations, -37- lobbyists, and elected State and federal legislators, should pursue SLR- related issues with government bodies outside SIVIC. The City has implemented the recommendation through involvement on the Bay Conservation and Development Commission Board of Directors as well as involvement of staff on previous sea level rise studies. The City will continue in these efforts. The City of South San Francisco appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report. The City will continue in the regional effort to address the effects of sea level rise. Sincerely, Richard A. Garbarino, Mayor. Cc: City Council City Clerk City Manager Director of Public Works No