May 19, 2023
Makena Wong
Project Manager
OneShoreline
San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District
1700 S. El Camino Real, Suite 502
San Mateo, CA 94402
Via email: planning@oneshoreline.org
RE: Comments, Draft OneShoreline Planning Guidance Policy
Dear Ms. Wong,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Bay Alive Campaign welcomes this opportunity to comment on the proposed OneShoreline Planning Guidance Policy (Guidance). We do so on behalf of our tens of thousands of supporters in San Mateo County and the health and resilience of the San Francisco Bay and its shoreline communities and habitats. To that purpose, we use public participation opportunities to contribute to plans and actions under consideration at local, regional and State levels. In addition, we provide Bay-educational webinars by topic-expert presenters for advocates, community leaders and city/county staff and elected officials.1
We applaud OneShoreline for creating this unique and important tool to help City and County jurisdictions identify and employ governance strategies to address the urgent and cumulative threats of climate-driven flooding, encroaching sea level rise (SLR) and shallow groundwater rise. This is a great first step that we hope will be improved with the following:
- a more refined buffer zone definition to ensure flood protection infrastructure will not be built on Bay mud,
- treatment of ecological resources as critical public assets and affirmative actions to transition development away from areas identified with high opportunity for natural and nature-based adaptation,
- emphasis on low-impact public access that serves people while also avoiding or minimizing impacts on wildlife,
- enhanced guidance on environmental justice and equity, and
- revised Development Standards for the SLR Overlay District and greater clarity about the intersection of the SLR and Shallow Groundwater Rise Overlay Districts.
We offer the comments and recommendations below in the spirit of collaboration to strengthen the Guidance both for long term efficacy that benefits San Mateo County communities and the Bay ecosystem, and as a model for other shoreline jurisdictions.
FUTURE FOCUS
Two proposals of the Guidance stand as unique and welcome, filling a forward-planning gap: the Future Conditions and Adaptation Pathway concepts and policies. Both are new planning constructs regionally and are tools by which jurisdictions can require actions that secure a resilient shoreline on a continuum while the sea rises.
We are concerned, however, that the Guidance adopted the BCDC band as the basis for the Bay Buffer Zone. Under existing conditions, the 100-foot BCDC band frequently lies wholly or in part in the Bay itself, leaving little room for hardscape infrastructure on solid ground. A perverse result is that needed hardscape infrastructure may destroy Bay wetlands that would otherwise provide protective natural infrastructure for the jurisdiction. Additionally, building hard protection on Bay mud has significant cost implications including escalating costs for the clean dirt required for Bay fill and extensive mitigation requirements due to wetland destruction. A superior alternative is to define the Bay Buffer Zone as the first 100 feet of firm ground inboard of the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, i.e., excluding adjoining Bay lands which, by location, may be intertidal, subtidal or tidal.
San Mateo County already has a city that is currently considering defining just such a buffer zone. As it nears publication of its Draft Update to the Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan (RBDSP), East Palo Alto planners have publicly shared a proposed shoreline zone, developed in coordination with the parallel SAFER Bay project.2 Throughout its length along the Bay, the proposed updated RBDSP would avoid placing any part of the levee in the adjoining Baylands, (even though at least one property may require a “take”), thereby encouraging survival of adjoining tidal marshes as natural infrastructure.
One reason East Palo Alto is taking this action is that in 2013, in the original RBDSP, it had the foresight to include a Land Use policy regarding an anticipated future levee that states “Rightsof-way for levees or other structures protecting inland areas from tidal flooding should be sufficiently wide on the upland side to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height so that no fill for levee widening is placed in the Bay.”3 (Note: emphasis added)
As the Guidance so clearly intends, jurisdictional goals and policies can be powerful tools, even years after adoption and, in SLR relevance, stay ahead of the encroaching tides.
We ask OneShoreline to show similar foresight as it leads by example through this groundbreaking Guidance. Please strengthen the Future Conditions and Adaptation Pathway concepts by defining a Buffer Zone that sits wholly on firm ground, avoiding any encroachment on or fill in the Bay, and provides an Adaptation Pathway to accommodate taller and/or wider shoreline protection infrastructure as may be needed over time as sea levels continue to rise.
ECOLOGICAL ASSETS
We would like to see a much stronger emphasis, throughout the Guidance, on the value of ecological resources to maintaining and improving community resilience and well-being. In addition to providing critical eco-services like flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and water purification, wetlands and bayland ecosystems are fundamental to local and regional biodiversity and also to our recreational enjoyment of the shoreline. Furthermore, they are not only a valuable resource to help our communities adapt to sea level rise, they are themselves at dire risk. If we hope to continue to reap the benefits they provide, we must treat them as the critical assets they are. We recommend that they be included as such under the umbrella of public and critical facilities, infrastructure and assets and integrated into the Community Resilience Goals for the Safety and Land Use elements. We offer some possible examples below (amendments in italics).
- GOAL: INCORPORATE FUTURE CONDITIONS INTO LAND USE PLANNING. “Protect new and/or substantial construction and critical existing ecological assets from Future Conditions brought on by climate change by incorporating climate science into land use planning and the development review process.” (Guidance page 11)
- GOAL: PROTECT CRITICAL FACILITIES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FROM FUTURE CONDITIONS. “Ensure that essential services provided by critical facilities, including ecological assets, and the [City/County}’s planned and existing infrastructure are planned and designed to accommodate future conditions.” (Guidance page 13)
- Action: Shallow Groundwater Rise Vulnerability Assessment. “Coordinate with One Shoreline and adjacent jurisdictions as appropriate to establish a detailed understanding of the effects of rising shallow groundwater on people, ecological assets, the built environment, and water supply in the [City/County]. This includes buoyancy, seepage, infiltration, liquefaction, corrosion and contaminant mobilization hazards. This assessment should have an interactive map component that will be updated based on site-specific geotechnical and topographic data submitted by new developments.” (Guidance page 15)
- Cross Disciplinary Collaboration Policy. “Promote cross-disciplinary project scoping and planning to incorporate climate resilience into all areas impacting community life and well-being, including water, energy, ecology, land use, housing transportation and safety. (Guidance page 18)
Additionally, we strongly recommend that areas with high opportunity for natural or naturebased resilience strategies be identified as such in Future Conditions Mapping Data. Resources like the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Sea Level Rise Adaptation Atlas4 should be incorporated for its discussions of the various types of suitable natural infrastructure and suggestions of use at various specific shoreline locations.5 Furthermore, the Operational Land Units identified in the Adaptation Atlas are an invaluable resource for implementing the regional collaboration policies in the Guidance’s Template Language for General Plan and Specific Plans.
Finally, we recommend using Future Mapping Data and additional Policies/Actions under GOAL: PRIORITIZE AND SUPPORT NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SENSITIVE HABITATS, pages 16-17, to facilitate a transition of development away from the shoreline in areas with high opportunity for nature-based adaptation.
- Proposed new Policy: Facilitate and pursue opportunities to restore ecological value to shorelines and creek banks and restore natural floodplain processes for increased flood protection in areas identified in future mapping data with high opportunity for naturebased adaptation.
- Proposed new Action: Use Transfer of Development Rights and other strategies to encourage transition of development away from the shoreline in areas identified in future mapping data with high opportunity for nature-based adaptation.
NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
We are concerned that the text box on page 5, THE BAY PROTECTION STANDARD: KEY TAKEAWAYS, may mislead the reader about the range of available shoreline infrastructure and also their associated benefits, while missing the chance to explain that opportunities for using natural infrastructure, and the specific benefits they can provide, vary widely based on location. The second bullet in the text box states the following:
It is apparent that OneShoreline recognizes benefits of the use of natural infrastructure, but the parenthetical in the first sentence may suggest that a wall and/or gradual sloped levee are the only options that meet the Bay Protection Standard. In addition, for the SMC shoreline, there are locations where gradual slopes described in the bullet could not support ecological benefits due to wave action. In those places natural alternatives such as beaches, eel grass beds and oyster beds might do so and should be considered, particularly where development is elevated to OneShoreline’s Bay Protection Standard.
We suggest the bullet be revised to broadly describe natural infrastructure; natural infrastructure is a valued inclusion in shoreline protection, alone or in combination with hardscape, varying in type and benefits by ecologically-defined location.
PUBLIC ACCESS
We were pleased to see policies in the Guidance designed to assure sustained public access to and within the shoreline and creek buffer zones. Requiring public access as a condition of development is a powerful tool that appropriately recognizes the shoreline as a public, not private, asset and clarifies that maintaining the public’s access to that civic resource is an obligation, not a public benefit to be negotiated in exchange for extraordinary development entitlements.
Nevertheless, we are concerned that the highlighted information box on page 19 defining Public Access is overbroad, potentially encouraging development and activities that are inconsistent with BCDC’s Bay Plan.6 The information box says that parking, services, and amenities are considered public access facilities. But the policies in this section direct that public access should be based on BCDC Policies and Design Guidelines. BCDC’s Bay Plan findings and policies explicitly discourage parking facilities on the waterfront.7 The Bay Plan also repeatedly raises concerns about adverse effects on wildlife, suggesting a potentially narrower view of appropriate services and amenities than implied in the Guidelines definition. We recommend revising or deleting the highlighted information box.
Additionally, the entire section neglects to recognize or address the disruption of wildlife and habitat associated with increased human activity. Scientific studies and reviews reveal widespread effects of human presence and recreation on animals, with a large amount of evidence showing negative impacts to raptors and shorebirds. Studies also show consistent negative impacts to shorebird breeding.8 We recommend strengthening the Public Access Goal and Policies, as below, to encourage low-impact facilities that avoid or minimize disruption to wildlife and habitat (amendments in italics).
- Goal: Public Access. “Expand and maintain low-impact Public Access along and to the San Francisco Bay shoreline and creeks.”
- Proposed new Policy: Employ siting, design and management strategies for all new Public Access facilities to avoid or minimize adverse effects on wildlife.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY
We recognize that the environmental justice community and community leaders in front line communities are best positioned to provide OneShoreline with productive feedback on these issues. We hope that OneShoreline undertook robust outreach to engage those voices in the design of Policies and Actions in this section. For our part, we recommend the following amendments (in italics) to strengthen the Environmental Justice and Equity Policies and Actions.
- Prioritize Vulnerable Populations. Ensure that planning and implementation prioritizes communities that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and gives community leaders a meaningful seat at the decision-making table.
- Compensation. Provide fair compensation for time and expertise of community members and community-based organizations for efforts in service to a project, including participation and leadership in local planning and decision-making around adaptation to Future Conditions.
- Anti-Displacement Policy. Bullet 1: Creating local employment and economic opportunities for low-income residents and local small businesses, including evaluating and incentivizing job-fit between new commercial development and local workforce.
- Anti-Displacement Policy. Bullet 6: Creating and implementing tools to evaluate, avoid, and mitigate the potential displacement caused by large-scale investment and infrastructure.
- Partner with Tribal Governments. Develop or strengthen formal partnerships and coordination with tribal governments to incorporate and recognize tribal history, knowledge, practices, and cultural resources into adaptation plans, projects, and priorities in the [City/County].
SEA LEVEL RISE OVERLAY DISTRICT
Shoreline Development Definition
The definition of a shoreline development project in section XX.XX.030(B)1 on page 26 is too narrow. As in the definition of Parcel Applicability in XX.XX.030(A)3, we believe Shoreline Development should include all projects with a portion located within a buffer zone. As noted above, due to variability of the BCDC band relative to firm ground, it is foreseeable that projects not lying fully within the buffer zone will nevertheless be very close to the water. Furthermore, we do not see the relevance of a required BCDC permit in this context. We propose the following language which mirrors the approach taken in SB272 (Laird) (amendments in italics).
Conditionally Permitted Uses
We were very pleased to see the Guidance explicitly discourage certain land uses within the Sea Level Rise Overlay District. Please add landfills, water/sewer treatment plants, animal research labs, life sciences high-containment labs (biosafety levels BSL-3 and BSL-4), underground parking and affordable housing to the list of Conditionally Permitted Uses in Section XX.XX.040(B) on page 27. This would also apply to the setbacks along creeks.
Development Standards
- Buffer zones. Please clarify that the buffer zones defined in Sections XX.XX.040(D), XX.XX.040(D)(1)(a), and XX.XX.040(D)(1)(b) are intended and required “to accommodate and maintain built and natural resilience infrastructure, habitat restoration, and Public Access” in order to avoid misinterpretation that other kinds of built infrastructure are permitted.
- Stormwater management. Undeveloped open space can be a valuable asset for adaptive use, providing passive recreation opportunities much of the time and also serving as flood retention areas when needed. Please consider the following amendment to Section XX.XX.050(i)(2)(a):
Shallow Rising Groundwater
Chapter III provides template zoning language in separate sections for a Sea Level Rise Overlay District and a Shallow Groundwater Rise Overlay District. On the OneShoreline interactive map, when the SLR Overlay District is turned off, the extent of the Shallow Groundwater conditions include much, possibly all, of the SLR Overlay. In our review, we found no text that actually states that fact. That is a concern as many developments in the SLR Overlay District may also need to address the same rising groundwater conditions.
Yet the SLR Overlay District includes just two rising groundwater policy items under Section XX.XX.050(G) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, p.30. The two policies both address rising groundwater related to a barrier, presumably a levee or flood wall. One addresses barrier stability and the other conditions inboard of a barrier. However, there appears to be no rising groundwater guidance related to construction of buildings of any kind even though such construction is and has been continuous on parcels that fall within the SLR Overlay District and may, in fact, impact the aforementioned barriers.
In contrast, the Shallow Groundwater Rise Overlay District discussion includes an extensive set of development policies in XX.XX.040 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, pp. 38-40, inclusive of addressing the known/potential hazards associated with rising groundwater. If a project or perhaps an entire Specific Plan Area or City is wholly located within the SLR Overlay District, it might choose only to consider the Guidance for that District. That decision would leave it woefully under-informed on how to plan for rising groundwater conditions. We recommend the following additions.
- Add a clarifying statement at the beginning of Chapter III, p.22: “The reach of Shallow (rising) Groundwater conditions is extensive. As a result, the Shallow Groundwater Rise Overlay District overlaps with the SLR Overlay District in many geographic areas. Where that is the case, the development standards of both Districts must be met.”
- Include a map of the Overlay Districts that expressly demonstrates the extent of the Shallow (Rising) Groundwater conditions. For instance, on the map used in the May 9, 2023 public meeting that shows both overlays, the yellow SLR Overlay area could be cross-hatched in brown where it intersects with the Groundwater Overlay and the legend improved to explain it.
Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to companion guidance on integrating Future Conditions into capital planning and hope that it will include climate Adaptation Pathways for existing public assets impacted by Future Conditions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Campaign Lead, Bay Alive
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: James Eggers
Executive Director
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gladwyn d’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1 https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/sea-level-rise-why-we-need-nature-based-adaptationwebinar
2 RBDSP UpdateLevee Alignment, Agenda packet, East Palo Alto City Council, April 25, 2023, Item 3.1, file page 27: http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1864&Inline=True
3 Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners TOD Specific Plan, 2013, Chapter 5, p. 73, LU-9.4
4 San Francisco Bay Shoreline Sea Level Rise Adaptation Atlas. https://www.sfei.org/adaptationatlas
5 The Adaptation Atlas can help local jurisdictions better understand the array of available nature-based solutions, and where they can be most viable within our region. For example, better awareness of the Atlas’ definition of an ecotone levee (as having a gentle slope, with a length to height ratio of 20:1 or gentler, that can support wetland habitat migration over time) could avoid the problem of projects calling vegetated levees with much steeper slopes “nature-based solutions.”
6 “Public Access includes physical access such as Bay shoreline trails as well as pathways and parking to enable people to get to those trails. Public Access also includes services and amenities that encourage Bay-related activities, recreation and viewing opportunities along the shoreline.” OneShoreline Planning Guidance Policy, p 19.
7 See BCDC Bay Plan Public Access Policy 10, Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views Finding (a) and Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views Policies 4 and 15. https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/plans/sfbay_plan.html#26
8 Annotated Reference summarizing findings of specific studies. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tynq0vifRZiha057N6BamddSew8GAlFwK2_5g6TWkiE/edit?usp=sharing