Regional plan to fight sea-level rise underway

On the Bayside, these plans will be guided and approved — or denied — by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the regulatory agency currently developing a substantial regional strategy designed to lead upcoming shoreline adaptation. 

The agency is focused on developing these guidelines so Bay Area cities have a road map for their individual plans — with goals for a published draft by mid-September of this year, Dana Brechwald, BCDC Climate Adaptation assistant planning director, said. 

Save the Bay Executive Director David Lewis put it another way. 

“That’s the only part of what BCDC is currently looking at in the regional shoreline adaptation project that is actually required by law, and for which BCDC has the clear authority,” he said. “Everything else is being done in a voluntary, collaborative way, which makes it uncertain what the outcome is going to be.” 

Groups like the Sierra Club are also deeply engaged in these regional planning processes through its Bay Alive campaign, Campaign Coordinator Jennifer Hetterly said. For the Sierra Club, nature-based solutions to shoreline resilience, climate justice and active collaboration are key priorities. 

“What one jurisdiction chooses to do can have negative impacts or constrain the options that are available to other communities, in terms of protecting their shorelines and their communities,” she said. “That’s the biggest problem — we want to make sure that these guidelines go as far as they can to avoid those unintended impacts.” 

Nature-based solutions can include wetland restorations, which can act as a buffer for high tides, artificial oyster reefs to create space for existing oyster colonies or even sloping, setback levees that protect from sea-level rise while allowing for tidal marshes to move upland over time, Hetterly said. 

But BCDC has to balance conservation goals with the other element in its name — development. The Bay Area is sorely in need of housing, Brechwald emphasized, a consideration the agency is obligated to take into account. 

“We definitely understand the need to implement nature-based solutions in the short term. Wetlands are going to drown if we don’t take action on that soon,” she said. “Balancing that with the need to build more housing in the Bay. … There are development pressures in the Bay as well. Our guidelines aim to address both.” 

Lewis cited these economic and development considerations, including shoreline property values and flood insurance, as one potential reason there hasn’t been a more direct push to update regulatory laws to meet the dire needs of coming climate change. 

“Even if there were no regional planning happening, climate change is already having economic impacts and is going to have more. Some folks at the agency, and other places, view that as a reason to avoid new regulations, new laws, new land use mandates, because considering them would prompt strong opposition,” he said. 

Right now, current law and regulation doesn’t match up with an “anticipation of where the shoreline is going to be, with sea-level rise,” Lewis said. 

“To put it super simply, where the Bay is going to be is going to be different. BCDC’s authority and the laws have not been changed to recognize that,” he said. 

BCDC is aware of the fact that laws and policies haven’t been updated to represent the current needs of the region, and it’s something the agency is going to be working on in the next few years, Brechwald said. 

Its overarching goals for a resilient future shoreline includes keeping regional transportation and critical services safe and accessible and prioritizing collaboration, per its One Bay Vision plan, developed earlier this year. 

On a more practical level, that also means prioritizing which of those initiatives need to come first, when total shoreline adaptation by 2050 for the whole of BCDC’s jurisdiction — nine Bay-touching counties, including San Mateo — is predicted to cost $110 billion.

Funding could also potentially be a problem for the cities to complete mandated shoreline adaptation plans in coming years. Although current grant programs for these technical plans are still afloat, Brechwald said, those sources are subject to change. 

“The future of it … is definitely uncertain. We’re keeping our eye on the climate bond that’s going to be on the ballot this fall. The state is interesting, because it takes and it gives very quickly, but this does seem to be high-priority for the state, particularly because this is legislatively mandated,” she said.

Environmental groups are also prioritizing other concerns, like groundwater toxins, as well as a need to help the most marginalized communities deal with impacts of sea-level rise they might not have the resources to fight. 

Hetterly cited the potential for Palo Alto to create solutions for shared Baylands with East Palo Alto that will benefit both communities, for example. 

“The socially vulnerable and environmental justice communities that are facing these disproportionate harms, part of the problem is they have there — they have the most risk and they have the least capacity to adapt,” Hetterly said.