📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 13 findings
F1
Page 87
Sea level rise will seriously damage critical San Mateo County infrastructure and assets unless the County and its cities and towns prepare now. OneShoreline: OneShoreline agrees with this finding. San Mateo County is the most vulnerable county in California to the first three feet of sea level rise (SLR) with respect to population, including underrepresented population, number of homes, property value, and number of contaminated sites. Building resilience to future climate conditions will be easier and less costly by planning for it today.
F2
Page 87
Sea level rise infrastructure projects can take more than a decade to plan, fund and build. OneShoreline: OneShoreline agrees with this finding. However, it doesn’t have to be this way. Beyond local leadership and a sound technical plan, the three fundamental needs to build large SLR projects are land rights, funding, and environmental regulatory permits. Frequently, the last two of these can take years to acquire. OneShoreline is working to address these, as discussed below in our responses to Findings 3, 10, and 13, and Recommendations 2 and 3.
F3
Page 87
Complex federal and state regulations and procedures delay and increase the costs of already expensive sea level rise mitigation projects. They need to be revised. OneShoreline: OneShoreline agrees with this finding. Federal and State agencies can provide critical funding for these projects and fulfill an important role in ensuring that large projects do not harm the environment. However, the permitting and funding regimes of these agencies were largely developed decades ago and are not well suited to address a transformative and dynamic challenge like climate change. OneShoreline has and will continue to support efforts to ensure that the laws and guidelines used by Federal and State agencies recognize -- and take into account in the permitting process -- the multiple public benefits of climate resilience projects, including the benefit of establishing habitats that can thrive in future climate-driven conditions. Honorable Judge Lee September 29, 2021
F4
Page 88
Delaying sea level rise projects will increase costs. OneShoreline: OneShoreline agrees with this finding. Studies have shown that the costs of reactive, emergency repairs or retrofitting developed lands far exceed the costs of proactive planning and construction focused on future conditions. Working with local municipalities and agencies, OneShoreline is well-positioned to support long-term land use policies, arrange private development partnerships, and plan and build projects across jurisdictions that align and connect protection against sea level rise, creek flooding, coastal erosion, and stormwater, as well as enhance trails and the environment.
F5
Page 84
To remain effective, OneShoreline needs steady, long-term, operational funding. Response to F5: The City agrees with this finding.
F6
Page 84
Coordination between neighboring jurisdictions is important to reduce costs and improve the effectiveness of a SLR project. Response to F6: The City agrees with this finding.
F7
Page 84
Competing budget priorities among the entities in a sea level rise project make the projects difficult to fund and manage, leading to risk of delays and missed deadlines. Response to F7: The City partially agrees with this finding. The City is not familiar with budgeting/funding situations of other entities, and therefore, declines to comment on the ability of others to prioritize, fund, and manage projects. Additionally, a funding and management framework has been established between the City and OneShoreline that allows OneShoreline to take the lead in managing projects and identifying funding, which facilitates implementation. However, the City does agree that competing budget priorities within the City make it difficult to identify funding in support of these projects. Managing competing funding needs is common and is not unique to sea level rise projects.
F8
Page 84
Numerous hazardous material sites in the County must be protected from sea level rise flooding. Response to F8: The City agrees with this finding.
F9
Page 84
Storm surge and sea level rise threaten the County's wastewater treatment plants affecting everyone in the County - even inland County residents. Response to F9: The City agrees with this finding.
F10
Page 84
OneShoreline is uniquely positioned to augment San Mateo County's ability to combat sea level rise by its planning, funding, permitting expertise, and guidance. Response to F 10: The City agrees with this finding. Fl 1. Destruction of low-cost housing on the Bay and coast by flooding and erosion due to sea level rise will further increase inequities in communities such as Belle Haven (Menlo Park), East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Pacifica. Response to Fl 1: The City partially agrees with this finding. The City is not responsible for housing in these jurisdictions and is not aware of all of the possible implications to low-cost housing, but it seems likely that these areas would be negatively impacted. F 12. OneShoreline effectively collaborates with the Office of Sustainability and others on public engagement campaigns to educate individuals on how sea level rise will affect San Mateo County. 17951206.1 October 26, 2021 RE: City of Millbrae's Response to Grand Jury Report: "San Mateo County: California's Ground Zero for Sea Level Rise" Page3 Response to F 12: The City partially agrees with this finding. OneShoreline does great work collaborating with the City and surrounding communities. However, the City is not familiar with their efforts in collaborating Office of Sustainability, and therefore is not in the position to comment on this effort. F 13. A loan program to provide cities and towns funds for the required preliminary engineering necessary to obtain partial state or federal funding for SLR projects would be beneficial. Response to F 13: The Ciiy partially agrees with this finding. Additional funding will facilitate preliminary engineering, and ultimately, implementation. However, the stmcture of such funding requires further strategy, investigation, and analysis. Responses to Recommendations Rl, R2, and R4 Rl. At a public meeting, each city and town council, or board of supervisors should take at least one concrete action toward establishing a continuing funding source for OneShoreline, identify that action in response to this report, and potentially adopt a resolution expressing support for a parcel tax or property tax by June 30,2022. Response to Rl: The recommendation has been partially implemented. On March 26, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the proposal for the formation of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) and agreed to provide $40,000 per year for three years to help fund sea level rise adaptation and mitigation efforts. It is our understanding the current funding is sufficient to extend One Shoreline's operation for an additional 2 years. It is also our understanding that the County is considering a County-wide ballot measure to provide long-term funding for OneShoreline. If such a funding measure is placed on the ballot, the City Council will consider a resolution endorsing the measure. K2. A coordinated lobbying strategy with participation by the County, by San Mateo County cities and towns, by OneShoreline, and by other interested Bay Area cities and counties for federal and state regulatory simplification by January 31, 2022. Response to R2: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. It is our understanding that OneShoreline intends to continue working with the County on a lobbying strategy and will take the lead in coordinating with federal and state regulators. When needed or requested, the City Council will consider adopting a resolution, providing or supporting a letter of endorsement.
F11
Page 89
Destruction of low-cost housing on the Bay and coast by flooding and erosion due to sea level rise will further increase inequities in communities such as Belle Haven (Menlo Park), East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Pacifica. OneShoreline: OneShoreline agrees with this finding. A study by Stanford University researchers published in July 2021 found that flooding in San Mateo County – more than any other Bay Area county – disproportionately impacts communities most at risk of financial instability. Researchers found that the household median income in the County’s floodplain is about $30,000 lower than the County median. This is illustrated in the figure to the right, where the size of the bar indicates the number of residential buildings flooded during a 100-year tide and the color of the bars associated with each county indicate whether the median household income in the flooded zone is above (yellow) or below (orange) a county’s median household income.
F12
Page 89
OneShoreline effectively collaborates with the Office of Sustainability and others on public engagement campaigns to educate individuals on how sea level rise will affect San Mateo County. OneShoreline: OneShoreline agrees with this finding. OneShoreline communicates regularly with the County’s Office of Sustainability (OOS) on areas where our efforts can complement one another, and OOS has augmented OneShoreline’s outreach efforts as OneShoreline builds its capacity. OneShoreline also works with cities, other special districts, the County Office of Education, and the League of Women Voters (LWV) chapters to educate individuals on the risks facing this county and approaches to building resilience. This has included a year- long series of public forums co-hosted by OneShoreline and the LWV on climate issues related to water and wildfire throughout the county. Honorable Judge Lee September 29, 2021
F13
Page 90
A loan program to provide cities and towns funds for the required preliminary engineering necessary to obtain partial state or federal funding for SLR projects would be beneficial. OneShoreline: OneShoreline partially agrees with this finding. A source of funding to assist municipalities with the planning and design activities necessary to obtain state and/or federal funding for SLR projects would be beneficial. However, the structure of such funding (i.e., whether it would/could take the form of a loan program) requires further investigation and analysis. OneShoreline Response to Recommendations 2 and 3
Recommendations 3
-
R2Page 90A coordinated lobbying strategy with participation by the County, by San Mateo County cities and towns, by OneShoreline, and by other interested Bay Area cities and counties for federal and state regulatory simplification by January 31, 2022. OneShoreline: The recommendation has been partially implemented, and implementation will be ongoing beyond January 31, 2022. OneShoreline has worked with San Mateo County and its lobbyists in California, as well as coalitions of water-related agencies, on many issues, including simplifying the process to permit climate resilience projects. As discussed in the response above to F3, today’s climate crisis has highlighted the need to simplify environmental regulatory requirements for restoration and climate resilience projects. There has been progress on this issue at the State level, including through the just-passed Senate Bill 155, which allows certain habitat restoration projects to be exempt from CEQA. OneShoreline is currently following how the State plans to implement this measure if signed by the Governor and whether this exemption would apply to its projects.
-
R3Page 90OneShoreline consider establishing and administering a low interest revolving loan fund to enable jurisdictions to prepare the initial engineering and planning necessary to obtain federal and state funding for SLR projects, establishing such program by December 31, 2021. OneShoreline: As indicated above in response to F13, this specific recommendation requires further investigation and analysis. Moreover, until OneShoreline has secured its own steady, long-term, operational funding (see F4, above), it will not be in a position to establish and administer a program to fund the initial engineering and planning needs of other jurisdictions in the County. Thus, any such program, regardless of the ultimate funding vehicle, will not be established by December 31, 2021. However, in the meantime, OneShoreline will continue to explore ways to assist and partner with local jurisdictions to improve our collective resilience to the water-related impacts of climate change. On behalf of the OneShoreline Board, thank you for taking on the complex and urgent long-term task of addressing sea level rise and other flood risks in San Mateo County. Please contact OneShoreline CEO Len Materman at len@oneshoreline.org if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Dave Pine Chair, Board of Directors cc: OneShoreline Board members San Mateo County Manager City Managers within San Mateo County MAYOR CITY OF PACIFICA Sue Beckmeyer 540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044 MAYOR PRO TEM www.cityofpacifica.org Mary Bier COUNCIL Mike O’Neill Scenic Pacifica Sue Vaterlaus Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957 Tygarjas Bigstyck October 11, 2021 Hon. Amarra A. Lee Judge of the Superior Court c/o Jenarda Dubois Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Subject: City of Pacifica’s response to “Grand Jury Report: ‘San Mateo County: California’s Ground Zero for Sea Level Rise’” Dear Judge Lee: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced Grand Jury report filed on August 11, 2021. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933(c), the City of Pacifica’s (“City”) response to the
-
R4Page 85The County Board of Supervisors and each city and town council, should ensure that their general plans regarding SLR protection include transportation and utility infrastructure, schools, public safety facilities, and hazardous material sites by March 31, 2022. Response to R4: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The current General Plan update is incorporating the mid-level scenario (consistent with the San Mateo County resiliency plan) of Sea Level Rise corresponding to 3.3-feet above the 1% chance event base flood 17951206.1 October 26, 2021 RE: City of Millbrae's Response to Grand Jury Report: "San Mateo County: California's Ground Zero for Sea Level Rise" elevation. This produces a Sea Level Rise floodplain elevation of 13.3-feet NAVD88. The City and OneShoreline will work together to ensure that the General Plan takes into account future conditions associated with SLR prior to completion of the document's update in November 2022 The City appreciates the opportunity to share its comments on the Grand Jury Report. The City would also like to bring to your attention the following items of concerns that were not addressed in the Grand Jury Report for your consideration: 1. Equity in the funding across communities to ensure small, less represented cities receive a fair share of funding to address SLR issues. 2. All housing is at risk through the San Mateo County. 3. Backbone infrastructure and the capacity of the backbone infrastructure, which we feel must be addressed with sea level rise. Sincerely, Ann Schneider Mayor Cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney 17951206.1 September 29, 2021 The Honorable Judge Amarra A. Lee Presiding Judge San Mateo County Superior Court 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Judge Lee: The Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (also known as OneShoreline) has approved the following response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report titled “San Mateo County: California’s Ground Zero for Sea Level Rise” released on August 11, 2021 (“Report”). The capacity and activities of OneShoreline are the focus of the Report, and, as requested by the Civil Grand Jury, this response indicates whether OneShoreline agrees with, or disagrees with (in whole or in part, with explanation), each of the Report’s thirteen Findings and responds to Report Recommendations R2 and R3. OneShoreline Response to Each Finding