BCNA NEWS
It is mid-year in the Civil Grand Jury process of “government oversight,” a requirement of State law. It would be gratifying if the 2014-2015 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, now seated, chose topics for investigation as relevant and timely as did the 2013-2014 Civil Grand Jury.
The exceptional Grand Jury, which made its reports in the summer, selected Affordable Housing, Sea Level Rise, and the Port of San Francisco, among others, including Ethics. (BCNA is not touching the latter.)
Herewith Part 2 of rising waters, tackling the Jury members’ “Rising Sea Levels…At Our Doorstep.”
Finding 1. The City does not have a citywide comprehensive plan that addresses the rising sea level issue.
City response: Agreed, but said it has a draft comprehensive plan…for City assets. The City’s draft Guidance includes “findings on the state of the science, expected and possible sea level rise through 2100, and assessment of storm surge and wave action affecting wave levels.”
1a About the Jury’s first recommendation “to prepare and adopt a risk assessment in preparation for developing a comprehensive plan…” the City said it is “underway.”
2b The Jury’s second recommendation was that “The City should adopt a Citywide comprehensive plan for adaptation to rising sea levels, especially along its shore and its floodplains, which should include a provision that the plan be reviewed and reassessed every five years.”
Continuing, “The plan should include the provision that construction projects approval should take into account the anticipated lifespan of each project and the risks faced outlined in said plan. Special consideration should be given to those anticipated to survive for more than thirty years.”
The City responded again “that the recommendation has not been implemented but is underway.” It was stated that CEQA gives the Planning Department its authority to require that projects be designed “to minimize and mitigate potential hazards related to sea level rise and takes into account the asset life cycle in its evaluation.”
Another recommendation was that “the City should build infrastructure systems that are resilient and adaptable to rising sea levels. The City…should require that any construction project vulnerable to future shoreline or floodplain flooding be designed to be resilient to sea level rise at the 2050 projection, e.g., 16 inches, if the construction is not expected to last longer than 2050. For construction to last longer than 2050, it is recommended that the City require that the project be designed to address sea level projections for the longer term.”
The City‘s response was that “Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable” and that requiring any construction project be designed to be resilient to the existing 16-inch rise 2050 projection does not take into account other factors…including exposure to storm surge or wave action, asset lifespan and location, and consequence of failure of a project.
“Looking beyond 2050…it may be unwise–and expensive–to require immediate measures to wide-ranging, highly uncertain sea level projections further out in time.”
The Civil Grand Jury’s first Finding and its Recommendations, together with the City’s also lengthy Responses, occupied about two pages of the 30-page Final Report. It became apparent that just a suggestion of the exhaustive work that the Grand Jury performs was all that was possible in the BCNA format.
It also should be noted that efforts were made to obtain information on what steps the City may have taken in the months since the detailed report went to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, but inquiries made before posting in the BCNA report did not receive answers.
That being the situation, the rising sea levels–investigated and reported on by the 2013-2014 Civil Grand Jury–closes with the Jury’s own Press Release sent out June 15th:
“SEA LEVEL RISE: CITY AT RISK”
“San Francisco’s Civil Grand Jury has issued a report on the projected impact of rising sea levels as a dramatic and significant consequence of climate change on the City. The Jury has found that there is still no comprehensive plan for response.
“Additionally, the City’s and Port’s Planning and Building Codes have yet to reflect current consensus on sea level rise. The Jury also found that serious risks to infrastructure, especially wastewater treatment, continue to exist. Ocean Beach, SFO, and the Embarcadero seawall are other areas where important work is still yet to be done.
“The Jury has recommended that City and County codes be amended to reflect the emerging consensus of science and institutional response to sea level rise, and ensure that future development is sustainable and resilient. The Jury has also called for a surcharge by the Port on property leases, and for the City to establish a reserve fund, and seek additional funding through other programs.
“Another recommendation is that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors coordinate efforts with other Bay Area cities and jurisdictions, such as the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, to establish a local working group.
“The Superior Court selects 19 San Franciscans to serve a year term as Civil Grand Jurors. The Jury has the authority to investigate County government and inspect records, interview officials, and receive relevant information from the public. At the end of its inquiries, the Jury issues a report outlining its findings and recommendations to address them. County agencies identified in the report receive copies and must respond with agreement to implement the recommendations, in whole or in part, or to not accept them. The Board of Supervisors conducts a public hearing on each Civil Grand Jury report.”
Copyright © Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association 2014