The Urbanist #503 - May 2011 - Climate Change Hits Home by saikofish

5/6.1'

SPUR

•

ranIs

CLIMATE CHANGE HITS HOME IS THE BAY AREA READY?

105/06.11

I LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Change we don't want to believe in

Gabriel Metcalf is SPUR's executive director

This issue of the Urbanist marks a sad moment for us. You are holding a publication devoted to the question of what we need to do to prepare for a radically changing climate on planet Earth. Despite our best efforts, we as a species have not meaningfully slowed the growth of heat-trapping gases generated by badly organized human activity. We are not giving up on doing all we can to stop climate change from getting worse - that is where a huge part of our effort at SPUR has been going, and it will continue to be where we focus. But meanwhile we must adapt to a new reality: Temperatures are warming. The seas are rising. The snow in the mountains is melting earlier. And these impacts will only intensify in the coming years. Part of the problem is that greenhouse gases accumulate and remain in the atmosphere for decades, even centuries. So even if the whole world stopped burning coal and driving cars tomorrow, the Earth would still continue to warm, and seas would continue to rise, for hundreds of years. If we take longer to change our ways, and put more carbon into the atmosphere before we do so, the consequences will be much worse. Our conclusion is that we now have to open a second front in this war: in addition to fighting to stop generating greenhouse gases, we must also begin dealing with the consequences of what we have already done and what we are going to do in the near future. While we continue to work to reduce greenhouse gases, we must simultaneously start rebuilding our cities to survive in a changed climate. What makes this particularly sad for SPUR is our conviction that it doesn't have to be this way. We know exactly what it would take to stop generating greenhouse gases: switching from coal to other fuels; retrofitting the country's building stock to use less energy; and retrofitting our cities so that walking, biking and transit work for almost all trips. Our specialty at SPUR is this final piece. The overarching thrust of our community and regional planning work is directing regional growth into walkable, compact patterns instead of sprawl. The imperative to stop building in car-oriented ways

2 Urbanist> May / June 2011

Even if the whole world stopped burning coal and driving cars tomorrow, the earth would still continue to warm, and seas would continue to rise, for hundreds of years. We now have to open a second front in our war on global warming: While we continue to work to reduce greenhouse gases, we must simultaneously start rebuilding our cities to survive in a changed climate. informs every comment we make in neighborhoodplanning workshops and all of our planning advocacy work. We are committed to working as hard as we can to help make these connections clear: Preserving San Francisco exactly the way it is puts more growth pressure on lower-density parts of the region that tend to lack transit. This means continuing the American pattern of heavy reliance on the automobile. And this is the reason, beyond all others, that Americans generate more greenhouse gases than Europeans. The status quo is no longer an ethical option. Creating a more sustainable, transit-oriented Bay Area will be hard. But consider how hard it will be to protect ourselves from five meters of sea level rise (which is possible in a few hundred years) or to abandon entire cities because no levee can be built high enough. We are going to do everything we can to keep from getting to that point. But we would be foolish to ignore the possibility that it will happen anyway. Unlike many less fortunate parts of the world, we have the resources to plan ahead for foreseeable disasters. Let's begin now. â&#x20AC;˘

'"><>

May I June 2011 What we're doing

CITY APPROVES PAYROLL TAX EXEMPTION; TWITTER WILL STAY

retiree health obligations. A number of competing reform proposals are under development and potentially headed for the ballot in November 2011.

On April 12, the Board of Supervisors approved a seven-year payroll tax exemption NEW SF URBAN WATER PLAN for companies locating in the Mid-Market area. OPEN FOR COMMENT In late April, the San Francisco The move will keep Twitter from leaving San Public Utilities Commission Francisco while creating jobs in a struggling released its draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. This neighborhood. SPUR supported this measure, plan, required by the state for all but we continue to call for a long-term solution urban water agencies every five years, includes county-wide that will retain the many other growing firms demand projections to the year that San Francisco's unique payroll tax might 2035, compares them with deter. SPUR has long argued for replacing the available water supplies and includes management measures payroll tax with either a gross receipts tax or a to reduce long-term water demand. The plan also includes tax on behavior we want to discourage, like a discussion of significant water pollution. SPUR will be working hard to keep conservation measures that the up the momentum for a broader reform effort SFPUC will implement over the next five years. Public comment that will help make San Francisco a good on the plan is open until May 27, home for all innovative companies - even the 2011, with a public hearing on May 24. For more information ones we don't know about yet. Read Gabriel visit sfwater.org. Metcalf's editorial at bit.lyjpayrolltaxreform. FITCH DOWNGRADES SF BOND RATING Last month Fitch Rating downgraded the City and County of San Francisco's bond rating for $2.6 billion, which may increase the cost of borrowing for the City. The rating agency cited recurring large-scale budget deficits, extensive use of one-time solutions to address recession-induced shortfalls, increasing pension costs and the $4.3 billion unfunded retiree healthcare liability as leading

factors in the rating reduction. SPUR has advocated for improvements to the City's budgeting to remedy these systemic weaknesses. The Fitch analysis called out the success of SPUR budget reform efforts, including 2009's Proposition A, as critical in stabilizing the City's reserves. The City is also in the process of developing a five-year financial plan and other fiscal policies as a result of those efforts. The downgrade signals the importance of dealing with the City's rising pension and

SPUR TO SERVE ON BETTER MARKET STREET COMMITTEE Benjamin Grant, SPUR's Public Realm and Urban Design Program Manager, has been invited to serve on the Better Market Street Civic Design Advisory Committee, which will meet monthly to support the City's Better Market Street Project. The project seeks to improve Market Street to meet its potential as San Francisco's civic spine and one of its most important public spaces. To learn more, go to www. bettermarketstreetsf.org.

SPUR FORUM PRESENTATIONS NOW ONLINE Can't make it to a SPUR forum? Want to get briefed on what you missed? Good news: selected speaker presentations are now available on our website. View videos and PowerPoint presentations from many of our past forums at spur.org/events. Use the Past Events calendar to navigate to the month and forum of your choice, tllen scroll dOWl1 to the "Missed the EvenP" section to find the PDF file or video link. Presentations now online include Seattle Planning Director Marshall Foster's "Update From the Emerald City" (bitly/planningseattle) and our "Debate Worth Having" between planner Peter Calthorpe and Save the Bay's David Lewis over the proposed Saltworks development (bit.ly/ saltworksdebate).â&#x20AC;˘

Weigh in on the future of Ocean Beach Join us Saturday, June 4, to provide input and feedback on the future of Ocean Beach. The Ocean Beach Master Plan team, along with its agency partners and community advisors, is hard at work analyzing the implications of different approaches to erosion, sea-level rise, ecology and infrastructure. We invite the public to weigh in on these alternative scenarios as we work toward a preferred approach in the coming months. Learn more or subscribe to project updates at www.spur.org/ oceanbeach. Urbanist> May /June 2011 3

From our transportation, energy and water systems to our personal health and safety, Bay Area residents face dramatic impacts as the Earth's atmosphere continues to warm. Here are the tangible effects we can expect to see - and what local governments can do now to protect our most vulnerable systems.

05/06.11

SPUR REPORT

Sea level rise. Higher temperatures. Less fresh water. Some climate hazards can no longer be prevented. It's time to start adapting.

CLIMATE CHANGE HITS HOME Adopted by the SPUR Board on February 16, 2011 SPUR staff: Laura Tam SPUR interns: Timothea Tway, Alexis Smith, Elizabeth Antin SPUR blue ribbon task force: Andy Barnes, David Behar, Brad Benson, Claire BonhamCarter, Xantha Bruso, Peter Drekmeier, Ted Droettboom, Steve Goldbeck, Noah Goldstein, Amy Hutzel, Michelle Jesperson, Laurie Johnson, Doug Kimsey, Ken Kirkey, David Lewis, Jacinta McCann, Paul Okamoto, Emily Pimentel, Julian Potter, Bruce Riordan, Rebecca Rosen, Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, Bry Sarte, Will Travis, Margaret Williams, Abby Young This report was made possible by the generous support of the San Francisco Foundation and aCommunity Action Grant from the Urban Land Institute.

4 Urbanist> May / June 2011

We have known about the perils of climate change for more than two decades. But global efforts to slow it down by reducing greenhousegas emissions have largely failed. Even where major efforts are moving forward, such as California's Assembly Bill 32, reductions will not begin for 10 years - and they only represent a fraction of world emissions. Meanwhile, the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases has continued to rise at an increasing rate. Even if we stop producing greenhouse gases tomorrow, the high concentration of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere from historic emissions - which started in the 19th century - will cause the climate to continue to change. As a result we must not only intensify our efforts to reduce climate change but prepare for its inevitable effects. These two efforts are known as climate change mitigation and adaptation. In SPUR's 2009 report "Critical Cooling," we explored the challenge of mitigation at the local

level, recommending a set of carbon-reduction strategies for the City of San Francisco.' In this report, SPUR addresses how we should adapt to climate change in the Bay Area and make ourselves more resilient to its most severe impacts, including extreme weather and sea level rise. 2 The State of California has been proactive in developing climate-impact strategies,3 but there has been less guidance for local governments, which may be the lead agencies going forward due to the geographic nature of climate risks. Without proper planning, local governments may resort to more ad-hoc approaches, even emergency responses. We look at six key areas - health and safety, transportation, ecosystems, energy, water management and sea level rise planning - and recommend more than 30 strategies for local and regional agencies to begin minimizing the region's vulnerabilities to these long-term but potentially catastrophic effects.

I Critical Cooling can be found at spur.org/ publications/library/report/crilical _ cooling

2 SPUR

has also written in-depth articles on sea level rise in the Bay Area and the advantages and disadvantages of seven physical strategies for adapting the shoreline to sea level rise, available at spur.org/publications/library/ report/sealevelrise _ tlOlO9 The cross-agency California Adaptation Strategy is available at climatechange.ca.gov/ adaptation/

The Embarcadero during a 2011 "King Tide" event - the highest tide of the year shows our vulnerability to future sea level rise, where sea levels may regularly be as high as today's flood levels.

Urbanist> May /June 2011 5

Even if we succeed at reducing our emissions completely by the end of this century or sooner, it will take centuries for the climate - and the effects of global warming and sea level rise - to stabilize.

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE OUR CLIMATE TO STABILIZE?

Sea level rise due to ice melting: several millennia

Best case scenario: CO, emissions peak in next 100 years

Sea level rise due to thermal expansion: centuries to millennia

C ::l

!::

Temperature: a few centuries

CO, in atmosphere: 100 to 300 years

z C) ex:

Today

100 years

1000 years

TIME TO STABILIZE Source: Adapted from BCDC's. "Living with a Rising Bay," 2009. Based on data from IPCC.

Principles of Climate Adaptation 1. The more mitigation we do now, the less adaptation we may have to do in the future, because climate impacts could be less severe. Without any mitigation, adaptation will be more difficult and more expensive, and more people are likely to suffer. 2. Mitigation is much less expensive than adaptation. Mitigation to a stable level of atmospheric carbon would cost about one percent of global GDP by 2050, but unmitigated climate impacts would cost between five and 20 percent of global GDP. If no actions are taken, climate change-related damage across California could cost anywhere from $7 billion to $46 billion per year. 3: Mitigation should happen globally. Because it is the least expensive way to prevent suffering, mitigation is the first and most important policy tool for managing climate change. Ideally, though, mitigation policy is implemented at an international or national level, where the scope of emissions is much broader. 4. Adaptation must happen locally. Adaptation planning identifies a set of actions to decrease a system's vulnerability, or increase its resilience, to the impacts of climate change. Because these impacts are geographically variable, and vulnerabilities to these impacts are more variable still, local knowledge is necessary to understand risks and reduce vulnerabilities, which means we must plan adaptation actions fairly close to home. 5. Adaptation strategies should be implemented according to future conditions, regular assessment and recalibration. This process, called adaptive management, is necessary because there is great uncertainty about how fast the climate is changing and when its predicted effects may occur. Without careful monitoring of conditions, we may adopt the wrong adaptation strategy, pay too much for one or pay too little. 6. Some adaptation strategies have benefits that can be realized today. Some adaptation planning actions can be adopted right away and may be things we are working on already to achieve other policy goals. Two examples of these "no regrets" adaptation strategies include energy efficiency and water conservation, both activities that are valuable today and may be even more valuable under future climate change.

6 Urbanist> May /June 2011

Climate change impacts in the Bay Area We expect climate change to manifest locally in three primary ways: Higher temperatures and heat waves

Sea level rise

Temperature changes are the primary marker of climate change, and they are also the key driver of changes in other natural systems such as sea levels and hydrologic cycles. The California Adaptation Strategy projects a rise of 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the higher end of the range corresponding to higher-emission world development scenarios modeled by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This means that statewide average temperatures will increase, with more pronounced increases in the summer months and nighttime temperatures. Heat waves are expected to increase in frequency, with individual heat waves becoming longer and extending over a larger area. There will be an increase in the number of "extreme heat days" - days that exceed the region's 90th-percentile average temperature. This will increase the likelihood of heat-related illness and deaths, burdens that will fall disproportionately on vulnerable communities, especially the poor, the elderly and young children. 4

Sea level rise occurs because of two natural processes that have been occurring since the last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. The first is the expansion of the oceans, which increase in volume as they absorb atmospheric and land-generated heat. The second is the melting ofland-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets that occupy vast areas of Greenland and Antarctica. In the past 10 to 15 years, the rate of global sea level rise has increased by about 50 percent and is now averaging 3 millimeters per year. Human-induced global warming is a major contributor to this accelerated rise. In California, we are likely to experience a sea level rise of about 16 inches by 2050 and about 55 inches by 2100 - and much more after that. 6 These estimates are based on ranges that correspond to several global greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios. In the highest-emission scenario, the range of estimated end-ofcentury sea level rise is between 43 a.nd R9 inr.hp.s.7 The degree of sea level rise in the region depends on land subsidence or tectonic uplift. Some communities of the South Bay, which heavily extracted groundwater up through the 1960s, have sunk below today's sea level by as much as 13 feet. Parts of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that ha.ve been heavily channelized, diked, eroded and oxidized are now 25 feet below sea level. Areas that are sinking or losing land area or wetlands to erosion will experience the impacts of sea level rise sooner and perhaps with greater intensity. Most ofthe near-term damage we expect on developed areas will be from storm conditions that occur at the same time as high tides. Storms cause extreme lows in air pressure, allowing the sea level to instantaneously rise above predicted tides. Storms also increase winds, especially onshore winds, that cause bigger, more erosive waves. Finally, they bring rain, which increases water volume in creeks and rivers. As sea levels rise, low-lying areas protected by already fragile levees will face even greater risk.

Water uncertainty: droughts, wildfire, extreme storms and flooding Toward the end of the century we are likely to experience more prolonged shortages in freshwater supplies, as well as extreme weather that could increase local and urban flooding from severe storms. The Sierra snowpack - which provides natural water storage essential for many Bay Area water agencies - is likely to melt earlier in the year and more rapidly. Longer and drier droughts are predicted before the end ofthe century, leading to increasing frequency and magnitude ofwater shortages, and exacerbating conflict over an already stretched resource. Across the state, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, leading to water-storage challenges in the dry season. Higher temperatures will also increase water demand across all sectors: domestic, agricultural, commercial and industrial. As droughts are expected to increase in frequency - due to the dry season starting earlier and ending later - wildfires are expected to increase in both frequency and intensity. In the winter, heavier downpours and increased runoff could contribute to sewer overflows. Urban flooding from extreme storms could threaten public health and safety, damage property and impair coastal water quality. There are 22 wastewater treatment plants on the Bay Area's shoreline that are vulnerable to a 55-inch rise in sea level, the upper end of projections by 2100. 5 Many treatment plants rely on gravity to discharge treated water to the Bay. As Bay water levels rise, this mechanism could fail and significantly affect facility operations.

, Morello~Frosch, Rachel, Manuel Pastor, James Sadd, and Seth B. Shonkoff. 2009. The Climate Gap. Inequalities in How Climate Change Hurts Americans & How to Close the Gap. college.usc.edu/pere/ documents/The _ Climate _ Gap _ Full _ Report _ FINAl.pdf 'Heberger, Matthew, Heather Cooley, Pablo Herrera, Peter H. Gleick, and Eli Moore of the Pacific Institute. May 2009. The Impacts of Sea~level Rise on the California Coast. APaper from the California Climate Change Center, prepared by the Pacitic Institute. Report No. CEC~500~2009~024~F, http,f/wlYlY.pacinst.org/reports/ sea _ level _ rise/report.pdf , From Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). April 2009. Living with a Rising Bay, Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. Draft Staff Report., p. 137. bcdc. ca.gov/proposed _ bay _ plan/bp _ 1~08 _ cc _ draft.pdf. 1 Based on a 2000 baseline. State of California Sea Level Rise Interim Guidance Document, October 2010, developed by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team. t6 inches by midcentury and 55 inches by end ot century have been adopted by State agencies including the State Lands Commission and the Coastal Conservancy as planning estimates.

Urbanist> May / June 2011 7

PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH

, English, Paul, California Department of Public Health, presentation to SPUR's task force in April20lD.

Miller, Norman L., Jiming Jin, Katharine Hayhoe, and Maximilian Auffhammer. 2007. Climate Change, Extreme Heat, and Energy Demand in California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy Related Environmental Research Program. CEC 500 2007 023.

l' Knowlton, K. et al. 2009. "The 2006 California Heat Wave, Impacts on Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits." Environmental Health Perspectives. lIHI-67.

Reid, C., et al. 2009, "Mapping Community Oeterminants of Heat Vulnerability." Environmental Health Perspectives. 117, 1730-1736. II

Increases in extreme heat, particularly during heat waves, could kill more people than all other climate change impacts combined. s Warmer days also worsen air quality, create "urban heat islands" and can increase people's risk to vectorborne and infectious diseases such as West Nile virus and Lyme disease. Public safety and health could also be compromised by storm-related flooding in residential areas and by wildfire, both because of its direct threat and because it significantly impairs regional air quality, Heat. While the Bay Area may not experience the same severity or frequency of extreme heat days as other parts of southern and central California, by mid-century we may see three to four times as many extreme heat days as we do today and six to eight times as many by 2100. 9 In San Francisco, from a 20th-century average of12 days per year exceeding 81 degrees Fahrenheit, we could have 70 to 94 days exceeding this temperature by 2070 to 2099, The paradox of hot weather in milder climates, such as along the California coast, is that people are much less prepared for and acclimated to it. In California's 2006 heat wave, rates of emergency department visitation and hospitalization were far greater in coastal counties, including San Francisco, than the state average, although some parts of the state were hotter and suffered more heat-related deaths. lO Only about 11 percent of housing units in the San Francisco metropolitan area have access to air conditioning. San Francisco and Alameda counties contain eight of the 13 census tracts most vulnerable to heat in the entire United States.u Urbanized areas around the Bay may be especially vulnerable to the phenomenon known as "urban heat islands," where heavily urbanized areas become significantly warmer than nearby areas because of heat-retaining materials like concrete and asphalt, Heat-related illness and death are considered entirely preventable if appropriate strategies are taken by residents, planners and health providers. Air quality. Major public health issues related to potential air quality changes from climate change in the Bay Area include increased exposure to air pollutants including ground-level ozone (smog), particulate matter, pollens and molds. These pollutants can aggravate asthma and respiratory diseases, and cause prcmaturc death in susceptible groups.

B Urbanist> May !June 2011

Continued monitoring and evaluation of changes in precipitation, winds, and offshore and inland conditions will be necessary to create a regional model of climate change impacts on air quality, and to make better predictions of climate change impacts on the many microclimates within the region. Highly vulnerable populations. The burdens of higher temperatures and heat waves will fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly and young children. People with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma, respiratory disease, allergies, diabetes or heart conditions are also more susceptible. Lower-income neighborhoods are more vulnerable to urban heat-island effects because they generally have less tree coverage and more impervious ground and roof surfaces. People who live alone are especially vulnerable to heat waves and heat-related illness.

SPUR's recommendations for public safety and health I. Identify populations that are vulnerable to specific climate change threats, and develop countywide climate-preparedness plans. County health agencies should work with city planning, housing and emergency-services departments to identify geographic areas and populations vulnerable to specific climate change threats, such as sea level rise, flooding, fire and urban heat islands. Factors that should be part of the analysis include housing quality, transportation access, age, poverty and access to health care.

2. Reduce urban heat-island effects through three principal "no regrets" strategies: expanding the urban forest, promoting white roofs and using light-colored pavement materials. City agencies responsible for urban forestry and street trees - which could include public works, transportation, and recreation and park departments - should conduct a tree canopy "census" and identify opportunities for better shade-tree coverage in underserved and intensely urbanized areas. Cities should begin to require lighter materials or white roofs by amending existing building codes for new buildings and major retrofits.

3. Build communications and public warning systems for extreme events such as heat, flooding and poor air quality. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) should integrate a heat warningf heat watch system into its "Spare the Air"

More than 105 miles of the Bay Area's regional rail network are vulnerable to projected end-of-century sea level rise. program. City emergency-services departments should incorporate heat warnings and other climate change emergency information into public warning systems, such as AlertSF in San Francisco. 4. Develop robust and comprehensive "heat response plans." Emergency-services departments, in consultation with county health agencies, should ensure these plans include: establishment of cooling centers; targeted outreach to facilities serving vulnerable populations such as the elderly and young children; community engagement and education; and transportation.

6. Prepare air quality control measures to stabilize regional air quality if conditions deteriorate. The BAAQMD should develop and prioritize air quality mitigation measures that can be deployed if significant deterioration in regional air quality occurs in the future.

TRANSPORTATION Climate change will affect transportation systems at all levels including planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance. Potential economic impacts of climate change on transportation include: lost worker productivity from delays; impeded and more expensive movement of goods through ports, airports and rail systems; and increased costs of repairs and maintenance of transportation systems. Climate change could also impair the safety of travel.

5. Conduct health surveillance and monitor environmental conditions for signs of increasing health risks. The BAAQMD should review regional air-monitoring information to Ground transportation. The Bay Area contains detect any new air quality conditions, and county about half of the roads at risk of inundation in health agencies should watch for new patterns in the State of California and 60 percent of the disease or epidemics, such as Lyme disease.

Urbanist> May / June 2011 9

Pacific Institute, May 2009.

SPUR has conducted extensive work to evaluate what we need to ensure transportation viability in the event at amajor earthquake; some ot those recommendations may be consulted in the event that major corridor travel is disrupted by flooding, fire, landslides, or other extreme weather events. See "Transportation and Rebuilding," spur.org/publications/libraryl report/resilient _ city _ parl3 IJ

state's railroads at risk of a 100-year flood event.12 Approximately 99 miles of the major roads and highways in the Bay Area are vulnerable to inundation and flooding from a 16-inch rise in Bay water levels, and 186 miles of major roads and highways are vulnerable to a 55-inch rise. Major roads that could be affected include 1-880, U.S. 101, Highway 37,1-680 and Highway 12. Pavement rutting and deterioration may occur with temperature change, resulting in a greater need for road maintenance. Erosion from heavy storm activity can undermine existing roads and support structures, and eventually increase the cost of maintenance. 1-80 along the Berkeley and Albany shoreline is especially vulnerable to erosion from increased storm activity. The Bay Area regional rail network is made up of more than 600 miles of track, of which 105 miles are vulnerable to a 55-inch rise in sea levels. Passenger rail serves the major job centers in the region such as San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, and the ports in the region rely heavily on the freight rail. The increase in frequency, intensity or duration of warm weather can increase track buckling on railways, which increases repair and maintenance costs, decreases lifetime expectancy of infrastructure and causes delays in movement of goods and people. Airports. San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport could be significantly affected by sea level rise because of their low elevation. Ninety-three percent of the land they are built on is vulnerable to storm-surge inundation with a 55-inch sea level rise. The runways at SFO were built on landfill but will be protected at least through the middle of the 21st century by a partial seawall and new planned levees. Beyond mid-century, construction oflevees around the runways or new raised runway elevations may be required. Ports. The five major ports in the Bay Area Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, Redwood City and Benicia - occupy four square miles of land and handle more than 25 million metric tons of cargo a year. Twenty percent ofland within the port areas is vulnerable to a 55-inch sea level rise.

SPUR's recommendations for transportation 1. Assess regional transportation-system vulnerabilities to climate impacts. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) should begin to include in its 25-year 10 Urbanist> May !June 2011

Regional Transportation Plans (updated every four years) a vulnerability assessment of the region's transportation systems and infrastructure. 2. Design new transportation projects to be resilient to end-of-century sea level rise. Caltrans, the MTC and county congestionmanagement agencies should require sea level rise to be factored into the design of all transportation projects and major repairs in areas at risk of estimated future 100-year flood elevations, currently about 55 inches above today's sea levels. 3. Make decisions about what transportation infrastructure to protect, move, retrofit or abandon according to a clear framework ofpriorities for capital resources. The MTC and other funders' highest priorities for capital improvements, including retrofits to accommodate sea level rise, should be those vulnerable assets that are of significant regional economic value, are irreplaceable, cannot be relocated and would not otherwise be protected. 4. Create emergency transportation alternatives for corridors that may suffer from extreme events or prolonged closures.1 3 During extreme events, people may use different modes of transportation than usual. The MTC and county congestion-management agencies should identify emergency measures that can be taken to maintain mobility and safety both for short-term impacts, such as extreme weather, and in the event oflonger-term closures that may be needed due to damage or repairs.

ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY The San Francisco Bay region is one of North America's biodiversity hot spots, rich with a variety of habitats, a unique geology and the Bay itself - the second largest estuary in the country. The Bay estuary supports more than 500 wildlife species and is a key stopping point and overwintering grounds for millions of birds along the Pacific Flyway. More than half of North American avian species and nearly one third of California's plant species are found in the lands of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area alone. But increased temperatures from climate change in the Bay Area could cause a loss of species abundance and diversity. Fragile, vital wetlands in the Bay and its tributaries are threatened by sea level rise. Terrestrial ecosystems. Many landscape areas within the Bay region have temperature ranges that are larger than the projected temperature

increases from climate change. This may allow many species throughout the Bay Area to tolerate or adapt to higher temperatures. The Bay's proximity to the ocean and the continued presence of fog along the coast will likely help to mitigate temperature increases, although the impacts to fog from climate change are not well understood. Species with limited distribution, restricted range, inability to relocate or dependence on a finite physical setting, such as soil type, for their life cycle needs are most vulnerable to climate changes. Tree death rates have already more than doubled over the last few decades in oldgrowth forests of the western United States, and the most probable cause is warmer temperatures and longer summer drought periods. l1 In California, the combination of increased temperature, changing precipitation patterns and declining soil moisture is likely to shift

suitable ranges for many species to the north and to higher elevations. High-emission scenarios offuture climate change indicate overall decreases in the native biodiversity of California. Combined, the climate-driven shifts in species range, distribution and abundance could lead to a 20 to 40 percent loss of native species in California. 15 Estuarine ecosystems. In addition to providing habitat for shorebirds and other plant and animal species, wetlands provide critical flood protection by storing surface water and dissipating wave energy, simultaneously preventing shoreline erosion. Wetlands improve water quality by filtering nutrients, pollutants and particulates, and incorporating these elements in biomass or biochemical reactions. Finally, tidal wetlands sequester carbon in plants and soils, thus reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and mitigating climate change.

"Martin, G., Taking the Heat, Bay Nature, January - March, 2009.

14 Mantgem, Phillip, et ai, January 2009. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States, Science, Vol. 323 no. 5913 pp. 521-524.

Tidal wetlands, such as these in the South Bay, are both vulnerable to sea level rise and a potential solution for it. If wetlands have the space to adapt to sea level rise, they provide flood protection, improve water quality and sequester carbon dioxide - helping to stop global warming.

Urbanist> May I June 2011 11

PROJECTED TEMPERATURE RISE BY 2100 SCENARIOS

12"

Higher emissions

10 Medium-high emissions

I-

Z w cr:

it ~

Lower emissions

Vl W W

cr:

l:J w

Depending on how much we control greenhouse gas emissions, average temperatures in California will be 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher by 2100 than they are today.

16 Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. Areport of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. San Francisco, Calif./S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif, sfei.org/ nodel2123.

SPUR analysis ot data in the Pacific Institute report, 2009, page 67-69.

12 Urbanist> May / June 2011

2005-2034

2035路2064

2070-2099

RANGE IN PROJECTED TEMPERATURE RISE OVER 30-YEAR PERIODS Source: Luers, Cayan et aI., in Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, a report from the California Climate Commission and the Calfornia Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. c1imatechange.ca.gov.

Tidal marshes are the natural form of most of the Bay shoreline, but their realm has been reduced to about 8 percent oftheir historic extent due to filling, armoring and reclamation.16 Still, that 8 percent accounts for more than 90 percent of California's remaining tidal wetlands. The challenge to the Bay's wetlands from sea level rise is two-fold: (1) without room for wetlands to migrate landward with sea level rise, existing wetlands will become submerged, and (2) if there is not enough sediment available in the Bay, tidal wetlands will not be able to maintain vertical elevation as sea level rises. Modeling work evaluating the loss of tidal wetlands as a result of sea level rise indicates that San Francisco Bay could lose a significant portion of intertidal and tidal wetland areas that provide food and shelter for a myriad of shorebirds.

There are 417 square miles of Bay and coastal wetlands in the nine-county Bay Area today, and there are only about 57 square miles of dry land area that are viable - i.e., not developed with buildings, infrastructure or agriculture - for wetlands to migrate toP The California Coastal Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and others should evaluate the vulnerability of existing areas of tidal wetlands in the Bay and on the coast, and should map their natural landward migratory paths under expected amounts of sea level rise. Wherever pathways are identified into areas that are vacant or underdeveloped and have the potential for substantial wetland restoration, the pathways should not be converted to land uses that would impede migration. 2. Prioritize land protection, conservation and restoration efforts in areas with SPUR's recommendations for significant topographical relief, such as in ecosystems and biodiversity the coastal range. Areas that possess a range of elevations within a small geographic area 1. Protect viable migratory paths for wetlands. Wetland species will need to gradually generally have more biodiversity to begin with. Protecting gradients in the landscape will allow move landward as lower areas are inundated. species to migrate or seek refuge from hotter, Protecting viable migratory pathways is essential drier conditions. to the survivability of these at-risk ecosystems, 3. Prioritize protection ofhabitat linkages which provide nUllleruu~ ~ut:iuet:unumit:benefits. connecting large natural areas in the greater

Bay Area. Identification and protection of wildlife corridors will allow plants and wildlife to migrate northward to higher elevations or toward the coast as temperatures increase. 4. Update the Baylands Habitat Goals Project to include sea level rise projections. The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project is a multiagency effort to identify what kinds and amounts of wetland habitats around the Bay should be restored to sustain diverse wildlife. Established in 1999, the goals did not account for future changes in the rate of sea level rise. 5. Develop a regional sedimentmanagement strategy that could help wetlands adapt to sea level rise. Sediment supply is necessary for wetlands to "keep up" with sea level rise, but it is threatened by dikes and dams upstream in the Bay's watershed.

ENERGY California's energy system is vulnerable to climate change in four principal ways: • warmer temperatures and severe storms could reduce electric-grid reliaLiliLy;

• energy demand, particularly for cooling, may dramatically increase; • changing precipitation patterns could affect hydroelectricity supplies; • sea level rise and increased storm surges could potentially affect energy infrastructure. Electric-grid reliability. While the Bay Area may not experience the same severity or frequency of major heat waves as other areas in California, all parts of the state are linked through the electric grid. If other regions endure a severe heat wave with extreme increases in electricity demand for cooling, the Bay Area's electric reliability may be more vulnerable. Warmer nights could also lead to the breakdown of key electrical equipment that relies on cooler evening temperatures to operate efficiently. Higher temperatures also decrease the efficiency offossil fuel-burning power plants, some types of renewable power plants such as solar photovoltaic, and energy transmission lines, thus requiring either increased production or improvements in the efficiency of power Warmer temperatures over a large area of California could reduce electric-grid reliability by causing equipment to fail and the efficiency of some power plants to decrease.

Urbanist> May !June 20ll 13

generation and transmission. Currently many Bay Area communities suffer power outages during extreme winter weather events, through either downed power lines or flooded infrastructure. This could increase if extreme weather events increase in frequency or magnitude under climate change. Increases in energy demand. As temperatures in California are expected to increase more in summer than in winter, buildings in general will exhibit higher demand for summertime cooling. This demand for cooling will rise at the same time of day as higher temperatures threaten important electrical infrastructure, straining local and statewide electric grids. As energy demand increases, and electric grids become more vulnerable, local on-demand "peaker" power plants and backup generators may be switched on, increasing both greenhouse-gas emissions and localized air pollution. Hydroelectricity. Climate scientists predict that climate change will result in significant reductions in snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This impact could, in turn, affect utilities' hydroelectric generation. This is especially important to utilities in the Bay Area such as PG&E, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Alameda Municipal Power and City of Palo Alto Utilities, which each obtain at least 10 percent of their electricity from hydroelectricity. In the long term, or in the case of several successive dry years that create drought conditions, reservoir levels can be reduced to levels lower than those required for hydroelectric power generation. The recent drought in California illustrates the possible negative consequences of climate change on hydroelectricity. For example, from 2006 (a wetter than average year) to 2007 (a drier than average year), PG&E's hydroelectric generation dropped from 22 to 13 percent of its delivery mix. If Bay Area utilities' future hydroelectric generation is reduced, that supply might be generated instead by natural gas-fired power plants, which would increase greenhouse-gas emissions and other pollutants. Sea level rise and energy infrastructure. Projected sea level rise along California's coast may result in higher flooding potential of coastal energy infrastructure, such as natural gas pipelines and compressor stations, electrical substations, electric transmission lines and lJuwer plants.

14 Urbanist> May I June 20tl

SPUR's recommendations for energy 1. Conduct a vulnerability assessment ofenergy-system assets at risk of climate impacts. All energy utilities should conduct vulnerability assessments of energy-system assets at risk of climate impacts, and over time should improve the reliability of energy infrastructure and equipment that is identified as most likely to fail during extreme events, in balance with cost, safety and other factors. 2. Develop plans to close the electricitysupply gap under conditions where hydroelectric resources are diminished or nonexistent. PG&E, the SFPUC and other utilities that rely on hydroelectricity should develop plans for coping with diminished resources. The plans should identify ways to make up the difference through energy efficiency and demand response first, renewable resources and distributed generation second, and clean and efficient fossil fuel generation third, in keeping with the California Energy Action Plan "loading order." 3. Evaluate existing energy-efficiency and demand-response programs for their effectiveness at shaving peak electricity demand in more frequent and prolonged hot weather. PG&E and local government energy programs funded by ratepayers are both responsible for executing and ensuring the effectiveness of these programs. These programs must consider longer and more frequent hot-weather periods. Two promising strategies for improving demand response and load management in extreme weather are smart meters and a smart grid. 4. Replace or retrofit the building stock over time with resource-efficient, climateadaptive buildings. Codes covering new buildings and major retrofits should encourage designs that make buildings more resilient to energy-supply interruptions and droughts, employing technologies such as passive heating and cooling, daylighting, graywater reuse, water recycling, distributed generation and more.

WATER MANAGEMENT For more than a century, water development and management has been one of the most enduring and complex policy issues in the West. Monumental investments in infrastructure built to move water around California - particularly from north to south and east to west - have enabled the state's agriculture sector to grow

and cities to exist in Southern California and the Bay Area. Even in the absence of climate change, demands on limited water resources by every sector have caused environmental damage and are the subject of ongoing conflict, problems that will only grow as the state's population increases by more than 50 percent by midcentury. Climate change will not only exacerbate the challenge of meeting demand, but it directly threatens the viability of water infrastructure through extreme events and sea level rise. Climate change adaptation planning is part of the job that regional water utilities do already. They are required to file five-year urban water management plans, detailing how they will ensure that supply meets projected demand. Recent state legislation (from 2008) requires even greater water conservation efforts: a 20 percent reduction in per capita urban water use by 2020. In part, this helps the state deal with the existing challenge of water scarcity, but it also builds resilience for loss in snowpack, longterm drought and other water-cycle changes that will be exacerbated by climate change.

Water utilities serving the Bay Area, including the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, have undertaken water supply modeling to understand shifts in the quantity and timing of runoff that may occur due to climate change. EBMUD and the SFPUC have found that because of the high altitude and capacity of their storage reservoirs, along with other factors, climate change may not significantly affect water deliveries through about 2020 to 2030. San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy watershed is somewhat protected by its high elevation, where the magnitude of predicted changes in snowpack and melt through 2030 is within the range of existing runoff patterns. However, in projecting these and future changes, the utilities are in the process of factoring in net changes in precipitation, the impact of which may be much more significant by mid-century and beyond. While Bay Area water customers are lucky to have water supplies not immediately threatened by climate change, this security is relative and may be short-tprm.

By the end of this century, as little as 20 percent of the Sierra snow pack may exist under hotter, drier conditions caused by climate change.

PROJECTED DECREASES IN CALIFORNIA'S APRIL SNOWPACK (1961-1990)

(2070-2099) Scenario 1:

(2070-2099) Scenario 2:

Historical average

Lower warming range 40% remaining

Medium warming range 20% remaining

-0 in.

====~---

April 1 snow water equivalent Source: Cayan et aI., 2006, in California Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2009, p. 80.

Urbanist> May !June 2011

SPUR's recommendations for water SEA LEVEL RISE management Some aspects of climate change adaptation

" See spur.org/publications/library/reportl sealevel rise _ 110109

The costs of flood protection vary by strategy. Generally, seawalls and levees bring additional costs, such as increasing erosion and removing habitat, while wetlands bring numerous additional benefits, including enhancing habitat and sequestering carbon.

1. Develop water-supply scenarios for midcentury and beyond that include assumptions about changes (especially decreases) in precipitation amounts and timing. Bay Area water-supply agencies should plan for long-term climate change through the middle and end of the 21st century. 2. Evaluate alternative water-supply opportunities and demand-management strategies such as water conservation, water recycling and desalination, and prioritize investment in these strategies according to cost, reliability and environmental benefits. Bay Area water-supply agencies should evaluate and pursue strategies to increase local and drought-proof supplies in their portfolios. 3. Expand investments in "green infrastructure" or low-impact development. Wastewater agencies, sometimes in collaboration with water-supply agencies, should model a range of future storm intensities and prioritize investments to attenuate flood peak flows, increase groundwater recharge and reduce urban heat islands. Areas that are at high risk of urban storm-water flooding, or are contributory to such areas, should be targeted first. 4. Evaluate the vulnerability of wastewater collection and treatment systems to severe storms, sea level rise and storm surge. Where possible, wastewater agencies should retrofit ocean and Bay outfalls with backflow prevention as an interim measure. Agencies may need to create new design standards for infrastructure that accommodate larger storm sizes and more frequent storm surges.

TABLE 1: THE COSTS OF FLOOD PROTECTION IN THE BAY AREA TYPE OF PROTECTION

RANGE OF COSTS (IN YEAR 2000 DOLLARS), FROM BAY AREA PROJECTS

MAINTENANCE COSTS

New levee

$725-$2,228 per linear foot

10% annually

Raised/upgraded levee

$223-$1,085 per linear foot

10% annually

New seawall

$2,646-$6,173 per linear foot

1-4% annually

Restored tidal marsh

$5,000-$200,000 per acre

unknown

Source: Heberger, M. et al. of the Pacific Institute, "The Impacts of Sea-level Rise on the California Coast," May 2009, www.pacinsl.org/reports/sea _ level _ rise/reporl.pdf

16 Urbanist> May !June 2011

planning are going to be easier to manage than others. In part, this is because certain institutions with climate vulnerabilities, such as water agencies and public health departments, are well positioned to monitor and adapt to new threats - and these activities are part of the job they do already. In the Bay Area, sea level rise is by far the most difficult climate adaptation challenge we will face. There is no precedent for governing it, yet it stands to dramatically transform the region's relationship with its most defining geographic feature. Design strategies for sea level rise. There are many planning and design strategies that could be used to mitigate sea level rise along the shoreline, including coastal armoring, elevated development and wetlands restoration. (SPUR has written an extensive analysis of strategies for the Bay Area; see our report "Strategies for managing sea level rise."'B) Some of these strategies could be deployed more regionally, while some could be permitted locally as a way to increase resilience in certain shoreline areas. Many other recent reports, especially BCDC's "Living with a Rising Bay" and the Pacific Institute's report on the vulnerability of the California coastline, have included detailed information on coastal and Bay vulnerabilities, possible protection strategies, the range and models used to determine expected sea level rise and more. Financing and governance. In the Bay Area, two special-purpose government agencies have jurisdiction over the water that surrounds us: the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California Coastal Commission. These agencies have severely limited authority to implement strategic decisions about adapting to sea level rise. For example, BCDC's shoreline jurisdiction to regulate development only extends to 100 feet upland from the Bay. In many places, 100 feet inland is well within the elevation that will be flooded by a sea level rise of 55 inches. Along the ocean coastline, the California Coastal Commission shares responsibility for developing coastal plans with 60 cities and 15 counties. Local coastal plans (LCPs) set ground rules for the location and type ofland uses that can take place in the coastal zone, as described by law. About 90 percent of the state's coastal zone falls into an LCP. However, most of these

PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE BY 2100 70

in.

SCENARIOS

Range of uncertainty -

60 0 0 0

Higher emissions 50

Medium·high emissions

Lower emissions

Sea level rise is increasing at such a rapid rate that we are likely to experience a baseline increase of 55 inches by 2100, though it could be worse if large landbased ice sheets, such as in Antarctica and Greenland, melt faster than we expect.

--' UJ

0::

--' UJ

> UJ

--'

UJ Vl

:2: --' « a:>

9 ~

10 0

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

Source: State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document, October 2010. slc.ca.gov/Sea _ Level_ Rise/index. html

plans were developed in the 1980s, before sea maps should be prepared under the direction of a level rise became a well-known concern, and coastal engineer and updated every five years. there is no legal requirement for them to be 2. Revise the Safety Element within updated. General Plans to include policies relating to climate change hazards, including sea level Local governments do all of the planning and most of the permitting in areas that are at risk rise. Safety Elements of city and county General Plans describe seismic, flooding, fire and other from sea level rise, erosion and storm surge, but they need resources or decision tools for hazards, and planned approaches to reducing determining what to protect and where. SPUR's their potential damage. Local governments recommendations suggest a path forward for should update their Safety Elements to include how regional agencies and local governments can a new section on climate change impacts, begin the process of real planning for sea level using information revealed in shoreline risk rise. assessments, coastal inundation maps and other sources. SPUR's recommendations for sea 3. Do not permit new development in level rise planning areas identified by local risk assessment and 1. Undertake a shoreline risk assessment inundation maps as vulnerable to projected and prepare coastal inundation maps. end-of-century sea level rise, unless certain Planning departments, in consultation with criteria are met. BCDC, planning departments, BCDC, the Coastal Commission and the Federal redevelopment agencies and other local agencies Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within their areas ofjurisdiction should only permit new development in vulnerable areas should prepare maps based on the estimated 100-year flood elevations that take into account when it is either small, a park or restoration the best available scientific estimates of future project, critical infrastructure, an infill project, sea level rise (currently about 55 inches) and within a Priority Development Area or when it current or planned flood protection. Inundation can demonstrate the protection of public safety

Urbanist> May !June 2011 17

Planning for sea level rise on the ocean coastline Planning for sea level rise means something very different on the ocean coast than on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. These areas differ in several key respects, including physical conditions and hazards, settlement patterns, and regulatory frameworks. Physically, the ocean coast is much more rugged, and the hazards associated with sea level rise are different. Where the Bay shoreline's shallow edges are most vulnerable to inundation, the predominant hazard on the ocean coast is erosion. Waves driven by storm surges slam into beaches, bluffs and man-made structures with ferocious energy, and higher sea levels translate into higher wave runup, overtopping of defenses (like seawalls and levees) and flooding in lowlying areas. The frequency and intensity of storm surges may increase with climate change, but these impacts are even harder to predict than sea level trends. Finally, whereas in calm bay waters sea level rise tends to fill the existing contours passively, the ocean coast is shaped dynamically, as wave action both erodes and builds up sand and sediment. The ocean coastline is also more sparsely settled than the Bay shoreline, especially in Marin and San Mateo counties. San Francisco, of course, has fairly dense residential areas that were built right over sand dunes to the very edge of the beach, along with an important complex of wastewater infrastructure that is increasingly threatened by erosion. Through the Ocean Beach Master Plan (spur.orgloceanbeach), SPU R is working to evaluate sea level management strategies for an intensely developed stretch of ocean coast.

development be constructed to remain viable under future sea level rise, such as through elevated pathways. 7. Update local coastal plans every five years. The California Legislature should amend the Coastal Act to require updates to Local Coastal Plans every five years, and local governments should specifically denote climate change hazards of sea level rise, erosion and wildfire. 8. Include projected sea level rise scenarios in National Flood Insurance Program rate maps to help participating communities understand future risks of developing in low-elevation coastal areas. The National Flood Insurance Program, within FEMA, maps flood-hazard areas and offers flood insurance to property owners within communities that adopt flood-protective building codes and other measures. While attempting to reduce risk, this practice can also increase it by encouraging building in areas that will only become more vulnerable in the future. The NFIP should also make federal flood insurance availability and pricing more actuarially and risk-based to reflect repetitive losses in the most hazardous areas as well as the future risk posed by sea level rise. FEMA should also include projected sea level rise scenarios in its flood hazard maps.

CONCLUSION under projected end-of-century sea levels. 4. Develop sea level rise flood-protection plans. Existing development generally should be protected from flooding as long as the costs of publicly financed protection do not significantly exceed the costs of managed retreat to invulnerable areas through such tools as voluntary buyouts, purchasing development rights or rolling easements. 5. Formulate a cross-agency regional sea level rise adaptation strategy to prioritize flood-protection resources, and include it in the Senate Bill 375-required Sustainable Communities Strategy. The MTC and ABAG, in collaboration with the Joint Policy Committee, BCDC, other regional, state and federal agencies, and local governments, should identify financial and engineering strategies to protect regionally significant infrastructure, Priority Development Areas and other infilllocations, and to protect the ecological health of the Bay. 6. Require that public access to the Bay be viable for the long term. BCDC should require that public Bay access that is a condition of new

1B Urbanist> May /June 2011

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges the world has ever faced. At once, we need to begin reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to stave off its worst effects. But we also need a plan to respond, because some climate change will occur regardless, as the result of historic and ongoing emissions. Climate change adaptation will need to be dealt with at all levels of government. Yet it is at the local and regional levels where vulnerability can best be understood and addressed. In the Bay Area, we are lucky to have institutions that are increasingly aware of these vulnerabilities and are beginning to plan ahead. But there is much more we need to do within specific areas of planning and governance to consider long-term impacts and, as much as possible, prevent foreseeable damage, loss and misery. Local government agencies in particular need a starting place. This SPUR report looks across planning areas to provide just that.â&#x20AC;˘

Read our complete report at spur.org/adaptation

A SPUR benefit

Dine + Discover is an opportunity for us to celebrate the city we love and support SPUR as one of the city's most valuable organizations. This year we bring the event to Mission Bay, home of UCSF, the Giants, Salesforce and the city's emerging biotech cluster. The Mission Creek Park Pavilion will provide a beautiful backdrop as we dine on cuisine from A <;p.lp.c:t group of locally celebrated chefs.

Thursday June 16, 2011 6 -10 PM

Mission Creek Park Pavilion

spur.org/discover

SPONSORED TICKETS AVAILABLE NOW! Individual tickets $250 on sale May 2 spur.org/discover

More information available at 415-644-4288 or events@spur.org

Save the Date

The SPUR Member Party is where all spheres of SPUR membership meet, mingle and celebrate city life. The SPUR Urban Center transforms into three themed floors, extending onto neighboring Annie Alley for a street party filled with music and festive libations. This event is not to be missed - last year it drew over 1,500 peoplel

spur.org/memberparty

SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE! Tickets start at $20 (sliding scale/members only) on sale May 30

More information available at 415-644-4288 or events@spur.org

Urbanist> May !June 2011 19

URBAN

Five parking garages: an urbanist's reluctant crush

FIELD NOTES An additive archive of cultural landscapes and observations compiled by SPUR members and friends. Send your ideas to Urban Field Notes editor Ruth Keffer at editor@spur.org.

Urban designers, as a rule, are not big fans of the automobile. I think it's fair to say that rage at the depredations of cars and their accessories ranks up there with love for volumetric enclosure and street trees among the discipline's articles of faith. But of course, violating articles of faith is one of life's great pleasures. To that end, here are some of my favorite parking garages. In the 1950s, accommodating cars in the city was considered a pressing challenge - a means of saving the city from suburbanization. That idea - analogous in its way to the pressing challenge of reclaiming the city from cars today - drew some of the best and brightest designers and engineers, who built garages that were optimistic, ambitious and formally bold, if not exactly friendly. Modernist garages have no interest in hiding away or apologizing: they are sculptural monuments to the futu re. Later garages were guilty affairs, as urban designers wisely encouraged them to "blend in" or "minimize their impacts" on surrounding urban fabrics. Garages became a necessary evil, far superior to surface parking in terms of both urban form and efficiency, and pricing could be managed to serve planning goals: Shopping? Okay, three hours is a bargain. Commuting? This may sting a little.... More recently, the pendulum has swung back toward more formal ambition, but (one hopes) with the lessons of context and human scale still internalized. If we're going to build housing for cars, let's first do no harm. Then, strive to make things of beauty. Benjamin Grant is an urban designer, writer and curator, and SPUR's public realm and urban design program manager. He teaches urban design at San Jose State University and is the co-founder of city Ispace. He is currently leading SPUR's development of amulti-agency master plan for Ocean Beach.

Caseworker: Benjamin Grant

CASE STUDY #38

City Center Garage at O'Farrell and Mason. A MACHINE FOR PARKING IN, designed by George Applegarth in 1954, set the standard for urban parking and was widely praised.

Polk and Bush. This 1990s wallflower by Gordon Chong is among the best of the unobtrusive school, though design snobs will scoff at its mimicry of surrounding buildings. It is solidly built and gets the urbanism right: Polk Street retail is carried right through the ground floor with an assist from the topography. Vehicle access is discreetly tllr.ked away.

'---------------------------------------'ÂŤ' 20 Urbanist> May / June 2011

Mission Bay Block 27. One of the most exciting fa<;ades on any local building in recent decades belongs to this 2009 garage by WRNS Architects. A return to the sculptural ambitions of the 20th century, with a modicum of sensitivity to the area's emerging fabric. Not everything works, but the signature move is stunning.

Oakland's Alcopark (Alameda County Parking Garage). This garage is nine circular levels of midcentury bombast (also probably by Applegarth) near the county

.".,\

courthouse, crowned (of course) by a heliport l

, fJ)" " "

Fourth and San Fernando streets in downtown San Jose. This early 21st century garage really nails the urbanism, but in a slightly less hokey architectural idiom. Generous ground-floor retail and well-placed pedestrian access through glass elevators and sculptural stairs reflect a lot of attention to urban design.

Urbanist> May !June 2011 21

URBAN DRIFT VACANT NEW CONSTRUCTION THREATENS CHINESE ECONOMY From a Western perspective, economic growth in China often looks like a miracle without end. On an almost daily basis, media sources report one infrastructural feat after another - along with news of the country's everincreasing GOP. But the dark side of this boom is now coming to light as it becomes evident that China is sitting on a real estate bubble that will dwarf anything the world has seen to date. The New South China Mall in Dongguan, open since 2005, sits vacant save for a single toy shop that's lucky to make one sale a day. By area, it's the largest mall in the world, but it has never been able to attract tenants. Because of the Chinese government's focus on economic growth, construction continues on projects for which there is no need. An estimated 64 million new apartments sit empty because ordinary Chinese people can't afford them. Those being shut out are growing increasingly dissatisfied, and it's only a matter of time before this real estate bubble bursts. "China's ghost cities and the biggest property bubble of all time," Sarah Goodyear, Grisl.org, 3/31/20ll

INDIAN POPULATION HITS 1.2 BILLION India's latest census shows a slowing in population growth, but the country is still set to overtake China as the world's largest by 2030. Two of India's states, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, have a combined population greater than that of the United States, 22 Urbanist> May / June 20ll

and population growth over the past decade matched the entire population of Brazil. This growth slowed significantly to 17.6 percent in the past decade, and is expected to slow more as the country continues to urbanize. One major challenge to India's future is a gender disparity. With societal preference for boys leading to abortion and other illegal gender-selection methods, the country currently has 623 million males to 586 million females. Women are also discriminated against, particularly in rural areas. A bright spot in the census showed that literacy increased by a full 10 percent over the past decade. "India's population grows to 1.2 billion," Mark Magnier, The Los Angeles Times, 4/1/2011

RADIATION HAZARDS HAMPER DAMAGE EVALUATION IN JAPAN The massive 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami that devastated Japan in March caused death and destruction over a large area surrounding Sendai, approximately 140 miles north of Tokyo. The disaster destroyed coastal railroads, submerged the airport in Sendai and cut off roads throughout the region. All of this would have been devastation enough on its own, but in this case radiation from damaged nuclear reactors has made the situation even worse. Because of radiation fears, outside experts who typically travel to disaster zones are unable to help. Stephen Mahin, a structural engineering professor at University of California, Berkeley and director of the Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, found himself unable to make the trip to Sendai when the university cancelled his travel insurance. With information beginning to trickle out, estimates are showing it will take five years and hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild (not including the ongoing nuclear disaster). "Extenl of Oamage to Japan's Infrastructure Still Unclear," Henry Fountain, The New York Times,

3/24/20ll

AUSTRALIAN DRIVING ON THE DECREASE Australia is a big country with wide-open spaces and an even higher rate of car ownership than the United States. In recent years, however, funding has begun to shift to more bike, pedestrian and mass-transit improvements instead of road building. In the United States, where 80 percent of spending goes to roads and $28 billion of President Obama's stimulus package went to

city news from around the globe

shovel-ready highway projects, mass-transit funding has become a political issue with many conservatives firmly against further spending. In Australia, funding has continued in a variety of ways: The federal government now allows road construction only if it will primarily carry freight and has set aside 55 percent of each federal transportation dollar for commuter rail. Australia has also invested in Transportation Demand Management, an innovative concept that focuses on shifting transportation behavior. Educational marketing programs provide individualized information and support to drivers to help them choose another mode of transportation. Research has shown an 18 percent reduction in miles driven over three years in households that received the marketing. "Australians Have Learned to Orive Less," Randy Salzman, Miller-McCune, 3/18/20ll

SPUR Board of Directors Co-Chairs

Board Members

John Madden

Linda Jo Fitz

Ca rl Anthony

Gordon Mar

Lee Blitch

Alexa Arena

Jacinta McCann

Fred Blackwell

Chris Meany

PROGRAM COMMITTEES Ballot Analysis

Chris Block

Ezra Mersey

Emilio Cruz

Larry Burnett

Terry Micheau

David Friedman

Michaela Cassidy

Mary Murphy

Disaster Planning

Mary McCue

Madeline Chun

Jeanne Myerson

Jacinta McCann

Bill Rosetti

Michael Cohen

Brad Paul

Dick Morten

V. Fei Tsen

Charmaine Curtis

Chris Poland

Secretary

Housing

Oscar De La Torre

Byron Rhett

Ezra Mersey Lydia Tan

Kelly Dearman Shelley Doran

Victor Seeto

Treasurer

Oz Erickson

Elizabeth (Libby)

Bob Gamble

Manny Flores

Tomiquia Moss

Peter Mezey

Teresa Rea Wade Rose

Seilel

Regional Planning

Human Resources

Larry Burnett

Lydia Tan

Libby Seilel

Bob Gamble

Co-Vice Chairs

Gia Daniller-Katz

Project Review Charmaine Curtis

OPERATING COMMITTEES Audit Peter Mezey Board Development Lee Blitch Building Management Larry Burnett

Mary Beth Sanders

Business

Reuben Schwartz

Membership

Norman Fong

Chi-Hsin Shao

Immediate

Gillian Gillett

Ontario Smith

Past Co-Chair

Chris Gruwell

Bill Stotler

Andy Barnes

Anne Halsted

Stuart Sunshine

Development

Dave Hartley

Michael Teitz

Paul Okamoto

Facility Rental

Advisory

Mary Huss

James Tracy

Bry Sarte

Bill Stotler

Council

Chris Iglesias

Will Travis

Co-Chairs

Laurie Johnson

Steve Vettel

Michael Alexander

Ken Kirkey

Debra Walker

Paul Sedway

Florence Kong

Cynthia Wilusz-

Dick Lonergan Ellen Lou Janis Mackenzie

Welcome to our new members!

Chairs and committees

Lovell CindyWu

Sustainable

Tom Hart Terry Micheau

Transportation

Executive

Emilio Cruz

Andy Barnes

Anthony Bruzzone

Linda Jo Fitz

TASK FORCES

Finance

Climate Adaptation Will Travis

Bob Gamble

Individual Membership Bill Stotler Investment Ann Lazarus Major Donors Linda Jo Fitz Anne Halsted Planned Giving Michaela Cassidy Silver SPUR Dave Hartley Teresa Rea

Heather Nuanes Michelle Bennett Calla Rose Ostrander Terry Bergeson Ana Sandoval Steven Bernard Robin Schidlowski Jason Bernstein Katherine Shepherd Cathy Bowers Kristina Shih Nate Boyd Matthew Smith Matthew Braughton Karen Sommerich Derek Braun Edward M. Stadum Kim Brennecke John Steuernagel Alison Brick William Syme Keith Brown Adam Tetenbaum Louisa Bukiet Rosalyn Tillery Bryan Cantwell Daniel Tsui Lowell Caulder Ann-Ariel Vecchio Chris Collins Kimberly Walz Brian Coppedge Qing Wang Robert Couly Louis Wertz Michele Dilrancia Bryce Wilson Matt Dorsey Alexis Woods Jen Dunn Nicolas Zitelli Julia Ehrman BUSINESSES Sara Erickson Backstrom McCarley Sasha Fedulow Berry & Co., LLC Steven Frisch Domus Development Christina Fukumoto Megan Gee Cindy & Kevin Hayward-Baryza Cheryl Holzmeyer Roger Hoppes Lauren Isaac Yasushi lwabuchi Don Knapp Aram Kudurshian John Loughran Kathleen McGinley Leslie L. Milloy Caroline Nowacki INOIVIOUALS

Urbanist> May / June 2011

JainS PUR tad ay!

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association

is a member-supported nonprofit organization. We rely on your support to promote good planning and good government through research, education and advocacy. Find out more at spur.org/join.

OSPUR

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING + URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

Nonprofit Grg. US Postage PAID Permit # 4118 San Francisco, CA

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

n I

» Z Q

654 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-4015 tel. 415.781.8726 fax 415.781.7291 info@spur.org www.spur.org

I -j (j)

3: m

Time-dated material

(j)

e~634-MO

-j

SPUR main number 415.781.8726

Sponsorships and Special Events Manager Kelly Hardesty x120 khardesty@spur.org

Urban Center Event Manager Sue Meylan x130 smeylan@spur.org

Accountant Terri Chang x128 tchang@spur.org

Public Programming Manager Gretchen Hilyard x122 ghilyard@spur.org

Research and Volunteer Coordinator Jordan Salinger x136 jsalinger@spur.org

Deputy Director Sarah Karlinsky x129 skarlinsky@spur.org

Publications and Communications Manager Karen Steen x1l2 ksteen@spur.org

SPUR Staff

New Exhibit

Adapt! Climate Change Hits Home May la-July 22, 2011 spur.org/exhibits

Public Programming Intern Noah Christman x122 publicprogramming@ spur.org Publications Assistant Mary Davis x126 mdavis@spur.org

Save the date!

Dine + Discover Thursday, June 16, 2011 6-10 p.m. Mission Creek Park Pavillion

Urban Center Director Diane Filippi x110 dfilippi@spur.org Public Realm and Urban Design Program Manager Benjamin Grant x1l9 bgrant@spur.org Development Assistant Liza Hadden x1l8 Ihadden@spur.org

spur.org/discover This newsletter is printed on New Leaf Reincarnation paper, 100% recycled fiber and 50% post-consumer waste.

Development Director Amie LaUerman x1l5 alalterman@spur.org Development Associate Rachel Leonard x1l6 rleonard@spur.org Administrative Director Lawrence Li x134 lIi@spur.org Good Government Policy Director Corey Marshall x125 cmarshall@spur.org Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf x1l3 gmetcalf@spur.org

Sustainable Development Policy Director Laura Tam x13? Itam@spur.org Regional Planning Director Egon Terplan x131 eterplan@spur.org Assistant to the Executive Director Jennifer Warburg xll? jwarburg@spur.org

» ;;0 m » ;;0

» ~

. .,,)