[Photo Credit: flickr user Ostrosky Photos]

We know that the climate is changing. We know that sea levels are going to rise at a faster rate in the coming decades—as much as 16 inches by mid-century—and we know that large parts of the Bay Area are going to become vulnerable to flooding in the process. (Read SPUR's papers on sea level rise here and here.) Policy failure outside our region (nationally and internationally) is making it even more important within our region to both try to stop climate change and prepare for its worst and inevitable effects. How do we do this in a way that is logical yet sustainable, that harnesses regional ingenuity and collaboration, focuses growth in the right places, and prevents as much misery as possible?

Over the last two years, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has been working on a proposal to amend its guidance document, the Bay Plan, to include new findings and policies related to climate change and sea level rise. This proposal is based on years of research by BCDC and others to try to understand and project the effects of future sea level rise on the shoreline—and what rising sea levels mean for people, property, infrastructure, and fragile Bay wetlands. (See the BCDC's report, "Living with a Rising Bay" and the Pacific Institute's "The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast.")

The latest draft of the proposal, issued in September, provides guidance on how local governments and BCDC (within its narrow jurisdiction of 100 feet inland from the shoreline), should permit projects in the future inundation zone, and what kinds of projects should be allowed at all. It proposes to initiate a years-long public process to create a regional strategy for allocating limited flood protection resources and determining where development should not occur in the future, or even be removed. BCDC has been holding an official public hearing on this topic that has remained open for months. They have received hundreds of comments and there will be more workshops and hearings over the next few months. You can find out more at the BCDC Commission meetings and through their FAQs.

SPUR has published several papers on climate change over the last few years; one creates a prioritized climate action plan for the City of San Francisco; a second paper addresses the necessity of sea level rise planning, and provides a typology of shoreline management strategies we might need to use to adapt to the changes in our region. We have an ongoing task force working to vet climate adaptation strategies for the region, including how we should deal with new threats of extreme weather and sea level rise. We have also been trying to build awareness of the need for a regional conversation around this topic through exhibits and public forums at the SPUR Urban Center.

SPUR thinks BCDC’s efforts to study and to raise awareness on sea level rise are incredibly important, and that amending the Bay Plan is a timely and logical next step. We also understand why the specifics of their draft proposal have raised concerns—from Bay restoration advocates, to local governments, to developers with sights on shoreline properties. But we think a workable solution for everyone is possible, and we suggested changes to BCDC this week in a letter and a set of line-item edits to the proposed amendments.

To summarize some of the concerns that have been raised:

• Bay environmental advocates who know that 90 percent of the Bay’s original wetlands have been destroyed want further assurances from BCDC that there will be no more inappropriate shoreline development or fill, and that opportunity sites for restoration will be saved for that purpose (helping us solve climate change, because wetlands sequester carbon).
• Developers and property owners would like the Bay Plan to guarantee that new climate change policies will not affect existing permit holders and will not conflict with the region’s new SB 375 requirements to build transit-oriented infill (which also helps us solve climate change, because people will drive less).
• Local governments would like to have a better understanding of how to permit or protect development in areas that may be inundated in the future, but want more recognition that local building officials—and not BCDC—do all the zoning and most of the permitting of new projects.

In SPUR’s view, the proposed amendments provide some fairly strong assurances to restoration advocates (that should remain strong), but inadequate assurances to property owners and developers about their future liabilities, and a confusing slate of guidance to local governments on how they should reconcile all the climate change information being handed down by regional agencies (BCDC isn’t totally responsible for this, of course, but the Bay Plan could reference some of the other efforts, and in SPUR’s version, it does). While BCDC’s attempt to solve for sea level rise, MTC’s attempt to solve for reducing personal vehicle travel, ABAG’s attempt to solve for compact land use, and BAAQMD’s attempt to solve for air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are all important, we need a fine-grained analysis to ensure that we achieve these goals in a coordinated way. We need to carefully lay out a plan for the region going forward that provides clarity, especially for local governments, and reconciles competing goals. And most importantly, we must not intentionally plan to optimize for a single issue, like sea level rise, because climate change is not the only issue facing our region in the future. We have many development and conservation goals. We don’t want to make them harder to achieve, or at worst, accidentally force more development into sprawl.

The changes SPUR suggested to BCDC this week for the Bay Plan can be summarized in five main points.  We want the Bay Plan amendments to:

1. Define “infill development” to include: underutilized land within urbanized areas that are served by existing infrastructure including transit, conversion of former military bases, adaptive reuse of existing structures, and ABAG Priority Development Areas;
2. Encourage local governments, and the Commission within its jurisdiction, to allow infill projects to proceed, and others if they have an adaptation and financial strategy, while a regional sea level rise strategy is being developed;
3. Provide formal assurances in new findings clarifying that the proposed amendments do not expand the Commission’s jurisdiction;
4. Provide assurances to give certainty to activities that may be undertaken in the future that are within the scope of an existing permit;
5. State that BCDC should work with other agencies and local governments to identify long-term regional flood protection strategies and create consistency with SB 375 sustainable communities strategies.

Overall, we at SPUR are very encouraged by our regional agencies’ efforts to solve for global warming in a world that cannot seem to enact the changes we need. We are grateful to BCDC for being a thought leader on this issue. We think it is totally possible and necessary to encourage appropriate infill development and meaningfully plan for sea level rise. We can do this at the regional scale, and we must also do it locally. And we believe that our proposed changes to the Bay Plan Amendments are an improvement on BCDC’s template, and will advance many of our region’s aspirations for the future.

Let us know what you think.

Just because you can recycle it, doesn't mean you should be using it

San Francisco is successful at many things, but there is one place where we shine above all other cities in the country – our recycling and compost programs.  San Francisco was the first major city in the U.S. to implement a citywide curbside composting program open to all residents and businesses.  Almost a decade after the program's initial roll-out, alongside an ever-expanding recycling program, San Francisco now boasts the highest waste diversion rate in the country – 77% in 2010. This whopping figure exceeded even our own goals for the year, and we’re on track to keep improving next year. (See SPUR's Urbanist article "Toward zero waste" here.) The cooperation of both Recology (San Francisco's waste management company) and the City has created a gold standard for waste management -- one that Cities around the world are eager to learn from and emulate.

SPUR toured Recycle Central last month, providing members with an insider's view of this visionary program. Recycle Central is Recology's state-of-the-art sorting facility located at Pier 96 along San Francisco's eastern waterfront.  Collection trucks endlessly file in, dumping 750 tons of their commingled recyclables on the industrial concrete floor every day.  Large bulldozers then take the recycled material and load it into machinery, which (alongside the admirably hard work of sorters) separates the material into numerous commodities. These sorted materials are then sent all around the United States and the world. Glass gets remade into bottles in the East Bay, aluminum goes by rail to Tennessee to be remade into cans, paper bales head to mills in the Northwest U.S., plastic is shipped to China. These materials are certainly put to much better use than if they had been sent to landfill.

One of the San Francisco recycling program's biggest strengths is that it accepts almost anything that could potentially be recycled. You name it: plastic clamshell take-out containers, coffee cup lids, kid's meal toys, and even CDs and DVDs (including the cases). This is all in addition to the standard items that we typically think of as recyclables: an aluminum can may be reformed many times without the addition of new materials; glass can be reformed into new glass bottles and be back on the shelf with new liquids within six weeks; markets exist for recycled paper, particularly white office paper. Recycling aluminum, glass and paper helps pay for the cost of providing San Francisco's recycling program

Towards the end of the tour while we discussed the various items that one can place in the blue bin, it became clear that Recology ironically does not want many of the materials they accept. Despite the fact that the vast majority of coffee cups and plastic toys do not get properly sorted make into people’s blue bins, these materials are extremely cheap in quality and do not make a good sell to material buyers. Essentially, nobody wants old CDs and DVDs – Recology just accepts them and tries to recycle them because doing so helps San Francisco make progress toward zero waste, a goal set by the Board of Supervisors. Recycling materials that have market value won't pay all the costs associated with collecting, sorting and shipping recyclables, but doing so helps offset some of these costs. But when we are talking about low-quality plastics, what the recycling industry calls "junk plastic," we are not talking about valued material; often the best we can hope for is a new park bench. So we as consumers should avoid purchasing or accepting junk plastic.

The point here is that just because you can recycle something, does not mean that you should be using the product.  For many materials, recycling is not the solution – the solution is avoiding using the product altogether and looking for alternatives.  Instead of a single-use coffee cup, buy a reusable stainless steel one.  Decline taking a plastic bag—which often may have a usable life measured in minutes, and cannot be recycled— and bring a tote.  I can guarantee the workers that spend upwards of five hours each day cutting away plastic bags of that gum up Recycle Central’s sorting machinery will thank you. This all makes perfect sense when you consider the mantra: "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle."  Recycling should be the last priority.  We can have the most state-of-the-art recycling system in place, but some materials are just not good, and clearly should be left out of the waste stream – especially if we would like to reach our goal of zero waste.

[Photo Credit: All photos by Colleen McHugh]

Tours are open to SPUR members only. Learn more about becoming a SPUR member.

Elections Cloud High-Speed Rail's Future, Just as New Survey Shows It's Potential: The recent wins of politicians opposed to high-speed rail funding could threaten to stall rail projects in several states such as Florida and Ohio when, only days prior, the American Public Transportation Association had released a survey showing that 62% of people would patronize high speed rail service.

Sustainable Growth Formula Eludes Many China Cities: While some Chinese cities are making strides towards sustainable development, many others are still struggling to accommodate rapid urban growth in a sustainable manner. Failure to address these issues could mean serious consequences for the country's standard of living, as well as for the environment.

Tanzania Road Plan In Serengeti Offers Prospects and Fears: The New York Times looks at a controversial proposal in Tanzania to build national a highway straight through the center of Serengeti Park, an area that currently houses one of the most spectacular and rare ecosystems left on the planet.

Will UK's Cuts Force Poor Families Out of London? With Britain's government enacting tough new policies to slash housing aid and rent subsidies, thousands of low-income families are leaving the city in search of cheaper living costs. This exodus threatens to erode London's prized "patchwork" of mixed-income and multi-cultural neighborhoods.

The Potential for Solar Power is Enormous: Greenpeace's Solar Generation 2010 report shows the tremendous potential for solar power as a source of energy that could, theoretically, power 6,000 times our global energy consumption.

Photo Credit: Colleen McHugh