Photo: Sergio Ruiz
Meeting the challenge of sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area, where some communities are already experiencing coastal flood impacts, will require cities and counties to work together on adaptation efforts. Without coordination, a new levee, floodwall, or other project to protect one community might increase flood risk for another. Conversely, a lack of action in one jurisdiction could leave a neighboring jurisdiction vulnerable to flooding. As the impacts of sea level rise grow more severe, the Bay Area cannot afford to operate in silos.
That reality prompted Senate Bill 272. Adopt- ed in 2023, it requires Bay shoreline jurisdictions to collaboratively develop subregional sea level rise adaptation plans and to submit them to the Bay Conservation and Development Commis- sion (BCDC) by 2034. The bill expanded BCDC’s authority, allowing it to develop a vision and guidelines for sea level rise planning and to approve subregional plans. Since finalizing the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) in December 2024, BCDC has been meeting with government staff of the 51 cities and counties that touch the Bay, all of which are subject to SB 272. Many of these jurisdictions have not yet established multi-jurisdictional partnerships for sea level planning — a requirement of RSAP subregional plans. Shoreline communities are looking to existing governance models like joint powers authorities and special districts to coor- dinate planning but will also need new tools to respond to sea level rise.
Existing Subregional Sea Level Rise Governance Models
Across the Bay Area, several promising governance structures are already demonstrating how communities can work together on legally mandated subregional shoreline adaptation plans.
Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency
MODEL: JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
A joint powers authority (JPA) is a legal entity formed when two or more public agencies — such as cities, counties, or special districts —combine their powers to work toward shared goals. By design, a JPA can exercise only the powers held by its “weakest” member. These powers might include the ability to enter binding contracts, serve as lead agency for projects, levy taxes or fees, exercise eminent domain, and fund full-time staff.
A longstanding JPA focused on shoreline pro- tection and habitat restoration is the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency. Created in 1970, the agency includes the City of Hayward, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Hayward Area Recreation & Park District, and the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District. The agency coordinates planning, funding, site acquisition, and project implemen- tation. It has restored more than 3,150 acres of shoreline and has proposed a system of levees, wetland restoration efforts, and gravel beaches to protect Highway 92 and the Bay Trail.
OneShoreline
MODEL: SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT
Special districts, a hybrid state agency and JPA, are independent, special-purpose governance structures created by state legislation to perform a specific function. The San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, known as OneShoreline, is California’s first special district dedicated solely to sea level rise and flooding. Created by Assembly Bill 825 in 2019, it can enter contracts, manage funding, and coordinate technical and policy efforts across jurisdictions. Its initiatives include a countywide flood early warning system, policy guidance for zoning updates, and the Millbrae–Burlingame Shoreline Project. Funding for these initiatives comes from a variety of sources, including property taxes collected through two flood control districts that OneShoreline oversees, county grants from Measure K sales tax rev- enue, state and federal grants, and California Coastal Conservancy funds. OneShoreline is now taking a leadership role in subregional sea level rise planning under the RSAP, coordinating the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, Belmont, and San Carlos.
Oakland-Alameda Adaptation Committee
MODEL: INFORMAL PARTNERSHIP
The Oakland-Alameda Adaptation Committee (OAAC) operates under a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the City of Oakland, the City of Alameda, the Port of Oakland, Caltrans, and several community groups. MOUs provide a platform for collaboration and planning without the legal complexity of a JPA or special district. (For example, OneShoreline uses MOUs with cities to clarify roles in grant-funded projects.) As grant processes and adaptation projects have advanced, OAAC has acknowledged the limitations of its existing governance structure. Last year, it published a report exploring models that would be more effective for cross-jurisdictional collaboration. The report recommended that OAAC transition to a special purpose district, like OneShoreline, or adapt the existing responsibilities of the Alameda County Flood Control District. Like OAAC, Marin County is in its early phases of planning for sea level rise and has sponsored a collaborative research effort to define a governing body that can undertake that task.
What’s Still Missing?
JPAs, special districts, and MOUs show great promise, but the region’s overall ability to respond to sea level rise remains limited by limited authority, funding, and government staff capacity. SPUR and others are exploring three pathways to address these constraints:
1. Evaluate the benefit of further expanding the Bay Conservation and Development Commission enforcement authority in advancing the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
The RSAP guidelines are not binding, and the BCDC cannot directly enforce compliance with SB 272 beyond shoreline plan certification. Without stronger enforcement powers, subregional plans could go unimplemented or be undermined by inconsistent local actions. Local climate advocates expressed concern over BCDC’s enforcement capacity in public comments on the RSAP. During the commission hearing that approved the RSAP, commissioners also questioned BCDC’s ability to enforce the RSAP. Other commenters raised concerns that enforcement requirements might limit local flexibility. Given these conflicting opinions, examining the benefits and trade-offs of expanding BCDC’s enforcement capabilities could prove valuable.
Expanding government authority to address climate change isn’t unique to shoreline adaptation. Advocates of building decarbonization (switching from fossil fuel to electric energy in homes) are similarly calling on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to expand its responsibilities regarding enforcement, funding support for building electrification, and regional coordination. Climate governance increasingly hinges on whether existing institutions have the tools, funding, and authority to act decisively.
2. Improve on or expand existing governance models through legislation.
Existing governance models for sea level rise adaptation have their drawbacks. For example, OneShoreline does not incorporate community members into its board structure in voting or non-voting capacities (although legislation that establishes a special purpose district can allow for this structure). OAAC, an informal partnership, has broad engagement from government agencies, nonprofits, and community groups, but it has no formal structure that supports grant applications or project implementation. Subregions that are looking to implement new or strengthen existing governance structures should build on existing models by addressing their limitations through new legislation. Ideally, these new and strengthened models would incorporate improved or innovative financing tools to fund adaptation projects.
3. Explore the feasibility of creating a regional climate change agency that can coordinate and generate funding.
As BCDC has taken on a greater leadership role in sea level rise adaptation, the absence of comparable regional leadership on the Bay Area’s other climate hazards has become increasingly apparent. An existing regional agency or a new governing authority could coordinate coastal and inland flooding, wildfire, heat, and other climate adaptation needs. This regional agency or authority could also govern a regional resilience trust fund. Current funding strategies for adaptation, which are highly dependent on state and federal grants, create competition among local jurisdictions, leaving many critical projects unfunded. A regional fund could help pool resources, prioritize investments based on equity and need, and provide matching dollars for state and federal opportunities. SPUR is studying this concept, building on a recommendation from our 2020 Safety First report.
We Need More Than a Vision
While SB 272 and the RSAP provide an essential framework for collaborative sea level rise adaptation, they are only as effective as the regional and subregional governance structures and funding behind them. Regional coordination must be matched with real authority, robust financing, and bold governance models that reflect the urgency of the crisis. We already have models that work. Now, we need to scale them, strengthen them, and fill their gaps by pushing for new legislation, investing in implementation capacity, and developing innovative funding tools. We need more than a vision. We need the authority, resources, and collective will to act — urgently, equitably, and together. ✹