Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hazards And Climate Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears 2025 Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan update; staff seeks FEMA, state compliance
Summary
Office of Resilience and Capital Planning presented the 2025 Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan to the Planning Commission, highlighting grant eligibility (FEMA), state requirements (SB 379, AB 2140) and a $1.5 million Ocean Protection Council grant application to fund a two‑year subregional shoreline plan to meet SB 272.
The Planning Commission received an informational briefing on the 2025 update to San Francisco’s Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan from Office of Resilience and Capital Planning staff.
Danielle Ngoh, a senior planner with the Planning Department, introduced the item and said the update is a partnership across city departments. Melissa Higbee, Resilience Program Manager at ORCP, told commissioners the plan is a citywide action plan that identifies priority adaptation and resilience actions, helps the city remain eligible for FEMA mitigation grants, and links to state laws including SB 379 and AB 2140. “Doing this helps us comply with SB 379 and link to the safety and resilience element,” she said.
ORCP outlined the plan scope — 13 hazards, 17 objectives, and 74 actions — and emphasized the department’s leadership role on shoreline adaptation planning, including the Yosemite Slough Neighborhood Adaptation Plan and work to develop a subregional shoreline resiliency plan per SB 272. Higbee said the City will apply to the Ocean Protection Council for a $1,500,000 grant to fund a two‑year planning effort to stitch existing shoreline projects together and comply with forthcoming BCDC guidelines. Staff plans to submit the final draft to Cal OES and FEMA next month and to the Board of Supervisors in April, with adoption targeted for July 2025 to retain FEMA eligibility.
Commissioners asked about coordination with neighboring counties and agencies (e.g., Port, Army Corps, San Mateo County) and how assets like the Bay Trail and the airport will be treated under SB 272. Staff described initial outreach, interagency tables involving PUC and MTA, and noted some jurisdictional questions remain for assets such as the airport. Commissioners also pressed for more detailed cost estimates; staff noted ongoing studies (Port/Army Corps flood study) with a multi‑billion dollar scope for the port jurisdiction and said the comprehensive plan is intended to help quantify shore‑wide costs over time.
Because this is an informational presentation, no action was requested; staff indicated the public comment period is ongoing and that further presentations and grant work will follow.
