[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission July 1979 as amended This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. -N - vti-. - L.a - 'I' -4 **' *1 -. . � - \42 r '-�JSJA $4 IC' ta . ( I' 5.1. /4 'A/ -''-4's': 4 a jt*-*4 �1 r j ., 5 r 4 tar. . -' . A .4 44tQ144'- 79) 4? .4.. * 'r. ' 4 - -. 1 4 f#-'42i 44 - t f444 � 4' 44*4 -6 4I r c..-r- 4 44 -" --.4 -. 7-4.. * ka - -. ' - . .. *.. - tyzr. 44.44 - Letter of Transmittal STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 30 Van Ness Avenue, Rm. 2011 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 557-3686 July 1, 1979 To The People of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission takes great pleasure and pride in presenting this second printing of the San Francisco Bay Plan. Since it was originally adopted by the Commission in 1968, the Bay Plan has served the people of the region and the state as the instrument conceived of in the McAteer-Petris Act passed by the Legislature in 1965: 'a comprehensive and enforceable plan for the conservation of the water of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline." As foreseen by the original Commission, the Bay Plan has been amended from time to time within the intent of the McAteer-Petris Act to keep pace with the needs and desires of the public through the intervening years. Nevertheless, the essential substance and character of the Plan remains useable and relevant to the present day, both as a set of policies to guide the regulatory activities of the Commission and as a plan for the long range conservation and development of the region's most valuable resource, San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. This present printing contains all of the Bay Plan map and text amendments that have been adopted by the Commission since 1969 to 1979. As further amendments may be made, the Plan volume can be converted to loose leaf form to allow the insertion of amended sections as they are issued. This will aid those who regularly refer to the Plan to keep their copies up-to-date at all times. Since BCDC as a state agency was established in 1965, countless numbers of people have given their time and energy in the continuing efforts of Bay conservation and development. We regret, in this second printing of the Bay Plan, we are not able to acknowledge, by name, all of the individuals who have served at various times as Commissioners, alternates for Commissioners, members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, Engineering Criteria Review Board, Design Review Board, members of the special study committees, consultants and staff. To all of them, and to the many interested citizens who have been supporters, critics and participants in this challenging work, a debt of gratitude is owed. Perhaps the only real reward for these efforts is to be found in the knowledge as well as the hope that San Francisco Bay and its shoreline will continue to enrich the lives of all who live in or visit the region. JOSEPH C. HOUGHTELING Chairman Table of Contents Page Commissioners and Alternates Citizens' Advisory Committee ii Design Review Board Engineering Criteria Review Board BCDC Staff Part I- Summary 1 Introduction 1 Major Conclusions and Policies 1 Major Plan Proposals 2 Carrying Out the Bay Plan 3 Conclusions 3 Definitions 2 Foundations of the Bay Plan 3 Part II- Objectives 5 .Part Ill-The Bay as a Resource: 7 Findings and Policies Fish and Wildlife 7 Water Pollution 8 Water Surface Area and Volume 8 Marshes and Mudflats 9 Smog and Weather 10 Shell Deposits 10 Fresh Water Inflow 10 Part IV-Development of the Bay and Shoreline: 13 Findings and Policies Safety of Fills 13 Dredging 15 Water-Related Industry 16 Ports 17 Airports 19 Recreation 21 Transportation 25 Salt Ponds and Other Managed Wetlands 25 Public Access 26 Appearance, Design and Scenic View 29 Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline 31 Page Part V- Carrying Out the Bay Plan 33 The San Francisco Bay Plan 33 The Commission 33 Scope of Authority 33 Area of Jurisdiction 3 Control of Filling and Dredging in the Bay 34 Developing the Bay and Shoreline to Their Highest Potential 38 Applying and Amending the Bay Plan 39 Part VI-The Bay Plan Maps 41 Plan Map I Natural Resources of the Bay Plan Map 2 Proposed Major Uses of Bay and Shoreline Plan Map 3 Richmond to Berkeley Plan Map 4 Berkeley to Oakland Plan Map 5 San Leandro, Hayward Plan Map 6 Santa Clara and Southern Alameda Counties Plan Map 7 Coyote Creek Plan Map 8 Southern San Mateo County Plan Map 9 Northern San Mateo County Plan Map 10 San Francisco and Brisbane Plan Map 1 1 Southern Marin County Plan Map 12 Western San Pablo Bay Plan Map 13 Petaluma River Plan Map 14 Napa Marshes Plan Map 15 Eastern San Pablo Bay Plan Map 16 Carquinez Strait Plan Map 17 Suisun Bay Plan Map 18 Grizzly Bay Plan Map 19 Honker Say to Collinsville Plan Map 20 Montezuma Slough Photo Credits Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Letter of Transmittal, Pages 4, 32. Rondal Partridge: Pages 34-35, 40. Richard Persoff: Page 6. Pacific Aerial Surveys: Facing Page 1 (1970 Mosaic) Page 12 (1972) Cornmmissioners Public Representatives County Representatives Joseph C. Houghteling, Chairman, (appointed by the County Board and Alternates appointed by the Governor of Supervisors) AXJ l;tern a1t e (Mrs. Hedy Boissevain, Alternate) Supervisor Richard Brann, Ily, 1979 Mrs. Dean A. Watkins, Vice Chairman, Solano County appointed by the Governor (Supervisor Larry L. Asera, (Mrs. Morse Erskine, Alternate) Alternate) Cynthia Kay, Vallejo, Supervisor Sam Chapman, appointed by the Governor Napa County (Nicholas C. Arguimbau, Alternate) (Councilwoman Dorothy Searcy, Napa, Alternate) Thomas S. Price, San Francisco, appointed by the Governor Supervisor James V. Fitzgerald, (David W. Allen, Alternate) San Mateo County (Paul M. Koenig, Alternate) Hans J. Schiller, Mill Valley, appointed by the Governor Supervisor John T. George, (Alice L. Graham, Alternate) Alameda County (William H. Fraley, Alternate) Earl P. Mills, San Francisco, appointed by the Speaker of the Supervisor John L. Molinari, Assembly (Harvey Berg, Alternate) San Francisco County (Dian Blomquist, Alternate) Elizabeth Osborn, Fremont, appointed by the Senate Rules Supervisor Tom Powers, Committee (Patricia G. Shelton, Contra Costa County Alternate) (Supervisor Nancy G. Fahden, Alternate) Supervisor Helen V. Putnam, Federal Representatives Sonoma County (Supervisor Brian Kahn, Alternate) Col. John M. Adsit, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Supervisor Denis Rice, (Lt. Col. Raymond F. Jackson, Alternate) Marin County Paul DeFalco, Jr. (Mary Ann Sears, Alternate) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Supervisor Geraldine F. Steinberg, (Clyde B. Eller, Alternate) Santa Clara County (W. Eric Carruthers, Jr., Alternate) State Representatives Roy M. Bell, City Representatives State Department of Finance (appointed by the Association of (Charles C. Harper, Alternate) Bay Area Governments) Mrs. Barbara B. Eastman, Councilman Arthur Lepore, San Francisco Bay Regional Water City of Millbrae Quality Control Board (Supervisor Louise Renne, (John Keker, Alternate) San Francisco, Alternate) Thomas R. Lammers, Councilwoman Sherry C. Levit, Business and Transportation Agency City of Belvedere (Marlowe E. Hardin, Alternate) (Councilman Fred K. Sibley, Vallejo, Alternate) Donald L. Lollock, State Resources Agency Councilman Frank Ogawa, (Eugene V. Toffoli, Alternate) City of Oakland (Mayor Val Gil, San Leandro, William F. Northrop, Alternate) State Lands Commission (Richard S. Golden, Alternate) Councilman Byron D. Sher, City of Palo Alto (Councilman Robert E. Norris, Redwood City, Alternate) Citizens' Design Engineering Advisory Review Criteria Committee Board Review Board Walter Abemathy, Mai Arbergast, Landscape Architect, Rex W. Allen, Architect Port of Oakland Berkeley (Alternate) San Francisco Mrs. Rose Beatty, Edward C. Bassett, Architect, Dr. John A. Blume, Structural Engineer, Peninsula Conservation Center San Francisco San Francisco Henry Bostwick, Jr., Robert C. Cooper, Engineer, Dr. Ray W. Clough, Jr., Chairman, San Mateo County Development Palo Alto Professor of Civil Engineering, Association Garrett Eckbo, Landscape Architect, Richard M. Boswell, San Francisco Dr. Gerald W. Clough, Soils Engineer, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association Palo Alto Stanley Gould, Architect, Robert D. Brown, Jr., San Jose Dr. Richard H. Jahns, Geologist U. S. Geological Survey Palo Alto U.S. Geological Survey William H. Liskamm, Chairman, Mrs. Ward Duffy, Chairman, Architect-Urban Planner, Raymond Lundgren, Soils Engineer, Civic Leader San Francisco San Francisco Dale H. Fearn, Jacob Robbins, Architect, Alan L. O'Neill, Engineering Geologist, San Francisco International Airport San Francisco San Francisco Mrs. Sylvia Gregory, Kenneth Simmons, Architect, John Rinne, Structural Engineer, Civic Leader Berkeley San Francisco Mrs. Esther Gulick, Dr. Robert E. Wallace, Geologist, Save San Francisco Bay Association Menlo Park John S. Harnett, A. E. Wanket, Civil Engineer, East Bay Municipal Utility District San Francisco Dr. Michael Herz, Dr. T. Leslie Youd, Soils Engineer, Oceanic Society Menlo Park Shiraz Kaderali, Pacific Gas & Electric Company William Newton, ASLA Landscape Architect Philippe Nonet, Professor of Sociology, University of California Burton Rockwell, AIA Architect Henry W. Simonsen, IT Corporation Dwight Steele, Attorney Richard Trudeau, East Bay Regional Park District ii~~~�I Michael B. Wilmar Jeffry S. Blanchfield BCDC !Staff Executive Director Chief Planner Alan R. Pendleton George E. Reed Deputy Director Senior Planner Robert B. Hickman Associate Planner E. Clement Shute Legal Advisor Suzanne M. Rogalin Assistant Attorney General Conservation and Development Analyst Margit Nickell Conservation and Development Analyst Frank R. Broadhead Staff Counsel H. Paul Cowley Junior Planner Norris H. Millikin Senior Engineer Linda Giannini Planning Secretary Kent E. Watson Bay Design Analyst/ Landscape Architect Russell A. Abramson Robert J. Batha Assistant Executive Director Assistant Planner Administration and Public Relations Steven A. McAdam Sharon Louie Enforcement Investigator Management Services Technician Nancy W. Twiss Debra Cassinelli Conservation and Development Analyst Secretary to Director Edward F. Bielski Montano Dionisio Conservation and Development Analyst Administration Accounting Clerk Myma McCullough Permits/Senior Stenographer Stephanie Tucker Permit/Enforcement Secretary Patricia McFadden Permit Secretary ~~~~~~~PA 47~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~~~ ~~~ '2'~~Iv Is~~~~~~~~~: -4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r P r Introduction 4. Justifiable Filling. Some Bay filling may be justified for purposes providing San Francisco Bay is an irreplaceable substantial public benefits ifthese same benefits could not be achieved equally Smaygift of nature that man can either abuse well without filling. Substantial public and ultimately destroy-or improve and benefits are provided by: protect for future generations. The Bay Plan presented in this report recognizes a. Developing adequate port terminals, that the Bay is a single body of water, in on a regional basis, to keep San Fran- which changes affecting one part may cisco Bay in the forefront of the world's also affect other parts, and that only on a great harbors during a period of rapid regional basis can the Bay be protected change in shipping technology. and enhanced. b. Developing adequate land for indus- The Bay can serve human needs to a tries that require access to shipping much greater degree than it does today. channels for transportation of raw The Bay can play an increasing role as a materials or manufactured products. major world port. Arounds its shores, many job-producing new industries can c. Developing new recreational oppor- be developed. And new parks, marinas, tunities-shoreline parks, marinas, fish- beaches, and fishing piers can provide ing piers, beaches, hiking and bicycling close-to-home recreation for the Bay aths and scenic drives. Area's increasing population. d. Developing expanded airport termi- But the Bay must be protected from nals and runways if regional studies needless and gradual destruction. The demonstrate that there are no feasible Bay should no longer be treated as ordi- sites for major airport development nary real estate, available to be filled with away from the Bay. sand or dirt to create new land. Rather, the Bay should be regarded as the most e. Developing new freeway routes valuable natural asset of the entire Bay (with construction on pilings, not solid region, a body of water that benefits not fill) if thorough study determines that only the residents of the Bay Area but of no f easible alternativ es are available. all California and indeed the nation. f. Developing new public access to the Implementation of the Plan presented'in f ening e li apea this report will guarantee to future gener- Bay and enhancing shoreline appear- ations their rightful heritage from the ance-over and above that provided present generation: San Francisco Bay by other Bay Plan policies--through fill- present generation: San Francisco BayinlmtetoSyraedcmril maintained and enhanced as a magnifi- ing limited to Bay-related commercial cent body of water that helps sustain the recreation and public assembly. economy of the western United States, provides great opportunities for recrea- 5. Effects of Bay Filling. Bay filling 5. Effects of Bay Filling. Bay filling tion, moderates the climate, combats air should be limited to the purposes listed polltio, norises ish nd ildfwlaf- should be limited to the purposes listed pollution, nourishes fish and wildfowl, af- above, however, because any filling is fords scenic enjoyment, and in countless harmful to the ay, and thus to present other~~ -ashlst nrc a' i harmful to the Bay, and thus to present other ways helps to enrich man's life and future generations of Bay Area resi- dents. All Bay filling has one or more of Major Conclusions and Policies the following harmful effects: From its studies of San Francisco Bay, a. Filling destroys the habitat of fish the Commission has concluded that: and wildlife. Future filling can disrupt the ecological balance in the Bay, 1. The Bay. The Bay is a single body of which has already been damaged by water, and a Bay Plan can be effectively past fills, and can endanger the very carried out only on a regional basis. existence of some species of birds and fish. The Bay, including open water, 2. Uses of the Bay. The most important mudflats, and marshlands, is a com- uses of the Bay are those providing sub- plex biological system, in which micro- stantial public benefits and treating the organisms, plants, fish, waterfowl, and Bay as a body of water, not as real es- shorebirds live in a delicate balance tate. created by nature, and in which seem- ingly minor changes, such as a new fill 3. Uses of the Shoreline. All desirable, or dredging project, may have far- or dredging project, may have far- high-priority uses of the Bay and shore- reaching and sometimes highly de- line can be fully accommodated without structiv e effects. substantial Bay filling, and without loss of large natural resource areas. But shore- line areas suitable for priority uses- b. Filling almost always increases the ports, water-related industry, airports, danger of water pollution by reducing wildlife refuges, and water-related recrea- the ability of the Bay to assimilate the tion--exist only in limited amount, and increasing quantities of liquid wastes should be reserved for these purposes. being poured into it. Filling reduces 1 both the surface area of the Bay and 7. Water Quality. Liquid wastes from the volume of water in the Bay; this many municipal, industrial, and agricul- Definitions reduces the ability of the Bay to main- tural sources are emptied into San Fran- tain adequate levels of oxygen in its cisco Bay. Because of the work now As used in this Plan, San Francisco waters, and also reduces the strength under way by the San Francisco Bay Re- Bay means all the open water and of the tides necessary to flush wastes gional Water Quality Control Board, the slough areas from the Golden Gate from the Bay. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bay- and the southern end of the Bay to Delta Water Quality Control Program, the the eastern end of Suisun Bay and c. Filling reduces the air-conditioning Bay Plan does not deal extensively with Montezuma Slough (a line between effects of the Bay and increases the the problems of pollution control. But the Stake Point and Simmons Point, danger of air pollution in the Bay Area. entire Bay Plan is founded on the belief extended northeasterly to the Reducing the open water surface over that water quality in San Francisco Bay mouth of Marshall Cut), including which cool air can move in from the can and will be maintained at levels suffi- submerged lands (which are always ocean will reduce the amount of this ciently high to permit full public enjoy- under water), tidelands (which are air reaching the Santa Clara Valley and ment and use of the Bay. covered and uncovered by the daily the Carquinez Strait in the summer- tides), and marshlands (which are and will increase the frequency and in- between mean high tide and five tensity of temperature-inversions, which 8. Fill Safety. Virtually all fills in San feet above mean sea level). trap air pollutants and thus cause an Francisco Bay are placed on top of Bay increase in smog in the Bay Area. mud. The construction of buildings on As used in this Plan, shoreline areas such fills creates a greater number of po- or shoreline lands are the uplands d. Indiscriminate filling will diminish the tential hazards to life and property, dur- bordering the Bay. scenic beauty of the Bay. ing normal settling and during earthquakes, than does construction on As used in this Plan, salt ponds are rock or on dense, hard soil deposits. areas diked off from the Bay and 6. Pressures to Fill. As the Bay Area's Adequate design measures can be taken, used for making salt by solar population increases, pressures to fill the however, to reduce these potential haz- evaporation, and managed wetlands Bay for many purposes will increase. ards to acceptable levels. are marshes diked off from the Bay New flat land will be sought for many ur- and managed as wildfowl habitat ban uses because most, if not all, of the An Engineering Criteria Review Board, (generally under the ownership of flat land in communities bordering the appointed by the Commission, consists of duck-hunting clubs.) Bay is already in use-for residences, leading geologists, soils engineers, struc- businesses, industries, airports, road- tural engineers and architects. The Board As used in this Plan, Commission ways, etc. Past diking and filling of tide- reviews projects in pending permit ap- and BCDC refer to the San lands and marshlands has already plications for the purpose of evaluating Francisco Bay Conservation and reduced the size of the Bay from about the adequacy of safety provisions and Development Commission. 680 square miles in area to little more proposed structural methods and specifi- than 400. Although some of this diked cations and, when necessary, makes rec- land remains, at least temporarily, as salt ommendations for changes. This work ponds or managed wetlands, it has nev- complements the functions of local build- ertheless been removed from the tides of ing and planning departments, none of the Bay. The Bay is particularly vulnera- which are presently staffed to provide ble to diking and filling for two reasons: soils inspections. a. The Bay is shallow. About two-thirds of it is less than 18 feet deep at low Major Plan Proposals tide; in the South Bay and in San Pablo Bay, the depth of the water two 1. Port expansion should be planned for or three miles offshore may, at low Benicia, Oakland, Redwood City, Rich- tide, be only five or six feet or even mond, and San Francisco. less. 2. Major shipping channels should be b. Ownership of the Bay is divided. Pri- deepened from the Golden Gate to the vate owners claim about 22 per cent of Delta, and to Oakland, Redwood City, the Bay (including extensive holdings Richmond, and San Francisco. in the South Bay) as a result of sales by the State government 90 or more 3. Waterfront land now used by indus- years ago. Cities and counties have re- tries that require access to deep-water ceived free grants of land from the shipping should be continued in this use, State totaling about 23 per cent of the and sufficient additional waterfront acre- Bay. The state now owns only about 50 age should be reserved for future water- per cent of the Bay, and the Federal related industry. government owns about 5 per cent. The lands that are closest to shore, 4. New shoreline parks, beaches, mari- most shallow, and thus easiest to fill nas, fishing piers, scenic drives, and hik- are held by either private owners or lo- ing or bicycling pathways should be cal governments that may wish to fill provided in many areas. The Bay and its for various purposes irrespective of the shoreline offer particularly important op- effects of filling on the Bay as a whole. portunities for recreational development in urban areas where large concentra- tions of people now live close to the wa- ter but are shut off from it. Highest 2 priority should be given to recreational BCDC, it is Federal policy to conform Foundations of the Bay Plan development in these areas, as an impor- generally to State laws and plans if they tant means of helping immediately to re- do not unduly interfere with national pur- The Bay Plan was prepared during lieve urban tensions. poses or objectives, and Federal cooper- three years of study and public ation in carrying out the Bay Plan should leliberation by the members of the 5. Airports around the Bay serve the en- be sought and expected.) For purposes ,an Francisco Bay Conservation tire Bay Area, and future airport planning of this Plan, fill is defined to include earth and Development Commission. This can be effective only on a regional basis. or any other substance or material document presents the two The Bay provides an open area for air- placed in the Bay, including piers, pilings essential parts of the Bay Plan: the craft to take off and land without having and floating structures moored in the Bay policies to guide future uses of the to fly over densely-populated areas, and for extended periods. Public hearings Bay and shoreline, and the maps this is an excellent use of the water. But must be held on all permit applications that apply these policies to the terminals and other airport facilities except those of a minor nature. present Bay and shoreline. (The Bay should be on existing land wherever fea- Plan also includes procedures for sible. Future airport development should 3. Permits for Shoreline Development. amending the policies and maps in be based on a regional airport plan, The Commission has limited jurisdiction light of changing circumstances which should be prepared as soon as over development in shoreline areas. This and new information in the future.) possible by a governmental agency with is necessary (1) to insure that prime region-wide responsibilities for transporta- shoreline sites are reserved for priority In making its study of the Bay, the tion planning. Studies leading to this air- uses-ports, water-related industry, air- BCDC had the help of numerous port plan should evaluate all reasonable ports, wildlife refuges, and water-related consultants and received extensive alternatives for meeting the Bay Area's recreation, (2) to insure that public ac- and invaluable aid from city, county, growing need for aviation facilities, and cess to the Bay is provided to the max- state and federal agencies, and from should specifically evaluate the needs of imum extent feasible, (3) to insure that if specialists on university faculties commercial, military, and general (small any saltponds or managed wetlands are and on the staffs of business plane) aviation. Airport expansion or con- proposed for development, consideration organizations. In addition, the struction on Bay fill should be permitted is given to public purchase and return of Commission was assisted by an only if no feasible alternatives are avail- these areas to the Bay, or alternatively, Advisory Committee, whose 19 able. that any development is in accordance members contributed greatly in the with the guidelines recommended in the review of the Commission's work. 6. Prime wildlife refuges in diked-off Bay Plan, (4) to insure that shoreline areas around the Bay should be main- areas not needed for priority uses are The Commission's study resulted in tained and several major additions developed in ways that do not preclude the publication of 23 volumes of should be made to the existing refuge public access to the Bay, and (5) to en- technical reports. Summaries of the system. courage attractive design of shoreline de- studies are printed as a supplement velopment. The Commission's jurisdiction 'o this plan, and the detailed reports 7. Private investment in shoreline devel- in shoreline areas, as defined in the are available for reference in opment should be vigorously en- McAteer-Petris Act, is limited to a band numerous public libraries and in the couraged. For example, shoreline areas measured 100 feet landward of and par- offices of the Commission. can be developed in many places for at- allel to the shoreline of the Bay. tractive, water-oriented housing. Also printed as a supplement to the Plan is an analysis of the hazards of :building on filled land (hazards buid aing o n filled land (hazards Carrying out the Bay Plan Conclusion during normal settling of fills and � urinq earthquakes), and of the du ring earthquakes), and of the 1. General. As required by the McA- The Bay is a single physical mechanism engineering steps necessary to teer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay in which actions affecting one part may reduce these risks to acceptable reduce these risks to acceptable Plan was submitted to the Legislature also affect other parts. The Bay Plan pro- limits. This supplementary report limits. This supplementary report and the Governor of California in 1969. vides a formula for developing the Bay was prepared by a Board of Consultants appointed by the BCDC During the legislative session that year and shoreline to their highest potential, C consultantsappointe d b the Brevisions were enacted into the McAteer- while protecting the Bay as an irreplace- and consisting of some of the Bay Petris Act designating the San Francisco able natural resource. Area's leading geologists, Area's lading gelogistsBay Conservation and Development structural engineers, architects, and Bay Conservation and Development structural engineers, arhtctsCommission as the permanent agency re- The San Francisco Bay Conservation and civil engineers specializing In soil sponsible for carrying out the Bay Plan. Development Commission is the agency ~~~mechanics. ~The 1969 revisions to the Act further designated to carry out the Bay Plan. specified the area and scope of the Com- mission's authority and established the permit system for the regulation of the Bay and shoreline. 2. Permits for Bay Filling and Dredging. The Commission is empowered to grant or deny permits for all Bay filling or dredging in accordance with the provi- sions of the McAteer-Petris Act and the standards in the Bay Plan. Any public agency or owner of privately-held Bay property is required to obtain a permit before proceeding with fill or dredging. (Although Federal agencies would not le- gally be subject to the jurisdiction of the -a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S Z. -Z'.� r ~~~~~~~ 7 - -~~~~~~~~~~~~'. y -4 4 1: two~~~~~~ tt -. -r ~ ~pj~;tY~~NM Bids;~# a -,' c - "7-'3 Pallrbetiv II Protect the Bay as a great natural re- Objectives source for the benefit of present and future generations. Objective 2 Develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. a "k? ' - C',.. -4. to... . . - I..... - .-- - .44 V -A'-' '-� . - t'.."P' .4 / I . v.. . - '' -% r-.t4$ 3.., - .5- *ys. - r'ts r4g*%CV3&4 4.nttr.,.*x'm.4. q$44 5., .5 4.. Cs o t is .1 11 I ' 1' ' . 4. - 1 5 w %j /1 \ . is :o$5h'f' 1,) *; F *' -r it t . S 44 1, P 4 jI lb 4 �4 A 4. i& r 5� Vi 4 K <- - ___ 5' 5' A.*)' f '% -V-4..-- .0 t- - V . . 5, - . . - I waflrn -' Part ~~~~ ~~~~III Fish and ~~surface area of the Bay, and adequate ~Part III ~~~Fish and fresh water inflow into the Bay should be maintained. The Bay as a Wildlifemanied ~~~~~~~~~~~~The Bay as a Wildlife 2. Specific habitats that are needed to prevent the extinction of any species, or ':lesou rce: to maintain or increase any species that F n i g nFindings and policies concerning would provide substantial public benefits, Findings and Fish and Wildlife In the Bay should be protected, whether in the Bay Fish and Wildlife in the Bay or on the shoreline behind dikes. Such areas on the shoreline are designated as ~Policies Findings Wildlife Areas on the Plan maps. a. San Francisco Bay is by far the larg- est estuary along California's long coast- line. It is an essential resting place, feeding area, and wintering ground for millions of birds on the Pacific Flyway from Canada to Mexico. Nearly one hun- dred species of fish are also supported by the estuarine environment that in- cludes marshlands, mudflats, salt produc- tion lands, and open water. b. Human benefit from the fish and wild- life of the Bay includes food, economic gain, recreation, scientific research, edu- cation, and an environment for living. No comprehensive estimate of the value of fish and wildlife for these purposes is available, but such value can only in- crease unless man diminishes the Bay. In future decades the Bay may become of inestimable additional value as a fish and marine plant "farm," augmenting the na- tion's and the world's food resources for a rapidly-growing population. c. Maintaining fish and wildlife depends upon availability of: (1) sufficient oxygen in the Bay waters, (2) adequate amounts of the proper foods, (3) sufficient shelter space, and (4) proper temperature, salt content, and velocity of the water. Re- quirements vary according to the species of fish and wildlife. Maintenance of these habitat requirements is essential to insure for present and future generations of Californians the benefit of fish and wildlife in the Bay. The key elements of the Bay fish and wildlife habitat are: marshes and mudflats, total water volume and total surface area of the Bay, good water cir- culation, and some fresh water inflow. d. Plan Map 1, Natural Resources of the Bay, indicates the shoreline areas of greatest value for shore birds and water fowl. All parts of San Francisco Bay are assumed to be important for the per- petuation of fish and other marine life be- cause any reduction of habitat reduces the marine population in some measure. Policies 1. The benefits of fish and wildlife in the Bay should be insured for present and future generations of Californians. There- fore, to the greatest extent feasible, the remaining marshes and mudflats around the Bay, the remaining water volume and '7 e. Several governmental programs are Water now seeking to determine the best meth- Water Surface ods of controlling water quality and pre-a a EEliution~~ ~venting water pollution in the Bay. The Are d ~~~~Pollution ~ San Francisco Bay Regional Water Qual- ity Control Board has set water quality Vol limits and time schedules for treatment Volume Findings and policies concerning facilities, so as to protect and enhance designated beneficial water uses of the Water Pollution in the Bay Bay. The State's Bay-Delta Water Quality Findings and policies concerning Control Program presented in 1969 its Water Surface Area and Volume Findings long-range plan for preventing Bay pollu- tion. And the State Water Resources a. San Francisco Bay receives a variety Control Board is studying the California Findings of municipal, industrial, and agricultural laws on water quality control to deter- wastes from sources throughout its tribu- mine whether they should be strength- a. Dissolved oxygen is needed to sup- tary drainage area. Pollution occurs when ened. port marine life and to help break down waste discharges cause water quality pollutants in the water. The amount of conditions that damage or destroy varied Policies oxygen in the Bay is largely determined uses of the Bay. Such conditions can re- by the surface area of the Bay because suit from toxic (poisonous) substances, 1. To the greatest extent feasible, the re- primary sources of oxygen are: (1) from residues that unduly stimulate or- maining marshes and mudflats around churning waves that trap oxygen from the ganic growth in the Bay, and from sew- the Bay, the remaining water volume and air, (2) the water surface, which absorbs age that consumes oxygen in the water surface area of the Bay, and fresh water oxygen from the air, and (3) the ex- as it disintegrates. Polluted waters may inflow into the Bay should be maintained, posed mudflats, which both produce and be unsafe for human contact or use, of- absorb oxygen while the tide is out and fensive to the senses, damaging or lethal 2. Water quality in all parts of the Bay transfer it to the water when the tide to marine life, and even unsuitable for in- should be sufficiently high to permit water comes in. dustrial use. contact sports and to provide a suitable habitat for all indigenous and desirable b. Water circulation might be greatly im- b. Compared to rivers and estuaries in forms of aquatic life. It is assumed that proved by some of the major barrier other parts of the country, San Francisco this will be achieved, in time, as the re- proposals that have been made for the Bay is relatively unpolluted. In recent suit of measures taken in response to re- Bay. But barriers affect-for better or for years, extensive improvements in the quirements and enforcement proceedings worse-the appearance and ecology of treatment of industrial and municipal of the Regional Water Quality Control the Bay, sedimentation, flood control, and wastes have greatly reduced the pollution Board, and measures resulting from cur- existing and proposed uses of the shores that once existed in the Bay. But some rent governmental studies. (Because of of the Bay. They are also very costly. For parts, especially in the South Bay, are the work of these agencies, this Commis- all barrier proposals fully evaluated thus still polluted at certain times of the year. sion has not dealt extensively with the far, disadvantages outweigh advantages. As long as the Bay continues to receive problem of pollution control. But the en- wastes from an expanding population tire Bay Plan is founded on the belief that c. About 40 percent of the origina l s ur- and industry, there must be constant im- water quality in San Francisco Bay can face area of the Bay has been diked off provement in waste management to up- and or filled in since 1850. Because this has management will be maintained at levels sufficient- grade presently polluted areas and ly high to permit full public enjoyment involved some of the m os t effective prevent pollution problems in the future. and use of the Bay.) oxygenation areas, t he ability of the Bay to take up oxygen has been sharply re- c. While waste disposal poses a continu- 3. The water quality laws and practices duced. ing threat to water quality in the Bay, this should insure that no project is built with- use of Bay waters will continue for some in the watershed of San Francisco Bay d. The dissolved oxygen that is absorbed time. Pollution of Bay waters from these unless its liquid wastes will be treated, on at the Bay surface or from the mudflats wastes can be prevented by: (1) trans- the premises or in a public treatment must be transmitted to the deeper waters porting waste directly to the ocean (but plant having sufficient capacity, so that by mixing of the water. The necessary without allowing waste discharges to the effluent would not cause delay in mixing is accomplished by tidal inter- damage the ocean's marine life); (2) compliance with applicable water quality change, by fresh water inflow from tribu- prohibiting the discharge into the Bay of standards anywhere in the Bay. taries, and by circulation resulting from toxic wastes (poisons) that do not break wind action upon the surface of the Bay. down; (3) adequate treatment of wastes The strength of tidal flow and water circu- before discharge into the Bay; and (4) lation are greatly affected by the shape of natural breakdown of any biodegradable the Bay bottom and the shoreline; fills, wastes placed in the Bay, which can be dikes, and piers can speed or retard wa- encouraged by maintaining adequate ter circulation, depending upon both the flushing action and an adequate supply water circulation pattern in the affected of dissolved oxygen in the Bay. area and the shape of the fill, dike, or pier. d. Key elements that affect flushing and the supply of dissolved oxygen are (1) the volume of water flowing in and out Policies with the tides (and fresh water flowing into the Bay), (2) the temperature of Bay 1. The surface area of the Bay and the waters, and (3) the rates of oxygen inter- total volume of water should be kept as change at the surface of the Bay, includ- large as possible in order to maximize ing the tidal flats. active oxygen interchange, vigorous cir- 8 culation, and effective tidal action. Filling I u and 2. Any proposed fills, dikes, or piers and diking that reduce surface area and Marshes and should be thoroughly evaluated to deter- mine their effects on marshes and mud- lowed only for purposes providing sub- flats, and then modified as necessary to stantial public benefits and only if there is minimize any harmful effects. no reasonable alternative. 3. To offset possible additional losses of 2. Water circulation in the Bay should be Findings and policies concerning marshes due to necessary filling and to maintained, and improved as much as Marshes and Mudflats around the augment the present marshes, (a) former possible. Any proposed fills, dikes, or marshes should be restored when possi- piers should be thoroughly evaluated to Bay ble through removal of existing dikes, determine their effects upon water circu- (b) in areas selected on the basis of lation and then modified as necessary to Findings competent ecological study, some new improve circulation or at least to minimize marshes should be created through care- any harmful effects. a. Salt marshes are extraordinarily fertile. fully placed lifts of dredged spoils, and Living marsh plants fix the energy of sun- (c) the quality of existing marshes 3. Because further study is needed light into their tissues through photosyn- should be improved by appropriate before any barrier proposal to improve thesis, and expel oxygen into the measures whenever possible. water circulation can be considered ac- surrounding environment. One type of ceptable, the Bay Plan does not include marsh plant, cord grass, has seven times any barriers. Before any proposal for a the energy-generating capacity or food barrier is adopted in the future, the Com- value of an equal acreage of wheat. mission will be required to replan all of the affected shoreline and water area. b. Large numbers of birds, including ducks and geese, come to the marshes to feed on the lush vegetation or on the brackish-water animals that thrive there. Their wastes, together with the decompo- sition products of plant decay and other elements of the complex food web, con- tribute nutrients from the marshes to the mudflats and the shallows of the Bay margin, supporting a vast marine-life nursery. c. Most marine life in the Bay either de- pends directly on the marshes and mud- flats for its sustenance or indirectly depends upon them by feeding upon other marine life so nourished. Shore birds depend upon the marshes and mudflats for both food and shelter. d. Algae on the mudflats, exposed to abundant light alternating with abundant water, produce and expel oxygen into the water and into the air. This is an impor- tant source of oxygen that water must have both to support marine life and to combat water pollution. e. The marshlands bordering the Bay now total about 75 square miles. In 1850, before diking and filling had been begun, marshlands covered some 300 square miles. Policies 1. Marshes and mudflats should be main- tairied to the fullest possible extent to conserve fish and wildlife and to abate air and water pollution. Filling and diking that eliminate marshes and mudflats should therefore be allowed only for pur- poses providing substantial public bene- fits and only if there is no reasonable alternative. Marshes and mudflats are an integral part of the Bay tidal system and therefore should be protected in the same manner as open water areas. Smog and Shell Fresh Water Weather Deposits Inflow Findings and policies concerning Findings and policies concerning Findings and policies concerning Effect of the Bay on Smog and Shell Deposits in the Bay Fresh Water Inflow into the Bay Weather Findings Findings Findings a. Oyster shells are dredged from the a. Fresh water flowing into the Bay, most a. The Bay plays a significant role in de- Bay floor primarily for use as lime in the of which is from the Delta, dilutes the salt termining the climate of the Bay Area. production of cement. A small portion of water of the ocean flowing into the Bay the shells are used as soil conditioner, as through the Golden Gate. The Bay waters b. The waters of the Bay maintain a rela- cattle feed, and as poultry grit by local thus provide a gradual change from the tively constant temperature, and this poultry and egg producers. salt water of the ocean to the fresh water helps to moderate extremes of heat and flows of the Sacramento and San Joaquin cold in surrounding areas. The Bay sur- b. The shell deposits are an important Rivers. This delicate relationship between face provides a cool pathway for sum- mineral resource because the other prin- fresh and salt water helps to determine mertime ocean winds, enabling them to cipal source of lime, limestone, is more the ability of the Bay to support a variety help cool areas at the "ends" of the Bay distantly located in Santa Clara, Santa of marine life and wildfowl in and around (the Santa Clara Valley and the Car- Cruz, and San Benito Counties to the the Bay. quinez Strait areas). south. Cement is expensive to transport over great distances, so a nearby source b. The gradual change in the salt c. Present research indicates that filling a of lime is important to the Bay Area content of the Bay appears necessary for substantial part of the Bay-as much as economy. the survival of anadromous fish such as 25 per cent-would cause (1) higher king salmon, steelhead, striped bass, and summertime temperatures and reduced Policies American shad, as they progress rainfall in the Santa Clara Valley and the upstream toward their spawning grounds, Carquinez Strait-Suisun Bay area; and 1. Filling or diking that adversely affect they descend for the s al of their fingerling as (2) increases in the frequency and thick- known shell deposits, illustrated in Plan they descend to salt water. An abrupt ness of both fog and smog in the Bay Map 1, Natural Resources of the Bay, change in the salt content of Bay water Area. Converting Bay surface to land should be allowed only for purposes pro- ufish would increase smog-producing tempera- viding more public benefit than the avail- ture inversions in the Bay Area; in addi- ability of the shells. tion, the new land would probably be c. The fresh water flow from the used for smog-producing concentrations Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers is of urban developments, including au- an important (but not the major) source tomobiles. of the oxygen necessary in the waters of the Bay to support marine life and to Policies abate pollution, and it assists in flushing parts of the Bay system, particularly during peak flows of the spring when the 1. To the greatest extent feasible, the re- snows melt in the Sierra. maining water volume and surface area of the Bay should be maintained. d. Fresh water flow into the Bay during the winter and spring months is of particular importance in maintaining the health of the Suisun Marsh, the largest remaining marsh around the Bay and a wildfowl habitat of nationwide importance. e. The fresh water flows from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers into the Delta and the Bay have been reduced in the past by diversions of Federal, State, and local governments for agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. Additional diversions are being sought, and further substantial diversions could change the salt content of Bay water and thereby adversely affect the ability of the Bay to support a great variety of aquatic life. f. In periodically reviewing existing diversions under its reserved jurisdiction, the State Water Resources Control Board issued Decision 1485 and the Delta Plan in 1978. The Decision and the Delta Plan 10 September 1983 as amended set water quality standards for the Delta and the Suisun Marsh and continued to reserve jurisdiction over salinity control, fish and wildlife resources, and coordination of the Federal and State water projects so that the standards can be reviewed periodically. The Delta Plan noted that the protection of historical levels of fish and wildlife resources (1 922 -1 967) should be the standard for future water diversions. In addition, the Delta Plan recognized for the first time, the Board's statutory responsibility to set standards for San Francisco Bay to protect beneficial uses of the Say. Although the Board did not establish standards for the Bay because of a lack of information, the Board directed that studies be conducted to develop that information. The Board also determined that alternative water supplies must be found for the Suisun Marsh and completed by 1984. Although the Decision and the Delta Plan have certain flaws, such as their use of "without project" conditions as a standard at this time and their inability to stop the decline in the striped bass population, the Board has recognized the need to address these problems and has begun studies to that end. It is important that such studies be conducted expeditiously to preserve what remains of the fishery and to develop information about the Bay before vast sums of money are committed to water development projects that will reduce fresh water inflow to the Bay in the future. Policies 1. Diversions of fresh water should not reduce the inflow into the Bay to the point -of damaging the oxygen content of the Bay, the flushing of the Bay, or the ability of the Say to support fish and wildlife. 2. High priority should be given to the preservation of Suisun Marsh through adequate protective measures including maintenance of fresh water inflows. 3. The impact of diversions of fresh water inflow into the Bay should be monitored by the State Water Resources Control Board, which should set standards to restore historical levels (1 922-1967) of fish and wildlife resources. The Bay Commission should cooperate with the Board and others to ensure that adequate fresh water inflows to protect the Bay are made available. September 1983 as amended 1 ~~~ --M - -~~~~~~~~----.~~~~~~~~~~--~~4 -. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~A, .-I ~~~~~~~~~~Part IV Safety of ~~~~e. In the absence of adequate fill con- part IV Safety of struction standards or codes, the BCDC appointed a Board of Consultants con- Development Fills sisting of geologists, civil engineers spe- Development ~~Fills ~cializing in soils engineering, structural engineers, and other specialists, to re- of the Bay view, on the basis of available knowl- Findings and policies concerning edge, all new fills that might be permitted a nd h r eline:Safety of Fills in the So eeay in the Bay Plan, so that no fills would be included upon which construction might be unsafe. No specific fills are included ~~~~~~~~~~~Findings and Findings ~in the Plan, but the Board of Consultants has completed an initial set of criteria ~~~Poli ~icies ~a. To reduce risk of life and damage to (published separately as "Carrying Out property, special consideration must be the Bay Plan: The Safety of Fills") as a given to construction on filled lands in guide to future consideration of specific San Francisco Bay. (Similar hazards ex- fill proposals. ist on the poor soils throughout the Bay Area, including soft natural soils, steep f. Flood damage to fills and shoreline slopes, earthquake fault zones, and ex- areas can result from a combination of tensively graded areas.) heavy rainfall, high tides, and winds blowing onshore. To prevent such dam- b. Virtually all fills in San Francisco Bay age, buildings near the shoreline should are placed on top of Bay mud. Under be above the highest expected flood most of the Bay there is a deep, packed mark (nine feet above sea level is gener- layer of old Bay mud. More recent ally set as the safe mark except in the deposits, called younger Bay mud, lie on southern part of the South Bay, where top of the older muds. The top layer of the higher tides require almost a foot young mud presents many engineering more elevation), or should be protected problems. The construction of a sound fill by dikes of an adequate height. depends in part on the stability of the base upon which it is placed. g. Excessive pumping from underground fresh water reservoirs has caused exten- c. Safety of a fill also depends on the sive subsidence of the ground surface in manner in which the filling is done, and the San Jose area and as far north as the materials used for the fill. Similarly, Dumbarton Bridge (map of Generalized safety of a structure on fill depends on Subsidence and Fault Zones shows sub- the manner in which it is built and the sidence from 1934 to 1967). Indications materials used in its construction. Con- are that if heavy groundwater pumping is struction of a fill or building that will be continued indefinitely in the South Bay safe enough for the intended use re- area, land in the Alviso area (which has quires (1) recognition and investigation already subsided about seven feet since of all potential hazards-including (a) 1912) could subside up to seven feet settling of a fill or building over a long more; if this occurs, extensive dikes may period of time, and (b) ground failure be needed to prevent inundation of low- caused by the manner of constructing the lying areas by the high tides. fill or by shaking during a major earth- quake-and (2) construction of the filling or building in a manner specifically de- signed to minimize these hazards. While Policies the construction of buildings on fills over- lying Bay deposits involves a greater 1. The Commission has appointed the number of potential hazards than con- struction on rock or on dense hard soil Engineering Criteria Review Board con- sisting of geologists, civil engineers spe- deposits, adequate design measures can cializing in so ils engineering, structural be takn to educethe haards o ac- cializing in soils engineering, structural be taken to reduce the hazards to ac- engineers, and architects competent to ceptable levels. and adequately-empowered to (a) estab- d. There are no minimum construction lish and revise safety criteria for Bay fills codes regulating construction of fills on and structures thereon, (b) review all ex- Bay mud because of the absence of suf- cept minor projects for the adequacy of ficient data upon which to base such a their specific safety provisions, and make code. Hazards vary with different geolog- recommendations concerning these ic and foundation conditions, use of the provisions, (c) prescribe an inspection fill, and the type of structures to be con- system to assure placement of fill ac- structed on new fill areas. Therefore, the cording to approved designs, and (d) highest order of skilled judgment, utilizing gather, and make available, performance the available knowledge of all affected data developed from specific projects. disciplines, is required to (1) recognize These activities would complement the and investigate all potential hazards of functions of local building departments constructing a fill, and (2) design the fill and local planning departments, none of and any construction thereon to minimize which are presently staffed to provide these hazards. soils inspections. 13 -~~~~~~ - ` | Generalized Subsidence Legend: c~~~\ "" . .. nferred Fault --3-- Line of Equal Subsidence in Feet (1934-1967) Sources: \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subsidence, U.S. Geologicai Survey \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Open File ~~~~bl~ ~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~Fault Zones, BCDC Report on Geology 14~~~~ 2. Even if the Bay plan indicates that a fill Dr water to contaminate the fresh water, or may be permissible, no fill or building e ging allowing the fresh water (if artesian) to should be constructed if hazards cannot escape in large quantities and thus cause be overcome adequately for the intended land to sink. The precise location of -se in accordance with the criteria pre- ground water reservoirs under the Bay is -ibed by the Engineering Criteria Re- Findings and policies concerning not yet well known, however. .,w Board. Dredging in the Bay Policies 3. To provide vitally-needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds Findings 1. To prevent sedimentation resulting of soils, installation of strong-motion seis- from dredging projects, mud from future mographs should be required on all fu- a. Much of the Bay bottom is covered dredging should be disposed of in one of ture major land fills. In addition, the with sediment-silt, sand, and clay-that the following ways: (a) placement on dry Commission encourages installation of has been carried by tributaries from dry land, (b) placement as fill in approved fill strong-motion seismographs in other de- land upstream. Sediment continues to projects, (c) barging or piping to suitable velopments on problem soils, and in flow into the Bay at the rate of about 6 disposal sites in the ocean, or (d) if no other areas recommended by the U.S. million cubic yards a year; this amount is other alternative is feasible, dumping in Coast and Geodetic Survey, for purposes expected to decline, however, because of designated parts of the Bay where the of data comparison and evaluation. improved soil conservation programs and maximum possible amount will be carried the diversion of silt-carrying waters from out the Golden Gate on the ebb tides; 4. To prevent damage from flooding, the Delta and Bay to other parts of the areas should be designated for this pur- buildings on fill or near the shoreline State. Only 30 per cent of the sediment pose upon approval by both the Commis- should have adequate flood protection as entering the Bay is carried out the sion and the Army Crops of Engineers. determined by competent engineers. As a Golden Gate by the tides. The remainder This policy is intended to apply as soon general rule, buildings near the shoreline settles to the bottom of the Bay, but may as possible to all dredging in the Bay, should be at least nine feet above mean be picked up again by changing currents whether to create new channels or to sea level (standard U.S.G.S. datum) or and carried to other parts of the Bay. maintain existing ones, but it is recog- should be protected by dikes of an Eventually, much of the sediment lodges nized that Federally-assisted maintenance equivalent height and by any necessary in harbors and shipping channels from dredging projects under way as of Janu- pumping facilities. In the southern half of which it must be dredged at considerable ary 1, 1969, may require discharge of the South Bay, this height should be at cost. spoils in open waters of the Bay where least ten feet. Exceptions to the general relatively little of the dredged material is height rule may be made for develop- b. Dredged mud is sometimes used as a carried out to sea. ments specifically designed to tolerate fill material, and occasionally some is periodic flooding. barged out to sea; but most often, the 2. Vigorous efforts should be made to sediment is simply dumped in a part of find methods of spoils disposal that will To minimize the potential hazard to the Bay where it is expected to cause as provide for construction of vitally-needed oayside development from subsidence little harm as possible. Even at the best shipping channels, such as the John F. due to ground water withdrawal, all of these dumping grounds, near Alcatraz Baldwin Ship Channel from the Golden proposed developments at the lower end Island, only 47 per cent of the sediment Gate to the Delta, while at the same time of the South Bay should be sufficiently is carried out to sea by the tides; at the protecting the Bay from unnecessary fill- high above mean sea level or sufficiently Yerba Buena Island dumping area, only ing solely to dispose of dredged mud. protected by dikes to allow for the effects 30 per cent is carried out the Golden of additional subsidence, utilizing the lat- Gate; and at the dumping area in Car- 3. Pending the completion of studies into est information available from the U. S. quinez Strait, probably less than 5 per the feasibility of new or improved meth- Geological Survey. cent ever reaches the ocean. The re- ods of spoils disposal, complete compli- maining sediment is simply recirculated in ance with the spoils disposal policy will the Bay by the tides, and eventually set- not be immediately possible. Additional ties to the bottom where it may have to areas for spoils disposal may thus be be dredged again, needed within the Bay system, for main- tenance dredging as well as for new c. Dredged spoils dumped at sea could channels for shipping or for pleasure return to the Bay with tidal currents or boating, but disposal areas should be se- couldcause localdamageto marine or- lected with due consideration as to which could cause local damage to marine or- ganisms or beaches near the dumping feasible disposal methods will be least sit es. Th ese conditions are apable of harmful to the ecology of the Bay. In no s ites. These conditions are capable of being analyzed prior to dumping at sea. case, however, should spoil be used to create artificial islands in the Bay unless d. To reduce the cost of dredging har- competent studies demonstrate that these bors and navigation channels, sedimenta fill islands would have no harmful effect tion resulting from upstream erosion and on water quality or on air quality. redumping of dredged materials should be reduced as much as possible. 4. All proposed channels should be care- fully designed so as not to undermine the e. Underground fresh water supplies are stability of any adjacent dikes and fills. an important supplement to surface water now brought into the Bay Area by aque- 5. The Commission should encourage in- duct from mountain reservoirs. Deep creased efforts by soil conservation dis- dredging of Bay mud, or excavation for tricts and public works agencies in the tunnels or bridge piers, could strip the 50,000-square-mile tributary area to con- "cover" from the top of a fresh water tinuously reduce soil erosion as much as reservoir under the Bay, allowing the salt possible. 15 6. To protect underground fresh water 2. Linked industries, water-using indus- reservoirs (aquifers), (a) all proposals Water-Related tries and industries which gain only lim- for dredging or construction work that ited economic benefits by fronting on could penetrate the mud "cover" should Industry navigable water, should locate in adja- be reviewed by the Regional Water Qual- cent upland areas. However, pipeline cor- ity Control Board and the State Depart- ridors serving such facilities may be ment of Water Resources, and (b) permitted within water-related industrial dredging or construction work should not Findings and policies concerning priority use areas, provided pipeline con- be permitted that might reasonably be n struction and use do not conflict with expected to damage an underground wa- Industry on the present or future water-transportation use ter reservoir. Applicants for permission to Bay of the site. dredge should be required to provide ad- ditional data on ground water conditions Findings 3. Land reserved for water-related indus- in the area of construction to the extent try will be developed over a period of necessary and reasonable in relation to a. Certain industries use water for trans- years. Other uses may be allowed in the the proposed project. portation, thereby gaining significant eco- iterim, as defined in Commission regula- int asion tregla- nomic benefits by fronting on navigable tions. water. These are defined as "water-relat- ed industries". 4. Water-related industrial sites should be planned so as to avoid wasteful use of b. Water-related industry is basic to the the limited supply of waterfront land. The economy of the Bay Area and of the following principles should be followed to western United States. Therefore, the the maximum extent feasible in planning needs of water-related industry must be for water-related industry: given high priority in the Bay Plan. a. Extensive use of the shoreline for c. Vacant or underutilized industrial storage of raw materials, fuel, waterfrontage, particularly with access to products, or wastes should not be per- deep water, is scarce in the Bay Area. mitted on a long term basis. If required, There is current and anticipated future such storage areas should generally ei- demand for use of these remaining sites ther be at right angles to the main di- by water-related industries. Substantial rection of the shoreline or be as far regional public benefits can result from inland as feasible, so other use of the reservation of these sites for use by wa- shoreline may be made possible. ter-related industry, and from efficient and planned use of these sites by such wa- b. Where large acreages are available ter-related industries, for industry, site planning should strive to provide access to the shoreline for d. Many other industries compete with all future plants that might locate in the water-related industries for waterfront same area. (As a general rule, there- sites: (1) industries that use large fore, the longest dimension of plant volumes of water for cooling or process- sites should be at right anges to the ing purposes and therefor often seek shoreline.) Docking facilities at water- front industrial concentrations should sites near the shoreline; these are de- front industrial concentrations should also be shared as much as possible fined as "water using industries"; (2) in- also be shared as much as possible dustries that benefit from or support the among industries and, also, if appropri- operation of water-related industries and ate, with public port agencies. therefor seek locations near them; these c. Waste treatment ponds for water- are defined as "linked industries"; (3) c. Waste treatment ponds for water- related industry should occupy as little other industries that simply seek locations related industry should occupy as little close to freeways and railroads, or that land as possible, be above the highest lanrdd aspsle, el aoveta athen highbes seek a waterfront site because of favora- recorded level of tidal action, and be ~~ble land costs. ~as far removed from the shoreline as possible. d. Any new highways, railroads, or rapid transit lines in existing or future Policies water-related industrial areas should be located sufficiently far away from the 1. Those sites designated as water-relat- waterfront so as not to interfere with in- ed industrial priority use areas in this dustrial use of the waterfront New ac- dusstrial seo the waterfront. iNewtac- Plan should be reserved exclusively for cess roads to waterfront industrial cress rhoads t waterronimtindust rial those industries which meet the followinght criteria: (a) the specific industrial project angles to the shoreline, topography is determined by the Commission to be permitting. water-related, using the definition found in finding a. above, as well as any elabo- ration on this definition as found in Com- mission regulations; and (b) the project is determined to meet all other applicable policies of the Bay Plan and the McAteer- Petris Act. 16 5. Water-related industry should be front site or parcel for water-related in- Ports planned so as to make industrial sites at- dustrial use; and (c) a program for tractive (as well as economically-impor- minimizing the environmental impacts of tant) uses of the shoreline. The following future industrial development. Such plans, criteria should be employed to the max- if approved by relevant local govern- mum extent possible: ments and by BCDC, could be amended Findings and policies concerning into the Bay Plan as Special Area Plans. Ports on the Bay a. Air and water pollution should be minimized through strict compliance 7. The Bay Plan water-related industrial Findings with all relevant laws, policies and findings, policies and priority use areas, standards. Mitigation, consistent with together with any detailed plans as de- the California Environmental Quality scribed above in 6., should be included a. San Francisco Bay s one of the world's great natural harbors, and Act, should be provided for all unavoid- as the waterfront element of any Bay maritime commerce is of primary able adverse environmental impacts. Area regional industrial siting plan or im- importance to the entire economy of the plementation program. Bay Area b. When Bayfront hills are used for wa- ter-related industries, terracing should b. Adequate modern port terminals and generally be required and leveling of ground access facilities and deeper the hills should not be permitted. shipping channels will be needed to preserve and enhance the standing of c. Important Bay overlook points, and the Bay Area as a major world harbor historic areas and structures that may and to keep pace with changes in be located in water-related industrial shipping technology. areas, should be preserved and incor- porated into the site design, if at all c. Of particular importance for Bay feasible. In addition, shoreline not actu- planning is the expected growth in ally used for shipping facilities should containerized cargo handling, which be used for some type of public ac- requires large specially-designed cess or recreation, to the maximum ex- terminals and supporting transportation tent feasible. Public areas need not be facilities. Also important are the expected directly accessible by private automo- growth in automobiles, iron and steel, and biles with attendant parking lots and dry bulk cargoes (requiring fewer, driveways; access may be provided by hiking paths or by forms of public '_ transit such as elephant trains or aerial tramways. 'R d. Regulations, tax arrangements, or -.. . : other devices should be drawn in a . .... manner that encourages industries to .... meet the foregoing objectives. In addi- tion, if a sizeable area is to be ob- . rained for public use in an existing - industrial site, a public agency should t be authorized, but not obligated, to as- ' sist the industry in obtaining suitable ' " ' %'";:" adjacent land to replace areas given l over to public use. Once industry and public agencies agree on site develop- .:........ ment and design plans, the public " l agency should be firmly committed to (1) construct and maintain agreed- upon improvements, (2) enact and en- force controls to prevent encroachment of incompatible uses into the industrial area, and (3) refrain from making un- reasonable additional demands on the '. ._ industry that were not included in the '. original plan approval. 1a 6. BCDC, together with the relevant local . government(s), should cooperatively plan for use of vacant and underutilized water- related industrial priority use areas. Such planning should include regional, state and federal interests where appropriate, ." .. .... as well as public and special interest - . : groups. Resulting plans should include: .: (a) a program for joint use of waterfront facilities where this is beneficial and fea- sible; (b) a regulatory or management - program for reserving the entire water- Passenger Terminal in a Multipurpose Structure September 1983 as amended 17 generally smaller terminals than f. No single port agency is responsible b. Further deepening of ship channels containerized cargo), and the continued for coordinated planning and needed to accommodate expected surplus of break-bulk terminals expected development of Bay port terminals. In the growth in ship size and improve terminal as general cargo is increasingly absence of a seaport plan for the Bay productivity; containerized or handled at combination Area, there is a risk that new port container/break-bulk terminals. facilities could be built by whichever c. The maintenance of up-to-date car% individual port can command the forecasts and existing cargo handling d. There are enough shoreline sites to necessary financing even though another capability estimates to guide the accommodate currently projected cargo site might serve regional needs equally permitting of port terminals; and growth to the year 2020, with a minimum well but with less Bay filling. In addition, a of Bay filling. However, to do so, new major investment by one publicly- d. Development of port facilities with the terminals must be built at the most least potential adverse environmental operated port could be jeopardized by the suitable sites, Bay fill for new terminals unnecessarily duplicating actions of impacts while still providing for must be minimized to conform to the another publicly-operated Bay Area port. reasonable terminal development. provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act, the And of particular importance to proper efficiency of existing and new terminals use of the Bay, parts of the Bay could be eiredt i e must continue to increase and all of the filled, and shoreline areas taken, for req uired to provide for necessary port available sites must be reserved for unnecessarily competing port uses. expansion, but any permitted fill or unnecessarily competing port uses. terminals. This will require careful dredging should be in accord with the coordination of port development with To minimize these risks and to coordinate Seaport Plan. other shoreline uses, local government the planning and development of Bay protection of sufficient port lands to 3. Port priority use areas should be port terminals, the San Francisco Bay accommodate port-related uses and Area Seaport Plan has been developed protected for marine terminals and Area Seaport Plan h~as been developed. terminal back land expansions, directly-related ancillary activities such redevelopment of some existing terminals g. Bay Area ports are not supported as container freight stations, transit sheds and industry for new terminals, and completely by revenues from shipping, and other temporary. storage, ship deepening channels where it would but also derive revenues from other uses repairing, support transportation uses increase the efficiency of existing of port-owned property. including trucking and railroad yards, icesterm inals. freight forwarders, government offices terminals. related to the port activity, chandlers and e. If some ports in the regional system Policies marine services. Other uses, especially e. If some ports in the regional system public access and public and commercial do not have the funds necessary to 1. Port planning and development should recreational development, should also be complete facilities needed by the region, be governed by the policies of the permissible uses provided they do not a regional agency may be required to Seaport Plan and other applicable significantly impair the efficient utilization finance or develop them. Otherwise, there policies of the Bay Plan. The Seaport of the port area. will be tremendous pressure to allow the Plan provides for: ports with the strongest finances to provide all of the regional facilities, even a. Expansion and/or redevelopment of though this might result in pressures to fill port facilities at Alameda, Benicia, the Bay unnecessarily. Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, San Francisco, and Selby; 18 September 1983 as amended b. An analysis of alternative sites for or fill should be permitted only if it is building new airports or expanding demonstrated that no feasible alterna- present ones, taking into account the tive is available. effect of each site on the surrounding environment. 3. Airports on the shores of the Bay ~~~~~Jings and policies concerning ~should be permitted to include within Jings and policies concerning terpeie emnl o asnes c. An analysis of the surface transpor- their premises terminals for passengers, Airports on the Bay tation necessary to serve the alterna- cargo, and general aviation; parking and tive sites for future airports. supporting transportation facilities; and Findings ancillary activities such as aircraft mainte- d. An analysis of the effects of new nance bases that are necessary to the a. The shoreline of the Bay is a favored airports upon the location of jobs and airport operation. Airport-oriented indus- location for airports because the Bay pro- homes within the Bay Area. tries (those using air transportation for vides an open space for takeoffs and the movement of goods and personnel or landings away from populated areas. A providing services to airport users) may Bayshore location is also conveniently 2. Pending completion of a comprehen- be located within airports designated in close to present population centers. sive airport system plan, and recognizing the Bay Plan if they cannot feasibly be that various classes of airports must be located elsewhere, but no fill should be b. The introduction of larger and faster included in any plan for the region or the permitted to provide space for these in- aircraft has caused rapid rises in passen- Bay, it is assumed that: dustries directly or indirectly. ger volume and has made air transporta- tion of cargo increasingly economical. a. A system of reliever airports will be 4 If some airports in the regional system Further sharp increases in passenger and created throughout the region instead do not have the funds necessary to com- cargo volume may be expected. of one or two very large facilities. plete facilities needed by the region, a re- gional agency may be required to finance Some short-range traffic (500 miles or gional ag eny may be required to finance c. The growth of aviation in the Bay Area less, e.g., San Francisco-Los Angeles), or develop them. Otherwise, there will be will require additional land area for (1) which is a major portion of total air tremendous pressure to allow the airports expansion of terminals, (2) aircraft oper- carrier traffic, will be diverted to reliev with the strongest finances to provide all ating, loading, and parking, (3) automo- er airports, and improved ground and of the regional facilities, even though this bile parking, (4) surface transportation air transportation links will be provided might result in unnecessary fiing of the routes linking airports with major popula- among the airports in the system. Un- Bay. among the airports in the system. Un- tion centers, and (5) cargo storage. In der this concept, it is assumed that 5 To enable airports to operate without addition, land near airports will be sought S5. Francisco en able airports to operna-te without by industries that ship large quantities of additional Bay filling, tall buildings and poutby inur, tat byi warehouangte otional Airports will continue to service residential areas should be kept from in- products by air, and by warehousing . most long-distance flights and that s and others heavily dependent on air most l ontance expand of terfering with aircraft operations. The . n tmerce. thvl r pressures for continued expansion of Commission should prevent incompatible . these airports can be reduced by div- developments within its area of jurisdic- d. Effective, long-term operation of air- erting a portion of the short-range and tion around the shoreline. d. Effective, long-term operation of air- general aviation traffic to reliever air- ports requires that a buffer zone be ports in such cities as San Jose, Santa created to keep tall buildings and resi- Rosa, and Napa. dential areas at some distance from air- craft operations. It is assumed that three years will be needed to complete an adequate re- e. The aviation needs of the Bay Area gional airport system plan, and as are regional in extent, and effective plan- many as five to seven years thereafter ning to provide for the growth of aviation to build facilities proposed in the plan. can only be done on a comprehensive, Therefore, pending completion of the regional basis. comprehensive airport system plan, capital investment in, and any Bay fill- ing for, major airports in the Bay region should be limited to improvements Policies needed within the next 10 years (i.e., before 1979). 1. To enable the Bay Area to have ade- quate airport facilities, and to minimize b. Airports for general aviation can the harmful effects of airport expansion and should be at inland sites whenever upon the Bay, a regional airport system possible. New airports for this purpose plan should be prepared at the earliest should be constructed away from the possible time by a responsible regional Bay; Bayshore sites and Bay filling agency. The study should have the full should be allowed only if there is no participation of all governmental agencies feasible alternative. Expansion of exist- having region-wide planning responsibili- ing general aviation airports should be ties and all other agencies, including pri- permitted on Bay fill only if no feasible vate groups, having a substantial interest alternative is available. i- the Bay Area's present or future avia- needs and facilities. The plan should c. Heliports may in some instances ,,ude as a minimum: need to be located on the shores of the Bay to be close to a traffic center a. An analysis of expected air traffic in with minimum noise interference. In the Bay Area, by types-commercial, general, existing piers should be used military, and general (small plane). for this purpose and new piers, floats, 19 - .4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p S&4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 � ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r In South Ba Sl Pn Ae 20~~~~~~~~~~ " Waterfront area in San Francisco, Jack Different types of compatible public and ~Recreati ~ion ~ London Square in Oakland, and the commercial recreational facilities should downtown waterfronts of Sausalito and be clustered to the extent feasible to Tiburon. permit joint use of ancillary facilities and provide greater range of choice for f. Additional commercial recreation and users. Findings and policies concerning public assembly are desirable uses of Recreation on and around the the shoreline if they permit large b. Marinas. (1) Marinas should be Bay numbers of persons to have direct and allowed at any suitable site on the Bay. enjoyable access to the Bay. These Unsuitable sites are those that tend to Findings uses can often be provided by private fill up rapidly with sediment; have development at little or no direct cost to insufficient upland; contain valuable the public. marsh, mud flat, or other wildlife habitat; a. In 1963, only about four miles of the or are subject to unusual amounts of approximately 1,000-mile Bay shorelineo ra sube tounsaamns were being used for waterfront parks. Policies fog. At suitable s ites, the Commission should encourage new marinas, Since then, increased interest in the Bay Region particularly those that result in the Bay has resulted in development of 1. As the population of the Bay Region increases, more people will use their creation of new open water through the additional parks, marinas, and other rleisure time in water-oriented excavation of areas not part of the Bay forms of water-oriented recreation. But the full recreational potential o the ay recreational activities. Water-oriented and not containing valuable wetlands. the full recreational potential of the Bay 2 i sol prte f min recreation facilities such as marinas, (2) Fill should be permitted for marina ~has bnoeansbeenreaced.launch ramps, beaches, and fishing facilities that must be in or over the piers should be provided to meet those Bay, such as breakwaters, shoreline b. The demand for recreational facilities, needs. For parks, there is no practical protection, berths, ramps, launching including parks, marinas, launching estimate of the acreage that should be facilities, pump-out and fuel docks, and ramps, fishing piers and beaches, in the provided on the shoreline of the Bay, short-term unloading areas. Fill for Bay Area will increase even more but it is assumed the largest possible marina support facilities may be rapidly than the population increases, portion of the total regional requirement permitted at sites with difficult land and will be accelerated if the workBa. configurations provided that the fill in should be provided adjacent to the Bay. week shortens and spending power per the Bay is the minimum necessary and capita increases. Many more 2ThComsinhulasolowany unavoidable loss of Bay habitat, 2. The Commission should also allow recreational facilities will be needed. 2 add Cmitionasol alnso batlanhglows surface area, or volume is offset to the additional marinas, boat-launching lanes, mxmmetn esbe rfrbya and fishing piers elsewhere on the Bay, c. Planning for park uses along the Bay and fishing piers elsewhere on the Bay or near the site. (3) No new marina or and shoreline should anticipate needs provided they would not preempt land or near the site. (3) No new marina or and shoreline should anticipate needs o ae ra eddfrohrpirt asarntothefutrespssile r or water areas needed for other priority expansion of any existing marina should ~as fainoheftraspsl.Frus e s and provided they would be be approved unless water quality and parks, there is no practical estimate of feasible from an engineering viewpoint, circulation will be adequately protected the acreage that should be provided on would not have significant adverse and, if possible, improved. (4) In the shoreline of the Bay, but it is addition, all projects approved should effects on water quality and circulation, assumed the largest possible portion of wo uld not result in inadequate flushing, provide public amenities such as the total regional requirement should be would not destroy valuable marshes or viewing areas, restrooms and public would not destroy valuable marshes or veigaes provided adjacent to the Bay. All sites mudflats, and would not harm identified parking; substantial physical and visual near the Bay that may be needed for valua ble fish and wildlife resources. access; and maintenance for all parks in the future should be reserved facilities. Frequent dredging should be now; otherwise, most of this land will avoided. have been taken for other uses by the 3. The Bay Plan maps include about time it is needed. At the present time, 5,000 acres of existing shoreline parks c. Launching Lanes. (1) Launching 50 years appears to be the farthest into and 5,800 acres of new parks on the c. Launching Lanes. (1) Launching the future that needs can be projected waterfront. In addition, 4,400 acres of lanes should be placed where wind and water conditions would be most reasonably, so park needs to the year military establishments (especially favorable for smaller boats. (2) Some 2020 should be considered. around the Golden Gate) are proposed ale sml b ate e ~~~~~~~~~~~~arundhn hnes Ghold en Goate) nareposd as parks if and when military use is hing aes d ote near d. Boating allows residents to taketemned terminated. prime fishing areas and others near ~~~~~d. Boating allows residents to take ~calm, clear water suitable for advantage of the unique opportunities waterskiing. (3) Additional launching provided by the Bay. As of July, 1981, 4. The following general standards have facilities should be located around the facilities should be located around the the Commission had authorized been used in determining locations for Bay shoreline, especially where there approximately 6,500 new berths, each type of recreational facility (and are few existing facilities. T he re in allowing a re few existing facilities. These bringing the regional total to should be used as a guide in allowing facilities should be available free or at approximately 19,200 berths. Additional additional ones): moderate cost. Launching facilities berths and launching ramps will be should include adequate car and trailer needed in the future. Some locations a. General. Each type of facility parking, restrooms and public access. are unsuitable for marinas or launching should be well distributed around the (4) In marinas, laun ching facilities facilities because of high rates of shores of the Bay to the extent s hould be encouraged where there is sedimentation, valuable habitat, and consistent with more specific criteria adequate upland to provide needed insufficient upland for support facilities. below. Any concentrations of facilities support facilities. (5) Fill for ramps into should generally be as close to major the water, docks and similar facilities e. A major supplement to parks, population centers as is feasible. should be permitted. Other fill should marinas, and other forms of Recreational facilities should not not be permitted. water-oriented recreation are the several preempt sites needed for ports, areas of water-oriented commercial waterfront industry, or airports, but d. Fishing piers should not block recreation and public assembly that efforts should be made to integrate navigation channels, nor interfere with have been developed around the Bay, recreation into such facilities to the normal tidal flow. such as the Ghirardelli Square- extent they might be compatible. Fisherman's Wharf-Northern September 1983 as amended 21 e. Beach sites. (1) Beaches for b. In or near yacht harbors or swimming and sun-bathing should commercial ferryboat facilities, private generally be in warm areas protected boatels and restaurants should be from the wind. (2) Some new beaches encouraged where adequate shoreline could be planned adjacent to power land is available. Public docks for plants or other industrial plants that visiting boaters should be provided warm the nearby waters as they where feasible in order to give public discharge heated water that has been access from the water. used to cool industrial machinery. c. Access to marinas, launch ramps, f. Water-oriented beaches, fishing piers and other commercial-recreational establishments, recreation facilities should be clearly such as restaurants, specialty shops, signed and easily available from parking theaters, and amusements, should be reserved for the public or from public encouraged in urban areas adjacent to streets. the Bay. Some suggested locations for this type of activity are indicated on the 6. All the waterfront land needed for Plan maps. Effort should be made to waterfront parks and beaches by the link commercial recreation centers (and year 2020 should be reserved now, major shoreline parks) by a fleet of because delay may mean that needed small, inexpensive ferries similar to shoreline will otherwise be preempted those operating on some European for other uses. However, recreational lakes and rivers. facilities need not be built all at once; their development can proceed in 5. Features to be included. To accordance with recreational demand assure optimum use of the Bay for over the years. recreation, the following facilities should be encouraged in shoreside parks and 7. In addition to the major recreational in or near yacht harbors or commercial facilities indicated on the Plan maps, ~ferryboat facilities.public access should be included wherever feasible in any shoreline a. In shoreside parks. (1) Where development, as described in the possible, parks should provide some policies for Public Access to the Bay. camping facilities accessible by boat, That policy is intended to result in and docking and picnic facilities for much more access to the Bay than can boaters. (2) To capitalize on the be provided by public parks alone, attractiveness of their Bayfront location, especially in urban areas, and to paiks should emphasize hiking, bicycling encourage private development of the and riding trails, picnic facilities, shoreline. viewpoints, beaches, and fishing viewpoints, beaches, and fishing 8. Further study should be given to the facilities. Recreational facilities that do f ea sibility of dredging a network of feasibility of dredging a network of not need a waterfront location, e.g., golf channels paralleling the shoreline in channels paralleling the shoreline in courses and playing fields, should courses and playing fields, should shallow areas, for use by small boats and generally be placed inland, but may be recreational ferries. Channels could open recreational ferries. Channels could open permitted in shoreline areas if they are permitted in shoreline areas if they are up large areas, particularly in the South part of a park complex that is primarily ay and San Pablo Bay, for recreational Bay and San Pablo Bay, for recreational devoted to water-oriented uses. (3) boating, could make possible the boating, could make possible the Where shoreline open space includes development of marinas and launching development of marinas and launching areas used for hunting waterbirds, areas used for hunting waterbirds, lanes at more frequent intervals, and public areas for launching rowboats could add visual interest to shoreline should be provided so long as they do areas. In addition, the channels could not result in overuse of the hunting separate marshes and mudflats from dry separate marshes and mudflats from dry area. (4) Public launching facilities for a land thus enhancing the wildlife value of land, thus enhancing the wildlife value of variety of boats should be provided in these areas. shoreside parks where feasible. (5) Where open areas include ecological 9. To enhance the appearance of reserves, access via catwalk or other shoreline areas, and to permit maximum means should be provided for nature public use of the shores and waters of study to the extent that such access the Bay, flood control projects should be does not excessively disturb the natural carefully designed and landscaped and, habitat. (6) Limited commercial whenever possible, should provide for recreation facilities, such as small recreational uses of channels and banks. restaurants, should be permitted within waterfront parks provided they are 10. Because of the need to increase the clearly incidental to the park use, are in recreational opportunities available to keeping with the basic character of the Bay Area residents, small amounts of park, and do not obstruct public access Bay filling may be allowed for shoreline to and enjoyment of the Bay. Limited parks and recreational areas that provide commercial development may be substantial public benefits and that appropriate (at the option of the park cannot be developed without some filling. agency responsible) in all parks shown on the Plan maps except where there is a specific note to the contrary. 22 September 1983 as amended It~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~I %log~~~~~~ twI Commercial Recreation at Waterfront ~~~- .. ....... Reratoa Ferr System. 242FrySo i nUbnAe between major traffic generators (e.g., Tranusportation wvs a eal opoiesrieSl od'n between downtowns, or between down- towns and airports) and eventually to provide scheduled service from one end of the Bay to the other for both commut- Wetlands dings and policies concerning ing and pleasure use. The Bay Plan i ransportation on and around the maps indicate possible sites for com- Bay muter ferry terminals and shallow-draft ports. Findings and policies concerning Findings ~~~~Findings ~2. Because of the continuing vulnerability Salt Ponds and Other Managed a. A present, there is no regional coordi- of the Bay to filling for freeways, an ef- Wetlands a. At present, there is no regional coordi- fective program should be created to de- nation of all the means of moving people velop, test, and inaugurate new methods Findings and ood tha mae upthetota trns-velop, test, and inaugurate new methods Fnig and goods that make up the total trans- of transportation within the Bay Area. This portation system of the Bay Area. Trans should be undertaken by a regional portation planning for the Bay Area is trn adivided amonng h ighway agencies, transit sportation agency, preferably one that a. Salt ponds total some 36,000 acres in divided among highway agencies, transit teSuhByadsm 000arsi aece agencies, pangagencies, and regula- is part of a limited regional government. the South Bay and some 10,000 acres in planning agencies.The only comprehene the North Bay. About 4,200 acres of salt transportation planning agency ies. The only 3. If any additional freeway or bridge ponds have been removed from salt pro- 3. If any addipanin agency in the Ba duction and are now being converted into reg ion is the Bay Area Transportation route is proposed in or across the Bay the Redwood Shores community, which Study Commission, wh ich wa s rea ated by other than those indicated on the Bay will ultimately house some 60,000 per- Study Commission, which was created by the State Legislature and which will Plan maps, adequately house some 60,000 per- the ~~~~~~~~~Plan maps, adequate research and test- present its transportation plans in early ing should determine whether new meth- ing should determine whether new meth-so. 1969. rnprato ln nery ods of transportation could overcome the 1969. particular congestion problem without a b. The salt ponds are an economically important and productive use of the wa- b . Primary emphasis in recent years hasrotinheByadifowehra rouPm ters of the Bay (for extracting salt), and b e en placed on freeways, which in some tunnel beneath the Bay is at all feasible. the salt is an imp(fortant extraw matering salt), andfor instances have been built on fill in the the Bay Area chemical industry. Bay because acceptable routes could not 4. If a route must be located over the the Bay Area chemical industry. 4. If a route must be located over the be found ashore. Little attention has been Bay, the following provisions should ap- c. The ponds provide 15 percent of the given in recent years to using the waters p total Bay and pond water surface. This of the Bay for modern boat transporta- ttlByadpn ae ufc.Ti tofthBafomoen batrnpt-a. The freeway or other crossing large pond surface area supplements the tion. should be placed on bridge-like struc- water surface of the Bay and thus helps a. Th freway o othr crosingwater surface of the Bay and thus helps to moderate the Bay Area climate and to tures, not on fill. Massive use of the automobile during tures, not on fill. tmoeaeheByprevent smog. a time of rapid population growth in the b. Structures should provide adequate d. The ponds are used as a habitat by Bay Area endangers the environment Bay Aea enanger the nviromentb. Structures should provide adequate both because of the air pollutants emitted clearance for commercial ships, Navy d. The ponds are used as a habitat by both because of the air pollutants emitted soebrs by automobiles and because of the ships, and pleasure boats to have unin- shore birds. space required by automobiles for road- terrupted passage at all times.. More than 50000 acres of managed space ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e. More than 50,000 acres of managed ways and for parking. c. Toll plazas, service yards, or other mrhad daett h a u ie ways and for parking. marshland, adjacent to the Bay but diked and for parking. ~~c. Toll plazas, service yards, or other off from it, are maintained as duck hunt- d. Primary reliance on the automobile for ancillary features should be located on off from it, are maintained as duck hunt- d. Primary reliance on the automobile for new fill only if there is no feasible alter- ing preserves, game refuges, and occa- surface transportation in the Bay Areanative. sionally as farming areas. In most of means further pressures to use the Bay these areas, tide gates permit occasional as a route for future freeways. Therefore, d. To provide maximum ultimate intakes of Bay water. a primary goal of transportation planning, capacity on any new major facility that from the point of view of preserving and is allowed over the Bay (and thus to f. The diked marshlands are as important properly using the Bay, should be sub- minimize the number that might have to to wildlife as the tidal marshes. Substan- stantial reduction in dependence on the be allowed in the Bay), the design of tial further diminution would result in a automobile. While the private car will still the structures should anticipate future proportionate reduction in the amount of be needed and used for many types of mass transit facilities (unless they are wildlife the Bay system can support. travel, the goal should be development of adequately paralleled by such facili- new systems of transportation that can ties) and subsequent installation of au- g. The ponds and other wetlands provide carry large volumes of people and goods tomatic power and guidance elements some of the open space character of the without damaging the environment of the for vehicles. Bay. Bay Area. Policies Policies 1. The Bay represents a great but, at 1. As long as is economically feasible, present, little-used reso urce for transpor- the salt ponds should be maintained in tation within the region. New types of salt production and the wetlands should i[o ster barges may be able to move be maintained in their present use. Prop- aster barges may be able tohat rising trucks and freight from point to point erty tax p olicy should assure that rising within the region at low cost and without property taxes do not force conversion of within the region at low cost and without ~the ponds and other wetlands to urban adding to surface congestion. Also, a the ponds and other wetlands to urban syst em of modern ferries (capable of development. In addition, the integrity of high speeds with moinimum nois e and the salt production system should be re- high speeds with minimum noise and 25 spected (i.e., public agencies should not 5. The Commission should study the pos- Public Access take for other projects any pond or por- sibility of public purchase of "develop- tion of a pond that is a vital part of the ment rights" to the ponds. If these fights production system). were bought by the public, the owner of the ponds would remain fully able to con- 2. If, despite these provisions, the owner tinue using them for salt production but Findings and policies concerning of the salt ponds or the owner of any would not be able to fill the ponds for ur- Public Access to the Bay managed wetland desires to withdraw ban development. Similar study should any of the ponds or marshes from their be given to acquisition of "development present uses, the public should make ev- rights" to the duck clubs and other diked Findings ery effort to buy these lands, breach the wetlands, to continue them in their existing dikes, and reopen these areas to present uses. a. San Francisco Bay is a dominant fea- the Bay. This type of purchase should ture of the nine county Bay Area. It pro- have a high priority for any public funds vides an environment for numerous forms available, because opening ponds and of public enjoyment including viewing, managed wetlands to the Bay represents photography, nature study, fishing, wad- man's last substantial opportunity to en- ing, walking, bicycling, and jogging, or large the Bay rather than shrink it. (In just sitting beside the water. As an out- some cases, if salt ponds are opened tp standing visual resource, the Bay is an the Bay, new dikes will have to be built important focal point for the entire region on the landward side of the ponds to that serves to orient people to its various provide the flood control protection now parts. being provided by the salt pond dikes.) b. Public access required by the Com- 3. If public funds do not permit purchase mission usually consists of pedestrian ac- of a//the salt ponds or marshes cess to and along the shoreline and proposed for withdrawal from their beaches of San Francisco Bay. It may in- present uses, and if some of the ponds clude certain improvements, such as pav- or marshes are therefore proposed for ing, landscaping, and street furniture; and development, consideration of the devel- it may allow for additional uses, such as opment should be guided by the follow- bicycling, fishing, picknicking, nature edu- ing criteria: cation, etc. Visual access to the Bay is a a. Just as dedication of streets, parks, critical part of public access. The Design etc., is customary in the planned unit Review Board was formed in 1970 of pro- development and subdivision laws of fessional designers to advise the Com- many local governments, dedication of mission on the adequacy of public some of the pond or marsh areas as access of proposed projects in accord- open water can and should be re- ance with the Bay Plan. quired as part of any development. Highest priority to such dedication c. Although public access to the approxi- should be given to ponds that (1) mately 1000-mile Bay shoreline has in- would, if opened to the Bay, significant- creased significantly since the adoption should be given to ponds that (1) ~~~~~~creased significantly since the adoption lyd improve water circulation, (2) have of th Bay Plan in 1968, there is still only a ly improve water circulation, (2) have ~~~~small part of the shoreline open to the especially high wildlife values, or (3) small part of the shoreline open to the have high potential for water-oriented public. The full potential for access to the hrecrehihptnilfateion. Bay, particularly along urban waterfronts, has by no means yet been reached. b. Depending on the amount of pond or marsh area to be dedicated as open water, the public may wish to purchase additional areas. Plans to purchase any d. Public agencies have contributed to ponds or marshes should give first improved Bay access by providing a sub- consideration to the priorities in para- stantial number of the parks shown in the graph a. above. Bay Plan maps. In addition, many agen- ~~c. Development of the ponds or mar- ~cies and communities continue to exam- c. Development of the ponds or mar- ~~~~shes should provide for retaining sub- ~ine the waterfronts in their jurisdictions shes should provide for retaining sub- adhv rpsdnwpit fpbi stantial amounts of open water, should and have proposed new points of public provide for substantial public access to access to the Bay. However, other de- the Bay, and should be in accord with mands for governmental services will the Bay Plan policies for non-priority necessarily limit funds for the provision of ~~~~~~~~~~~uses of the shoreline.shoreline access by these agencies. uses of the shoreline. Clearly, additional public access to the Bay is needed, and this can be provided, 4. As soon as possible, recreational de- in part at least, by private capital in a velopments such as marinas and small wide variety of shoreline developments. parks should be built in appropriate areas outboard of the present salt ponds, e. Although opportunities for views of the or in sloughs; but these developments Bay from public access areas have in- should in no way jeopardize the salt pro- creased since the Bay Plan was adopted duction system or be so located as to in 1968, there are still a significant num- prevent opening of ponds to the Bay at ber of shoreline areas where there exists any future time. little or no visual access to the Bay. 26 f. Public access areas obtained through g. In some cases, certain uses may un- Policies the permit process are most utilized if duly conflict with accompanying public they provide physical access, provide access. For example, uncontrolled public 1. In addition to the public access to the connections to public rights-of-way, are access may adversely impact sensitive Bay provided by waterfront parks, related to adjacent uses, are designed, wildlife areas, or some port or water- beaches, marinas, and fishing piers, max- mproved, and maintained clearly to indi- related industrial activities may pose a imum feasible access to and along the cate their public character, and provide substantial hazard to public access us- waterfront and on any permitted fills visual access to the Bay. ers. should be provided in and through every new development in the Bay or on the shoreline, whether it be for housing, in- dustry, port, airport, public facility, or other use, except in cases where public | t access is clearly inconsistent with the - project because of public safety consid- C~":"'"i'" '::!""'""" . "~ ''" .� .' :'."" ' ,7 . Xerations or significant use conflicts. In az z . A ,these cases, access at other locations, preferably near the project, should be provided whenever feasible. :; .. ' mlr- 2. Public access to some natural areas should be provided to permit study and Fuji i :.. enjoyment of these areas (e.g., by boardwalks or piers in or adjacent to some sloughs or marshes). However, . . . . . . . some wildlife habitats may be sensitive to human intrusion. For this reason, projects in such areas should be carefully evaluat- ed in consultation with appropriate agen- cies to determine the appropriate location and type of access to be provided. 3. Whenever public access to the Bay is provided as a condition of development, on fill or on the shoreline, the access should be permanently guaranteed. This should be done wherever appropriate by requiring dedication of fee title or ease- ments at no cost to the public, in the same manner that streets, park sites, and 1 Industries Requiring Direct Water Access school sites are dedicated to the public as part of the subdivision process in cit- ies and counties. 4. Public access improvements provided as a condition of any approval should be .- C-..,~ A. - consistent with the project and the physi- -.- - -" * _:..': '.: *" � "' '-cal environment, including protection of :� .,. *. --natural resources, and provide for the public's safety and convenience. The im- provements should be designed and built to encourage diverse Bay-related activi- ties and movement to and along the shoreline, should permit barrier-free ac- cess for the physically handicapped to the maximum feasible extent, should in- |b v~ s Do i, :~~ g~IZ:. .. ~~ lclude an ongoing maintenance program, I Go\ r png sares and should be identified with appropriate I~/'h,>w Pi S 'e . signs. p = 5~~2~~ 5. In some areas, a small amount of fill may be allowed if the fill is necessary- and is the minimum absolutely required- to develop the project in accordance with the Commission's public access require- ments. 6. Access to the waterfront should be provided by walkways, trails, or other ap- propriate means and connect to the near- 2 Industries Not Requiring Direct Water Access est public thoroughfare where convenient parking or public transportation may be Public Access to the Bay in Industrial Areas available. 27 7. Roads near the edge of the water should be designed as scenic parkways for slow-moving, principally recreational, traffic. The roadway and right-of-way de- sign should maintain and enhance visual access for the traveler, discourage through traffic, and provide for safe, separated, and improved physical access to and along the shore. Public transit use and connections to the shoreline should be encouraged where appropriate. 8. Federal, state, regional and local juris- dictions, special districts, and the Com- mission should cooperate to provide new public access, especially to link the entire series of shoreline parks and existing public access areas to the extent feasible without additional Bay filling or adversely affecting natural resources. State, re- gional and local agencies that approve projects should assure that provisions for public access to and along the shoreline are included as conditions of approval, and that the access is consistent with the Commission's requirements and Guide- lines. 9. The Public Access Supplement to the Bay Plan should be used as a guide in determining whether a project provides maximum feasible public access. The De- sign Review Board should advise the Commission regarding the adequacy of the public access proposed. L L~ ~I. ---- ~ ~ c---S_ Walkways for Wildlife Observation in Marsh and Shallow Water Areas 28 ~~~Appearance, ~heights and locations, there is still no be avoided, to the extent possible, to general attention to maximizing views preserve the visual impact of the large ~~~~Design and ~from streets and roads and to obtaining expanse of the Bay. The design of new Design and public view areas. In particular, along crossings deemed necessary should re- ~~enic \~ievws ~ many urban waterfronts, man-made ob- late to others nearby and should be = enic Vi~ews structions such as buildings, parking lots, located between promontories or other utility lines, fences, billboards and even land forms that naturally suggest them- landscaping have eliminated or severely selves as connections reaching across diminished views of the Bay and shore- the Bay (but without destroying the obvi- Fnnadpiecnrnline. ous character of the promontory). New Findings and policies concerning or remodeled bridges across the Bay or remodeled bridges across the Bay Appearance, Design, and Scenic f. One of the visual attractions of San should be designed to permit maximum Views of Development around the Francisco Bay is its abundance of wild- viewing of the Bay and its surroundings Bay life, particularly birds which are constant- by both motorists and pedestrians. Guard ly moving around the Bay waters, rails and bridge supports should be de- ~~~~~Findings ~marshes, and mudflats in search of food signed with views in mind. Findings ~~~~~~~and refuge. ~~~~and refuge. ~7. Access routes to Bay crossings should a. Much too often, shoreline develop- be designed so as to orient the traveler ments have not taken advantage of the to the Bay (as in the main approaches to magnificent setting provided by the Bay. Policies the Golden Gate Bridge). Similar consid- Some shoreline developments are of eration should be given to the design of poor quality or are inappropriate to a 1. To enhance the visual quality of devel- highway and mass transit routes parallel- waterfront location. These include uses opment around the Bay and to take max- ig the Bay (by providing frequent views ing the Bay (by providing frequent views such as parking lots and some industrial imum advantage of the attractive setting it of the Bay, if possible, so the traveler structures, which neither visually comrnple- provides, the shores of the Bay should knows which way he is moving in relation ment the Bay nor take advantage of a be developed in accordance with the to the Bay). Guardrails, fences, landscap- waterfront location. Over time, existing Public Access Design Guidelines and the ing, and other structures related to such inadother structures related to such shoreline development of poor quality General Development Guide. routes should be designed and located and inappropriate uses will be phased so as to maintain and to take advantage out or up-graded by normal market 2. All Bayfront development should be of Bay views. New or rebuilt roads in the forces and by public action, or by a com- designed to enhance the pleasure of the hills above the Bay and in areas along bination of both. user or viewer of the Bay. Maximum ef- the shores of the Bay should be con- forts should be made to provide, en- structed as scenic parkways in order to b. Unsightly debris, such as plastic bot- hance, or preserve views of the Bay and take full advantage of the commanding old tires, and other refuse continues shoreline, especially from public areas, views of the Bay. iar the appearance of the shoreline, from the Bay itself, and from the opposite particularly of marshes, mudflats, and shore. To this end, planning of waterfront 8. Shoreline developments should be sloughs. development should include participation build in clusters, leaving open area by professionals who are knowledgeable around them, to permit more frequent c. The appearance of the Bay, and of BCDC's concerns such as landscape views of the Bay. Developments along people's enjoyment of it as a scenic re- architects, urban designers, or architects, the shores of tributary waterways should source, contribute to the enjoyment of working in conjunction with engineers be Bay-related and should be designed daily life in the Bay Area. As a special and professionals in other fields. to preserve and enhance views along the kind of open space, the Bay acts as both waterway, so as to provide maximum vis- the unifying element of the entire Bay re- 3. In some areas, a small amount of fill ual contact with the Bay. gion and as a physical divider of its may be allowed if the fill is necessary- parts. The wide surface of the Bay, and and is the minimum absolutely required- the distant vistas it affords, offer relief to develop the project in accordance with 9. "Unnatural" debris should be removed from the crowded, often chaotic, urban- the Commission's design recommenda- from sloughs, marshes, and mudflats that ized scene and help to create a sense of tions. are retained as part of the ecological sys- psychological well-being. tem. Sloughs, marshes, and mudflats 4. Structures and facilities that do not should be restored to their former natural d. Probably the most widely enjoyed take advantage of or visually complement state if they have been despoiled by hu- "use" of the Bay is simply viewing it- the Bay should be located and designed man activities. from the shoreline, from the water and so as not to impact visually on the Bay from afar. For example: a Bay view can and shoreline. In particular, parking areas 10. Towers, bridges, or other structures add substantially to the value of a home, should be located away from the shore- near or over the Bay should be designed office, or apartment building in San Fran- line. However, some small parking areas as landmarks that suggest the location of cisco and other Bayside communities. for fishing access and Bay viewing may the waterfront when it is not visible, espe- Also, the Bay is a major visitor attraction be allowed in exposed locations. cially in flat areas. But such landmarks for the tourist industry. should be low enough to assure the con- 5. To enhance the maritime atmosphere tinued visual dominance of the hills e. As a world-renowned scenic resource, of the Bay Area, ports should be de- around the Bay. the Bay is viewed and appreciated from signed, whenever feasible, to permit pub- many locations in the region. However, lic access and viewing of port activities 11. In areas of the Bay where oil and gas advantage has not been taken of the by means of (a) view points (e.g., piers, drilling or production platforms are per- .matic view potential from the hills and platforms, or towers), restaurants, etc., mitted, they should be treated or other inland locations surrounding the that would not interfere with port opera- screened, including derrick removal, so Bay, often because of poor road and tions, and (b) openings between build- they will be compatible with the surround- street layout and poorly located buildings ings and other site designs that permit ing open water, mudflat, marsh, or shore or landscaping. While some'jurisdictions views from nearby roads. area. 29 12. In order to achieve a high level of de- sign quality, the Commission's Design Review Board, composed of design and planning professionals, should review, ,: evaluate and advise the Commission on the proposed design of developments that affect the appearance of the Bay in accordance with the Bay Plan Findings ;- and Policies on Public Access, Appear- ance, Design and Scenic Views; the Gen- : eral Development Guide; and the Public Access Design Guidelines. City, county, regional, state and federal agencies should be guided in their evaluation of Bayfront projects by the above guide- lines. 13. Local governments should be en- couraged to eliminate inappropriate shoreline uses and poor quality shoreline conditions by regulation and by public actions (including development financed wholly or partly by public funds). The Commission should assist in this regard ' '" ...g_ to the maximum feasible extent by pro-. ... viding advice on Bay-related appearance. . and design issues, and by coordinating the activities of the various agencies that -- -- may be involved with projects affecting ' ;.' the Bay and its appearance. Residential Area on Hilly Site 14. Views of the Bay from vista points, from roads, and from other areas should be maintained by appropriate arrange- ments and heights of all developments and landscaping between the view areas Residential Area on Flat Site and the water. In this regard, particular attention should be given to all waterfront locations, areas below vista points, and areas along roads that provide good views of the Bay for travelers, particularly areas below roads coming over ridges and providing a "first view" of the Bay (shown in Plan Map 2, Proposed Major Uses of the Bay and Shoreline). 15. Vista points should be provided in the general locations indicated in the Plan maps. Access to vista points should be provided by walkways, trails, or other appropriate means and connect to the nearest public thoroughfare where park- ing or public transportation is available. In some cases, exhibits, museums, or markers would be desirable at vista points to explain the value or importance of the areas being viewed. Residential Area Public Area Bay Public Access to the Bay 30 Othq r Uses o permitted in some areas of the Bay pro- 10. To eliminate any further demand to fill Othe Uvided the boats (a) would not adversely any part of the Bay solely for refuse dis- affect the ecology of the Bay, (b) would posal sites, new waste disposal systems tirth~~~~e Bay and ttnot cause a harmful amount of sedimen- should be developed; these systems teBay and tation, (c) would either be connected to should combine economical disposition a shoreline sewage treatment system or with minimum consumption of land. ~Shn~oreliine ~ have on-board treatment facilities accept- Pending development of new waste dis- able to public health and water quality posal systems, immediate waste disposal control agencies, (d) would require no problems should be solved through full fill except for a pedestrian walk on pil- utilization of existing dump sites and ings, and (e) would be acceptable to lo- through development of new dump sites, Findings and policies concerning cal governments having jurisdiction over if needed, in acceptable inland locations. Other Uses of the Bay and Shore- the areas in question. line 11. Types of development that could not 4. High voltage transmission lines �hould use the Bay as an asset (and therefore be placed in the Bay only when there is should not be allowed in shoreline areas) Findings no reasonable alternative. Whenever high include: (a) refuse disposal (except as it voltage transmission lines must be may be found to be suitable for an ap- a. In addition to the foregoing uses of the placed in the Bay or in shoreline areas: proved fill), (b) use of deteriorated struc- Bay and its shores, there are at present tures for low-rent storage or other many others including: a. New routes should avoid interfering non-water related purposes, and (c) Housing with scenic views and with wildlife, to junkyards. Public facilities (prisons, military in- the greatest extent possible. stallations, etc.) Public utilities (power transmission b. The most pleasing tower and pole lines, pipelines, etc.) design possible should be used. Industry not related to the Bay Recreation facilities not related to the Bay High voltage transmission lines should be Commercial facilities not related to placed underground as soon as this is the Bay technically and economically feasible. Refuse disposal sites 5. Power distribution and telephone lines b. Some uses of the shore take no ad- should either be placed underground (or vantage of the water as an asset, and in an attractive combination of under- some current uses abuse and despoil the ground lines with streamlined overhead water frontage. facilities) in any new residential, commer- cial, public, or view area near the shores of the Bay. Policies 6. Whenever waterfront areas are used for sewage treatment or waste water 1. Shore areas not proposed to be re- d Sore apre ot psed so be ued reclamation plants, the plants should be served for a priority use should be used located where they do not interfere with, for any purpose (acceptable to the local for any purpose (acceptable to the local and are not incompatible with, residential, government having jurisdiction) that uses ana r ot pbli se th recreational, or other public uses of the the Bay as an asset and in no way af- Bay and shoreline. fects the Bay adversely. This means any use that does not adversely affect enjoy- 7. New AM and short-wave radio trans- ment of the Bay and its shoreline by resi- mitters may be placed in marsh or other dents, employees, and visitors within the tr a e Wen r o he natural areas. Whenever possible, howev- site area itself or within adjacent areas of er, consolidation of transmitting towers er, consolidation of transmitting towers the Bay or shoreline. should be encouraged. 2. Accessory structures such as boat docks and portions of a principal structure 8. Desalinization and power plants may may extend on piles over the water when be located in any area where they do not such extension is necessary to enable interere with and are not incompatible actual use of the water, e.g. for mooring with residential, recreational, or other boats, or to use the Bay as an asset in the public uses of the Bay and shoreline, design of the structure, only if such provided that any pollution problems re- structure would not adversely impact suiting from the discharge of large sensitive wildlife habitats or public access. amounts of heated brine into Bay waters, and water vapor into the atmosphere, 3. Wherever waterfront areas are used can be precluded. for housing, (a) the amount of shoreline and the surface area of the Bay should 9. Pipeline terminal and distribution facili- 3e increased to the maximum extent fea- ties near the Bay should generally be sible by dredging additional channels in- located in industrial areas but may be land from the Bay, and (b) whenever located elsewhere if they do not interfere feasible, high densities should be en- with, and are not incompatible with, resi- couraged to provide the advantages of dential, recreational, or other public uses waterfront housing to larger numbers of of the Bay and shoreline. people. Houseboats (floating homes use- able as year-round residences) may be 7969 8, 7/83 ,50 OSP September 1983 as amended 31 4-. - - . K; .V,. t * - - K. \ A P "4 'K .3j -. -* A - 4 Th* A '.4 t*4. a. *" '-'4- 1 ~~~~~Part V ~The San Francisco Bay Plan its and with representation of governmen- tal agencies on the Commission. Other ~~~Carrying Out ~ pleted and adopted by the San Francisco classifying violations of the Bay Conservation and Development McAteer-Petris Act as misdemeanors; t aCommission in 1968 and was transmitted procedures for dealing with claims of ex- ~~~~~the Plan ~to the California Legislature and the Gov- emption from BCDC jurisdiction; and ernor in 1969. In those actions the Com- provisions for the issuance of cease and mission completed the original charge desist orders by the Commission or its given to it in the provisions of the Executive Director and to provide civil McAteer-Petris Act of 1965. That Act penalties for violations of such orders. created the Commission and mandated its study of the Bay and the preparation and submittal of a final report to the Cali- The Commission fornia Legislature in 1969. The Commis- sion's final report, the San Francisco Bay The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Plan, covered the following matters as Development Commission (BCDC) con- specifically required by the law; sists of 27 members who represent vari- ous interests in the Bay, including (a) The results of the Commission's de- federal, state, regional and local govern- tailed study of the Bay; ments and the public of the San Fran- cisco Bay region. Seven public (b) The comprehensive plan adopted by representatives, required to be residents the Commission for the conservation of of the San Francisco Bay area, are ap- the water of San Francisco Bay and the pointed, five by the Governor, one by the development of its shoreline; Senate Committee on Rules, and one by the Speaker of the Assembly, all subject (c) The Commission's recommendation to confirmation by the California Senate. of the appropriate agency to maintain The Chairman and Vice-Chairman are se- and carry out the Bay Plan; lected by the Governor from the five pub- lic members subject to his appointment. (d) The Commission's estimate of the Local governments in the Bay region are approximate amount of money that would represented by one Commissioner from be required to maintain and carry out the each Board of Supervisors in the nine provisions of the Plan for the Bay; counties and by four representatives of bayside cities appointed by the Associa- (e) Other information and recommenda- tion of Bay Area Governments. State rep- tions the Commission deemed desirable. resentatives on the commission are appointed from the staffs of the Depart- The California Legislature received and ment of Business and Transportation, the acted upon the Commission's report and Resources Agency, the Department of Fi- recommendations in 1969. The revised nance, and the State Lands Commission. McAteer-Petris Act, adopted by the Legis- One member of the San Francisco Bay lature and signed into law by the Gover- Regional Water Quality Control Board is nor, designated the Commission as the appointed by that Board to serve on the agency responsible for maintaining and Commission. One Commissioner repre- carrying out the provisions of the law and sents the United States Army Corps of the Bay Plan for the maintenance and Engineers and one the United States En- protection of San Francisco Bay. The vironmental Protection Agency. Each San Francisco Bay Plan was designated Commissioner has an alternate represent- as the Commission's Plan for the Bay un- ative designated to attend meetings and til otherwise ordered by the Legislature. vote in his absence. The Commission may amend the Bay Plan from time to time so long as the In addition to the regular Commission changes are consistent with the findings representation described above, two and declarations of policy in the law, members of the California Legislature, Consistent with that provision, the Com- one senator and one assemblyman, are mission has adopted a number of appointed to meet with the Commission amendments to the Bay Plan Policies and and participate in its activities to the ex- Maps and such amendments to date tent such participation is not inconsistent have been incorporated in this document. with their duties as legislators. The McAteer-Petris Act also specified the composition of the Commission, the scope of its authority and the area of its Scope of Authority jurisdiction over San Francisco Bay and the shoreline. Since 1969 the Legislature Protection of the Bay and enhancement has amended the McAteer-Petris Act sev- of its shoreline are inseparable parts of eral times, but the general character, the Bay Plan. Clearly what happens to scope of authority, and area of jurisdic- the shoreline helps determine what hap- tion remain. The amendments to the law pens to the Bay; if, for example, the rela- have dealt, for the most part, with refining tively few shoreline areas suitable for or making more specific jurisdictional lim- water-oriented industry are used for 33 housing, pressures will develop to pro- (1) Plummer Creek in Alameda County, vide new industrial land by filling the Bay. to the eastern limit of the saltponds. Therefore, in the public interest, the Com- mission is authorized to control both (1) (2) Coyote Creek (and branches) in Al- Bay filling and dredging, and (2) Bay- ameda and Santa Clara Counties, to related shoreline development. the easternmost point of Newby Is- land. Area of Jurisdiction (3) Redwood Creek in San Mateo County, to its confluence with Smith -- The area over which the Commission bas Slough. jurisdiction for the purpose of carrying out the controls described above is de- (4) Tolay Creek in Sonoma County, to fined in the McAteer-Petris Act and in- the northerly line of Sears Point eludes: Road (State Highway 37). (5) Petaluma River in Marin and Sonoma (a) San Francisco Bay, being all areas (5) Petaluma River in Man and Sonoma Counties to its confluence with that are subject to tidal action from the Adobe Creek, and San Antonio south end of the Bay to the Golden Gate Creek to the easterly line of the (Point Bonita-Point Lobos) and to the Sacramento River line (a line between Northwestern Pacific Railroad right- Stake Point and Simmons Point, extend- of-way. ed northeasterly to the mouth of Marshall (6) Napa River, to the northernmost Cut), including all sloughs, and specifi- (6) Napa River, to the northernmost cally, the marshlands lying between mean high tide and five feet above mean sea level; tidelands (land lying between (7) Sonoma Creek, to its confluence mean high tide and mean low tide); and with Second Napa Slough. submerged lands (land lying below mean low bmtidelo). men (8) Corte Madera Creek in Marin County to the downstream end of the (b) A shoreline band consisting of all concrete channel on Corte Madera territory located between the shoreline of Creek which is located at the United San Francisco Bay as defined in subdivi- States Army Corps of Engineers sion (a) of this section and a line 100 Station No. 318 + 50 on the Corte feet landward of and parallel with that Madera Creek Flood Control Project. line, but excluding any portions of such Where necessary particular portions of territory which are included in subdivi- Where necessary particular portions of sions (a), (c) and (d) of this section; the Commission's jurisdiction may be provided that the Commission may, by further clarified by the Commission's resolution, exclude from its area of juris- regulations. diction any area within the shoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional Control of Filling and Dredging importance to the Bay. in the Bay (c) Saltponds consisting of all areas 1. Permit Procedures for Filling and which have been diked off from the Bay Dredging and have been used during the three years immediately preceding the effective Bay filling (including placement of piers, date of the amendment of this section pilings, and floating structures moored in during the 1969 Regular Session of the the Bay for extended periods of time) Legislature for the solar evaporation of and dredging are controlled through the Bay water in the course of salt produc- permit system established by the tion. McAteer-Petris Act. The Commission is authorized to issue or deny permits for (d) Managed wetlands consisting of all any filling and dredging in the Bay. Any areas which have been diked off from the public agency or owner of privately-held Bay and have been maintained during lands is required to obtain a permit the three years immediately preceding before proceeding with fill or dredging. . * the effective date of the amendment of this section during the 1969 Regular Ses- sion of the Legislature as a duck hunting Permits are granted or denied only after -- preserve, game refuge or for agriculture. public hearings (except for permits for emergency or minor repairs to existing- _-- (e) Certain waterways (in addition to installations or minor improvements as - ----- -- areas included within subdivision (a)), provided in the Commission's regulations, consisting of all areas that are subject to which may be approved by the Executive tidal action, including submerged lands, Director) and only after the city or county tidelands, and marshlands up to five feet having jurisdiction over the area of the above mean sea level, on, or tributary to, proposed project has made its views the listed portions of the following water- known to the Commission (or has failed ways: to do so within 90 days after notification). 34 4. -r * --tyt :1 r -t N.. 4 4 - N .4 "2- -4 I Y N- ".4 - - -. -.-44- -4 N 4-.-. -.4 N-fl.--,- 4;4-n.-.t .4. 4 -j> - - -, 4. -s 4- , - >- tjy 4- NN-t1s -, r 44.,4N..- -4-' - - N .,. ar- -4--N--N-N------ - _______________________ - a=Nz - -- - a 4' - - -a---- -N--- - N4--N - - - N- - - N- - - - -r:i:--- - - N'-- - N The McAteer-Petris Act requires the defined as facilities specifically (h) The proposed project would Commission to take action on a permit designed to attract large numbers provide to the maximum extent matter within 90 days after it has received of people to enjoy the Bay and its feasible for enhancement of fish, the report from the city or county or shoreline, such as restaurants, wildlife and other natural resources within 90 days after it has received and specialty shops, and hotels, in the area of the development. filed an application from the applicant, whichever date is later. These and other (b) The proposed project would (5) The filling would provide on requirements and procedures for permit be designed so as to take privately-owned or publicly-owned processing are specified in the advantage of its nearness to the property for new public access to McAteer-Petris Act (Title 7.2 of the Bay, and would provide the Bay and for improvement of California Government Code) and in the opportunities for enjoyment of the shoreline appearance-in addition to Commission's regulations (Title 14, Bay in such ways as viewing, what would be provided by the other Division 5 of the California Administrative boating, fishing, etc., by keeping a Bay Plan policies-and the filling Code). substantial portion of the would be limited to replacement development, and a substantial piers for Bay-oriented commercial The Commission's decisions on permit portion of the new shoreline recreation and Bay-oriented public matters are governed by the provisions created through filling, open to the assembly purposes, covering less of of the McAteer-Petris Act and the policies public free of charge (though an the Bay than was being uncovered. of the Bay Plan. The Commission should admission charge could apply to The Commission should issue approve a permit application if it other portions of the project). permits under this criterion provided: specifically determines that a proposed project meets the following conditions, (c) The proposed private project (a) The proposed replacement fill each of which is necessary for effectively would not conflict with the adopted in its entirety, including all parts carrying out the Bay Plan. plans of any agency of local, devoted to public recreation, open regional, state, or federal space, and public access to the a. Fills in Accord With Bay Plan. A government having jurisdiction Bay, would cover an area of the proposed project should be approved over the area proposed for filling, Bay smaller in size than the area if the filling is the minimum necessary and would be in an area where being uncovered by removal of to achieve its purpose, and if it meets governmental agencies have not piers (pile-supported platforms), one of the following five conditions: planned or budgeted for projects and those parts of the replacement that would provide adequate fill devoted to uses other than (1) The filling is in accord with the access to the Bay. public recreation, open space, and Bay Plan policies as to the public access would cover an area Bay-related purposes for which (d) The proposed project would of the Bay no larger than 50 per fillings may be needed (i.e., ports, either provide recreational cent of the area being uncovered water-related industry, and development in accordance with (or such greater percentage as water-related recreation) and is the Bay Plan maps or would was previously devoted to such shown on the Bay Plan maps as provide additional recreational other uses that were destroyed likely to be needed; or development that would not involuntarily, in whole or in part, by unnecessarily duplicate nearby fire, earthquake, or other such (2) The filling is in accord with Bay facilities. disaster, and will be devoted to Plan policies as to purposes for substantially the same uses). which some fill may be needed if (e) A substantial portion of the there is no other alternative (i.e., project would be built on existing (b) The volume (mass) of airports, roads, and utility routes); or land, and the project would be structures to be built on the planned to minimize the need for replacement pier (pile-supported (3) The filling is in accord with the filling. (For example, all platform) would be limited to the Bay Plan policies as to minor fills for automobile parking should, minimum necessary to achieve the improving shoreline appearance or wherever possible, be provided on purposes of the project. public access; or nearby land or in multi-level (c) The replacement fill would be structures rather than in extensive limited to piers (pile-supported limited to piers (pile-supported (4) The filling would provide on parking lots.) platforms), rather than earth or privately-owned property for new other solid material, and, wherever public access to the Bay and for (f) The proposed project would possible, a substantial portion of improvement of sl. :line result n permanent public rights to the replacement project would be appearance-in addition to what use specific areas set aside for built on existing land. would be provided by the other Bay public access and recreation; Plan policies-and the filling would these areas would be improved at (d) The pier (pile-supported be for Bay-oriented commercial least by filling to finished grade platform-not a bridge) to be recreation and Bay-oriented public and by installation of necessary removed from the Bay must have: assembly purposes, with a basic utilities, at little or no cost to substantial part of the project built on the public. (i) been destroyed involuntarily, existing land. The Commission in whole or in part, by fire, should issue permits under this (g) The proposed project would, earthquake, or other such criterion provided: to the maximum extent feasible, disaster, or establish a permanent shoreline in (a) The proposed project would a particular area of the Bay, (ii) become obsolete through limit the use of area to be filled to: through dedication of lands and physical deterioration, or (i) public recreation (beaches, other permanent restrictions on all (iii) become obsolete because parks, etc.), and (ii) Bay-oriented privately-owned and changes in shipping technology changes in shipping technology commercial recreation and publicly-owned property Bayward make it no longer needed or make it no longer needed or Bay-oriented public assembly, of the area approved for filling suitable for maritime use. 36 If the platform itself, or the structures (k) The proposed project would Pollution (page 8), Smog and Weather on it, have become obsolete, but the either provide recreational (page 10), Water Surface Area and pilings that support the platform are development in accordance with Volume (page 8), and Marshes and structurally sound, consideration the Bay Plan maps or would Mudflats (page 9), and modified as must be given to using the existing provide additional recreation necessary to minimize any harmful pilings in any replacement project. development that would not effects. Proposed dredging should be unnecessarily duplicate nearby in accordance with the Dredging policy (e) The proposed project must be facilities. (page 15). consistent with a comprehensive special area plan for the (I) The project would be planned e. Valid Title. Because there is some geographic vicinity of the project, to minimize the need for filling. question as to the conditions under a special area plan that the (For example, all automobile which some private parties originally Commission has determined to be parking should, wherever possible, received lands in the Bay, a private consistent with the policies of the be provided on nearby land or in claimant should be required to show San Francisco Bay Plan, except multi-level structures rather than in that he has a valid title to any Bay that this provision would not apply extensive parking lots.) lands proposed for filling. Ordinarily, to any project involving this could be done by submission of a replacement of only a pier that (m) The proposed project would current title insurance report including had been destroyed involuntarily. result in permanent public rights to the derivation of title from original sale (f) Theropsedrjctwulduse specific areas set aside for by the State. Where titles are disputed, inole prosedplacemt fillad public access and recreation; the legal issues should be resolved as rinvolvalo mpater nfia l n tesmthese areas would be improved at soon as possible by court action or removal of material in the same other appropriate steps. least to finished grade and by other appropriate steps. geographic vicinity (as set forth in installation of necessary basic the applicable special area plan).intlaonfnesarbsc the applicable special area plan). utilities, at little or no cost to the f. Public Trust. Many private owners (g) The proposed replacement public, of Bay lands hold title subject to rights pier would not extend into the Bay of the public, derived from English any further than (i) the piers (n) The proposed project would, common law and the California (pile-supported platforms) to be to the maximum extent feasible, Constitution, as to use of waterways for removed from the Bay as part of establish a permanent shoreline in commerce, navigation, and fishing. the project, or (ii) adjacent a particular area of the Bay, These rights, sometimes called the existing piers. through dedication of lands and "public trust" for commerce, other permanent restrictions on all navigation, and fishing, are the subject (h) The proposed project would privately-owned and of considerable legal debate, and court limit the use of the replacement publicly-owned property Bayward tests may be required to determine pier to: (i) public recreation of the area approved for piers. their practical significance. Any (beaches, parks, etc.), and (ii) necessary court tests should be Bay-oriented commercial (o) The proposed project would completed as soon as possible; in the recreation and Bay-oriented public provide to the maximum extent meantime, an applicant for a fill permit assembly, defined as facilities feasible for enhancement of fish should be required to show either that specifically designed to attract and wildlife and other natural the public trust does not apply to his large numbers of people to enjoy resources in the area of the lands, or that the filling would be the Bay and its shoreline, such as development, and in no event consistent with the trust. restaurants, specialty shops, and would result in net damage to hotels. these values. g. Appearance. Plans for a proposed fill project should be submitted to the (i) The proposed project would b. Safety. A proposed project should Design Review Board appointed by the be designed so as to take be approved by the Commission if its Commission and consisting of advantage of its nearness to the Engineering Criteria Review Board professionals in the fields of urban oBay, and would provide n omte determines that the proposed project is design, architecture, and landscape opportunities for enjoyment of the in accordance with the policies for architecture. The Design Review Board Bay in such ways as viewing, Safety of Fills (page 13). The should determine whether the boating, fishing, etc., by keeping a Engineering Criteria Review Board, proposed project is in accordance with substantial portion of the appointed by the Commission in the policies for Appearance, Design, development, and a substantial accordance with the policies for Safety and Scenic Views of the Bay and portion of the new shoreline of Fills, consists of 11 members who shoreline (page 29), and should report created on the replacement pier, are leading professionals in the fields its recommendations to the open to the public free of charge of geology, structural engineering and Commission before a permit is issued. (though apn admissoion charge civil engineering (with specialty in soils The jurisdiction over appearance and could apply to other portions of engineering). design is advisory, and the the project). Commission encourages local (j) The proposed project would c. Public Access. A proposed fill governing bodies to exercise their not conflict with the adopted plans project should increase public access controls in accordance with the of any agency of local, regional, to the Bay to the maximum extent commission's policies on Appearance, state, or federal government feasible, in accordance with the Design, and Scenic Views, and the having jurisdiction over the area policies for Public Access to the Bay Design Review Board's proposed for the replacement (page 26). recommendations. piers, and would be in an area where governmental agencies d. Effects on the Bay. A permit for a 2. Permit Decisions. If a permit have not planned or budgeted for proposed fill, dike, or pier, should be application meets the standards listed projects that would provide approved if it has been evaluated on above, a permit should be granted. If the adequate access to the Bay. the basis of the policies on Water proposal does not meet these standards, 37 a permit should not be issued. In some for emergency or minor repairs or minor Commission may deny a permit cases, however, a permit could be improvements which may be granted by application for a proposed project conditionally approved subject to the the Executive Director) and after the only on the grounds that the project applicant's later meeting clearly-specified process for review and comment by the fails to provide maximum feasible requirements relating to one or more of city or county has been completed. public access to the Bay and the seven standards above. In other shoreline. cases, an applicant might be able to 2. Purposes for Which a Permit for change his proposal to conform to the Shoreline Development May Be Issued b. Public Access. The Bay agency Bay Plan policies, and he could then should insure that each new shoreline reapply after 90 days have elapsed since The Commission should approve a permit development increases public access the date the original permit application for shoreline development if the agency to the Bay to the maximum extent was denied. specifically determines that the proposed feasible, in accordance with the project is in accordance with the policies for Public Access to the Bay standards listed below for (a) use of the on page 26. Developing The Bay and shoreline, (b) provision of public access, Shoreline To Their Highest and (c) advisory review of appearance. c. Appearance. The Commission has Potential appointed a Design Review Board a. Use of Shoreline made up of representatives of the design professions including In addition to the controls over filling and (1) Priority Uses. The Commission a rchitecture, landscape architecture dredging in the Bay the Commission has has designated on the Plan Maps an d engineering. The Board reviews limited control over the Bay shoreline as those areas which should be and makes recommendations to the specified in the McAteer-Petris Act. Such reserved for priority land uses on the C ommission on the appearance and limited shoreline jurisdiction is necessary Bay shoreline. Within those areas, in design of proposed projects, evaluating to reduce pressures for Bay filling that accordance with provisions of the them in light of the policies for would result from poor use of available McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views shoreline land, and to assure that public has set and described the specific o n page 29. Its recommendations are on page 29. Its recommendations are access to the Bay is provided wherever boundaries of the 100-foot shoreline advisory only and are not of feasible. The Commission's shoreline band within which it is authorized to themselves grounds for denying a jurisdiction, as defined in the grant or deny permits for shoreline permit. McAteer-Petris Act, consists of the area development. Permits for between the Bay shoreline, as defined in development within the priority 3. Inland Advisory Role. Outside the the Act, and a line 100 feet landward of boundary areas of the 100-foot area of the Commission's jurisdiction and parallel to the shoreline. The Act shoreline band should be granted or where permits for development from the further specifies that certain denied based on the appropriate Bay Commission are not required, the water-oriented land uses should be Plan development policies: McAteer-Petris Act specifies that the permitted on the shoreline, including provisions of the Bay Plan pertaining to ports, water-related industries, airports, such areas are advisory only. wildlife refuges, water-oriented recreation (a) Ports in accordance with and public assembly, desalinization policy on page 17). 4. Regional Development plants and powerplants requiring large4.RgoaDelpmn aplaonts of pwaerpfosrequiring largoes (b) Water-related Industry (in Policies. Many regional matters, such ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b amuts of water fousr cooing upss amounts of water for cooling purposes. accrac ihplc npg s air pollution control, regulation of Priority use areas designated for such accordance with policy on page as air pollution control, regulation of Priorit t ay use areas desinated f r such16). water quality, planning and construction ~~~uses in the Bay Plan are to be reserved 16).of waste disposal facilities, airport for them in order to minimize the need for fthe fing ordmini the n h eed (c) Water-oriented Recreation (in development, and regional transportation, for future filling in the Bay for such uses. acrac ihplc npg are directly related to the future of the Within the 100-foot shoreline jurisdiction accordance with policy on page are directly related to the future of the Within the 100-foot shoreline jurisdiction 2) a.Sm fteergoa atr r but outside of :he areas designated for nwwti h uidcino tt n but outside of Ihe areas designated for 21). Bay. Some of these regional matters are now within the jurisdiction of state and priority uses tl-e Commission may deny (d) Airports (in accordance with regional agencies, but others are not now an application for a permit for a proposed project only on the grounds policy on page 19). being dealt with at all on a regional basis. Some or all of these regional that the project fails to provide maximum matters could be made the responsiblity feasible public access, consistent with feasible public access, consistent with (e) Wildlife Areas (in accordance matters could be made the responsibility the proposed project, to the Bay and the with policy on page 7). of a limited regional government, which the pooeprjctthSawould in addition carry out the Bay Plan, shoreline. (2) Salt ponds and other managed but obviously they could not be made the The Commission also has, under the wetlands (as shown on the Bay Plan responsibility of a single-purpose Bay McAteer-Petris Act, limited jurisdiction maps) should be used in agency. In any event, however, it is over saltponds and managed wetlands. accordance with the policies on essential that many regional policies page 25. directly related to the Bay be carried out if the Bay Plan is to be effective. For 1. Permit Procedures for Shoreline (3) All Other Shoreline Areas example: Development. The permit system for should be used in any manner that controlling development within the would not adversely affect enjoyment a. Water quality should be maintained a. Wcrater quaity she ouldc e maitaied Commission's shoreline jurisdiction is of the Bay and shoreline by ollon ae essentially the same as the system residents, employees, and visitors Pollution (page 8). established for the control of filling and within the area itself or within dredging in the Bay. Any public agency adjacent areas of the Bay and should be carried out in a ccord ance or private owner holding shoreline lands shoreline, in accordance with the with the policy on P orts (pag e 17). with the policy on Ports (page 17). is required to obtain a permit from the policies for Other Shoreline Uses on Commission before proceeding with page 31. The McAteer-Petris Act c. Airport planning and development development. Permits may be granted or specifies that for areas outside the should be carried out in accordance denied only after public hearings (except priority use boundaries, the with the policy on Airports (page 19). 38 d. Views from vista points and from 3. The Commission may amend the Bay public roads should be protected and Plan policies upon the affirmative vote of scenic roads and trails should be built two-thirds of the members of the in accordance with the policy on Commission, such vote not to be taken 4Dpearance, Design and Scenic Views less than 90 days following public notice age 29). of the hearing on the proposed policy amendment. The Commission may e. Inland industrial sites should be amend the Bay Plan maps upon the provided in accordance with the policy affirmative vote of a majority of the on Water-related Industry (page 16). Commission, such vote to be taken not less than 30 days following notice of the Applying and Amending hearing on the proposed change. The Bay Plan Special Area Plans, as described above, The McAteer-Petris Act specifies that the are subject to the same procedures for Commission may make amendments or public notice, hearing and voting as other other changes to all or any part of the amendments or changes in the Bay Plan Bay Plan consistent with provisions of the policies and maps. Special Area Plans Act. The Act further directs that in that have been adopted by the exercising its power to grant or deny Commission are listed on page 41 and permit applications the Commission shall are specified by area on the appropriate do so in conformity with the provisions of Bay Plan Maps. both the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. Thus the The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan was Commission is directed to carry out the adopted by the Commission in 1976 and Bay Plan, i.e., to guide the development submitted to the Legislature and the of the Bay and shoreline in accordance Governor as required under provisions of with the Bay Plan policies and Bay Plan the Nejedly-Bagley-Z'berg Suisun Marsh maps. Preservation Act of 1974. The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan has as its Because the policies and maps are objectives the preservation and necessarily general in nature, the enhancement of the quality and diversity Commission, as indicated above, is of the 85,000-acre acquatic and wildlife authorized to clarify, interpret and apply habitats of the area and to assure them as necessary. The Commission is retention of upland areas adjacent to the .moowered to issue regulations Marsh in uses compatible with its aining more detailed standards and protection. The Protection Plan was ,;edures based on the Plan policies, to designed to be a more specific assist in preparation of specific plans for application of the general, regional shoreline areas, and to publish policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan information to assist planners, architects and to supplement such policies where and engineers in the design of projects appropriate because of the unique affecting the Bay. characteristics of the Suisun Marsh. The Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977 In those instances where it is desirable to established primary and secondary amplify and to apply Bay Plan Maps, management areas and directed the recommendations and policies to specific establishment of procedures for carrying shoreline areas, the Commission should out provisions of the Plan and the Act in do so through a special area plan. These those areas. The Act specifies that plans should be separate, numbered appropriate policies of the San Francisco documents and should be referred to on Bay Plan and the Suisun Marsh the appropriate Bay Plan Maps. In all Protection Plan shall apply to the cases, special area plans should be read Commission's area of jurisdiction and in conjunction with the provisions of both that if a conflict occurs between the two the Bay Plan and the McAteer-Petris Act. Plans the policies of the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan shall control. References In amending the Bay Plan policies and to the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan are maps or making other changes in the noted on Bay Plan maps. 17-20. Plan, the Commission acts in accordance with the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act, including: 1. The Commission is directed to make continuing studies of any matters related to the Bay that, in the Commission's judgment, are necessary to keep the Bay P'ln policies and Bay Plan maps up to 2. The Commission is required to conduct a public hearing on any proposal to change the Bay Plan policies or the Bay Plan maps. 39 .1 - . t - 1 - I a- Par_ VI The maps that follow are an integral part Special Area Plans, which apply Bay Plan Part LVI of the Bay Plan. They are based on-and Policies in greater detail to specific show how to apply-the Bay Plan poli- shoreline areas, are identified on the Plan The Plan cies. Maps. The purpose of Special Area Plans is to more precisely guide public agen- All areas of the Bay subject to tidal ac- cies and private parties as to what fill, flaps tion (and thus subject to the jurisdiction dredging, or change of use of a shoreline of the Commission for control of filling area would be consistent with the McA- and dredging) are shown on the maps in teer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan Policies. light blue. Similarly shown in light blue Special Area Plans adopted by the Com- are certain tributaries in which filling and mission are: dredging are also controlled because of their ecological importance. (Note: The Special Area Plan No. 1: San Francisco Commission'e legal jurisdiction is de- Waterfront (adopted April, 1975)-ap- scribed in the McAteer-Petris Act and the plies to the San Francisco shoreline from Commission's Regulations, and has been the east side of the Hyde Street Pier to affected by certain court decisions. BCDC the south side of India Basin. staff should be consulted concerning questions of precise jurisdiction.) Special Area Plan No. 2: Benicia Water- front Special Area Plan (adopted April, All shoreline sites designated for priority 1977)-applies to the Benicia shoreline uses (as identified in the Bay Plan poli- from West Second Street to the Benicia- cies) are indicated on the Plan maps. Martinez Bridge. Development of these sites should be governed by the Bay Plan policies for Special Area Plan No. 3: South Rich- each specific use. Development of shore- mond Special Area Plan (adopted May, line areas not proposed for any specific 1977)-applies to the Richmond shoreline use should be consistent with the Bay from the west side of Shipyard Three to Plan policies for Other Shoreline Uses. the southeastern city boundary. Bay Plan policies for which precise The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan is de- areas cannot be mapped-for example, scribed on page 39. policy statements as to proposed Bay or shoreline freeways-are printed on the maps in bold type. Comments that are not part of the Bay Plan policies-for example, suggestions for further study, clarification of policy and alternative proposals-are printed in italic type. Comments in italic type are not intended to be enforceable policies of the Bay agency. 41 Plan Map 1 Notes to Plan Map 1 Natural Resources of the Bay Habitat Values. Plan map shows fish and wildlife areas rated as "high value" and "medium value' by State Depart- ment of Fish and Game. Other areas have value as habitat, but lesser value than the portions marked. Shell Deposits. Oyster shells dredged primarily for use in manufacturing ce- ment. ' (Map 18) (Map 20) (Map 1p4) Ma1)(Map 5) KytPlnMap 9-2 ii~~~~~B NAPA PETALUMA NAP /FA.RUIELD NOVATO Jo San Pablo Bay V. JO SuVuLEGEND WATERBIRD HABITAT HIGH VALUE 1) NN--"S BERKELEY MEDIUM VALUE -ESALI>M2X\> ABERYVILLE wY TIDAL MARSH San Francisco ay \a SHELL DEPOSITS HARBOR SEAL AREAS t~~~ Pactic Ocean / \,�/ FAKO SAN RANCISCO ' WA TEERBIDHBTT BEWARK \ yt #::�:N <>~~~~~HABO SE LEASD.,ROS Pac, ' OcSaneFrancscoBay C t C S < SAN~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FRANISOj J k~~~~~~~~~~~ / .,,,,......::':'".' :)t. ., \ 2 ~~~~~'~::Fii .iii i.H ~ \HAYfWAD REDWOOD CITY%'__ j~~~~~ ~~PALO ALTO X MOUNTAIN VIEW o UILES ^ NC' ' - ,E= Plan Map 1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Natural Resources of the Bay z"O mE' CD ~mm Co 0) '"B O CD wW Plan Map 2 Notes to Plan Map 2 Proposed Major Uses of the Bal and Shoreline General. This map shows all areas proposed for priority uses-ports, wate related industry, waterfront recreation. ports, and wildlife areas. These areas shown in greater detail on following maps. Also shown on this map are: (1 salt ponds and other managed wetlanc (2) proposed main ship channel depth and possible supertanker terminal in a cordance with the policy on Ports; and OMap 18,) Map 201 (3) important vista points and "entranc kMap 13, IMNap 14 views" (first views of the Bay from roa ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dn5 , ~~~~through passes in hills) that are intend MS~~ap tin ' for protection in the same manner as other view points shown on the detaile maps, 3-20. Oman )6 JMaliap 17) Map 9) Along the shoreline in San Francisco a Mann Counties, BCDC's lunisdiction ex 'i.i~ D3} Key to Plan Maps 3-320 tends 100 feet inland and does not in- Key_~~~~~~~~~ to Plan Maps-~~~~~~~~~~c dude any area within the jurisdiction o the California Coastal Commission wes M=ap of the line between Pt Bonita and Pt Lobos Map 101 lMap 5) PETALUMA ,ZARIL SnPboBay BREE IPR * TIDALRMARSH COR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ATEPND MAI)ALGED ELND ~~~~~~~~~~PORTVSTPON* * ENT~~~~NRANEVILEWATRRN PARK. BEACH *~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~SI CHAN N EL n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pa Map 2i~ -a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ALT Proposed Major Uses of the Bay San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended and Shoreline 0o CD (A 0 -U CD Plan Map 3 Notes to Plan Map 3 Richmond to Berkeley Point Pinole Regional Shoreline to Wildcat Creek. Public access to the Bay for recreation is needed in this area although existing shoreline conditions make this difficult. All development in thI area should include provision for sub- stantial public access. Naval Supply Center, Point Molate. Plan maps indicate recommended use fc Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military The Bay Plan does not advocate the closing of any military installation. George Miller Jr. Regional Park. Use ancl landscaping of the private lands ad- jacent to the park should be coordinatec by owners and city for compatibility witn park. South Richmond Shoreline Special Area Plan. The South Richmond Shore line Special Area Plan (Special Area Pia No. 3) was adopted by the Commission (May, 1977) and the City of Richmond Ic provide detailed planning and regulatory guidelines for the Richmond Shoreline from the west side of Shipyard Three to the southeastern border of the city, in- cluding Brooks and Bird Islands and all areas that are subject to tidal action. Re- fer to the maps policies and recommen- dations of the special area plan for specific information for this area. Key to Maps 3-20 POINT PINOIJE WILSONI POINT BEACH AND PARKC REGIONAL SH4ORELIIN oEe Pt. l'u- Preesee nmged character of point. Ntl..~ e- Prow idesfe. GMs Pedestrian aca. Some, NUl may be needed. Protect and provide public accsess SAN PABLO BAY to sahlmsh areaa N TME SISTERS NO developent am~ P ONTSN IENTIN To Prepesed Park.a POINTr SAN amPrie" insdr o bm in onecton, witt. horellne perka of et. Somal ay11M be neeided ofrtdftgsnd hiking tratai POINT Sam PAUBLO swe~~~~~~~~re de ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~San Pablo THE B8O7hERS preow"a Islands Accesa by boat only. Not Rcmnd I NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER If and uwhn not needed by NrA, acquIre and dervelop, few Parki. Existing underground fuel storageI tanks may be uaed by industrt Fp, Extended beech from Point Moline to Cos"r Point. Somet rdi- Richmond tax~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ....... ....... CASTROROK REDOC bAR haullog rud preswervelIsand. " a pul~fc M NoMeeopet;. SOUTH RICHMOND SHORELINE POINT MOLATE TO POINT RICHIMOND V~..N- PEILAE LN~ See special area plan for detailed Develop riding and hIking trails. planning guidelines for the shoreline. ElCro Sam1 nul 91,1y be nedbetween Shipyard Three and the south. E ert GEORIGIE WLLEN JR.~ ~ ~ ~~ eastern border of the City of Richmond. Albany P0INT ISABEL REGIONAL SH4ORELINE ,~ ~ LEG END13P WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY preserve slagnd character. l- PORT Access by boa only~ Brosmidfi WATERFRONT PARK. BEACH WILDLIFE AREA PORT OF RICHkMON TIDAL MARSH gmSeepSedpr Plian. Some fill may be needed EXISTING PROPOSED ,.Protect and provide public MARINA ecstoaftlfs eaoihr PISHING PIER I s 5 7- Be Ice e RECREATIONAL FERRY a -z LAUNCHING RAMP 93ALBANY-ERKELEY-EMERYVILLE COMMERCIAL RECREATION ~CP Develop publIc and commercial recreation COMMERCAL RERETONT raeas. Some fill may be needed to createR ~~~~ISTA P O I N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~usable aftoreline areas, protected water SCENIC DRIVE aressanmd park space. FREEVAY= == RAILROAD _________ COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN BOLD TYPE No freeway in Bay West Of Present shorelne unless all reasonable COMMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED IN I7ALICS elternafiree are found lnfeasibl and need for Say route, Is clearly shown. MILE I ORTI 5 KlOMETER 4% Plan Map 3 3an Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Richmond to Berkeley cp Plan Map 4 Notes to Plan Map 4 Berkeley to Oakland Oakland North Harbor Area. The Oakland North Harbor has not been included on the Seaport Plan Maps as a port priority use area because need for it has not been substan- tiated and it has been found to be less desirable for port development than other sites based on environ- mental, land use and access considerations. In addition, other uses having public benefits. such as conservation and recreation, have been proposed for this site. Future I� 1 '/� ,studies will be necessary to determine the use of this area. Oakland Army Base, Naval Supply _1,, ~i i g ! SCenters, Alameda Naval Air Station ind Reserve Shipyard. Plan maps in- dicate recommended use for Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military. The Bay Plan does not advo- cate the closing of any military installa- tion San Leandro Bay Regional Shoreline. Regional Shoreline to be developed by East Bay Regional Park District--empha- sizing ecology and increased recreation use of the shoreline. Bay Farm Island. The site is adjacent to Oakland Airport, and may be suitable for airport-oriented industry. Bay Farm Is- land development should not interfere with aircraft operations at Oakland Air- port. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 (Mae 33 ~~usshb ~~ CR - sr~~~~ p~~~~d W~~~~~tM ~~Berkeley wss felead petink apec SAN FR-ANCISCO BAY No freie"a in fay -eso of penn shoreline uniean am reaonable, aftemrativee an found tInfeasible and neead fo 11,et r"is eAfl dicm. (Pt-.~~~~~~~~~~ OAKLANO-ALAMIDA PONT AREAAKLAM NAVALY SPL CENTER C OENETILN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Some fill may be needed fot ay -retd dAtrmy ue. e Nav~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~."iltrshouuddbedevelopeddfor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pert NWd related Industrial usesr. See SeaPo Plan. OuWMkkN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~asbitat. Provide continuous publIC aN s~NR A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sefor moe me aln acEstur to nLakeaMerrit Cand ouernRGOAlHRLN LEEDSome eall may Psble Expand ~ ~ ~ ~~pt commsercalms WAT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OERFRONT ISANDBAC W~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N E ESIPYADLItE aREA wenoneddby Coast Guard. Some 0111 in" be needed for W&" sho~~~~~~~~~~~~uldbedeveloped forea partb Sand OperidjonaL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SA FRANISC ruAYa br arorelated industriayss e fivech a d taeofXIe lerSeapor PROaOSE oftedishructuresandl - is I&I ROBERT W.~~~~~~~~~~~~ usw1adi ~sddyMEMRINALSEC MkISh ouNG d PIERd ~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~ALAEA111NCHINO SANMPAD A C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~aia.PovideRCIAL REGRAION A SHRRIN I~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~seem POIN *eyb edd a c s o nrhat ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AKLIOARPORTjat.C01su Fiatha, eapenalon In~~~~~~~~~~~to Bh ay ol WILD L ~ ~ 3 IFE A OREAFi II. San Francisco Bay Conservation aANF"CMC49" ndDevelopmedtCmiso a reptme 9as mamede berey Sutealn w o CD -1 CL 0 m � Plan Map 5 Notes to Plan Map 5 San Leandro, Hayward Bay Farm Island. The site is adjacent to Oakland Airport and may be suitaOle for airport-onriented industry. Bay Farm Is land development should not interfere with aircraft operations at Oakland Air- port. Hayward Area Waterfront The Hay- ward Area Shoreline Plan, a detailed plar for the Hayward area shoreline between the San Leandro city limits on the north and Fremont and Union City city limits or the south, was prepared by the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency. The ; ~ j , .[ , . , plan, adopted by the City of Hayward, Al S = R ~~~~~ ~ ~~~' | = w ~~~~~ameda County, East Bay Regional Park District and the Hayward Area Recreatior District provides for marsh restoration and shoreline recreation use. KyoPnas2 Key to Plan Map' Key to Plan Maps 3-20 (Map 41 SAN LEANDRO SAY ~.~ OAKLAND EGO SHOREUNEL e Alameda C SAN LEANDRO SAY Valuable wildlife habitat; great recreational potential. Develop beating BAY FARM ISLAND facilities and parks, but preserve wildlife habitat. Provide continuous public Undei,eiOped areas may be access to northeastern and southafrn suitable for airport-related shoreiines. Somec f ill may be needed. 'ndUStry. -4~~~~~~~~~~~~~t Pssibeetein it clew needle abe,. b~~~~OYSTER SA mae clew d ~~~~~~~~~~EGuIONem AL.~ SuOEIE. proposed)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OAKLAND~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AWM tI I afiti.KOnlaal apnl la."a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LEGEND AIP0ORT WVATERFRONT PARK BEACH TIDAL MARSH- ' EXISTING PROPOSED 4 MARINA ~ISHING PIER 5 _ REGCREATIONAL FERRY LAUNCHING RAMP COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR VISTA POINT* Z-ENIC DRIVE 4REEVWAY RAIL ROAD______ ____ BAPTD ............ COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN BOLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED IN ITALICS tMap HI S ~ ~ ~~4~ILE N0RT. KIL.OMETER I Plan Map 5 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended San Leandro, Hayward 2) cn M I a. Plan Map 6 Notes to San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Plan Map 6 Refuge. The U.S. Department of the in. Santa Clara and Southern tenor is to acquire approximately 23.000 acres of Bay, marshes, and salt ponds to Alameda Counties be included in a national wildlife refuge Three units. totaling approximately 18,000 Toll Plaza. Best site for toll plaza for acres of the proposed four unit system new Dumbarton Bridge is on east shore are on Map 6. The inclusion of the salt on dry land and located so as to avoid ponds and marshes south of Coyote Hills cutting into the Coyote Hills Slough, and those between Coyote Creek and Guadalupe Slough In Santa Clara Water Quality. Water at extreme south County would be consistent with Bay end of Bay is often polluted so as to dis- Plan policies. The terms of acquisition courage recreational use of sloughs and should permit the salt ponds to continue Bay. Greater recreational use will require in operation as long as desired by the improved water quality. Some improve- owner of the ponds. Acquisition of the ments in the quality of water in the South national wildlife refuge is strongly recom- Bay are now being made pursuant to re- mended. quirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and studies underway by Santa Clara County Shoreline. The waste discharges will lead to further im- Santa Clara County Planning Policy Corn. provements The recommendations for milnee has adopted a Policy Plan for the "i long-range improvements to water quality Baylands of Santa Clara County (July. contained In the Water Quality Control 1972) which establishes conservation and Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, development goals and policies for the prepared by the State and Regional Wa- Santa Clara County Shoreline ter Quality Control Board, should be fol- lowed Subsidence. Area subject to possible subsidence Construction in or near Bay should be carefully planned, taking into account effects of future subsidence Moffett Naval Air Station. Plan maps Indicate recommended use for Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases Is ever declared surplus by the military Tne Bay Plan does not advo- cate the closing of any military installa- tion Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Union City LGN AIRPORT WATERFRONT PARK, BEAC-H TIDAL MARSH WELN SALT POND~ MANAGED VELN EXISTING PROPOSED RECREATIONAL FERRY - ~~~~~~~MARINAU // ~~~FISHING PIER LAUNCHING RAMP H not neadecill. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR of Co"ot Nif ashould 1P S E N C DRV COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN SOLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION: PRINTED IN ITAVCS Breach ea"ndreftur have aim profile end nminlmui n epor structure amd to aMble rmotolatato a provide for fishing and udklote obeearvallon. Toll plaza ofte under sbadt -aesod Pt, Db.udue tobP anbnd Watar-orlented VMS oftp a " _ Sam Mi may be needed. hgft ouf It rot needed for eaft productIon p-ribetween Cooley Lnig and ratlroad bridge Sho--dbedelod Co-1- for recreedoje um., Eapend Cooley Lo~q Lanidngamirin nruuwmwar.0 Last Palo Alto WILDLIFE AREACytCre (pr~~~~~~~~~~ ~I otpoeededfr)atpoudo Charb~~~~~~~~~on Sl~~~ ~ommgcha airpor be rded~na t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aro No yte county Suiviinnyvale con~~~~~~~kx M ge ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ presit lIsdtlamor M~~~~~~~~~~~~dlEi are Possible ~~IL~~~~i~~~i~~~r~~~p ,il ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L.; Pat. Clara and Southern San Franciso Bay Consrvation an Developmet Commissin Septembe 1983 as aended Alamda Countie PAL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :, en " 0t . CL CD Co O CD Plan Map 7 Notes to Moffett Naval Air Station. Plan maps Plan Map 7 indicate recommended use for Bayfront Coyote Creek military installations if one or more of these bases Is ever declared surplus by the military. The Bay Plan does not advo- San Francisco Bay National Wildlife cate the closing of any military Installa- Refuge. The Salt Ponds, marshes, and lion. water areas between Coyote Creek and Guadalupe Slough are to be acquired by the U. S. Department of the Interior for in- clusion in the federal San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge This proposal would be consistent with Bay Plan Poli- cies. The terms of the acquisition should permit the salt ponds to continue In oper- ation as long as desired by the owner of the ponds. Acquisition of the national wildlife refuge Is strongly recommended. Alviso-San Jose Waterfront. Detailed planning Is needed to determine most de- sirable waterfront design and to over- come subsidence problems. Proposals should emphasize the great recreation potential of this area Water Quality. Water at extreme south end of Bay is often polluted so as to dis- courage recreational use of sloughs and Bay Greater recreational use will require improved water quality. Some improve- ments in the quality of water in the South Bay are now being made pursuant to re- quirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and studies underway by waste dischargers will lead to further Im- provements The recommendations for ________ 1 7 long-range Improvements to water quality contained In the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. prepared by the State and Regional Wa- ter Quality Control Board should be fol- lcwed. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 _ I /,, / \ | LEGEND 4 I AIRPORT COYOTE HILL WATERFRONT PARK BEACH rREGIONAL PA $ TIDAL MARSH Park to be extended // SALT POND. MANAGED WETLAND ulmately tonew - Dumbarton Bridge \ Approach. \\ Fremont ~.~ -- \\ EXISTING PROPOSED 4' MARINA 0~ ~FISHING PIER 5 Newark RECREATIONAL FERRY Aquatic Park LAUNCHING RAMP 1 ['N t~ ~ COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR SCENIC DRIVE 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ "k~~~~~~~~ _ .FREEWAY RAILROAD COMMISSION POLICY: PRINTED IN SOLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION: PRINTED IN ITALICS g 1 -- 1+ X H Mowv' Lanc:nq NEWARK SLOUGH T O COYOTE CREEKf Protect abor Ea nursery and hauling grunws No direct public ee Provide levee access for wildlife observation. SOUTH BAY LE O Preserve valuable ndIfe habi-tat and+ develop recreetlonal boi OMng. ,Some f and dredging may be edd. Po 7 of Bay and elot ionde meay b acquired as permaldlntallife wato - _ ong P' Shallow-Draft Port. ALVISO-SANJOSE _..dR+ . Prepare preclse plan arnda develoomenrt MOUNTAIN VIEW prograr or aferfonr area Exjand IOUAINO P IW lacilities provside connnuous puboic access to slough Irontage Mountain View 1 _ , It not needed for sewage treatment purposes. oxidation ponds should be acquired as permanent wildlife area. MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION If and when not needed by Navy, site should be evaluated for commercial airport by regional airport system study. Sunyvale (Mofett NAS not within BCDC permit jurisdiction.) 23 MILE ' NORTH 5 ILOMETER I Plan Map7 ;an Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Coyote Creek CD 4 o,. CD Plan Map 8 Notes to Plan Map 8 - Deepwater Slough. The Port of Southern San Mateo County Redwood City s Deepwater Slougr property (Bair Island site) has not been included on the Seaport Plar Greco Island. Largest remaining marsh maps as a priority use area because In South Bay. Marsh and adjacent mud- need for It has not been substan- flats are Import feeding area for birds. tiated and It has been found to be Area used by California Clapper Rail. rare less desirable for port developme- species of bird endangered by loss of than other sites based on enviror habitat mental. land use and access con- siderations. In addition. other uses having public benefits. such as San Francisco Bay National Wildlife conservation and recreation. have Refuge. Greco Island and a portion of been proposed for this site Future Bair Island are to be acquired by the U studies will be necessary to S. Department of the Interior as part of determine the use of this area the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. This proposal is consistent with Bay Plan policies provided that acquisl- tion and operation of the refuge does not Interfere with commercial shipping and recreational boating in Redwood Creek Hayward Area Waterfront. The Hay- ward Area Shoreline Plan, a detailed plan for the Hayward area shoreline between the San Leandro city limits on the north and Fremont and Union City city limits on the south. was prepared by the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency The plan adopted by the City of Hayward. Al- ameda County, East Bay Regional Park Dlstrict. and the Hayward Area Recrea- lion District provides for marsh restora- tion and shoreline recreation use. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 (Map 5) S Prosect and Femmie pubilc, wiacces REDWOOS $11O1IE Provide continuous public access toiBay andalr BeAmNtMLN Slough, including paths.WJJEAA beaches, arid small parlis. Fbabmfbm(-os --vsarelA" &edaune soundad" lobedaeind Foster City Pass1rnrcay I passilwirockmaiiampark~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A evermam" ~ WE7WWI RAY.o EN WOD IDFLO SOUH " *aft V~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~OMUMT# Is IE CR~~~~~~~~~~~~~ coltrll""dIsm. ybot i~ ae l pofl edmiimmsuprtn COP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Epow~ ut nlu. Oep rpsdItg~se rdet ft" ~ ~ ~~~~~~Tdpr ati under oftudg San~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sea IImlarmlos Inld \W0P hg-e k*t RED CITY structure NW~Se Seaor Plan Ean motristne S WATE T P A ~ ~~~~tRKinals and Iat-rlrelatAd p r o acENLOhPARK ~~~~~~~~~~~nee.(proposed) p r v d k w fsrnan rlitooail Bounc T0111 plove aft ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bunderiesuto LEEDEITNG POOE e detemie. ~~~~~~~REWOCIYPORTMANA 7 oeLasq ~~~~~~~~~~~terminan pond betweenlo CMEyNLanin PARK RERAINLFRrilrodustride Shomefllda be WAERFRONTPed .YILDLIFE AREA for~~~~~neeed recretonalose. xad)Coe ~~AL MARSH - LAUNCHING RAMP Landing marina n~Boundries orhad SALT POND MAAGED WETLAN COMMERCIALRECREATION A F ERR PAL ALI SCENIC DRIVE WILDLIFE AREA FREEWAY RAILROAD _________IMenilo Park Es aoAt COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN B3OLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION: PRINTED IN ITALICS Palo AltoMa6 MILE 5 .LOMETER 4 Plan Map 8 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Southern San Mateo County op. Ca Plan Map 9 Notes to Plan Map 9 Northem San Mateo County Surlingame Watertront Developing waterfront requires detailed planning to determine the most desirable waterfront design emphasizing recreation and public access with a minimum of Bay filling. S n Mateo (City) Waterfront. Pres- ently undeveloped. Detailed planning needed to determine most desirable waterfront design emphasizing recreation with minimum of Bay filling. Possible Shoreline Channel. Dredging shallow-draft channel parallel to shore would greatly increase recreational op- portunities for small boats and recreation- An,_EE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _al ferries. This could be done so as to separate valuable marshes and mudflats from the shoreline, without damage to ecology. Dredged mud could be carefully placed to create new marsh, but dredg- ing might be costly. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 UAL. 10 CAUISEWAY Brisbane I enlo accinichfontagenred and turnouts far fishing sand viewring. Protect aiwflfisil bed offshore. F h~~~~o fro"iee In Ba"a eat c U.S. 101 V ~ ~~~~~~~unless as reasonable, alterneltvee ar found Infieasible, and nedfor Ba" route is Clearly athown. BRISBANE AQUATIC PAWKTj ~~APBRLINO % (~proposed) BR~~~~~~~~OSUNPOIN ExPend niffia and Aeeo eliorelne ~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~O S c penek Bon imay kw neeided. Pt San 8in South San Francisco Prec ONd Pr~ Pubic, mome to siteil bede oflidirS POe$bfe Par* and Marine San Bruno - Ifclearneedle shownby inflictel Damsiola ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~osil smel-boa canve, Sani Mhro- from ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~prga &tor ateron emphasizing WA~~~~MUYTERFROINT PARK BAHwtroine erain ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rt;DALARS l a o n a s o Same fill nay be needed. EXISTINAM PROOSE MARINA Srogam fatoraeorcud ~SHIO PER I rovde ontnuous publicacessy RECREATIONAL ~ ~ o "ERY-"Iaces oga and fishingt Som. "I may be~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sluh ineeudedats LAUNCHING RAMP 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~osil echs, nmall-ba parks. COMMSSIN SUGESIN MAITED I TLC A~~~~~ IRP ORT MAnRanIsoByCnevtoanDeeomnComsinSpebr18asmndd NArhr San Mateo Cut z"O so X 0 O O Plan Map 10 Notes to Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Plan Plan Map 10 - maps Indicate recommended use for San Francisco and Brisbane Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military The Plan does not Son Francisco-Marnn Crossing. The advocate the closing of any military in- Central Bay is the most widely enjoyed stallation part of the entire Bay and this attractive setting should be protected. Transporta- Hunters Point Freeway at Candlestick tion agencies have reached general Point Connection to U S. 101 south of agreement that traffic congestion prob- Candlestick Point requires further study f11 lems can best be solved by establishing connection is close to Candlestick Cove. Therefore. Plan complete bus syno provision for large overpass structure will be required, Therefore, Plan makes no provision for marring present spectacular views of Bay second deck on Golden Gate Bridge, or for motonsts heading south on Bayshore for any additional vehicular crossing. In- Freeway to Bayview Hill If connection is creased auto capacity on Golden Gate farther south, in Brisbane, long structure Bridge. or a new vehicular crossing, in Bay will be required Other considera- could require new or enlarged toll plazas. tions nclude effects upon future develop- * service areas, access ramps, and free- ment on shoreline of Candlestick Cove. ways on both the San Francisco and Ma- and future U S 101 connections to rin sides, with possible disruption ofposed Geneva Avenue and Guada- scenic areas on both sides of the Bay lupe Parkway extensions San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan. Special Area Plan No 1 San Francisco Waterfront was adopted Jurisdiction note. Along the shorelire by the Commission (April 3, 1975) to In San Francisco and Mann Counties. provide detailed planning and regulatory BCDC's lurisdiction extends 100 feet In- guidelines for the waterfront of San Fran- land and does not include any area with- cisco from east side of Hyde Street Pier In the jurisdiction of the California Coastal to south side of India Basin Refer to the Commission west of the line between maps. policies and recommendations of Point Bonita and Point Lobos the Special Area Plan for specific Infor- 10. v L~�..~. mation for this area San Francisco Waterfront. Suggested scenic transit system (special bus, ele- phant train. cog railway, etc.) could be major waterfront attraction, could eventu- ally operate entire distance from Golden Gate Bridge (or even Ocean Beach) to Ferry Building (or south to China Basin). Key to Plan Maps 3-20 (Ma 10) ~~~~~~~~~5cSLd ~Ah~ MU TEASuREISLAN ~~~ Uei~~M&nwdbr *bud Ratain in public, It and when not needed by WMvy owmlIp Access by boet only.10 k~ftt- ULal redevelop for public uLim Provride Special deal"n opporbflnty continuous public bace. to BaII; Pt. 01.ai. 0 GOL.DEN GATE BRIDGE FORT MASONSA FRN SC BY o Encourage Improvred public As not neaded by Aotny. develop waterfront YERRA BUENA ISLAND * tra~~~Naotsln NOSecond and nolteast sectiona park. It and when not needed by Nv or now cro~~~~~ng f a r ~ ~or Coasot Guard, redevelop releaeed .C,3xe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ra lprcetonallus.. from Ocean Beach to China Barrr IV SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN *1 -h * * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ See ~P"arecai plea for detailed Platang guidelines fe thle elloreina, 0 ~ ~~~~~~ between 0 Ma seat aldS the Hyde PRESIDIO Stef ~ PWNWte Sanm e am"l It and when not needed by Army. retain at km f bd Sas least shorell ne and undeveloped areas / as regional park./ / ~~POWflOf SAN FRANCISCO ~~~~ n~~~~~~~~~~ci~~~~eso See eeor Plan. Redevelop SAN~~~~~ FANCISCO -alm Noit for modem x~~~~~~~ 0. 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X Some fill ny be needed in inlet wsofprop~e freeway. HUNTERS POINT NAVAL SHIPYARb~ Some fill may be needed for shipyard. It and when not needed by Navy. should be developedor pofl and related industrial ue See Seaport Plair. 4- Cndei to waterfront. ~~~CANDLESTlICK P04NT ~~~- ~~~SNOREUINE PARK (proposed) LEGEND Scame fil mtty FORT Brisbane be need"d vVATERFRONT PARK BEACH US MCUEA Devellop scenic frontage road and turnoutS tor viewing and Ifisng. I ~~~~~~~~~Protect ahelffish beds off shore. EXISTING PROPOSED MARINA ... lrnPrunlfes a"t reasonable slliterativee, 0~SHING PIER BayreounditeeIs bleandy son.e RECREATIONAL FERRY ~a'BRISBANE Ba'ot scerySon COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR E'47RANCE V I E W F R O M R O A D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Provide easy pedeatrian VISTA POINT I N acesarssfewy SCENIC DRIVE FREEWAY RAILROAD BARTD.............P COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED Sout BOLD FraYPEc COMMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED IN ITALICS C Map 9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mao 91 3 MLE NOnrT 5 3 OILDMETER I4%. Plan Map 10 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended San Francisco and Brisbane C - 0n mi C) Plan Map 11 Notes to Appearance and Design. Housing Plan Map i1 density in hills of Sausalito, Tiburon, and Southern Marin County Belvedere should respect the topography' cluster development appropriate in some Point San Quentin-Posaible Com- areas muter Ferry Terminal. No fill for park- Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite. ing beyond existing dikes. Surplus Army land now being transferred to the Golden Gate National Recreation Shoreline Parks. Shoreline parks could Area. be built in several areas between existing or proposed shoreline roads and the San Franclco-Marln Crossing. The shore from Tiburon Peninsula to Point Central Bay is the most widely enjoyed San Pedro Further study needed part of the entire Bay and this attractive setting should be protected. Transporta- Tiburon-Possible Commuter Ferry bon agencies have reached general Terminal. To minimize traffic and park- agreement that traffic congestion prob- ing problem, should be served by mass lems can best be solved by establishing transit, or else designed to serve south- fast modern complete bus system. - ern Mann only with another terminal built Therefore, Plan makes no provision for -En ? | to serve northern Miann. second deck on Golden Gate Bndge, or for any additional vehicular crossing. In- creased auto capacity on the Golden mize fill by using existing roadbed as Gate Bridge, or a new vehicular crossing part of new right-of-way. Preserve hilltop could require new or enlarged toll plazas, visla point service areas, access ramps, and free- ways on both the San Francisco and Ma- Richardson Bay. Under study Prob- rin sides, with possible disruption of n ernlems: (1) substantial dredging required scenic areas on both sides of the Bay. because of siltation, (2) access needed to upper reaches west of U S 101 Free- way for potential marinas, (3) complex ownership pattern Sausalito Recreational Ferry. Ferry Jurisdiction note. Along the shoreline terminal could be connected to central In San Francisco and Mann Counties. area Dy 'elephant train' along waterfront BCDC's jurisdiction extends 100 feet In- or Bridgeway Or terminal could be land and does not Include any area with- placed In central area if parking can be in the junsdiction of the California Coastal provided Commission west of the line between Point Bonita and Point Lobos Sausaiito-Commuter Ferry Terminal. To minimize traffic and parking problem, should be served by mass transit or else designed to serve Sausalito and Mill Val- Key to Plan Maps 3-20 ley only with other terminals serving rest of Marin. iMap 121 Dereloo ~~~~a~pou, q ~~~'dg ~San Pablo Stmra Prooe POL. Give Priority ctiedo POINT SAN PABLO to beecit developroent Same nol my b SAN RALFAEL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MARIN ISLANDS Asa o aieneeded for'bec outside existing dike w p~~~~~~~~rcetoalr~ laleod 8Th. rthr THE BROThERS and lghthoue. Acceea by boat onfy. NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER If end when not needed by Navy, 4~~~~~~~~~~~~P~mcmute acquire and devellop for pear.. Greenbri e r r ema Existing undergrouind fuel torage bkaMay be ueed by Induaafry. F, .. POINT MOLATE BEACH Extend boom hfoam~H Moit mtei -:0-.:.- ~~~~~~~~~ tO ~~~Ceafrst Point. Same fio -'- ~~~~~~ ~~~~0~~~.~~~ may bened. Larkspur PON A QETNT CORTE MADERA SHORELINE PARKIn SANneto PiitoEDieCSRO RCE (proposeeN Incneonwt soanCSR Park& aend scenlic drlvea deweo Re limb, m Develop 60-1OAcre shoreline -YU ey mOf rkIng end hikin traill. PRC a) huln~ud perk as part of future developmn RED ROKhaln Peev "OlNdN o pubicac Corte Mader plo pulc orawo" Protect end provId publlic O~ecm to ewfheiil bede flhoe REGIONAL SHORLN PtB Rho-d POINT MOLATE TO POWN RICHMOND Develop rlht ed Idng traIl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SMe Vaill0 O mey bened. TIBURON OCEANOGRAPHIC CENTE -I - B Pt~~~~~~~~ch-tt-oy (forme Navy Net Depot) If text when not needed by Federal *Governent. acquire and develop for peark. ICEIL COVE-BLUFF P0INT PARK ANGEL ISLAND STATE PARK ~~~~~~~~~Bcho Id.re C.- USrn only for camping, picnicklng, water- oriented recreiatin Access; by boat onlyt No commercial uees except for Sa 10 0-> 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ~~~convenience needs `.I park visitors. LEGEND C Pt. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~PORT WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY WATERFRONT PARK BEACH p WILDLIFE AREA TIDAL MARSH EXISTING PROPOSED MARINA FISHING PIER5 -' 'fr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RECREATIONAL FERRY I~~~e. -V~~ LAUNCHING RAMP COMMERCIAL RECREATION CP C01 - ,e' ~~~~~~~~~~ENTRANCE VIEW FROM ROAD ci .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VISTA POINT* z ~~~~~GOLDEN GTNATIONA GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE SCENIC DRIVE -- -~~~~ ~RECREATIO AEA Encourage Improved publicFREA- --- -- As not needed by Army, acquire adtranepoftetlon. No second extend petd, Pre-Seaoe and protect deck or now crossing fo RAILROAD rugged character. eapeciay an Golden atmblS Gate and Pacific Coast aides. Limit acce" to water (at cWVe") to foot CMISO OIYPITDI ODTP tradlse. paable funicuiasr. No COMMISSION SUGESION PRINTED INBOLTALPC commercial us"a except for convenience C M I S O U G S INPITDI TLC needs of peart vialtora. VILE NORT. 3KLOMEIE- 41% Plan Map 11 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Southern Marin County CI)'O e~~~~~~~~~~~~ln Ma 1 o X Is -_ [;; i-i, Plan Map 12 Notes to Plan Map 12 Western San Pablo Bay Hamilton Air Force Base. Plan maps indicate recommended use for Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military. The Bay Plan does not advo- cate the closing of any military installa- tion. Park Proposal for Area South of Hamilton AFB. Large, undeveloped area between Hamilton AFB and Galinas Creek is possible site for major county park. Due to extensive offshore mudflats, would not be suitable for water-oriented =,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~recreation. Possible Shoreline Channel. Dredging ."._~1~~~~~~ _t~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ __j; ~~~~~~~ ,shallow-draft channel parallel to shore _ _~~~~~~~~ a,+ + ~~~~~~~~~~would greatly increase recreational op- portunities for small boats and recreation- al ferries. This could be done so as to separate valuable marshes and mudflats from shoreline without damage to ecol- ogy. Dredged mud could be carefully placed to create new marsh, but dredg- '_ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ing might be costly Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Man, 131 4 LEGEND WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY AIRPORT WVATERFRONT PARK. BEACH Of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WILDLIFE AREA TIDCAL MARSH EXISTIING PROPOSED .9?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o*W W Whkn sl FISHING PIER along le~~~~ress. ~ ~RECREATIONAL FERRY LAUNCHING RAMP5 ) I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR VISTA POINT* -- ~~~~SCENIC DRIVE habitat. may be ecohdupn only W RAILROAD fishing piers, anmellboet andl barge chaennala. wilklta obseejation acdll li. and Plaer necessary fw Induatry- geig COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN SOLD TYPE onshlore development to pISC wkildifta COMMISSION SUGGESTIONi PRINTED IN ITALICS value of offshore wows Poss,ble Lagoon and Park HAUU.TON AIR FOfW1 BASE Ig~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nai If d when not needed by n~llfM~ IgnaclO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~retana geneal evdie rellrear airport. LkI niwmay lunlait ud npoafresdftloalf for w-Ndlll a ItaI er putentlaflr resorable wetlandwsehotdd be developedo MMd Managed for thoese purpefta in a Maniner aseaurin -eea avialon use. Oilie -rss notneedeadfor avIation.en" eur ,idin Cm Iss, ehould bea1 derabopentfo leae comptiseble -y -!-Bure avato urn e Mnd whithi Vw wo mePasone, ~-~ Possoble Ab laa&"Ds - Major Park JOHN F. MCINNIS COUNTY PARK , CHMA CAW STATE PARK Creole condnou hoein ecetln Prolm ad"provid public sain to ahliaI be"s olfatuom RAT ROCK "Goldeveopment. Santa Venetia SAN PEDRO MOUNAN TME SISTERS - along oge P r s r e i l n s - ~~~~~~~~no devewopment. Th. Sktne Pt. Sap,Ped.n POInT SAIN (NUENTIN To POIINT SAN PEDRO In cannect"o wIth shoreline -mr and ecenlocl Arvs eeo __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A ISLAD W. -an Leland P t s apw Map I,, MILENOT 5 ."LOMETRk Plan Map 12 3an Francisco Say Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Western San Pablo Bay Cn co 2) Plan Map 13 Notes to w Plan Map 13 N-Jotes to P lan Map 13 Petaluma River San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The marshes and mudflats of San Pablo Bay east of the mouth of the Petaluma River, including Lower Tubbs Island, are being acquired by the U. S Department of the Interior for the federal San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge This program would be consistent with Bay Plan policies Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Petaluma A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LEGENDI WATER-RELATED INUSY WATERFRONT PARK. BEACH POSSibe WILDLIFE AREA PhloDrat TIDAL MARSH .~~~~~~~~~'..t. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EXISTING PROPOSED MARINA RECREATIONAL FERRY ~LAUNCHING RAMP5 * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR VISTA POINT* SCENIC DRIVE --- FREEWAY RAIL ROAD COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN BOLD TYPE Neils Island not within COMMISSION SUGGESTION: PRINTED IN ITALICS .CDC permit jurisdiction. PETALUMA MARSH Marsh has high wildlife value: may be included in permanent wildlife area. Po ibis Now ROBERT LEE SIMS PRESERVE ewlop riding and hikdIng traiai awon -~sa Novato ~tin t Mwashes and muditts are valuailte wildlife habiltat; may be encroached upon only for - fleeting piers, emall-bodt and barge Possible Lagoon and Park chainn"l wildlife obervton facillilee and plat necessary for lndueury Desig onshoredeivelopmen to prtacte wildlfe alu of offela whoerei - MILE NORTH _____________________ Plan Map 13 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Petaluma River M" Plan Map 14 Notes to Plan Map 14 Napa Marshes Salt Ponds and Other Managed Wet- lands. Large area, high-value wildlife habitat. Skagg Island Security Group Activity (U. S. Navy). Plan maps indicate recommended use for Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military. The Bay Plan does not advocate the closing of any military installation San Pablo Bay National WIldllfe Refuge. The marshes and mudflats of San Pablo Bay west of Vallejo and south of State Highway Route 37 are being ac- quired by the U. S. Department of the In- tenor for the federal San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. This program !s~~~ ~~~~ J:~ ~~~~~~~ '~...~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~would be consistent with Bay Plan poli- cies. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Key to Plan Maps 3-20 SKAGG ISLAND It and when not needed by Navy, redevelop as wildlife area ond water-oriented recreational complex. Devlo ridi ngmd dM" Accee. toSe aM& for vloibewn us" Wong iovess . N W "lngoid Th~~~b~~ II~~~~d ~SAN PA= SAY Marobwe and mudafta are valuables vililifti habltan may be encroachjed upon Only, for flefting plere mamll-tort and barge, chtannela. wilditia obeervation faclithiee. and ~ valuem of offshore areaa LEG END NA-ER-RELATFD INDUSTRY WILDLIFE AREA ~DLMARSHi- SALT POND MANAGED WETLAND SAN PABLO BAY MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD If and bhen root needed by Navy, give fire consideration to part and wafter-retlatd induetr Part List ahould be limited to shallno-draft shlppinlg unlasa the channielS EXISTING PROPOSED serving the slle can be maintained at a cost that Is reasonable In MARINA -relation to other regional dredging Porellta pIr Ponil PS,-ING PIER needs. See Seaport Plan. overtooking the Say. ~AJNCHING RAMP SCENIC DRIVE PREEWAY PAILROAD COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN BOLD TYPE COMSINSUGGESTION PRINTED IN ITALUCS 5 M I L E NC)R'M'L K-LOMETER 4%1 Plan Map 14 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Napa Marshes zmu Plan Map 15 Notes to Plan Map 15 Eastern San Pablo Bay Salt Ponds and Other Managed Wet- lands. Large area, high-value wildlife habitat Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Plan maps indicate recommended use for Bayfront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military. The Bay Plan does not advocate the closing of any military installation. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Map 141 _-- Rw APA BAY Encourage recreational development of areas adjacent to shorenne Provide continuous puOlic access ~~s~~~~~~p~~~ : _ > r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~to snoretne R _ ,-'- .. '~e~g ~ ~ -~ I 'F~3 '6 ~ ' VW is fmn "I lando to shoreline from Napa Say to existing park Protect vews of Strait from SAN PABLO BAY Design Proposed freeway to provide access to waterfront and to protect VALLEJO WMTER-RELATED INDUSTRIA' AREA _ Some fll hey be needed. SAN PABLO SAY ARE I 1Marshes an mudlat arevsa w dl alind w a meai by N a= hab Nta ma1y bee -Bpo fy gencro ahe fiupa on oWnA fishing piers, mal-bo and barge I too Mdumry. Po nt t chan:ne:ls, wdlUfe ooervaton he4m. and sl*houtS bl nld to shalew-drl piers necssary for Induatr. Oeign onshore shlipping unle tse tN e development to protecti wi maldfe vake of rvng m maained offshore at co t tirt lo eaale In rlOW to oW ragmal dredging LEGEND CAROUINEZ STRAIT, BRIDGE AND SHOREUINE e , ' Carqu nez AT E R-RELATEO IND1STRY POPt Enhance scenic qua�res preserve l .,ATER-RELATEDICSTRY RODEO views and increase puboc accst~s. 9 WATERFRONT PARK BEACH Provide ba my pesdathtsAt SELsYCI NILDLIFE AREA Sam flut mry be neeed Se Seaport Pln. Soen fill may I TIOAL MARSH needed kw pan ue. D P Crockett 1TDAL MARSH PINOLE-HERCULES SALT POND MANAGED WETLAND SHORELINE PARK (Proposed) ea Rlse level tof dry land, but preserve adacnt mar sh es. EXISTING PROPOSED Provide al pedestrian cces across railroad tracks. MARtNA Landscape existing se wage F'SHING PIER treatment plant RECREATIONAL FERRY a 'e .Cs' ANCHING RAMP Proposed beach and parkl Preserve OMMERCIAL RECREATION CR rugged dacter at point. Provide EN-RANCE VIEW FROM ROAD fill may needed. Protect and POINT provide public access to heislh beds offthora. SCENIC DRIVE / ==EEWAY Ds/gn fuure develooment west COMMISSIONPOLI CY PRINTEDIN SOLD TYPE __ C-MMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED sN ITALICS -Vr. MILE NORTh . ....PDMEER e+ Plan Map 15 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Eastern San Pablo Bay p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ G'1 O Plan Map 16 Notes to Plan Map 16 Carquinez Strait Benecla Beach State Park. Proposed park expansion should encompass princi- pal overlooks and ridges on north side of strait, to preserve rugged and scenic character of hills, presently undeveloped Scenic Area South Side of Carquinez Strait The scenic area includes princi- pal overlook ridges and scenic road between Crockett and Martinez. To pre- serve presently undeveloped rugged and scenic hills, zoning should provide for ex- tremely sparse development with control over tree removal and location of all structures; scenic easements should be acquired by East Bay Regional Park Dis- trict, county, or other public body as necessary to guarantee permanent pro- tection. Some park development may be 1- appropriate in valleys leading to Bay. Benlica Waterfront Special Area Plan. Special Area Plan No. 2 was adopted by the Commission (April, 1977) and the City of Benicia to provide detailed plan- ning and regulatory guidelines for the Be- nicia Shoreline between West Second Street and the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Refer to maps, policies, and recommen- dations of the special area plan for spe- cific information for this area. West Benicia Waterfront. Detailed planning is needed to determine most de- sirable waterfront design west of West Second Street, emphasizing "urban" rec- reation uses with a minimum of Bay filling (and housing on existing private land). Martinez Waterfront. Largely un- Key to Plan Maps 3-20 developed at present, City has prepared specific plan for waterfront design and recreation uses. -M.. 18I LEGEND 'NATER-RELATED iNDUSTRY PORT INATERFRONT PARK BEACH TIDAL MARSH ~ *- SALT POND MANAGED WETLAND EXISTING PROPOSED MARINA -iSH-ING PIER RECREATIONAL FERRY .AUNCHING RAMP COMMERCIAL RECREATION CR ENTRANCE VIEW FROM ROAD VISTA POINT* SCENIC DRIVE - FREEWAY RAILROAD COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN SOLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED IN ITAUCS - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BENICIA STATE RECREATION AREA BENICIA INDUSTRIALPR - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Extend park to include shoreline bluffs Reserve area east of overfoekindg Carquinez Strait. No for waterfrontI ndusl r corinuwrcial uses-except for convenience and provide *ccess 1 l Vallejo in on Orneeten Prepare Precise plan and devalopntefit A* '4 program for waterfronI West of West,% Secnd Street- Structures (year 7emnt should be kept loWwad r wal- p 10 prec Cview from P s dwqa . Prvidie m1awimu SAN PABLO U --. 3iAY Ppelinles and pier may APQUWNEZ STPAJIfR?DGE BNCAWTRRN l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PCAL AHREA LAN 2 E-narce scenic quae % ealdpanninggidelns o'eserve vOr's and riCreaSe ouo'c accesWetSeodStrmadM nalural landscajoe features. IL WI~~N G~kL SHORELINE MILE NORTh. L- .TE 411% Plan Map 16 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Carquiniez Strait ND~ Q"O~ Plan Map 17 Notes to Plan Map 17 Suisun Bay Suisun Marsh. Thousands of acres of controlled marshes are maintained by duck-hunting clubs as wildfowl habitat Areas are diked, but dikes are opened for periodic flooding. Suisun Resource Conservation District protects and en- hances marshland areas Port Chicago Naval Weapons Station. Plan maps indicate recommended use for Bayiront military installations if one or more of these bases is ever declared surplus by the military. The Bay Plan does not advocate the closing of any military installation. Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. The Protection Plan is a more specific ap- plication of the policies of the Bay Plan because of the unique characteristics of the Suisun Marsh. The policies of both the Bay Plan and the Protection Plan ap- ply within the Marsh, however, in event of policy conflict the policies of the Protec- tion Plan control. Refer to maps and poli- cies of the Protection Plan and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977, for more specific information. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Mae la, 'Man 20, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GRIMZY ISLAND0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WILDLIFE AREA Joica~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G~i Island Unit. C U~~~~~~~~~VONTIEU111A AND SUIISIJN SILOUGONS May be dredged for amall-boa and shalom draft InduetrIal use. ad^ 11 S U I S U N . GFAZZLY AND 1,11G10ZZ1YMBAY saga"~ = P"WWWB - and mud~flabs; some fWl and dredging ma" be needed to Improve boating, viewng hunting anrd fishing. Parts of be"a a"d-5~.O4itv Islands may be adde to eann P__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Si.g Isi.io Middl. G,o..d Iniond PORT OF BENICIA See Seapai Plan. Scoameli may be 9, Ed~ih also*-'4-. needed weot of Mallnez-Senlcia Bridge. x POpelne and plans may * :.- . be bulit over mntarshes. Itadwhen not needed by Navy. give first consideration to port or PORT CHICAGO NAVAL water-related industrial use. Port WEAPONS STATION and industrial use should be restricted so that they do not adversely aftect marshes. See SeVaport Plan. U. *... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED MARINA WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY 59 4 ~~~~~WILDLIFE AREA LANHNGRM MART]N IA ARH*.~ SCENIC DRIVE -- REGIONA SALT POND MANAGED WETLAND SHORELN POST FREEWAY ------~ 4MA-RTINE RIRA \ COMMISSION POLICY PRINTED IN BOLD TYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED IN ITALICS VLE -40RT. - L:EE 4%~.E4'" Plan Map 17 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Suisun Bay (n M 'ID _-4 Plan Map 18 Notes to Plan Map 18 Grizzly Bay Suisun Marsh. Thousands of acres of controlled marshes are maintained by duck-hunting clubs as wildfowl habitat Areas are diked. but dikes are opened for periodic flooding Suisun Resource Conservation Distnrict protects and en- hances marshland areas. Sulsun Marsh Protection Plan. The Protection Plan is a more specific ap- plication of the policies of the Bay Plan because of the unique characteristics of - ___ 18 the Suisun Marsh. The policies of both the Bay Plan and the Protection Plan ap- ply within the Marsh, however, in event of policy conflict the policies of the Protec- tion Plan control. Refer to maps and poli- --J.A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *< ,<,_. Or~~cies of the Protection Plan and the ,~:.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ sSuisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977, for more specific information. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 Key to Plan Maps 3-20 4eig AlzzjjE papuiewp se r,96L jequieldGS uoissiwwoo juawdolaea( PUB U011BA)GSU00 Aea OOSIOUR~_4 UR 9L dew~ Uflid 30rfllVINI O3lNI~d NOIS3fl NOsum"~ BdAl 30 MlO NI �NI~d A011Od NOISSIVNIV4O0 P~M %Avq 40 %-d fluPM p- *jwmufl Su9Ma" 'Bu~fn" "aAd 6 ~PMu eq __________________ ~Aaws OuilAmp pug tlvi.i -SW~mmp pto QVQ~~1IVotsw..i *mm ,lUumad guuagmmxm * ~~~~~INIOd VISIA 5 dMW~ UNIH-ONflV 1 2 9 3li DNIHS1:1 a ~~~~~~VNIBYIM a3SC~d0Md. SNLSIX3 C ONY1.L3M C13EVNVY4 QN~d ilVS4 HSkJVV41YCI.1 HZOV31 )4Vd INO0d:Ik3VM AWILSfCl CNI V138-hJ.VM aN353-1 NnamU cm V11111123AH 'I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~jpo CDO Plan Map 19 Notes to Plan Map 19 Honker Bay to Collinsville Recreational Potential. Extensive, valuable recreational potential in river and island areas (e.g. Sherman island- Sherman Lake" area popular for boat- ing, fishing) Recreational use should be encouraged. Collilnaville Area. The Collinsville-Mon- tezuma Slough area is adjacent to the deep-water shipping channel, has rail service, and consists of flat land, It is one of the largest available sites anywhere in the Bay Area for water-related industry The shoreline fronting on the main ship- ping channel is limited, however, and this relatively small frontage should be care- fully planned and shared for maximum ir dustriai development. Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. The Protection Plan is a more specific ap- plication of the policies of the Bay Plan because of the unique characteristics of the Suisun Marsh. The policies of both the Bay Plan and the Protection Plan ap- ply within the Marsh, however, in event o policy conflict the policies of the Protec- tion Plan control. Refer to maps and poli- cies of the Protection Plan and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977, for more specific information. Key to Plan Maps 3-20 81I1Asu1I1oo oi Aug .IO)IUOH Papueuie Se E96L jeqwueideS uoissIwwoO lusewdoISAaCI puB uoIeEieSUCo ALS 0SOsiou 4J ULS 61. deW U81d PtiU�IsUAmqs1ld 8384sIU pB~M-otis saulW"Pu/ AVAA3W. W31d ONIH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~O~SI AU3 VNIVk A9isnC NI HS3.V3Wb3V ONS03-1 -, I.D 0 0 0 CD Plan Map 20 Notes to Plan Map 20 Montezuma Slough Suisun Marsh. Thousands of acres of controlled marshes are maintained by duck-hunting clubs as wildfowl habitat Areas are diked, but dikes are opened for periodic flooding. Suisun Resource Conservation District protects and en- hances marshland areas Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. The Protection Plan is a more specific ap- plication of the policies of the Bay Plan because of the unique characteristics of the Suisun Marsh The policies of both the Bay Plan and the Protection Plan ap- ply within the Marsh, however, in event of policy conflict the policies of the Protec- tion Plan control. Refer to maps and poli- cies of the Protection Plan and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977 for more specific information Key to Plan Maps 3-20 FAIRFIELD ~uisun City GRI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OTZULY ADSISUSLOUGH WAILDLUFE AREA Joles, Island Unit GRIZZLY BAY LEGEND - WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY WATERFRONT PARK BEACH GRIZZLY ISLAND WILDLIFE AREA ~IIn nt TIDAL MARSHGrzl sndUi SALT POND MANAGED WETLAND EXISTING PROPOSED MARINA FISHING PIER _ LAJNCHING RAMP VISTA POINT* FREEWAY RA AA COMMiSSION POLICY PRINTEDINBOLDTYPE COMMISSION SUGGESTION PRINTED IN ITALICS - ~ Hokr Bay - MILE NORT. - LOMETEP Plan Map 20 ;an Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission September 1983 as amended Montezuma Slough Plan Map 20 Montezuma Slough