Policies

SFBP - Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife

  • Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, No. 1

    To assure the benefits of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife for future generations, to the greatest extent feasible, the Bay's tidal marshes, tidal flats, and subtidal habitat should be conserved, restored and increased.

  • Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, No. 2

    Specific habitats that are needed to conserve, increase or prevent the extinction of any native species, species threatened or endangered, species that the California Department of Fish and Game has determined are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, or any species that provides substantial public benefits, should be protected, whether in the Bay or behind dikes.

  • Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, No. 3

    In reviewing or approving habitat restoration programs the Commission should be guided by the recommendations in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report and should, where appropriate, provide for a diversity of habitats to enhance opportunities for a variety of associated native aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species.

  • Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, No. 4a

    Consult with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever a proposed project may adversely affect an endangered or threatened plant, fish, other aquatic organism or wildlife species;

  • Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, No. 4b

    Not authorize projects that would result in the "taking" of any plant, fish, other aquatic organism or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to the state or federal endangered species acts, or the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, or species that are candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, unless the project applicant has obtained the appropriate "take" authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service or the California Department of Fish and Game; and

  • Fish, Other Aquatic Organisms and Wildlife, No. 4c

    Give appropriate consideration to the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in order to avoid possible adverse effects of a proposed project on fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife habitat.

SFBP - Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 1

    Tidal marshes and tidal flats should be conserved to the fullest possible extent. Filling, diking, and dredging projects that would substantially harm tidal marshes or tidal flats should be allowed only for purposes that provide substantial public benefits and only if there is no feasible alternative.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 2

    Any proposed fill, diking, or dredging project should be thoroughly evaluated to determine the effect of the project on tidal marshes and tidal flats, and designed to minimize, and if feasible, avoid any harmful effects.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 3

    Projects should be sited and designed to avoid, or if avoidance is infeasible, minimize adverse impacts on any transition zone present between tidal and upland habitats. Where a transition zone does not exist and it is feasible and ecologically appropriate, shoreline projects should be designed to provide a transition zone between tidal and upland habitats.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 4

    Where feasible, former tidal marshes and tidal flats that have been diked from the Bay should be restored to tidal action in order to replace lost historic wetlands or should be managed to provide important Bay habitat functions, such as resting, foraging and breeding habitat for fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife. As recommended in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report, around 65,000 acres of areas diked from the Bay should be restored to tidal action to maintain a healthy Bay ecosystem on a regional scale. Regional ecosystem targets should be updated periodically to guide conservation, restoration, and management efforts that result in a Bay ecosystem resilient to climate change and sea level rise. Further, local government land use and tax policies should not lead to the conversion of these restorable lands to uses that would preclude or deter potential restoration. The public should make every effort to acquire these lands for the purpose of habitat restoration and wetland migration.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 5

    The Commission should support comprehensive Bay sediment research and monitoring to understand sediment processes necessary to sustain and restore wetlands. Monitoring methods should be updated periodically based on current scientific information.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 6

    Any ecosystem restoration project should include clear and specific long-term and short-term biological and physical goals, and success criteria, and a monitoring program to assess the sustainability of the project. Design and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of: (a) how the system’s adaptive capacity can be enhanced so that it is resilient to sea level rise and climate change; (b) the impact of the project on the Bay’s sediment budget; (c) localized sediment erosion and accretion; (d) the role of tidal flows; (e) potential invasive species introduction, spread, and their control; (f) rates of colonization by vegetation; (g) the expected use of the site by fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (h) an appropriate buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises; and (i) site characterization. If success criteria are not met, appropriate adaptive measures should be taken.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 7

    The Commission should continue to support and encourage the expansion of scientific information on the arrival and spread of invasive plants and animals, and when feasible, support the establishment of a regional effort for Bay-wide eradication of specific invasive species, such as non-native cordgrasses.

  • Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, No. 8

    Based on scientific ecological analysis and consultation with the relevant federal and state resource agencies, a minor amount of fill may be authorized to enhance or restore fish, other aquatic organisms or wildlife habitat if the Commission finds that no other method of enhancement or restoration except filling is feasible.

SFBP - Recreation

  • Recreation, No 1

    Diverse and accessible water-oriented recreational facilities, such as marinas, launch ramps, beaches, and fishing piers, should be provided to meet the needs of a growing and diversifying population, and should be well distributed around the Bay and improved to accommodate a broad range of water-oriented recreational activities for people of all races, cultures, ages and income levels. Periodic assessments of water-oriented recreational needs that forecast demand into the future and reflect changing recreational preferences should be made to ensure that sufficient, appropriate water-oriented recreational facilities are provided around the Bay. Because there is no practical estimate of the acreage needed on the shoreline of the Bay, waterfront parks should be provided wherever possible.

  • Recreation, No 2

    Waterfront land needed for parks and beaches to meet future needs should be reserved now, because delay may mean that needed shoreline land could otherwise be preempted for other uses. However, recreational facilities need not be built all at once; their development can proceed over time. Interim use of a waterfront park priority use area prior to its development as a park should be permitted, unless the use would prevent the site from being converted to park use or would involve investment in improvements that would preclude the future use of the site as a park.

  • Recreation, No 4

    "To assure optimum use of the Bay for recreation, the following facilities should be encouraged in waterfront parks and wildlife refuges.In waterfront parks. (1) Where possible, parks should provide some camping facilities accessible only by boat, and docking and picnic facilities for boaters. (2) To capitalize on the attractiveness of their bayfront location, parks should emphasize hiking, bicycling, riding trails, picnic facilities, swimming, environmental, historical and cultural education and interpretation, viewpoints, beaches, and fishing facilities. Recreational facilities that do not need a waterfront location, e.g., golf courses and playing fields, should generally be placed inland, but may be permitted in shoreline areas if they are part of a park complex that is primarily devoted to water-oriented uses, or are designed to provide for passive use and enjoyment of the Bay when not being used for sports. (3) Where shoreline open space includes areas used for hunting waterbirds, public areas for launching non-motorized small boats should be provided so long as they do not result in overuse of the hunting area. (4) Public launching facilities for a variety of boats and other water-oriented recreational craft, such as kayaks, canoes and sailboards, should be provided in waterfront parks where feasible. (5) Except as may be approved pursuant to recreation policy 4-b, limited commercial recreation facilities, such as small restaurants, should be permitted within waterfront parks provided they are clearly incidental to the park use, are in keeping with the basic character of the park, and do not obstruct public access to and enjoyment of the Bay. Limited commercial development may be appropriate (at the option of the park agency responsible) in all parks shown on the Plan maps except where there is a specific note to the contrary. (6) Trails that can be used as components of the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail or links between them should be developed in waterfront parks. San Francisco Bay Trail segments should be located near the shoreline unless that alignment would have significant adverse effects on Bay resources; in this case, an alignment as near to the shore as possible, consistent with Bay resource protection, should be provided. Bay Area Ridge Trail segments should be developed in waterfront parks where the ridgeline is close to the Bay shoreline. (7) Bus stops, kiosks and other facilities to accommodate public transit should be provided in waterfront parks to the maximum extent feasible. Public parking should be provided in a manner that does not diminish the park-like character of the site. Traffic demand management strategies and alternative transportation systems should be
    developed where appropriate to minimize the need for large parking lots and to ensure parking for recreation uses is sufficient. (8) Interpretive information describing natural, historical and cultural resources should be provided in waterfront parks where feasible. (9) In waterfront parks that serve as gateways to wildlife refuges, interpretive materials and programs that inform visitors about the wildlife and habitat values present in the park and wildlife refuges should be provided. Instructional materials should include information about the potential for adverse impacts on wildlife, plant and habitat resources from certain activities. (10) The Commission may permit the placement of public utilities and services, such as underground sewer lines and power cables, in recreational facilities provided they would be unobtrusive, would not permanently disrupt use of the site for recreation, and would not detract from the visual character of the site.In waterfront parks and wildlife refuges with historic buildings.Historic Buildings in waterfront parks and wildlife refuges should be developed and managed for recreation uses to the maximum practicable extent consistent with the Bay Plan Map policies and all of the following: Physical and visual access corridors between inland public areas, vista points and the shoreline should be created, preserved or enhanced. Corridors for Bay-related wildlife should also be created, preserved and enhanced where needed and feasible. Historic structures and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Registered Historic Landmarks should be preserved consistent with applicable state and federal Historic Preservation law and should be used consistent with the Bay Plan recreation policies. Public access to the exterior of these structures should be provided. Public access to the interiors of these structures should be provided where appropriate.To assist in generating the revenue needed to preserve historic structures and develop, operate and maintain park improvements and to achieve other important public objectives, uses other than water-oriented recreation, commercial recreation and public assembly facilities may be authorized only if they would: (a) not diminish recreational opportunities or the park-like character of the site; (b) preserve historic buildings where present for compatible new uses; and (c) not significantly, adversely affect the site’s fish, other aquatic life and wildlife and their habitats."

  • Recreation, No 5

    Bay resources in waterfront parks and, where appropriate, wildlife refuges should be described with interpretive signs. Where feasible and appropriate, waterfront parks and wildlife refuges should provide diverse environmental education programs, facilities and community service opportunities, such as classrooms and interpretive and volunteer programs.

  • Recreation, No 6

    To enhance the appearance of shoreline areas, and to permit maximum public use of the shores and waters of the Bay, flood control projects should be carefully designed and landscaped and, whenever possible, should provide for recreational uses of channels and banks.

  • Recreation, No 7

    Because of the need to increase the recreational opportunities available to Bay Area residents, small amounts of Bay fill may be allowed for waterfront parks and recreational areas that provide substantial public benefits and that cannot be developed without some filling.

  • Recreation, No 8

    Signs and other information regarding shipping lanes, ferry routes, U.S. Coast Guard rules for navigation, such as U.S. Coast Guard Rule 9, weather, tide, current and wind hazards, the location of habitat and wildlife areas that should be avoided, and safety guidelines for smaller recreational craft, should be provided at marinas, boat ramps, launch areas, personal watercraft and recreational vessel rental establishments, and other recreational watercraft use areas.

  • Recreation, No 9

    Ferry terminals may be allowed in waterfront park priority use areas and marinas and near fishing piers and launching lanes, provided the development and operations of the ferry facilities do not interfere with current or future park and recreational uses, and navigational safety can be assured. Terminal configuration and operation should not disrupt continuous shoreline access. Facilities provided for park and marina patrons, such as parking, should not be usurped by ferry patrons. Shared parking arrangements should be provided to minimize the amount of shoreline area needed for parking.

  • Recreation, No 1

    Diverse and accessible water-oriented recreational facilities, such as marinas, launch ramps, beaches, and fishing piers, should be provided to meet the needs of a growing and diversifying population, and should be well distributed around the Bay and improved to accommodate a broad range of water-oriented recreational activities for people of all races, cultures, ages and income levels. Periodic assessments of water-oriented recreational needs that forecast demand into the future and reflect changing recreational preferences should be made to ensure that sufficient, appropriate water-oriented recreational facilities are provided around the Bay. Because there is no practical estimate of the acreage needed on the shoreline of the Bay, waterfront parks should be provided wherever possible.

  • Recreation, No 2

    Waterfront land needed for parks and beaches to meet future needs should be reserved now, because delay may mean that needed shoreline land could otherwise be preempted for other uses. However, recreational facilities need not be built all at once; their development can proceed over time. Interim use of a waterfront park priority use area prior to its development as a park should be permitted, unless the use would prevent the site from being converted to park use or would involve investment in improvements that would preclude the future use of the site as a park.

  • Recreation, No 3

    "Recreational facilities, such as waterfront parks, trails, marinas, live-aboard boats, non-motorized small boat access, fishing piers, launching lanes, and beaches, should be encouraged and allowed by the Commission, provided they are located, improved and managed consistent with the following standards: General Recreational facilities should:
    Be well distributed around the shores of the Bay to the extent consistent with the more specific criteria below. Any concentrations of facilities should be as close to major population centers as is feasible; Not pre-empt land or water area needed for other priority uses, but efforts should be made to integrate recreation into such facilities to the extent that they are compatible.; Be feasible from an engineering viewpoint.; and Be consistent with the public access policies that address wildlife compatibility and disturbance.
    In addition: Different types of compatible public and commercial recreation facilities should be clustered to the extent feasible to permit joint use of ancillary facilities and provide a greater range of choices for users. Sites, features or facilities within designated waterfront parks that provide optimal conditions for specific water-oriented recreational uses should be preserved and, where appropriate, enhanced for those uses, consistent with natural and cultural resource preservation. Access to marinas, launch ramps, beaches, fishing piers, and other recreational facilities should be clearly posted with signs and easily available from parking reserved for the public or from public streets or trails. To reduce the human health risk posed by consumption of contaminated fish, projects that create or improve fishing access to the Bay at water-oriented recreational facilities, such as fishing piers, beaches, and marinas, should include signage that informs the public of consumption advisories for the species of Bay fish that have been identified as having potentially unsafe levels of contaminants. Complete segments of the Bay and Ridge Trails where appropriate, consistent with policy 4-a-6. Marinas. (1) Marinas should be allowed at any suitable site on the Bay. Unsuitable sites are those that tend to fill up rapidly with sediment and require frequent dredging; have insufficient upland; contain valuable tidal marsh, or tidal flat, or important subtidal areas; or are needed for other water-oriented priority uses. At suitable sites, the Commission should encourage new marinas, particularly those that result in the creation of new open water through the excavation of areas not part of the Bay and not containing valuable wetlands. (2) Fill should be permitted for marina facilities that must be in or over the Bay, such as breakwaters, shoreline protection, boat berths, ramps, launching facilities, pumpout and fuel rocks, and short-term unloading areas. Fill for marina support facilities may be permitted at sites with difficult land configurations provided that the fill in the Bay is the minimum necessary and any unavoidable loss of Bay habitat, surface area, or volume is offset to the maximum amount feasible, preferably at or near the site. (3) No new marina or expansion of any existing marina should be approved unless water quality and circulation will be adequately protected and, if possible, improved, and an adequate number of vessel sewage pumpout facilities that are convenient in location and time of operation to recreational boat users should be provided free of charge or at a reasonable fee, as well as receptacles to dispose of waste oil. (4) In addition, marinas should include public amenities, such as viewing areas, restrooms, public mooring docks or floats and moorages for transient recreational boaters, non-motorized small boat launching facilities, public parking; substantial physical and visual access; and maintenance for all facilities.Live-aboard boats. Live-aboard boats should be allowed only in marinas and only if: (1) The number would not exceed ten percent of the total authorized boat berths unless the applicant can demonstrate clearly that a greater number of live-aboard boats is necessary to provide security or other use incidental to the marina use; (2) The boats would promote and further the recreational boating use of the marina (for example, providing a degree of security), and are located within the marina consistent with such purpose; (3) The marina would provide, on land, sufficient and conveniently located restrooms, showers, garbage disposal facilities, and parking adequate to serve live-aboard boat occupants and guests; (4) The marina would provide and maintain an adequate number of vessel sewage pumpout facilities in locations that are convenient in location and time of operation to all boats in the marina, particularly live-aboard boats, and would provide the service free of charge or at a reasonable fee; and (5) There would be adequate tidal circulation in the marina to mix, dilute, and carry away any possible wastewater discharge. Live-aboard boats moored in a marina on July 1, 1985, but unauthorized by the Commission, should be allowed to remain in the marina provided the tests of (2), (3), (4), and (5) above are met. Where existing live-aboard boats in a marina exceed ten percent of the authorized berths, or a greater number is demonstrated to be clearly necessary to provide security or other use incidental to the marina use, no new live-aboard boats should be authorized until the number is reduced below that number and then only if the project is in conformance with tests (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) above.Launching Lanes. (1) Launching lanes should be placed where wind and water conditions would be most favorable for smaller boats. (2) Some launching lanes should be located near prime fishing areas and others near calm, clear water suitable for waterskiing. (3) Additional launching facilities should be located around the Bay shoreline, especially where there are few existing facilities. These facilities should be available free or at moderate cost. Launching facilities should include adequate car and trailer parking, restrooms, and public access. (4) In marinas, launching facilities should be encouraged where there is adequate upland to provide needed support facilities. (5) New ramps and improvements to existing ramps should provide for use by a wide variety of boats, including power boats and non-motorized small boats. (6) Fill for ramps into the water, docks, and similar facilities should be permitted. Other fill should not be permitted.Non-Motorized Small Boats. Where practicable, access facilities for non-motorized small boats should be incorporated into waterfront parks, marinas, launching ramps and beaches, especially near popular waterfront destinations. (2) Access points should be located, improved and managed to avoid significant adverse affects on wildlife and their habitats, should not interfere with commercial navigation, or security and exclusion zones or pose a danger to recreational boaters from commercial shipping operations, and should provide for diverse water-accessible overnight accommodations, including camping, where acceptable to park operators. (3) Sufficient, convenient parking that accommodates expected use should be provided at sites improved for launching non-motorized small boats. Where feasible, overnight parking should be provided. (4) Site improvements, such as landing and launching facilities, restrooms, rigging areas, equipment storage and concessions, and educational programs that address navigational safety, security, and wildlife compatibility and disturbance should be provided, consistent with use of the site. (5) Facilities for boating organizations that provide training and stewardship, operate concessions, provide storage or boathouses should be allowed in recreational facilities where appropriate. (6) Design standards for non-motorized small boat launching access should be developed to guide the improvement of these facilities. Launching facilities should be accessible and designed to ensure that boaters can easily launch their watercraft. Facilities should be durable to minimize maintenance and replacement cost.Fishing Piers. Fishing piers should not block navigation channels, nor interfere with normal tidal flow.Beaches. Sandy beaches should be preserved, enhanced, or restored for recreational use, such as swimming, consistent with wildlife protection. New beaches should be permitted if the site conditions are suitable for sustaining a beach without excessive beach nourishment. Water-oriented commercial-recreation. Water-oriented commercial recreational establishments, such as restaurants, specialty shops, private boatels, recreational equipment concessions, and amusements, should be encouraged in urban areas adjacent to the Bay. Public docks, floats or moorages for visiting boaters should be encouraged at these establishments where adequate shoreline facilities can be provided. Effort should be made to link commercial-recreation centers and waterfront parks by ferry or water taxi."

  • Recreation, No 4

    "To assure optimum use of the Bay for recreation, the following facilities should be encouraged in waterfront parks and wildlife refuges.In waterfront parks. (1) Where possible, parks should provide some camping facilities accessible only by boat, and docking and picnic facilities for boaters. (2) To capitalize on the attractiveness of their bayfront location, parks should emphasize hiking, bicycling, riding trails, picnic facilities, swimming, environmental, historical and cultural education and interpretation, viewpoints, beaches, and fishing facilities. Recreational facilities that do not need a waterfront location, e.g., golf courses and playing fields, should generally be placed inland, but may be permitted in shoreline areas if they are part of a park complex that is primarily devoted to water-oriented uses, or are designed to provide for passive use and enjoyment of the Bay when not being used for sports. (3) Where shoreline open space includes areas used for hunting waterbirds, public areas for launching non-motorized small boats should be provided so long as they do not result in overuse of the hunting area. (4) Public launching facilities for a variety of boats and other water-oriented recreational craft, such as kayaks, canoes and sailboards, should be provided in waterfront parks where feasible. (5) Except as may be approved pursuant to recreation policy 4-b, limited commercial recreation facilities, such as small restaurants, should be permitted within waterfront parks provided they are clearly incidental to the park use, are in keeping with the basic character of the park, and do not obstruct public access to and enjoyment of the Bay. Limited commercial development may be appropriate (at the option of the park agency responsible) in all parks shown on the Plan maps except where there is a specific note to the contrary. (6) Trails that can be used as components of the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail or links between them should be developed in waterfront parks. San Francisco Bay Trail segments should be located near the shoreline unless that alignment would have significant adverse effects on Bay resources; in this case, an alignment as near to the shore as possible, consistent with Bay resource protection, should be provided. Bay Area Ridge Trail segments should be developed in waterfront parks where the ridgeline is close to the Bay shoreline. (7) Bus stops, kiosks and other facilities to accommodate public transit should be provided in waterfront parks to the maximum extent feasible. Public parking should be provided in a manner that does not diminish the park-like character of the site. Traffic demand management strategies and alternative transportation systems should be
    developed where appropriate to minimize the need for large parking lots and to ensure parking for recreation uses is sufficient. (8) Interpretive information describing natural, historical and cultural resources should be provided in waterfront parks where feasible. (9) In waterfront parks that serve as gateways to wildlife refuges, interpretive materials and programs that inform visitors about the wildlife and habitat values present in the park and wildlife refuges should be provided. Instructional materials should include information about the potential for adverse impacts on wildlife, plant and habitat resources from certain activities. (10) The Commission may permit the placement of public utilities and services, such as underground sewer lines and power cables, in recreational facilities provided they would be unobtrusive, would not permanently disrupt use of the site for recreation, and would not detract from the visual character of the site.In waterfront parks and wildlife refuges with historic buildings.Historic Buildings in waterfront parks and wildlife refuges should be developed and managed for recreation uses to the maximum practicable extent consistent with the Bay Plan Map policies and all of the following: Physical and visual access corridors between inland public areas, vista points and the shoreline should be created, preserved or enhanced. Corridors for Bay-related wildlife should also be created, preserved and enhanced where needed and feasible. Historic structures and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Registered Historic Landmarks should be preserved consistent with applicable state and federal Historic Preservation law and should be used consistent with the Bay Plan recreation policies. Public access to the exterior of these structures should be provided. Public access to the interiors of these structures should be provided where appropriate.To assist in generating the revenue needed to preserve historic structures and develop, operate and maintain park improvements and to achieve other important public objectives, uses other than water-oriented recreation, commercial recreation and public assembly facilities may be authorized only if they would: (a) not diminish recreational opportunities or the park-like character of the site; (b) preserve historic buildings where present for compatible new uses; and (c) not significantly, adversely affect the site’s fish, other aquatic life and wildlife and their habitats."

  • Recreation, No 5

    Bay resources in waterfront parks and, where appropriate, wildlife refuges should be described with interpretive signs. Where feasible and appropriate, waterfront parks and wildlife refuges should provide diverse environmental education programs, facilities and community service opportunities, such as classrooms and interpretive and volunteer programs.

  • Recreation, No 6

    To enhance the appearance of shoreline areas, and to permit maximum public use of the shores and waters of the Bay, flood control projects should be carefully designed and landscaped and, whenever possible, should provide for recreational uses of channels and banks.

  • Recreation, No 7

    Because of the need to increase the recreational opportunities available to Bay Area residents, small amounts of Bay fill may be allowed for waterfront parks and recreational areas that provide substantial public benefits and that cannot be developed without some filling.

  • Recreation, No 8

    Signs and other information regarding shipping lanes, ferry routes, U.S. Coast Guard rules for navigation, such as U.S. Coast Guard Rule 9, weather, tide, current and wind hazards, the location of habitat and wildlife areas that should be avoided, and safety guidelines for smaller recreational craft, should be provided at marinas, boat ramps, launch areas, personal watercraft and recreational vessel rental establishments, and other recreational watercraft use areas.

  • Recreation, No 9

    Ferry terminals may be allowed in waterfront park priority use areas and marinas and near fishing piers and launching lanes, provided the development and operations of the ferry facilities do not interfere with current or future park and recreational uses, and navigational safety can be assured. Terminal configuration and operation should not disrupt continuous shoreline access. Facilities provided for park and marina patrons, such as parking, should not be usurped by ferry patrons. Shared parking arrangements should be provided to minimize the amount of shoreline area needed for parking.

SFBP - Shell Deposits

  • Shell Deposits, No. 1

    Filling or diking that adversely affect known shell deposits, illustrated in Plan Map No.8, Natural Resources of the Bay, should be allowed only for purposes providing more public benefit than the availability of the shells.

  • Shell Deposits, No. 1

    Filling or diking that adversely affect known shell deposits, illustrated in Plan Map No.8, Natural Resources of the Bay, should be allowed only for purposes providing more public benefit than the availability of the shells.

SFBP - Shoreline Protection

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 1

    New shoreline protection projects and the maintenance or reconstruction of existing projects and uses should be authorized if: (a) the project is necessary to provide flood or erosion protection for (i) existing development, use or infrastructure, or (ii) proposed development, use or infrastructure that is consistent with other Bay Plan policies; (b) the type of the protective structure is appropriate for the project site, the uses to be protected, and the erosion and flooding conditions at the site; (c) the project is properly engineered to provide erosion control and flood protection for the expected life of the project based on a 100-year flood event that takes future sea level rise into account; (d) the project is properly designed and constructed to prevent significant impediments to physical and visual public access; and (e) the protection is integrated with current or planned adjacent shoreline protection measures. Professionals knowledgeable of the Commission's concerns, such as civil engineers experienced in coastal processes, should participate in the design.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 2

    Riprap revetments, the most common shoreline protective structure, should be constructed of properly sized and placed material that meet sound engineering criteria for durability, density, and porosity. Armor materials used in the revetment should be placed according to accepted engineering practice, and be free of extraneous material, such as debris and reinforcing steel. Generally, only engineered quarrystone or concrete pieces that have either been specially cast, are free of extraneous materials from demolition debris, and are carefully selected for size, density, and durability will meet these requirements. Riprap revetments constructed out of other debris materials should not be authorized.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 3

    Authorized protective projects should be regularly maintained according to a long-term maintenance program to assure that the shoreline will be protected from tidal erosion and flooding and that the effects of the shoreline protection project on natural resources during the life of the project will be the minimum necessary.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 4

    Whenever feasible and appropriate, shoreline protection projects should include provisions for nonstructural methods such as marsh vegetation and integrate shoreline protection and Bay ecosystem enhancement, using adaptive management. Along shorelines that support marsh vegetation, or where marsh establishment has a reasonable chance of success, the Commission should require that the design of authorized protection projects include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetation as part of the protective structure, wherever feasible.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 5

    Adverse impacts to natural resources and public access from new shoreline protection should be avoided. Where significant impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation or alternative public access should be provided.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 1

    New shoreline protection projects and the maintenance or reconstruction of existing projects and uses should be authorized if: (a) the project is necessary to provide flood or erosion protection for (i) existing development, use or infrastructure, or (ii) proposed development, use or infrastructure that is consistent with other Bay Plan policies; (b) the type of the protective structure is appropriate for the project site, the uses to be protected, and the erosion and flooding conditions at the site; (c) the project is properly engineered to provide erosion control and flood protection for the expected life of the project based on a 100-year flood event that takes future sea level rise into account; (d) the project is properly designed and constructed to prevent significant impediments to physical and visual public access; and (e) the protection is integrated with current or planned adjacent shoreline protection measures. Professionals knowledgeable of the Commission's concerns, such as civil engineers experienced in coastal processes, should participate in the design.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 2

    Riprap revetments, the most common shoreline protective structure, should be constructed of properly sized and placed material that meet sound engineering criteria for durability, density, and porosity. Armor materials used in the revetment should be placed according to accepted engineering practice, and be free of extraneous material, such as debris and reinforcing steel. Generally, only engineered quarrystone or concrete pieces that have either been specially cast, are free of extraneous materials from demolition debris, and are carefully selected for size, density, and durability will meet these requirements. Riprap revetments constructed out of other debris materials should not be authorized.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 3

    Authorized protective projects should be regularly maintained according to a long-term maintenance program to assure that the shoreline will be protected from tidal erosion and flooding and that the effects of the shoreline protection project on natural resources during the life of the project will be the minimum necessary.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 4

    Whenever feasible and appropriate, shoreline protection projects should include provisions for nonstructural methods such as marsh vegetation and integrate shoreline protection and Bay ecosystem enhancement, using adaptive management. Along shorelines that support marsh vegetation, or where marsh establishment has a reasonable chance of success, the Commission should require that the design of authorized protection projects include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetation as part of the protective structure, wherever feasible.

  • Shoreline Protection, No. 5

    Adverse impacts to natural resources and public access from new shoreline protection should be avoided. Where significant impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation or alternative public access should be provided.

SFBP - Smog and Weather

  • Smog and Weather, No. 1

    To the greatest extent feasible, the remaining water volume and surface area of the Bay should be maintained.

  • Smog and Weather, No. 1

    To the greatest extent feasible, the remaining water volume and surface area of the Bay should be maintained.

SFBP - Subtidal Area

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 1

    Any proposed filling or dredging project in a subtidal area should be thoroughly evaluated to determine the local and Bay-wide effects of the project on: (a) the possible introduction or spread of invasive species; (b) tidal hydrology and sediment movement; (c) fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (d) aquatic plants; and (e) the Bay's bathymetry. Projects in subtidal areas should be designed to minimize and, if feasible, avoid any harmful effects.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 2

    Subtidal areas that are scarce in the Bay or have an abundance and diversity of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife (e.g., eelgrass beds, sandy deep water or underwater pinnacles) should be conserved. Filling, changes in use; and dredging projects in these areas should therefore be allowed only if: (a) there is no feasible alternative; and (b) the project provides substantial public benefits.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 3

    Subtidal restoration projects should be designed to: (a) promote an abundance and diversity of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (b) restore rare subtidal areas; (c) establish linkages between deep and shallow water and tidal and subtidal habitat in an effort to maximize habitat values for fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; or (d) expand open water areas in an effort to make the Bay larger.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 4

    Any subtidal restoration project should include clear and specific long-term and short-term biological and physical goals, and success criteria and a monitoring program to assess the sustainability of the project. Design and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of: (a) the scientific need for the project; (b) the effects of relative sea level rise; (c) the impact of the project on the Bay's sediment budget; (d) localized sediment erosion and accretion; (e) the role of tidal flows; (f) potential invasive species introduction, spread and their control; (g) rates of colonization by vegetation, where applicable; (h) the expected use of the site by fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; and (i) characterization of and changes to local bathymetric features. If success criteria are not met, corrective measures should be taken.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 5

    The Commission should continue to support and encourage expansion of scientific information on the Bay's subtidal areas, including: (a) inventory and description of the Bay's subtidal areas; (b) the relationship between the Bay's physical regime and biological populations; (c) sediment dynamics, including sand transport, and wind and wave effects on sediment movement; (d) areas of the Bay used for spawning, birthing, nesting, resting, feeding, migration, among others, by fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; and (e) where and how restoration should occur.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 6

    Based on scientific ecological analysis and consultation with the relevant federal and state resource agencies, a minor amount of fill may be authorized to enhance or restore fish, other aquatic organisms or wildlife habitat if the Commission finds that no other method of enhancement or restoration except filling is feasible.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 1

    Any proposed filling or dredging project in a subtidal area should be thoroughly evaluated to determine the local and Bay-wide effects of the project on: (a) the possible introduction or spread of invasive species; (b) tidal hydrology and sediment movement; (c) fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (d) aquatic plants; and (e) the Bay's bathymetry. Projects in subtidal areas should be designed to minimize and, if feasible, avoid any harmful effects.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 2

    Subtidal areas that are scarce in the Bay or have an abundance and diversity of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife (e.g., eelgrass beds, sandy deep water or underwater pinnacles) should be conserved. Filling, changes in use; and dredging projects in these areas should therefore be allowed only if: (a) there is no feasible alternative; and (b) the project provides substantial public benefits.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 3

    Subtidal restoration projects should be designed to: (a) promote an abundance and diversity of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; (b) restore rare subtidal areas; (c) establish linkages between deep and shallow water and tidal and subtidal habitat in an effort to maximize habitat values for fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; or (d) expand open water areas in an effort to make the Bay larger.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 4

    Any subtidal restoration project should include clear and specific long-term and short-term biological and physical goals, and success criteria and a monitoring program to assess the sustainability of the project. Design and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of: (a) the scientific need for the project; (b) the effects of relative sea level rise; (c) the impact of the project on the Bay's sediment budget; (d) localized sediment erosion and accretion; (e) the role of tidal flows; (f) potential invasive species introduction, spread and their control; (g) rates of colonization by vegetation, where applicable; (h) the expected use of the site by fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; and (i) characterization of and changes to local bathymetric features. If success criteria are not met, corrective measures should be taken.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 5

    The Commission should continue to support and encourage expansion of scientific information on the Bay's subtidal areas, including: (a) inventory and description of the Bay's subtidal areas; (b) the relationship between the Bay's physical regime and biological populations; (c) sediment dynamics, including sand transport, and wind and wave effects on sediment movement; (d) areas of the Bay used for spawning, birthing, nesting, resting, feeding, migration, among others, by fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; and (e) where and how restoration should occur.

  • Subtidal Areas, No. 6

    Based on scientific ecological analysis and consultation with the relevant federal and state resource agencies, a minor amount of fill may be authorized to enhance or restore fish, other aquatic organisms or wildlife habitat if the Commission finds that no other method of enhancement or restoration except filling is feasible.

SFBP - Transportation

  • Transportation, No. 1

    Because of the continuing vulnerability of the Bay to filling for transportation projects, the Commission should continue to take an active role in Bay Area regional transportation and related land use planning affecting the Bay, particularly to encourage alternative methods of transportation and land use planning efforts that support transit and that do not require fill. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the California Department of Transportation, the California Transportation Commission, the Federal Highway Administration, county congestion management agencies and other public and private transportation authorities should avoid planning or funding roads that would require fill in the Bay and certain waterways.

  • Transportation, No. 2

    If any additional bridge is proposed across the Bay, adequate research and testing should determine whether feasible alternative route, transportation mode or operational improvement could overcome the particular congestion problem without placing an additional route in the Bay and, if not, whether a tunnel beneath the Bay is a feasible alternative.

  • Transportation, No. 3

    " If a route must be located across the Bay or a certain waterway, the following provisions should apply:The crossing should be placed on a bridge or in a tunnel, not on solid fill.Bridges should provide adequate clearance for vessels that normally navigate the waterway beneath the bridge. Toll plazas, service yards, or similar facilities should not be located on new fill and should be located far enough from the Bay shoreline to provide adequate space for maximum feasible public access along the shoreline. To reduce the need for future Bay crossings, any new Bay crossing should be designed to move the largest number of travelers possible by employing technology and operations that increase the efficiency and capacity of the infrastructure, accommodating non-motorized transportation and, where feasible, providing public transit facilities."

  • Transportation, No. 4

    Transportation projects on the Bay shoreline and bridges over the Bay or certain waterways should include pedestrian and bicycle paths that will either be a part of the Bay Trail or connect the Bay Trail with other regional and community trails. Transportation projects should be designed to maintain and enhance visual and physical access to the Bay and along the Bay shoreline.

  • Transportation, No. 1

    Because of the continuing vulnerability of the Bay to filling for transportation projects, the Commission should continue to take an active role in Bay Area regional transportation and related land use planning affecting the Bay, particularly to encourage alternative methods of transportation and land use planning efforts that support transit and that do not require fill. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the California Department of Transportation, the California Transportation Commission, the Federal Highway Administration, county congestion management agencies and other public and private transportation authorities should avoid planning or funding roads that would require fill in the Bay and certain waterways.

  • Transportation, No. 2

    If any additional bridge is proposed across the Bay, adequate research and testing should determine whether feasible alternative route, transportation mode or operational improvement could overcome the particular congestion problem without placing an additional route in the Bay and, if not, whether a tunnel beneath the Bay is a feasible alternative.

  • Transportation, No. 3

    " If a route must be located across the Bay or a certain waterway, the following provisions should apply:The crossing should be placed on a bridge or in a tunnel, not on solid fill.Bridges should provide adequate clearance for vessels that normally navigate the waterway beneath the bridge. Toll plazas, service yards, or similar facilities should not be located on new fill and should be located far enough from the Bay shoreline to provide adequate space for maximum feasible public access along the shoreline. To reduce the need for future Bay crossings, any new Bay crossing should be designed to move the largest number of travelers possible by employing technology and operations that increase the efficiency and capacity of the infrastructure, accommodating non-motorized transportation and, where feasible, providing public transit facilities."

  • Transportation, No. 4

    Transportation projects on the Bay shoreline and bridges over the Bay or certain waterways should include pedestrian and bicycle paths that will either be a part of the Bay Trail or connect the Bay Trail with other regional and community trails. Transportation projects should be designed to maintain and enhance visual and physical access to the Bay and along the Bay shoreline.

  • Transportation, No. 5

    Ferry terminals should be sited at locations that are near navigable channels, would not rapidly fill with sediment and would not significantly impact tidal marshes, tidal flats or other valuable wildlife habitat. Wherever possible, terminals should be located near higher density, mixed-use development served by public transit. Terminal parking facilities should be set back from the shoreline to allow for public access and enjoyment of the Bay.

SFBP - Water Quality

  • Water Quality, No. 3

    New projects should be sited, designed, constructed and maintained to prevent or, if prevention is infeasible, to minimize the discharge of pollutants into the Bay by: (a) controlling pollutant sources at the project site; (b) using construction materials that contain nonpolluting materials; and (c) applying appropriate, accepted and effective best management practices, especially where water dispersion is poor and near shellfish beds and other significant biotic resources.

  • Water Quality, No. 5

    The Commission should support the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies in developing non point source pollution control programs.

  • Water Quality, No. 1

    Bay water pollution should be prevented to the greatest extent feasible. The Bay's tidal marshes, tidal flats, and water surface area and volume should be conserved and, whenever possible, restored and increased to protect and improve water quality. Fresh water inflow into the Bay should be maintained at a level adequate to protect Bay resources and beneficial uses.

  • Water Quality, No. 2

    Water quality in all parts of the Bay should be maintained at a level that will support and promote the beneficial uses of the Bay as identified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin and should be protected from all harmful or potentially harmful pollutants. The policies, recommendations, decisions, advice and authority of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Board, should be the basis for carrying out the Commission's water quality responsibilities.

  • Water Quality, No. 3

    New projects should be sited, designed, constructed and maintained to prevent or, if prevention is infeasible, to minimize the discharge of pollutants into the Bay by: (a) controlling pollutant sources at the project site; (b) using construction materials that contain nonpolluting materials; and (c) applying appropriate, accepted and effective best management practices, especially where water dispersion is poor and near shellfish beds and other significant biotic resources.

  • Water Quality, No. 4

    When approving a project in an area polluted with toxic or hazardous substances, the Commission should coordinate with appropriate local, state and federal agencies to ensure that the project will not cause harm to the public, to Bay resources, or to the beneficial uses of the Bay.

  • Water Quality, No. 5

    The Commission should support the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies in developing non point source pollution control programs.

  • Water Quality, No. 6

    To protect the Bay and its tributaries from the water quality impacts of nonpoint source pollution, new development should be sited and designed consistent with standards in municipal stormwater permits and state and regional stormwater management guidelines, where applicable, and with the protection of Bay resources. To offset impacts from increased impervious areas and land disturbances, vegetated swales, permeable pavement materials, preservation of existing trees and vegetation' planting native vegetation and other appropriate measures should be evaluated and implemented where appropriate.

SFBP - Water Surface Area and Volume

  • Water Surface Area and Volume, No. 1

    The surface area of the Bay and the total volume of water should be kept as large as possible in order to maximize active oxygen interchange, vigorous circulation, and effective tidal action. Filling and diking that reduce surface area and water volume should therefore be allowed only for purposes providing substantial public benefits and only if there is no reasonable alternative.

  • Water Surface Area and Volume, No. 2

    Water circulation in the Bay should be maintained, and improved as much as possible. Any proposed fills, dikes, or piers should be thoroughly evaluated to determine their effects upon water circulation and then modified as necessary to improve circulation or at least to minimize any harmful effects.

  • Water Surface Area and Volume, No. 3

    3. Because further study is needed before any barrier proposal to improve water circulation can be considered acceptable, the Bay Plan does not include any barriers. Before any proposal for a barrier is adopted in the future, the Commission will be required to replan all of the affected shoreline and water area.

SFBP - Fresh Water Inflow

  • Fresh Water Inflow, No. 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 Bay to support existing wildlife.

  • Fresh Water Inflow, No. 2

    High priority should be given to the preservation of Suisun Marsh through adequate protective measures including maintenance of fresh water inflows.

  • Fresh Water Inflow, No. 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 (1922-1967) of fish and wildlife resources. The Bay Commission should cooperate with the State Board and others to ensure that adequate fresh water inflows to protect the Bay are made available.

SFBP - Climate Change

  • Climate Change, No. 1a

    The findings and policies apply only to projects and activities located within the following areas: San Francisco Bay, the 100-foot shoreline band, salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain waterways, as these areas are described in Government Code section 66610, and the Suisun Marsh, as this area is described in Public Resources Code section 29101;

  • Climate Change, No. 1b

    For projects or activities that are located partly within the areas described in subparagraph a and partly outside such area, the findings and policies apply only to those activities or that portion of the project within the areas described in subparagraph a;

  • Climate Change, No. 1c

    For the purposes of implementing the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the findings and policies do not apply to projects and activities located outside the areas described in subparagraph a, even if those projects or activities may otherwise be subject to consistency review pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act; and

  • Climate Change, No. 1d

    For purposes of implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, the findings and policies are not applicable portions of the Bay Plan for purposes of CEQA Guideline 15125(d) for projects and activities outside the areas described in subparagraph a and, therefore, a discussion of whether such proposed projects or activities are consistent with the policies is not required in environmental documents.

  • Climate Change, No. 2

    When planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects, a risk assessment should be prepared by a qualified engineer and should be based on the estimated 100-year flood elevation that takes into account the best estimates of future sea level rise and current flood protection and planned flood protection that will be funded and constructed when needed to provide protection for the proposed project or shoreline area. A range of sea level rise projections for mid-century and end of century based on the best scientific data available should be used in the risk assessment. Inundation maps used for the risk assessment should be prepared under the direction of a qualified engineer. The risk assessment should identify all types of potential flooding, degrees of uncertainty, consequences of defense failure, and risks to existing habitat from proposed flood protection devices.

  • Climate Change, No. 3

    To protect public safety and ecosystem services, within areas that a risk assessment determines are vulnerable to future shoreline flooding that threatens public safety, all projects––other than repairs of existing facilities, small projects that do not increase risks to public safety, interim projects and infill projects within existing urbanized areas––should be designed to be resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection. If it is likely the project will remain in place longer than mid-century, an adaptive management plan should be developed to address the long-term impacts that will arise based on a risk assessment using the best available science-based projection for sea level rise at the end of the century.

  • Climate Change, No. 4

    To address the regional adverse impacts of climate change, undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flooding and currently sustain significant habitats or species, or possess conditions that make the areas especially suitable for ecosystem enhancement, should be given special consideration for preservation and habitat enhancement and should be encouraged to be used for those purposes.

  • Climate Change, No. 5

    Wherever feasible and appropriate, effective, innovative sea level rise adaptation approaches should be encouraged.

  • Climate Change, No. 6

    " The Commission, in collaboration with the Joint Policy Committee, other regional, state and federal agencies, local governments, and the general public, should formulate a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy for protecting critical developed shoreline areas and natural ecosystems, enhancing the resilience of Bay and shoreline systems and increasing their adaptive capacity.

    The Commission recommends that: (1) the strategy incorporate an adaptive management approach; (2) the strategy be consistent with the goals of SB 375 and the principles of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy; (3) the strategy be updated regularly to reflect changing conditions and scientific information and include maps of shoreline areas that are vulnerable to flooding based on projections of future sea level rise and shoreline flooding; (4) the maps be prepared under the direction of a qualified engineer and regularly updated in
    consultation with government agencies with authority over flood protection; and (5) particular attention be given to identifying and encouraging the development of long-term regional flood protection strategies that may be beyond the fiscal resources of individual local agencies.

    Ideally, the regional strategy will determine where and how existing development should be protected and infill development encouraged, where new development should be permitted, and where existing development should eventually be removed to allow the Bay to migrate inland.

    The entities that formulate the regional strategy are encouraged to consider the following strategies and goals: advance regional public safety and economic prosperity by protecting: (i) existing development that provides regionally significant benefits; (ii) new shoreline development that is consistent with other Bay Plan policies; and (iii) infrastructure that is crucial to public health or the region’s economy, such as airports, ports, regional transportation, waste water treatment facilities, major parks, recreational areas and trails; enhance the Bay ecosystem by identifying areas where tidal wetlands and tidal flats can migrate landward; assuring adequate volumes of sediment for marsh accretion; identifying conservation areas that should be considered for acquisition, preservation or enhancement; developing and planning for flood protection; and maintaining sufficient transitional habitat and upland buffer areas around tidal wetlands; integrate the protection of existing and future shoreline development with the enhancement of the Bay ecosystem, such as by using feasible shoreline protection measures that incorporate natural Bay habitat for flood control and erosion prevention; encourage innovative approaches to sea level rise adaptation; identify a framework for integrating the adaptation responses of multiple government agencies; integrate regional mitigation measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with regional adaptation measures designed to address the unavoidable impacts of climate change; address environmental justice and social equity issues; integrate hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning with adaptation planning by developing  techniques for reducing contamination releases, structural damage and toxic mold growth associated with flooding of buildings, and establishing emergency assistance centers in neighborhoods at risk from flooding; advance regional sustainability, encourage infill development and job creation, provide diverse housing served by transit and protect historical and cultural resources; encourage the remediation of shoreline areas with existing environmental degradation and contamination in order to reduce risks to the Bay’s water quality in the event of flooding; support research that provides information useful for planning and policy development on the impacts of climate change on the Bay, particularly those related to shoreline flooding; identify actions to prepare and implement the strategy, including any needed changes in law; and identify mechanisms to provide information, tools, and financial resources so local governments can integrate regional climate change adaptation planning into local community design processes. "

  • Climate Change, No. 7

    "Until a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy can be completed, the Commission should evaluate each project proposed in vulnerable areas on a case-by-case basis to determine the project’s public benefits, resilience to flooding, and capacity to adapt to climate
    change impacts. The following specific types of projects have regional benefits, advance regional goals, and should be encouraged, if their regional benefits and their advancement of regional goals outweigh the risk from flooding: remediation of existing environmental degradation or contamination, particularly on a closed military base; a transportation facility, public utility or other critical infrastructure that is necessary for existing development or to serve planned development; a project that will concentrate employment or housing near
    existing or committed transit service (whether by public or private funds or as part of a project), particularly within those Priority Development Areas that are established by the Association of Bay Area Governments and endorsed by the Commission, and that includes a
    financial strategy for flood protection that will minimize the burdens on the public and a sea level rise adaptation strategy that will adequately provide for the resilience and sustainability of the project over its designed lifespan; and a natural resource restoration or environmental enhancement project.

    The following specific types of projects should be encouraged if they do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety: repairs of an existing facility; a small project; a use that is interim in nature and either can be easily removed or relocated to higher ground or can be amortized within a period before removal or relocation of the proposed use would be necessary; and a public park."

  • Climate Change, No. 8

    To effectively address sea level rise and flooding, if more than one government agency has authority or jurisdiction over a particular issue or area, project reviews should be coordinated to resolve conflicting guidelines, standards or conditions.

SFBP - Safety of Fills

  • Safety of Fills, No. 1

    The Commission has appointed the Engineering Criteria Review Board consisting of geologists, civil engineers specializing in geotechnical and coastal engineering, structural engineers, and architects competent to and adequately empowered to: (a) establish and revise safety criteria for Bay fills and structures thereon; (b) review all except minor projects for the adequacy of their specific safety provisions, and make recommendations concerning these provisions; (c) prescribe an inspection system to assure placement and maintenance of fill according to approved designs; (d) with regard to inspections of marine petroleum terminals, make recommendations to the California State Lands Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard, which are responsible for regulating and inspecting these facilities; (e) coordinate with the California State Lands Commission on projects relating to marine petroleum terminal fills and structures to ensure compliance with other Bay Plan policies and the California State Lands Commission's rules, regulations, guidelines and policies; and (f) gather, and make available performance data developed from specific projects. These activities would complement the functions of local building departments and local planning departments, none of which are presently staffed to provide soils inspections.

  • Safety of Fills, No. 2

    Even if the Bay Plan indicates that a fill may be permissible, no fill or building should be constructed if hazards cannot be overcome adequately for the intended use in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Engineering Criteria Review Board.

  • Safety of Fills, No. 3

    To provide vitally needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils, installation of strong-motion seismographs should be required on all future major land fills. In addition, the Commission encourages installation of strong-motion seismographs in other developments on problem soils, and in other areas recommended by the U.S. Geological Survey, for purposes of data comparison and evaluation.

  • Safety of Fills, No. 4

    Adequate measures should be provided to prevent damage from sea level rise and storm activity that may occur on fill or near the shoreline over the expected life of a project. The Commission may approve fill that is needed to provide flood protection for existing projects and uses. New projects on fill or near the shoreline should either be set back from the edge of the shore so that the project will not be subject to dynamic wave energy, be built so the bottom floor level of structures will be above a 100-year flood elevation that takes future sea level rise into account for the expected life of the project, be specifically designed to tolerate periodic flooding, or employ other effective means of addressing the impacts of future sea level rise and storm activity. Rights-of-way for levees or other structures protecting inland areas from tidal flooding should be sufficiently wide on the upland side to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height so that no fill for levee widening is placed in the Bay.

SFBP - Dredging

  • Dredging, No. 1

    Dredging and dredged material disposal should be conducted in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Dredgers should reduce disposal in the Bay and certain waterways over time to achieve the L TMS goal of limiting in-Bay disposal volumes to a maximum of one million cubic yards per year. The L TMS agencies should implement a system of disposal allotments to individual dredgers to achieve this goal only if voluntary efforts are not effective in reaching the L TMS goal. In making its decision regarding disposal allocations, the Commission should confer with the L TMS agencies and consider the need for the dredging and the dredging projects, environmental impacts, regional economic impacts, efforts by the dredging community to implement and fund alternatives to in-Bay disposal, and other relevant factors. Small dredgers should be exempted from allotments, but all dredgers should comply with policies 2 through 12.

  • Dredging, No. 10

    Interested agencies and parties are encouraged to explore and find funding solutions for the additional costs incurred by transporting dredged materials to nontidal and ocean disposal sites, either by general funds contributed by ports and other relevant parties, dredging applicants or otherwise.

  • Dredging, No. 11

    "a. A project that uses dredged material to create, restore, or enhance Bay or certain waterway natural resources should be approved only if: The Commission, based on detailed site specific studies, appropriate to the size and potential impacts of the project, that include, but are not limited to, site morphology and physical conditions, biological considerations, the potential for fostering invasive species, dredged material stability, and engineering aspects of the project, determines all of the following:
    the project would provide, in relationship to the project size, substantial net improvement in habitat for Bay species; no feasible alternatives to the fill exist to achieve the project purpose with fewer adverse impacts to Bay resources; the amount of dredged material to be used would be the minimum amount necessary to achieve the purpose of the project;beneficial uses and water quality of the Bay would be protected; and there is a high probability that the project would be successful and not result in unmitigated environmental harm;The project includes an adequate monitoring and management plan and has been carefully planned, and the Commission has established measurable performance objectives and controls that would help ensure the success and permanence of the project, and an agency or organization with fish and wildlife management expertise has expressed to the Commission its intention to manage and operate the site for habitat enhancement or restoration purposes for the life of the project; The project would use only clean material suitable for aquatic disposal and the Commission has solicited the advice of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Dredged Material Management Office and other appropriate agencies on the suitability of the dredged material; The project would not result in a net loss of Bay or certain waterway surface area or volume. Any offsetting fill removal would be at or near as feasible to the habitat fill site; Dredged material would not be placed in areas with particularly high or rare existing natural resource values, such as eelgrass beds and tidal marsh and mudflats, unless the material would be needed to protect or enhance the habitat. The habitat project would not, by itself or cumulatively with other projects, significantly decrease the overall amount of any particular habitat within the Suisun, North, South, or Central Bays, excluding areas that have been recently dredged;The Commission has consulted with the California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that at least one of these agencies supports the proposed project; and After a reasonable period of monitoring, if either: the project has not met its goals and measurable objectives, and attempts at remediation have proven unsuccessful, or the dredged material is found to have substantial adverse impacts on the natural resources of the Bay, then the dredged material would be removed, unless it is demonstrated by competent environmental studies that removing the material would have a greater adverse effect on the Bay than allowing it to remain, and the site would be returned to the conditions existing immediately preceding placement of the dredged material.

    b. To ensure protection of Bay habitats, the Commission should not authorize dredged material disposal projects in the Bay and certain waterways for habitat creation, enhancement or restoration, except for projects using a minor amount of dredged material, until: Objective and scientific studies have been carried out to evaluate the advisability of disposal of dredged material in the Bay and certain waterways for habitat creation, enhancement and restoration. Those additional studies should address the following: The Baywide need for in-Bay habitat creation, enhancement and restoration, in the context of maintaining appropriate amounts of all habitat types within the Bay, especially for support and recovery of endangered species; and The need to use dredged materials to improve Bay habitat, the appropriate characteristics of locations in the Bay for such projects, and the potential short-term and cumulative impacts of such projects; and The Commission has adopted additional Baywide policies governing disposal of dredged material in the Bay and certain waterways for the creation, enhancement and restoration of Bay habitat, which narratively establish the necessary biological, hydrological, physical and locational characteristics of candidate sites; and The Oakland Middle Harbor enhancement project, if undertaken, is completed successfully."

  • Dredging, No. 12

    The Commission should continue to participate in the L TMS, the Dredged Material Management Office, and other initiatives conducting research on Bay sediment movement, the effects of dredging and disposal on Bay natural resources, alternatives to Bay aquatic disposal, and funding additional costs of transporting dredged materials to non-tidal and ocean disposal sites.

  • Dredging, No. 2

    Dredging should be authorized when the Commission can find: (a) the applicant has demonstrated that the dredging is needed to serve a water-oriented use or other important public purpose, such as navigational safety; (b) the materials to be dredged meet the water quality requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; (c) important fisheries and Bay natural resources would be protected through seasonal restrictions established by the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, or through other appropriate measures; (d) the siting and design of the project will result in the minimum dredging volume necessary for the project; and (e) the materials would be disposed of in accordance with Policy 3.

  • Dredging, No. 3

    Dredged materials should, if feasible, be reused or disposed outside the Bay and certain waterways. Except when reused in an approved fill project, dredged material should not be disposed in the Bay and certain waterways unless disposal outside these areas is infeasible and the Commission finds: (a) the volume to be disposed is consistent with applicable dredger disposal allocations and disposal site limits adopted by the Commission by regulation; (b) disposal would be at a site designated by the Commission; (c) the quality of the material disposed of is consistent with the advice of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the inter-agency Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO); and (d) the period of disposal is consistent with the advice of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

  • Dredging, No. 4

    If an applicant proposes to dispose dredged material in tidal areas of the Bay and certain waterways that exceeds either disposal site limits or any disposal allocation that the Commission has adopted by regulation, the applicant must demonstrate that the potential for adverse environmental impact is insignificant and that non-tidal and ocean disposal is infeasible because there are no alternative sites available or likely to be available in a reasonable period, or because the cost of disposal at alternate sites is prohibitive. In making its decision whether to authorize such inBay disposal, the Commission should confer with the L TMS agencies and consider the factors listed in Policy 1.

  • Dredging, No. 5

    To ensure adequate capacity for necessary Bay dredging projects and to protect Bay natural resources, acceptable non-tidal disposal sites should be secured and the Deep Ocean Disposal Site should be maintained. Further, dredging projects should maximize use of dredged material as a resource consistent with protecting and enhancing Bay natural resources, such as creating, enhancing, or restoring tidal and managed wetlands, creating and maintaining levees and dikes, providing cover and sealing material for sanitary landfills, and filling at approved construction sites.

  • Dredging, No. 6

    Dredged materials disposed in the Bay and certain waterways should be carefully managed to ensure that the specific location, volumes, phYSical nature ofthe material, and timing of disposal do not create navigational hazards, adversely affect Bay sedimentation, currents or natural resources, or foreclose the use of the site for projects critical to the economy of the Bay Area.

  • Dredging, No. 7

    All proposed channels, berths, turning basins, and other dredging projects should be carefully designed so as not to undermine the stability of any adjacent dikes, fills or fish and wildlife habitats.

  • Dredging, No. 8

    The Commission should encourage increased efforts by soil conservation districts and public works agencies in the 50,000square-mile Bay tributary area to continuously reduce soil erosion as much as possible.

  • Dredging, No. 9

    To protect underground fresh water reservoirs (aquifers): (a) all proposals for dredging or construction work that could penetrate the mud "cover" should be reviewed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Department of Water Resources; and (b) dredging or construction work should not be permitted that might reasonably be expected to damage an underground water reservoir. Applicants for permission to dredge should provide additional data on groundwater conditions in the area of construction to the extent necessary and reasonable in relation to the proposed project.

SFBP - Water-Related Industry

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 1

    Sites designated for both water-related industry and port uses in the Bay Plan should be reserved for those industries and port uses that require navigable, deep water for receiving materials or shipping products by water in order to gain a significant transportation cost advantage.

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 2

    "Linked industries, water-using industries, and industries which gain only limited economic benefits by fronting on navigable water, should be located in adjacent upland areas. However, pipeline corridors serving such facilities may be permitted within water-related industrial priority use areas, provided pipeline construction and use does not conflict with present or future water-transportation use of the site."

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 3

    Land reserved for both water-related industry and port use will be developed over a period of years. Other uses may be allowed in the interim that, by their cost and duration, would not preempt future use of the site for waterrelated industry or port use.

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 4

    " Water-related industry and port sites should be planned and managed so as to avoid wasteful use of the limited supply of waterfront land. The following principles should be followed to the maximum extent feasible in planning for water-related industry and port use:
    Extensive use of the shoreline for storage of raw materials, fuel, products, or waste should not be permitted on a long-term basis. If required, such storage areas should generally either be at right angles to the main direction of the shoreline or be as far inland as feasible, so other use of the shoreline may be made possible.Where large acreages are available, site planning should strive to provide access to the shoreline for all future plants and port facilities that might locate in the same area. (As a general rule, therefore, the longest dimension of plant sites should be at right angles to the shoreline.) Marine terminals should also be shared as much as possible among industries and port uses. Waste treatment ponds for water-related industry and port uses should occupy as little land as possible, be above the highest recorded level of tidal action, and be as far removed from the shoreline as possible. Any new highways, railroads, or rapid transit lines in existing or future water-related industrial and port areas should be located sufficiently far away from the waterfront so as not to interfere with industrial use of the waterfront. New access roads to waterfront industrial and port areas should be approximately at right angles to the shoreline, topography permitting."

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 5

    " Water-related industry and port uses should be planned so as to make the sites attractive (as well as economically important) uses of the shoreline. The following criteria should be employed to the maximum extent possible: Air and water pollution should be minimized through strict compliance with all relevant laws, policies and standards. Mitigation, consistent with the Commission's policy concerning mitigation, should be provided for all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.When baytront hills are used for waterrelated industries, terracing should generally be required and leveling of the hills should not be permitted. Important Bay overlook points, and historic areas and structures that may be located in water-related industrial and port areas, should be preserved and incorporated into the site design, if at all feasible. In addition, shoreline not actually used for shipping facilities should be used for some type of public access or recreation, to the maximum extent feasible. Public areas need not be directly accessible by private automobiles with attendant parking lots and driveways; access may be provided by hiking paths or by forms of public transit such as elephant trains or aerial tramways. Regulations, tax arrangements, or other devices should be drawn in a manner that encourages industries and port uses to meet the foregoing objectives."

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 6

    "The Commission, together with the relevant local governments, should cooperatively plan for use of vacant and underutilized waterrelated 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 feasible; (b) a regulatory or management program for reserving the entire waterfront site or parcel for water-related industrial and port use; and (c) program for minimizing the environmental impacts of future industrial and port development. Such plans, if approved by the relevant local governments and by the Commission, could be amended into the Bay Plan as special area plans."

  • Water-Related Industry, No. 7

    " The Bay Plan water-related industrial findings, policies, and priority use areas, together with any detailed plans as described above in 6., should be included as the waterfront element of any Bay regional industrial siting plan or implementation program."

SFBP - Ports

  • Ports, No. 1

    " Port planning and development should be governed by the policies of the Seaport Plan and other applicable policies of the Bay Plan. The Seaport Plan provides for: Expansion and/or redevelopment of port facilities at Benicia, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, and San Francisco, and development of new port facilities at Selby;Further deepening of ship channels needed to accommodate expected growth in ship size and improved terminal productivity; The maintenance of up-to-date cargo forecasts and existing cargo handling capability estimates to guide the permitting of port terminals; and Development of port facilities with the least potential adverse environmental impacts while still providing for reasonable terminal development."

  • Ports, No. 2

    Some filling and dredging will be required to provide for necessary port expansion, but any permitted fill or dredging should be in accord with the Seaport Plan.

  • Ports, No. 3

    Port priority use areas should be protected for marine terminals and directly-related ancillary activities such as container freight stations, transit sheds and other temporary storage, ship repairing, support transportation uses including trucking and railroad yards, freight forwarders, government offices related to the port activity, chandlers, and marine services. Other uses, espeCially public access and public and commercial recreational development, should also be permissible uses provided they do not significantly impair the efficient utilization of the port area.

SFBP - Airports

  • Airports, No. 1

    " To enable the Bay Area to have adequate airport facilities, and to minimize the harmful effects of airport expansion upon the Bay, a regional airport system plan should be prepared at the earliest possible time by a responsible regional agency. The study should have the full participation of all governmental agencies having regionwide planning responsibilities and all other agencies, including private groups, having a substantial interest in the Bay Area's present or future aviation needs and facilities. The plan should include as a minimum:
    An analysis of expected air traffic in the Bay Area, by types-commercial, military, and general (small plane);An analysis of alternative sites for building new airports or expanding present ones, taking into account the effect of each site on the surrounding environment; An analysis of the surface transportation necessary to serve the alternative sites for future airports; and An analysis of theeffecls of new airports upon the location of jobs and homes within the Bay Area."

  • Airports, No. 2

    " Pending completion of a comprehensive airport system plan, and recognizing that various classes of airports must be included in any plan for the region or the Bay, it is assumed that:A system of reliever airports will be created throughout the region instead of one or two very large facilities. Some short-range traffic (500 miles or less, e.g., San Francisco-Los Angeles), which is a major portion of total air carrier traffic, will be diverted to reliever airports, and improved ground and air transportation links will be provided among the airports in the system. Under this concept, it is assumed that San Francisco and Oakland International Airports will continue to service most longdistance flights and that pressures for continued expansion of these airports can be reduced by diverting a portion of the shortrange and general aviation traffic to reliever airports in such cities as San Jose, Santa Rosa, and Napa. It is assumed that three years will be needed to complete an adequate regional airport system plan, and as many as five to seven years thereafter to build facilities proposed in the plan. Therefore, pending completion of the comprehensive airport system plan, capital investment in, and any Bay filling for, major airports in the Bay region should be limited to improvements needed within the next 10 years (Le., before 1979).Airports for general aviation can and should be at inland sites whenever possible. New airports for this purpose should be constructed away from the Bay; Bay shore sites and Bay filling should be allowed only if there is no feasible alternative. Expansion of existing general aviation airports should be permitted on Bay fill only if no feasible alternative is available. Heliports may in some instances need to be located on the shores of the Bay to be close to a traffic center with minimum noise interference. In general, existing piers should be used for this purpose and new piers, floats, or fill should be permitted only if it is demonstrated that no feasible alternative is available."

  • Airports, No. 3

    Airports on the shores of the Bay should be permitted to include within their premises terminals for passengers, cargo, and general aviation; parking and supporting transportation facilities; and ancillary activities such as aircraft maintenance bases that are necessary to the airport operation. Airport-oriented industries (those using air transportation for the movement of goods and personnel or providing services to airport users) may be located within airports designated in the Bay Plan if they cannot feasibly be located elsewhere, but no fill should be permitted to provide space for these industries directly or indirectly.

  • Airports, No. 4

    If some airports in the regional system do not have the funds necessary to complete facilities needed by the region, a regional agency may be required to finance or develop them. Otherwise, there will be tremendous pressure to allow the airports with the strongest finances to provide all of the regional facilities, even though this might result in unnecessary filling of the Bay.

  • Airports, No. 5

    To enable airports to operate without additional Bay filling, tall buildings and residential areas should be kept from interfering with aircraft operations. The Commission should prevent incompatible developments within its area of jurisdiction around the shoreline.

SFBP - Commercial Fishing

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 1

    Commercial fishing facilities are water-oriented uses (port and water-related industry) for which the Commission can allow some Bay fill subject to the fill policies contained in the McAteer-Petris Act and elsewhere in the Bay Plan.

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 2

    Modernization of existing commercial fishing facilities and construction of new commercial fishing boat berthing, fish off-loading, and fish handling facilities on fill may be permitted at appropriate sites with access to fishing grounds and to land transportation routes, if no alternative upland locations are feasible. Support facilities for the resident fleet and transient fishing vessel crew use, such as restrooms, parking, showers, storage facilities, and public fish markets should be provided, and, where feasible, located on land.

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 3

    Existing commercial fishing mooring areas, berths, and onshore facilities should not be displaced or removed unless adequate new facilities are provided or the Commission determines that adequate facilities of the same or better quality are available.

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 4

    New commercial fishing facilities should be approved at any suitable area on the shoreline, preferably with good land transportation and space for fish handling and directly related ancillary activities. Because commercial fishing boats do not need deep water to dock and off-load cargo, they should not preempt deep water berthing needed for marine terminals or water-related industry.

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 5

    If commercial shellfish harvesting is reactivated in the Bay Area, handling and depuration facilities should be allowed only on land. Commercial shellfish harvesting facilities and activities should not interfere unduly with recreational uses of San Francisco Bay or cause significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources. New Bay projects should not destroy or otherwise adversely impact existing shellfish beds.

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 6

    Where consistent with the protection of fish and wildlife, mariculture operations should be permitted in salt ponds if salt production is no

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 7

    longer economically feasible or if the mariculture operations would not interfere with the overall economic viability of salt production.

  • Commercial Fishing, No. 8

    Consistent with the protection of fish and wildlife resources, mariculture ponds should be permitted in managed wetlands that cannot be retained in their existing uses.

SFBP - Public Access

  • Public Access, No 01

    A proposed fill project should increase public access to the Bay to the maximum extent feasible, in accordance with the policies for Public Access to the Bay.

  • Public Access, No 02

    In addition to the public access to the Bay provided by waterfront parks, beaches, marinas, and fishing piers, maximum feasible access to and along the waterfront and on any permitted fills should be provided in and through every new development in the Bay or on the shoreline, whether it be for housing, industry, port, airport, public facility, wildlife area, or other use, except in cases where publiC access would be clearly inconsistent with the project because of public safety considerations or significant use conflicts, including unavoidable, significant adverse effects on Bay natural resources. In these cases, in lieu access at another location preferably near the project should be provided.

  • Public Access, No 03

    Public access to some natural areas should be provided to permit study and enjoyment of these areas. However, some wildlife are sensitive to human intrusion. For this reason, projects in such areas should be carefully evaluated in consultation with appropriate agencies to determine the appropriate location and type of access to be provided.

  • Public Access, No 04

    Public access should be sited, designed and managed to prevent significant adverse effects on wildlife. To the extent necessary to understand the potential effects of public access on wildlife, information on the species and habitats of a proposed project site should be provided, and the likely human use of the access area analyzed. In determining the potential for significant adverse effects (such as impacts on endangered species, impacts on breeding and foraging areas, or fragmentation of wildlife corridors), site specific information provided by the project applicant, the best available scientific evidence, and expert advice should be used. In addition, the determination of significant adverse effects may also be considered within a regional context. Siting, design and management strategies should be employed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on wildlife, informed by the advisory principles in the Public Access Design Guidelines. If significant adverse effects cannot be avoided or reduced to a level below significance through siting, design and management strategies, then in lieu public access should be provided, consistent with the project and providing public access benefits equivalent to those that would have been achieved from on-site access. Where appropriate, effects of public access on wildlife should be monitored over time to determine whether revisions of management strategies are needed.

  • Public Access, No 05

    Public access should be sited, designed, managed and maintained to avoid significant adverse impacts from sea level rise and shoreline flooding.

  • Public Access, No 06

    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 easements at no cost to the public, in the same manner that streets, park sites, and school sites are dedicated to the public as part of the subdivision process in cities and counties. Any public access provided as a condition of development should either be required to remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or equivalent access consistent with the project should be provided nearby.

  • Public Access, No 07

    Public access improvements provided as a condition of any approval should be consistent with the project and the physical environment, including protection of Bay natural resources, such as aquatic life, wildlife and plant communities, and provide for the public's safety and convenience. The improvements should be designed and built to encourage diverse Bay-related activities and movement to and along the shoreline, should permit barrier free access for persons with disabilities to the maximum feasible extent, should include an ongoing maintenance program, and should be identified with appropriate signs.

  • Public Access, No 08

    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 requirements.

  • Public Access, No 09

    Access to and along the waterfront should be provided by walkways, trails, or other appropriate means and connect to the nearest public thoroughfare where convenient parking or public transportation may be available. Diverse and interesting public access experiences should be provided which would encourage users to remain in the designated access areas to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on wildlife and their habitat.

  • Public Access, No 10

    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 design 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.

  • Public Access, No 11

    Federal, state, regional, and local jurisdictions, special districts, and the Commission should cooperate to provide appropriately sited, designed and managed public access, espeCially to link the entire series of shoreline parks, regional trail systems (such as the San Francisco Bay Trail) and existing public access areas to the extent feasible without additional Bay filling and without significant adverse effects on Bay natural resources. State, regional, 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 guidelines.

  • Public Access, No 12

    The Public Access Design Guidelines should be used as a guide to siting and designing public access consistent with a proposed project. The Design Review Board should advise the Commission regarding the adequacy of the public access proposed.

  • Public Access, No 13

    Public access should be integrated early in the planning and design of Bay habitat restoration projects to maximize public access opportunities and to avoid significant adverse effects on wildlife.

  • Public Access, No 14

    The Commission should continue to support and encourage expansion of scientific information on the effects of public access on wildlife and the potential of siting, design and management to avoid or minimize impacts. Furthermore, the Commission should, in cooperation with other appropriate agencies and organizations, determine the location of sensitive habitats in San Francisco Bay and use this information in the siting, design and management of public access along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.

SFBP - Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 1

    To enhance the visual quality of development around the Bay and to take maximum advantage of the attractive setting it provides, the shores of the Bay should be developed in accordance with the Public Access Design Guidelines.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 10

    Towers, bridges, or other structures near or over the Bay should be designed as landmarks that suggest the location of the waterfront when it is not visible, especially in flat areas. But such landmarks should be low enough to assure the continued visual dominance of the hills around the Bay.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 11

    ln areas of the Bay where oil and gas drilling or production platforms are permitted, they should be treated or screened, including derrick removal, so they will be compatible with the surrounding open water, mudflat, marsh or shore area.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 12

    ln order to achieve a high level of design 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; on Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views; 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 guidelines.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 13

    Local governments should be encouraged 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 to the maximum feasible extent by providing 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.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 14

    Views of the Bay from vista points and from roads should be maintained by appropriate arrangements and heights of all developments and landscaping between the view areas 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 Bay Plan Map No. 8, Natural Resources of the Bay).

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 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 parking 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.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 2

    All bayfront development should be designed to enhance the pleasure of the user or viewer of the Bay. Maximum efforts should be made to provide, enhance, or preserve views of the Bay and shoreline, especially from public areas, from the Bay itself, and from the opposite shore. To this end, planning of waterfront development should include participation by professionals who are knowledgeable of the Commission's concerns, such as landscape architects, urban designers, or architects, working in conjunction with engineers and professionals in other fields.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 3

    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 design recommendations.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 4

    Structures and facilities that do not take advantage of or visually complement the Bay should be located and designed so as not to impact visually on the Bay and shoreline. In particular, parking areas should be located away from the shoreline. However, some small parking areas for fishing access and Bay viewing may be allowed in exposed locations.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 5

    To enhance the maritime atmosphere of the Bay Area, ports should be designed, whenever feasible, to permit public access and viewing of port activities by means of (a) view points (e.g., piers, platforms, or towers), restaurants, etc., that would not interfere with port operations, and (b) openings between buildings and other site designs that permit views from nearby roads.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 6

    Additional bridges over the Bay should be avoided, to the extent possible, to preserve the visual impact of the large expanse of the Bay. The design of new crossings deemed necessary should relate to others nearby and should be located between promontories or other land forms that naturally suggest themselves as connections reaching across the Bay (but without destroying the obvious character of the promontory). New or remodeled bridges across the Bay should be designed to permit maximum viewing of the Bay and its surroundings by both motorist and pedestrians. Guard rails and bridge supports should be designed with views in mind.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 7

    Access routes to Bay crossings should be designed so as to orient the traveler to the Bay (as in the main approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge). Similar consideration should be given to the design of highway and mass transit routes paralleling the Bay (by providing frequent views of the Bay, if possible, so the traveler knows which way he or she is moving in relation to the Bay). Guardrails, fences, landscaping, and other structures related to such routes should be designed and located so as to maintain and to take advantage of Bay views. New or rebuilt roads in the hills above the Bay and in areas along the shores of the Bay should be constructed as scenic parkways in order to take full advantage of the commanding views of the Bay.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 8

    Shoreline developments should be build in clusters, leaving open area around them to permit more frequent views of the Bay. Developments along the shores of tributary waterways should be Bay-related and should be designed to preserve and enhance views along the waterway, so as to provide maximum visual contact with the Bay.

  • Appearance, Design, and Scenic Views, No 9

    "Unnatural" debris should be removed from sloughs, marshes, and mudflats that are retained as part of the ecological system. Sloughs, marshes, and mudflats should be restored to their former natural state if they have been despoiled by human activities.

SFBP - Salt Ponds

  • Salt Ponds, No 1

    The use and maintenance of salt ponds for salt production should be encouraged. Accordingly, property tax policy should assure that rising property taxes do not force conversion of the ponds and other wetlands to urban development. In addition, maintaining the integrity of the salt production system should be encouraged (Le., public agencies should not take for other projects any pond or portion of a pond that is a vital part of the production system).

  • Salt Ponds, No 2

    If the owner of any salt ponds withdraws any of the ponds from their present uses, the public should make every effort to buy these lands and restore, enhance or convert these areas to subtidal or wetland habitat. This type of purchase should have a high priority for any public funds available, because opening ponds to the Bay represents a substantial opportunity to enlarge the Bay and restoring, enhancing or converting ponds can benefit fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife, and can increase public access to the Bay.

  • Salt Ponds, No 3

    "Any project for' the restoration, enhancement or conversion of salt ponds to subtidal or wetland habitat should include clear and specific long-term and short-term biological and physical goals, success criteria, a monitoring program, and provisions for long-term maintenance and management needs. Design and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of:
    The anticipated habitat type that would result from pond conversion or restoration, and the predicted effects on the diversity, abundance and distribution of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; Potential fill activities, including the use of fill material such as sediments dredged from the Bay and rock, to assist restoration objectives; Flood management measures;Mosquito abatement measures; Measures to control non-native species;The protection of the services provided by existing public facilities and utilities such as power lines and rail lines;Siting, design and management of public access to maximize public access and recreational opportunities while avoiding significant adverse effects on wildlife; andWater quality protection measures that include management of highly saline discharges into the Bay; monitoring and management of mercury methylation and sediments with contaminants; managing the release of copper and nickel to the Bay; and the minimization of sustained low dissolved oxygen levels in managed ponds."

  • Salt Ponds, No 4

    " If the public does not acquire for habitat restoration, enhancement or creation purposes all the salt ponds proposed for withdrawal from their use in salt production, and if some of the ponds are proposed to be developed or used for purposes other than salt production, consideration of the development should be guided by the following criteria:
    Recognizing the potential for salt ponds to contribute to the moderation of the Bay Area climate, the alleviation of air pollution and the open space character of the Bay, and to maximize potential habitat values, development of any of the salt ponds should provide for retaining the maximum amount of water surface area consistent with the project. Water surface area retained can include a variety of subtidal and wetland habitat types including diked ponds managed for wildlife or restoration of ponds to tidal action; Development should provide the maximum public access to the Bay consistent with the project while avoiding significant adverse effects on wildlife; and An appropriate means of permanent dedication of some of the retained water surface area should be required as part of any development."

  • Salt Ponds, No 5

    " To determine where and how much water surface area should be retained and how much public access should be provided consistent with any development proposal in a salt pond(s), a comprehensive planning process should be undertaken as part of the development project that integrates with regional and local habitat restoration and management objectives and plans, and provides opportunities for collaboration among local, state and federal agencies, landowners, other private interests, and the public. In addition, the planning process should incorporate:
    A baseline scientific assessment of existing and historical natural conditions and resource values of the pond(s); Natural resource conservation objectives that will protect and enhance onsite and adjacent habitat and species diversity; Provisions for public access and recreational opportunities appropriate to the land's use, size and existing and future habitat values; and Flood and mosquito management measures."

SFBP - Managed Wetlands

  • Managed Wetlands, No. 1

    The continued operation and maintenance of managed wetlands for waterfowl hunting, as game refuges, or for waterfowl food production should be encouraged. Accordingly, property tax policy should assure that rising property taxes do not force conversion of the managed wetlands to urban development.

  • Managed Wetlands, No. 2

    If the owner of any managed wetland withdraws any of the wetlands from their present use, the public should make every effort to buy these lands and restore them to tidal or subtidal habitat, or retain, enhance and manage these areas as diked wetland habitat for the benefit of multiple species. This type of purchase should have a high priority for any public funds available.

  • Managed Wetlands, No. 3

    " Any project for the restoration, enhancement or conversion of managed wetlands to subtidal or wetland habitat should include clear and specific long-term and short-term biological and physical goals, success criteria, a monitoring program, and provisions for long-term maintenance and management needs. Design and evaluation of the project should include an analysis of:
    The anticipated habitat type that would result from managed wetland conversion or restoration, and the predicted effects on the diversity, abundance and distribution of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; Potential fill activities, including the use of fill material such as sediments dredged from the Bay and rock, to assist restoration objectives; Flood management measures; Mosquito abatement measures; Measures to control non-native species; Opportunities for a diversity of public access and recreational activities; and Water quality protection measures that may include monitoring for constituents of concern, such as methylmercury."

  • Managed Wetlands, No. 4

    "If the public does not acquire for habitat restoration, enhancement or conversion purposes the managed wetland proposed for withdrawal from use for waterfowl hunting, and if the managed wetland is proposed to be developed or used for purposes other than waterfowl hunting, consideration of the development should be guided by the following criteria:
    Recognizing the potential for managed wetlands to contribute to the moderation of the Bay Area climate, the alleviation of air pollution and the open space character of the Bay, and to maximize potential habitat values, development of any of the managed wetlands should provide for retaining the maximum amounts of water surface area, consistent with the project. Water surface area retained can include a variety of subtidal and wetland habitat types including diked areas managed for wildlife or restoration of managed wetlands to tidal action; development should provide the maximum public access to the Bay, consistent with the project while avoiding significant adverse effects on wildlife; and An appropriate means of permanent dedication of some of the retained water surface area should be required as part of any
    development."

  • Managed Wetlands, No. 5

    Study should be given to acquisition of "development rights" to the diked wetlands, to continue them in their present uses.

SFBP - Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 1

    Shore areas not proposed to be reserved for a priority use should be used for any purpose (acceptable to the local government having jurisdiction) that uses the Bay as an asset and in no way affects the Bay adversely. This means any use that does not adversely affect enjoyment of the Bay and its shoreline by residents, employees, and visitors within the site area itself or within adjacent areas of the Bay or shoreline.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 10

    Desalination projects should be located, designed and operated in a manner that: (a) avoids or minimizes to the greatest practicable extent adverse impacts on fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife and their habitats; (b) ensures that the discharge of brine into the Bay is properly diluted and rapidly disperses into the Bay waters to minimize impacts; and (c) is consistent with the discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 11

    Because desalination plants do not need to be located in the Bay or directly on the shoreline: (a) no Bay fill should be approved for desalination plants except for a minor amount of fill needed for pipelines, fish screening devices, and other directly related facilities that provide Bay water to a plant and discharge diluted brine from the plant back into the Bay; and (b) maximum feasible public access consistent with the project should be included as part of any desalination project that uses Bay waters.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 12

    "Types of development that could not use the Bay as an asset (and therefore should not be allowed in shoreline areas) include: refuse disposal (except as it may be found to be suitable for an approved fill); use of deteriorated structures for low-rent storage or other nonwater-related purposes;andjunkyards."

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 13

    Pipeline terminal and distribution facilities near the Bay should generally be located in industrial areas but may be located elsewhere if they do not interfere with, and are not incompatible with, residential, recreational, or other public uses of the Bay and shoreline.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 14

    "To eliminate any further demand to fill any part of the Bay solely for refuse disposal sites, new waste disposal systems should be developed; these systems should combine economical disposition with minimum consumption of land. Pending development of new waste disposal systems, immediate waste disposal problems should be solved through full utilization of existing dump sites and through development of new dump sites, if needed, in acceptable inland locations."

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No. 2

    Accessory structures such as boat docks and portions of a principal structure may extend on piles over the water when such extension is necessary to enable actual use of the water, e.g., for mooring boats, or to use the Bay as an asset in the design of the structure.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 3

    Wherever waterfront areas are used for housing, whenever feasible, high densities should be encouraged to provide the advantages of waterfront housing to larger numbers of people.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 4

    "Because of the requirements of existing law, the Commission should not allow new houseboat marinas. The Commission should authorize houseboats used for residential purposes in existing houseboat marinas only when each of the following conditions is met:
    The project would be consistent with a special area plan adopted by the Commission for the geographic vicinity of the project; As to marina expansions, the houseboats would be limited in number and would be only a minor addition to the existing number of authorized houseboat berths; All wastewater producing facilities would be connected directly to a shoreside sewage treatment facility;No additional fill would be required except for the houseboat itself, a pedestrian pier on pilings, and for minor fill for improving shoreline appearance or for producing new public access to the Bay;The houseboats would float at all stages of the tide to reduce impacts on benthic organisms and to allow light penetration to the Bay bottom, unless it is demonstrated that requiring flotation at all tidal stages would have a greater adverse environmental effect on the Bay, and would not result in increased sedimentation in the area;The houseboats would not block views of the Bay significantly from the shoreline;The project would comply with local government plans and enforceable regulations and standards for mooring locations and safety, wastewater collection, necessary utilities, building and occupancy standards, periodic monitoring and inspection, and provide for the termination of the residential use when the lands are needed for public trust purposes;The project would be limited in cost and duration so that the tidelands and submerged lands could be released for water oriented uses and public trust needs and, in no case, would the initial or any subsequent period of authorization exceed 20 years. The Commission
    should conduct a study of public trust needs of the project area within five years of project authorization or reauthorization and every five years thereafter. If the Commission determines within the first five years of authorization that the area is needed for water-oriented uses
    and public trust needs, the project should be terminated at the end of the 20year authorization period. If after the first five-year period of project authorization the Commission determines that the area is needed for water-oriented uses and public trust needs, the project
    should be terminated no less than 15 years from the date of Commission determination. In any event, the original 20 years of the permit's authorization period cannot be extended or renewed by the Commission unless an application is filed for such purpose; and The project would be consistent with the terms of any legislative grant for the area.Houseboats moored in recreational boat marinas in the Bay on July 1, 1985 but unauthorized by the Commission should be allowed to remain in the marina provided that the total number of houseboats and
    live-aboard boats would meet all the live-aboard boat policy tests and the tests of houseboat policies (b), (c), (d), (e), (t), (g), (h), and (i) above."

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 5

    High voltage transmission lines should be placed in the Bay only when there is no reasonable alternative. Whenever high voltage transmission lines must be placed in the Bay or in shoreline areas:

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 6

    New routes should avoid interfering with scenic views and with wildlife, to the greatest extent possible; and

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 7

    The most pleasing tower and pole design possible should be used. High voltage transmission lines' should be placed underground as soon as this is technically and economically feasible.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 8

    New AM and short-wave radio transmitters may be placed in marsh or other natural areas. Whenever possible, however, consolidation of transmitting towers should be encouraged.

  • Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline, No 9

    Power plants may be located in any area where they do not interfere with and are not incompatible with residential, recreational, or other public uses of the Bay and shoreline, provided that any pollution problems resulting from the discharge of large amounts of heated brine into Bay waters, and water vapor into the atmosphere, can be precluded.

SFBP - Fills in Accord with the Bay Plan

  • Fills in Accord with the Bay Plan, No.1

    "Fills in Accord with Bay Plan. A proposed project should be approved if the filling is the minimum necessary to achieve its purpose, and if it meets one of the following three conditions:
    The filling is in accord with the Bay Plan policies as to the Bay-related purposes for which filling may be needed (Le., ports, water-related industry, and water-related recreation) and is shown on the Bay Plan maps as likely to be needed; orThe filling is in accord with Bay Plan policies as to purposes for which some fill may be needed if there is no other alternative (Le., airports, roads, and utility routes); orThe filling is in accord with the Bay Plan policies as to minor fills for improving shoreline appearance or public access."

SFBP - Mitigation

  • Mitigation, No 1

    Projects should be designed to avoid adverse environmental impacts to Bay natural resources such as to water surface area, volume, or circulation and to plants, fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife habitat, subtidal areas, or tidal marshes or tidal flats. Whenever adverse impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Finally, measures to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts to the natural resources of the Bay should be required. Mitigation is not a substitute for meeting the other requirements of the McAteer-Petris Act.

  • Mitigation, No 10

    To encourage cost effective compensatory mitigation programs, especially to provide mitigation for small fill projects, the Commission may extend credit for certain fill removal and allow mitigation banking provided that any credit or resource bank is recognized pursuant to written agreement executed by the Commission. Mitigation bank agreements should include: (a) financial mechanisms to ensure success of the bank; (b) assignment of responsibility for the ecological success of the bank; (c) scientifically defensible methods for determining the timing and amount of credit withdrawals; and (d) provisions for long-term maintenance, management and protection of the bank site. Mitigation banking should only be considered when no mitigation is practicable on or proximate to the project site.

  • Mitigation, No. 11

    The Commission may allow fee-based mitigation when other compensatory mitigation measures are infeasible. Fee-based mitigation agreements should include: (a) identification of a specific project that the fees will be used for within a specified time frame; (b) provisions for accurate tracking of the use of funds; (c) assignment of responsibility for the ecological success of the mitigation project; (d) determination of fair and adequate fee rates that account for all financial aspects of the mitigation project, including costs of securing sites, construction costs, maintenance costs, and administrative costs; (e) compensation for time lags between the adverse impact and the mitigation; and (f) provisions for long-term maintenance, management and protection of the mitigation site.

  • Mitigation, No 2

    Individual compensatory mitigation projects should be sited and designed within a Baywide ecological context, as close to the impact site as practicable, to: (1) compensate for the adverse impacts; (2) ensure a high likelihood of long-term ecological success; and (3) support the improved health of the Bay ecological system. Determination of the suitability of proposed mitigation locations should be guided in part by the information provided in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report.

  • Mitigation, No 3

    When determining the appropriate location and design of compensatory mitigation, the Commission should also consider potential effects on benefits provided to humans from Bay natural resources, including economic (e.g., flood protection, erosion control) and social (e.g., aesthetic benefits, recreational opportunities).

  • Mitigation, No 4

    The amount and type of compensatory mitigation should be determined for each mitigation project based on a clearly identified rationale that includes an analysis of: the probability of success of the mitigation project; the expected time delay between the impact and the functioning of the mitigation site; and the type and quality of the ecological functions of the proposed mitigation site as compared to the impacted site.

  • Mitigation, No 5

    To increase the potential for the ecological success and long-term sustainability of compensatory mitigation projects, resource restoration should be selected over creation where practicable, and transition zones and buffers should be included in mitigation projects where feasible and appropriate. In addition, mitigation site selection should consider site specific factors that will increase the likelihood of long-term ecological success, such as existing hydrological conditions, soil type, adjacent land uses, and connections to other habitats.

  • Mitigation, No 6

    Mitigation should, to the extent practicable, be provided prior to, or concurrently with those parts of the project causing adverse impacts.

  • Mitigation, No 7

    " When compensatory mitigation is necessary, a mitigation program should be reviewed and approved by or on behalf of the Commission as part of the project. Where appropriate, the mitigation program should describe the proposed design, construction and management of mitigation areas and include:
    Clear mitigation project goals;Clear and measurable performance standards for evaluating the success of the mitigation project, based on measures of both composition and function, and including the use of reference sites; A monitoring plan designed to identify potential problems early and determine appropriate remedial actions. Monitoring and reporting should be of adequate frequency and duration to measure specific performance standards and to assure long-term success of the stated goals of the mitigation project; A contingency plan to ensure the success of the mitigation project, or provide means to ensure alternative appropriate measures are implemented if the identified mitigation cannot be modified to achieve success. The Commission may require financial assurances, such as performance bonds or letters of credit, to cover the cost of mitigation actions based on the nature, extent and duration of the impact and/or the risk of the mitigation plan not achieving the mitigation goals; and Provisions for the long-term maintenance, management and protection of the mitigation site, such as a conservation easement, cash endowment, and transfer of title."

  • Mitigation, No 8

    Mitigation programs should be coordinated with all affected local, state, and federal agencies having jurisdiction or mitigation expertise to ensure, to the maximum practicable extent, a single mitigation program that satisfies the policies of all the affected agencies.

  • Mitigation, No 9

    If more than one mitigation program is proposed, the Commission should consider the cost of the alternatives in determining the appropriate program.

SFBP - Public Trust

  • Public Trust, No. 1

    When the Commission takes any action affecting lands subject to the public trust, it should assure that the action is consistent with the public trust needs for the area and, in case of lands subject to legislative grants, should also assure that the terms of the grant are satisfied and the project is in furtherance of statewide purposes.

SFBP - Navigational Safety and Oil Spill Prevention

  • Navigational Safety and Oil Spill Prevention, No. 1

    Physical obstructions to safe navigation, as identified by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region, should be removed to the maximum extent feasible when their removal would contribute to navigational safety and would not create significant adverse environmental impacts. Removal of obstructions should ensure that any detriments arising from a significant alteration of Bay habitats are clearly outweighed by the public and environmental benefits of reducing the risk to human safety or the risk of spills of hazardous materials, such as oil.

  • Navigational Safety and Oil Spill Prevention, No 2

    The Commission should enSure that marine facility projects are in compliance with oil spill contingency plan requirements of the Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the U.S. Coast Guard and other appropriate organizations.

  • Navigational Safety and Oil Spill Prevention, No 2

    To ensure navigational safety and help prevent accidents that could spill hazardous materials, such as oil, the Commission should encourage major marine facility owners and operators, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct frequent, up-to-date surveys of major shipping channels, turning basins and berths used by deep draft vessels and oil barges. Additionally, the frequent, upto-date surveys should be quickly provided to the U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic ServiceSan Francisco, masters and pilots.

SFBP - Filling for Public Trust Uses on Publicly-Owned Property Granted in Trust to a Public Agency by the Legislature

  • Filling for Public Trust Uses on Publicly-Owned Property Granted in Trust to a Public Agency by the Legislature, No 1

    " Filling should be approved if the filling is undertaken on land granted in trust by the Legislature to a public agency and the Commission finds that the filling and use proposed on the fill are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, the terms of the legislative trust grant, and with a Special Area Plan for the area that the Commission has found:
    Is necessary to the health, safety, and welfare of the public in the entire Bay Area; and Provides for major shoreline parks, regional public access facilities, removal of existing pile-supported fill, open water basins, increased safety of fills, mechanisms for implementation, enhanced public views of the Bay, and other benefits to the Bay, all of which exceed the benefits that could be accomplished through BCDC's permit authority for individual projects through the application of other Bay Plan policies. "

SFBP - Fill for Bay-Oriented Commercial Recreation and Bay-Oriented Public Assembly on Privately-Owned Property Policies Concerning Filling for BayOriented Commercial Recreation and Bay-Oriented Public Assembly on Privately-Owned Property

  • Fill for Bay-Oriented Commercial Recreation and Bay-Oriented Public Assembly on Privately-Owned Property Policies Concerning Filling for BayOriented Commercial Recreation and Bay-Oriented Public Assembly on Privately-Owned Property, No 1

    " Filling for Bay-oriented commercial recreation and Bay-oriented public assembly on privately-owned property should be approved only if the filling would provide for new public access to the Bay and for improvement of shoreline appearance-in addition to what would be provided by the other Bay Plan policies-and the filling would be for Bay-oriented commercial recreation and Bay-oriented public assembly purposes, with a substantial part of the project built on existing land and the proposed fill would fully comply with all of the following additional criteria:
    The proposed project would limit the use of area to be filled to: public recreation (beaches, parks, etc.); and Bay-oriented commercial recreation and Bay-oriented public assembly, defined as facilities specifically designed to attract large numbers of people to enjoy the Bay and its shoreline, such as restaurants, specialty shops, and hotels.The proposed project would be designed so as to take advantage of its nearness to the Bay, and would provide opportunities for enjoyment of the Bay in such ways as viewing, boating, fishing, etc., by keeping a substantial portion of the development, and a substantial portion of the new shoreline created through filling, open to the public free of charge (though an admission charge could apply to other portions of the project).The proposed private project would not conflict with the adopted plans of any agency of local, regional, state, or federal government having jurisdiction over the area proposed for filling, and would be in an area where governmental agencies have not planned or budgeted for projects that would provide adequate access to the Bay.The proposed project would either provide recreational development in accordance with the Bay Plan maps or would provide additional recreational development that would not unnecessarily duplicate nearby facilities.A substantial portion of the project would be built on existing land, and the project would be planned to minimize the need or filling. (For example, all automobile parking should, wherever possible, be provided on nearby land or in multi-level structures rather than in extensive parking lots.)The proposed project would result in permanent public rights to use specific areas set aside for public access and recreation; these areas would be improved at least by filling to finished grade and by installation of necessary basic utilities, at little or no cost to the public.The proposed project would, to the maximum extent feasible, establish a permanent shoreline in a particular area of the Bay, through dedication of lands and other permanent restrictions on all privately owned and publicly-owned property Bayward of the area approved for filling.The proposed project would provide, to the maximum extent feasible, for enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other natural resources in the area of the development."