DOCSLIB.ORG

The San Francisco Bay Trail Gap Analysis Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The San Francisco Bay Trail Gap Analysis Study The San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study A Report on Closing the Gaps in the 500-mile Regional Trail System Encircling San Francisco Bay September 2005 ABAG Supporting agencies The Bay Trail Project plans, promotes and advocates for implementation of the Bay Trail network. To carry out this mission, staff coordinates with public and private partners, disseminates information about the Bay Trail, seeks funding and administers planning and construction grants. Construction and maintenance of the Bay Trail is the responsibility of cities, counties, park districts or other property owners. The Bay Trail Project is a nonprofit organization administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments. www.baytrail.org The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the comprehensive regional planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and coordination among local governments. ABAG administers the Bay Trail Project. www.abag.ca.gov The Coastal Conservancy is a state agency guided by the vision of a beautiful, restored and accessible coastline. It acts with others to preserve, protect and restore the resources of the California coast and the San Francisco Bay. www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL PROJECT GAP ANALYSIS STUDY A REPORT ON CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE 500-MILE REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM ENCIRCLING SAN FRANCISCO BAY Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Trail Project Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design, Inc. Questa Engineering, Inc. GreenInfo Network AUGUST 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bay Trail Steering Committee Members Bay Trail Board Members Rick Parmer Susan Barnes Tom Huening Bruce Beyaert Julie Bondurant Bill Bliss Joan Cardellino Mary Burns Leo Dubose Rosemary Corbin Stana Hearne Dana Cowell Joseph La Clair Bob Douglass Brian Wiese Lynn Favaro Cathy Woodbury, Alternate Jean Finney, Alternate Jim Foran Bay Trail Advisory Council Mark Frederick Steve Heminger Kelly Gibson, Alternate Liz Figueroa Dan Hodapp Kathleen Foote Minane Jameson David Hansen Ellen Johnck Bill Lockyer Doug Johnson Ken McKowen Dough Kimsey Linda Stonier David Lewis Gayle Likens Bay Trail Staff Members Bill Long John Malamut, Alternate Laura Thompson, Project Manager Steven McAdam, Alternate Maureen Gaffney, Bay Trail Planner Jim McGrath Lee Huo, Bay Trail Planner Julia Miller Patrycja Bossak, Bay Trail Planner David Mitchell Betty Moose, Alternate Consultant Team Rob Powell Michael Jones, Principal in Charge, Alta Kerry Jo Ricketts-Ferris Ian Moore, Project Manager, Alta Diane Ross-Leech Nora De Cuir, Project Planner, Alta Philip Sales Jeff Peters, Project Engineer, Questa Don Weden Margaret Henderson, Project Designer, Questa John Woodbury Lynn Federico, GreenInfo Network Del Woods Amanda Kochanek, GreenInfo Network Larry Orman, GreenInfo Network III This page intentionally left blank. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... - 1 - 2. Why Complete the San Francisco Bay Trail?.............................................................................................. - 2 - 2.1. Recreation and Shoreline Access .......................................................................................................... - 2 - 2.2. Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... - 2 - 2.3. Environmental Restoration and Education ........................................................................................ - 3 - 2.4. Community Health.................................................................................................................................. - 4 - 2.5. Equal Access to Open Space................................................................................................................. - 4 - 2.6. Economic Vitality.................................................................................................................................... - 4 - 3. The First 15 Years........................................................................................................................................... - 6 - 3.1. Establishment of the Bay Trail Plan and Project ............................................................................... - 6 - The Bay Trail Project.................................................................................................................................. - 6 - 3.2. Completing the Remaining Bay Trail Gaps......................................................................................... - 7 - Local Adoption............................................................................................................................................ - 7 - State Funding and Support ........................................................................................................................ - 7 - Partnership Building ................................................................................................................................... - 8 - Increased Public Awareness ...................................................................................................................... - 9 - Recent Project Successes.......................................................................................................................... - 10 - Land Ownership Challenges.................................................................................................................... - 10 - Engineering Challenges ............................................................................................................................ - 10 - 4. The Next 15 Years........................................................................................................................................ - 12 - 4.1. Classification and Evaluation Process................................................................................................ - 12 - 4.2. Cost Estimate Methodology............................................................................................................... - 15 - Trail Construction Unit Costs................................................................................................................. - 15 - Trail Classification in the Cost Estimates.............................................................................................. - 15 - Project Categories...................................................................................................................................... - 16 - 4.3. Project Phasing ...................................................................................................................................... - 17 - Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. - 17 - Benefit Factors........................................................................................................................................... - 18 - 5. Bay Trail Projects by Phase ......................................................................................................................... - 19 - 5.1. Short-Term Projects (Years 1-5).......................................................................................................... - 29 - Summary of Short-Term Projects........................................................................................................... - 29 - Project Example: Short -Term ................................................................................................................ - 36 - 5.2. Mid-Term Projects (Years 6-10)........................................................................................................... - 38 - Summary of Mid-Term Projects ............................................................................................................. - 38 - Project Example: Mid-Term.................................................................................................................... - 45 - 5.3. Long-Term Projects (Years 11-15) ...................................................................................................... - 47 - Summary of Long-Term Projects ........................................................................................................... - 47 - Project Example: Long-Term.................................................................................................................. - 51 - 6. Closing the Gaps........................................................................................................................................... - 52 - Environmental Issues ............................................................................................................................... - 54 - Planning, Environmental Review and Permitting................................................................................ - 55 - Roads........................................................................................................................................................... - 56 - Best Practices for Feasibility Studies ...................................................................................................... - 57 - Institutional Challenges ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • To: Ashley Nguyen, Project Manager Metropolitan Transportation Commission Dear Ms
    From: Terry Abrams Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 5:05 PM To: MTC Info Subject: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Project To: Ashley Nguyen, Project Manager Metropolitan Transportation Commission Dear Ms. Nguyen and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, I am writing in support of adding the Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Project to Plan Bay Area and to the 2015 Transportation Improvement Program. By prioritizing the re‐opening of the third lane on the Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge during peak evening commute hours, we will make a big difference in cutting traffic, reducing air pollution, and improving the quality of life in the North Bay. Thank you. Terry L. Abrams ABRAMS CONSULTING Management Consultants www.abramsconsulting.net 1 From: Jeff Alpert Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:14 PM To: MTC Info Subject: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Project To: Ashley Nguyen, Project Manager Metropolitan Transportation Commission Dear Ms. Nguyen and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, I am writing in support of adding the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Project to Plan Bay Area and to the 2015 Transportation Improvement Program. By prioritizing the re-opening of the third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge during peak evening commute hours, we will make a big difference in cutting traffic, reducing air pollution, and improving the quality of life in the North Bay. Thank you. Jeffrey D.Alpert Managing Partner Milestone Trailer Leasing LLC Ph Cell 1 From: Shannon Appelcline Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:57 AM To: MTC Info Cc: Subject: Support for Richmond/San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Project I am writing to express my strong support for a bike lane across the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate
    San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared For: Prepared By: East Bay Regional Park District NCE 2950 Peralta Oaks Court 501 Canal Blvd. Suite I Oakland, CA 94605 Richmond, CA 94804 Date: March 2018 NCE Project Number: 567.04.55 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... iii 1.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................................ 2 3.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION .............................................................................. 2 4.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 4.1 Project Location ............................................................................................. 3 4.2 Project Background ........................................................................................ 3 4.3 Project Description ......................................................................................... 3 4.4 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................. 5 5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................ 9 I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
    San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Final Adopted September 8, 2011 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design in association with Fehr & Peers and Eisen | Letunic San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Acknowledgements C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Matt Grocott, Chair Judi Mosqueda, Vice Chair Naomi Patridge Karyl Matsumoto Cory Roay Ken Ibarra Marge Colapietro Ian Bain Paul Grantham Steve Schmidt Frank Markowitz David Alfano Cathleen Baker Cathy Baylock Former Members Joel Slavit Julie Lancelle Lucy Wicks We wish to thank staff from the following agencies who contributed to this plan: Town of Atherton, City of Belmont, City of Brisbane, City of Burlingame, Town of Colma, City of Daly City, City of East Palo Alto, City of Foster City, City of Half Moon Bay, Town of Hillsborough, City of Menlo Park, City of Millbrae, City of Pacifica, Town of Portola Valley, City of Redwood City, City of San Bruno, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, Town of Woodside, County of San Mateo, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans District 4, SamTrans, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This page intentionally left blank. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Sign-On Letter Cardin-Cochran Amendment 1549-AARP
    2/13/2012 «F1» Dear Senator «Last_Name», We are writing to request your support for the Cardin/Cochran amendment #1549 to MAP- 21, to ensure local access to Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funds. This amendment will ensure the effective implementation of TE and SRTS eligibilities by empowering local governments through suballocation of funds to Tier I metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). In addition, for localities outside of Tier I MPOs, the amendment provides a streamlined administrative structure for a statewide pool set aside for these activities. At the same time, the amendment improves capacity for state departments of transportation (DOTs) to partner with locals. Since 1992, the Transportation Enhancements program has brought tremendous benefits to local communities through improved transportation choice, economic development, historic revitalization, and environmental restoration of the surface transportation system. This program enjoys broad local support in every state. For example, just in one area in Florida, 13 counties, cities and transportation agencies in and around Daytona Beach have passed resolutions supporting federal investment in TE. Local communities also support TE because of the job-creation benefits these projects provide; a recent American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials/Transportation Research Board study found that TE projects create more jobs per dollar than any other type of Federal-aid highway spending. However, a major challenge for state DOTs in implementing this program has been the local-scale orientation of the eligible activities, a non-traditional area for state DOTs. There is limited capacity at the state level for addressing these myriad, sometimes competing, priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021
    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance
    DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE IN RELATION TO HABITAT AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND NEST SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY FINAL REPORT To the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service March 2002 Hildie Spautz* and Nadav Nur, PhD Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Highway Stinson Beach, CA 94970 *corresponding author contact: [email protected] PRBO Black Rail Report to FWS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We conducted surveys for California Black Rails (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) at 34 tidal salt marshes in San Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay, northern San Francisco Bay and western Marin County in 2000 and 2001 with the aims of: 1) providing the best current information on distribution and abundance of Black Rails, marsh by marsh, and total population size per bay region, 2) identifying vegetation, habitat, and landscape features that predict the presence of black rails, and 3) summarizing information on nesting and nest site characteristics. Abundance indices were higher at 8 marshes than in 1996 and earlier surveys, and lower in 4 others; with two showing no overall change. Of 13 marshes surveyed for the first time, Black Rails were detected at 7 sites. The absolute density calculated using the program DISTANCE averaged 2.63 (± 1.05 [S.E.]) birds/ha in San Pablo Bay and 3.44 birds/ha (± 0.73) in Suisun Bay. At each survey point we collected information on vegetation cover and structure, and calculated landscape metrics using ArcView GIS. We analyzed Black Rail presence or absence by first analyzing differences among marshes, and then by analyzing factors that influence detection of rails at each survey station.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2021 | City of Alameda, California
    March 2021 | City of Alameda, California DRAFT ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONTENTS 04 MARCH 2021 City of Alameda, California MOBILITY ELEMENT 78 01 05 GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION + THEMES 6 HOUSING ELEMENT FROM 2014 02 06 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT 22 PARKS + OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 100 03 07 CONSERVATION + CLIMATE ACTION 54 HEALTH + SAFETY ELEMENT 116 ELEMENT MARCH 2021 DRAFT 1 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD: PRESIDENT Alan H. Teague VICE PRESIDENT Asheshh Saheba BOARD MEMBERS Xiomara Cisneros Ronald Curtis Hanson Hom Rona Rothenberg Teresa Ruiz POLICY, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS: Amie MacPhee, AICP, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Sheffield Hale, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Candice Miller, Cultivate, Lead Graphic Designer PHOTOGRAPHY: Amie MacPhee Maurice Ramirez Alain McLaughlin MARCH 2021 DRAFT 3 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 FORWARD Preparation of the Alameda General Plan 2040 began in 2018 and took shape over a three-year period during which time residents, businesses, community groups, and decision-makers reviewed, revised and refined plan goals, policy statements and priorities, and associated recommended actions. In 2020, the Alameda Planning Board held four public forums to review and discuss the draft General Plan. Over 1,500 individuals provided written comments and suggestions for improvements to the draft Plan through the General Plan update website. General Plan 2040 also benefited from recommendations and suggestions from: ≠ Commission on People with Disabilities ≠ Golden
    [Show full text]
  • Of 8 COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation October 21, 2010 NAPA RIVER
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation October 21, 2010 NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT Project No. 01-022-01 Project Manager: Betsy Wilson RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $75,000 to support the design, permitting, and other work associated with implementation of the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project. LOCATION: The northern edge of San Pablo Bay, bounded in the east by the Napa River and the west by Sonoma Creek, in Napa County (Exhibit 1) PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31165 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of up to seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to support the design, permitting, and other work associated with implementation of the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project.” Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy’s current Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code (Sections 31160-31165) regarding the Conservancy’s mandate to address the resource and recreation goals of the San Francisco Bay Area.” Page 1 of 8 NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY: The Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project involves the restoration of nearly 10,000 acres of former commercial salt ponds to a mix of tidal marsh and managed ponds, as well as delivery of recycled water to aid in the removal of bittern (a byproduct of salt production) that is stored in one of the ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]