June 1996 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Trimming Port Plans

How much more land will Bay ports need in 25 years to accommodate projected growth? Not as much as they once thought, says the S.F. Bay Commission.

On April 18, the commission officially revised its Seaport Plan, reducing the amount of property set aside, or "landbanked," for future port use, from 11,000 to just under 3,000 acres, even though the amount of cargo coming into the Bay is expected to increase from 16.5 million to over 43 million metric tons between 1995 and 2020. The Commission's Will Travis says the lesser amount of land will be adequate because newer technology allows ports to put "more cargo through less space faster."

The move was generally applauded by local government and property owners, who want to free up more prime shoreline acreage for other types of development. Alameda officials objected to the Commission's retaining 220 acres of the city's soon to be closed navy base, fearing it would interfere with their plans to convert the property to civilian use. But Travis points out that the Commission lifted the port designation from nearly 90% of the Alameda base and added more flexible language to the final plan which could free up the remaining 10% in the future.

Redwood City industries, worried that office and commercial development could disrupt access to their facilities, opposed the removal 106 acres in their area from the port plan. BCDC overruled their objections, however, saying the land won't be needed for future port use.

"The Commission did a quality job," says the Port of Oakland's Jim McGrath.

Contact: S.F. Bay Commission (415)557-3686

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project