News


Santa Clara County supervisors approve study of South Bay's shoreline

Emergency port, tourist destination among possible future uses

A joint study approved Tuesday will examine current issues facing the South Bay shoreline and possible future uses, including creating an emergency port or tourist destination.

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved launching the study in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

The initiative by board president Dave Cortese will study the shoreline that stretches from Milpitas to Palo Alto.

"We have the opportunity to shape the future of the South Bay shoreline," Cortese said in a statement. "As we engage our natural partners and the public, we can develop a shared vision and plan for this special area and its precious resources."

The study can look into many factors surrounding the shoreline, including land use, flood control, conservation, climate change and rising sea levels, according to Cortese's office.

The supervisors instructed county administration to compile a work plan with the water district and present their report to the board's Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation Committee in August.

During Cortese's State of the County address in February, he proposed using Alviso Marina as a regional emergency access port if a natural disaster shuts down roads and airports.

Boat tours that launched last year at Alviso Marina Park have brought school-age children and adults to the Bay, Cortese said in his address

— Bay City News Service

Comments

1 person likes this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm

"During Cortese's State of the County address in February, he proposed using Alviso Marina as a regional emergency access port if a natural disaster shuts down roads and airports."


That's like trying to supplant SFO with PAO.

Why do we get stuck with government officials like this evident moron? Pay better attention on this year's election round, everybody.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 14, 2016 at 12:30 am

"Why do we get stuck with government officials like this evident moron? Pay better attention on this year's election round, everybody."

Unfortunately, we have many government officials with the same caliber. The public needs to put these morons in check.


Like this comment
Posted by Cid Young
a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29 pm

It is so obvious to me that Dave Cortese is getting ahead of the curve by ordering this study. If the up-coming 9-County Ballot Measure AA passes, he will be ready to jump on Santa Clara's share of the funding. Measure AA will levy a $12.00 parcel tax on EVERY property owner for the next 20 years, even if "your lot" isn't even situated close to the Bay. It does nothing for sea level rise on the Pacific Ocean side of the Peninsula for instance. It's just another fleecing of Property Owners so that the "BOYS" in Government will have OPM (Other People's Money) to spend.
Measure AA is projected to raise $25 million dollars annually. That's not chump change.

"Measure AA, on the June ballot in all nine Bay Area counties, is a $12 parcel tax dedicated to protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay. It will create a stable revenue source for reducing trash and pollution, enhancing wetlands and wildlife habitat, increasing public access and recreational areas, and protecting communities from flooding. The tax will raise $25 million annually for 20 years and is expected to leverage significant additional state and federal resources for wetland enhancement and water quality improvement."

So say the Pro-tax Measure proponents. I live in unincorporated San Mateo County, in Moss Beach, where our shoreline is erroding and nothing is being done. I own two parcels (A lot and a house) and am 64 so if this passes, I will be on the hook until I am eighty four, should I live that long, to the tune of an extra $24.00 per year, if I am still in my home. As more and more public projects get put on the backs of ageing homeowners, with no senior citizen waivers, people on fixed incomes will be forced out of their homes. It will have to pass in all 9 Counties, but because of the Environmental Spin they are greenwashing this wiht, it probably will. Dae Cortese knows this and is making plans to spend that money!


4 people like this
Posted by juan olive
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 14, 2016 at 12:57 pm

Remember when albums used to skip?
I feel like a album skipping...
Follow the money (skip) Follow the money (skip) Follow the money etc...


Like this comment
Posted by cm
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 14, 2016 at 9:10 pm

The sad part of this is it will probably all be about development and won't draw a line of non-development to the level that the water will one day be rising. They want us to pay more so that they can build a giant wall around the Bay to protect developments that never should have been allowed to be built. Developments that are at risk of being underwater in the coming decades. Why should we pay to protect Facebook and Google among others when they chose to put their developments so close to the water. I will not vote for any measure that isn't about restoring the natural Bay tidal lands and delineating the areas where the developments need to be planning their exodus.


Like this comment
Posted by Propaganda piece
a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 15, 2016 at 3:20 am

I received a month ago the slick propaganda piece in support of funding another regional bureaucracy. Private-sector consultants and contractors are also awaiting their windfall. On Meadure AA, I expect to vote NoNo.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Drop Your Keyboard!
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 4,958 views

Tell Me: Are Parents Today Overreacting to Child Safety Concerns?
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 1,932 views

Coffeebar to expand to Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,458 views

A Concrete Joy: The Life and Love of Charlie Foley-Hughes
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 524 views