DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft WETA Redwood City Ferry Site Assessment Report 2012-07-09

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft WETA Redwood City Ferry Site Assessment Report 2012-07-09 WETA Redwood City Ferry Terminal – Site Feasibility Report July 9, 2012 | DRAFT Report DRAFT DRAFT 2012-7-09 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report July 9, 2012 | DRAFT Report Prepared for: Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Prepared by: KPFF Consulting Engineers Subconsultants: Coast & Harbor Engineering FMG Architects DRAFT Water Emergency Transportation Authority Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 INTRODUCTION This Site Feasibility Report document sets forth preliminary assessment of existing site conditions in support of Planning Level Concept Design and Alternative Selection for a potential ferry terminal facility for the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) in Redwood City, California. The Preliminary Concept Design to date has focused on Site Assessment and Coastal Engineering. Many of the typical project costs are similar for different WETA terminal sites, but dredging and coastal conditions can result in significant costs that vary considerably between individual sites. Since these coastal conditions are critical to consider for project viability at the proposed site, initial design work and site investigation has focused on bathymetric survey and preliminary coastal analysis. The other major focus for preliminary design included coordination with project stakeholders and establishment of site definition, including preliminary understanding of landside/waterside boundary constraints for use in concept design. Stakeholders that participated in meetings with WETA and the design team included the Port of Redwood City, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), City of Redwood City and the San Francisco Bay Trail. General site design assumptions for the proposed Redwood City terminal are as follows: ° The site could serve as a ferry terminal for a passenger ferry route to downtown San Francisco or East-Bay (Oakland/Alameda). ° The terminal design would include waterside improvements similar to those implemented at the recently completed South San Francisco terminal. Major marine infrastructure would include pilings, floats, fendering, and gangways. Upland components would include landscape and trail/public access; a landside canopy for waiting passengers; and other upland site improvements including utilities, fencing, gates, kiosks, and parking. ° The upland terminal would be unmanned, with no public restroom. However, as an origin terminal, a small on- site building/shed containing a supply/storage room, crew room with lockers, and a room for network systems (Clipper/Next Bus) would be required. ° The Redwood City terminal would be an origin terminal and would likely feature overnight berthing due to the route distance. As an origin facility, on-site fueling facilities would be required. No existing fuel lines are currently in the vicinity, so the site would need diesel fuel tanks similar to those at the proposed Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility in Alameda. This Site Feasibility Report document was prepared following completion of a bathymetric survey, preliminary site- specific coastal analysis, and initial meetings with project stakeholders. The intent is to identify and describe significant engineering constraints and challenges associated with the site prior to studying more site-specific upland design and terminal layout. PREFERRED TERMINAL SITE LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES PPreviousrevious Sites Considered Prior to this Report Intermodal and Terminal Access Study Scoping Reports prepared for WETA by ARUP in June 2002 identified potential terminal locations that would support expansion of ferry services in the Bay Area. This report identified possible future ferry terminals at many new cities, including Redwood City. It discussed potential sites; future development potential; existing/future traffic conditions; and access for parking, transit, and pedestrians/bicycles. The Draft Working Paper Scoping Study showed three potential locations for a terminal in Redwood City. One of these sites was located on Westpoint Slough and is the preferred location discussed in this Site Feasibility Report. The second and third locations were located further to the south along Redwood Creek, and were referred to as F dock and Wharf 5. These locationsDRAFT are not preferred due to the additional time required (more than 5 minutes) to travel down Redwood Creek (which is a no-wake zone) and were not considered further in this Site Feasibility Report. PProjectroject SiteProject Site --- Existing ConditionsConditions,, Adjacent UsesUses,,,, and Property Ownership The following is a summary of important general issues associated with the site and the surrounding area: Water Emergency Transportation Authority Page 1 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 ° The Port of Redwood City contains Redwood Creek, a federally maintained navigation channel. Several significant sloughs drain into the Creek; the largest of these is Westpoint Slough where the preferred terminal site is located. The coastal conditions created by this location are further described later in this memorandum. ° The terminal site is approximately three miles north of Redwood City’s downtown business district at the end of Seaport Blvd., just west of the Pacific Shores Center Office Complex at the confluence of Westpoint Slough and Redwood Creek as shown in FFFigureFiigguurreeigure 2.2.2. A regional map of greater Redwood City is shown in FFiigguurreeFigure 111.1 DRAFT FFiigguurreeFigure 111 – Redwood City Regional Map Water Emergency Transportation Authority Page 2 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 DRAFT Figure 222 – Vicinity Map and Site Access Water Emergency Transportation Authority Page 3 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 ° The upland portion of the terminal site would be within a 9.2-acre parcel (San Mateo County Assessor’s parcel #0543-00-380) owned by the Port of Redwood City. The site is zoned General Industrial (GI) and its Redwood City General Plan Land Use designation is Mixed Use – Marina, with a notation about the potential future ferry terminal. The ownership of this parcel and surrounding adjacent parcels is shown in Figure 333,3 with green designating parcel areas under Port of Redwood City ownership/control. DRAFT Figure 333 – Parcel Ownership Map Water Emergency Transportation Authority Page 4 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 ° This 9.2-acre parcel is owned by the Port of Redwood City and is currently leased by RMC Pacific Materials (CEMEX). We understand that the Port has, or will be, negotiating a new lease with CEMEX for the preferred site, and the new lease will contain similar provisions to the existing lease. These provisions would allow the Port to reclaim a portion of the property for the future ferry terminal. ° The terminal would not require use of the entire Port-owned parcel. The terminal site would include the northernmost area of this parcel along the waterfront with Westpoint Slough, with a portion of the remaining site area expected to be utilized for parking and circulation for automobile and bus traffic. The remaining area to the south of the parking facility would not be used for the terminal and could continue to be utilized by CEMEX or other similar Port tenants for materials stockpiling and handling, similar to the existing current use. ° The upland site survey obtained from the Port of Redwood City is believed to be in NGVD ’29 +100’ vertical datum (based on the City of Redwood City Attachment J – Comparison of Datum figure), while the new bathymetry is in MLLW datum. The elevations from the upland port survey can be converted to MLLW by subtracting 100’ to convert from the port datum to NGVD ‘29 and then adding 4.13’ to convert from NGVD ’29 to MLLW. Revising/converting upland contours or providing a new upland survey was deemed unnecessary for this level of conceptual site feasibility design. ° The upland site is generally flat, level land, between elevation +10 and +14 feet MLLW datum, with material stockpiles up to 34 feet MLLW across the site as shown in Figure 444.4 High tide (MHHW) in this area is approximately 8.22 feet MLLW as described later in this report. The stockpiles would be removed from the site prior to terminal construction. ° Waterside, an existing concrete pier (and steel ship hatch covers that span between the pier and shore) would be demolished. See FigureFigureFiguresFigures 444 and 555 for existing conditions. Refer to the discussion later in this document of potential new and existing overwater coverage. DRAFT Water Emergency Transportation Authority Page 5 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 DRAFT FigureFigureFigure 444 – Existing Conditions Water Emergency Transportation Authority Page 6 Redwood City Ferry Terminal - Site Feasibility Report DRAFT 2012-7-09 FFiigguurreeFigure 555 – Existing Conditions Photos (see FiFigguurreeFigure 444 for Photo Orientation) AAdjacentdjacent Properties and SSuurrrroouuSurroundingSurrounnddiinnggnding UUsseessUses ° PPortort Terminals/CEMEXTerminals/CEMEX:: CEMEX currently operates a cement port terminal located on the preferred site parcel and the adjacent parcel to the south. o The preferred site is currently used for stockpiling materials, with associated equipment stored onsite as shown in FiFigguurreeFigure 444.4 This operation would be partially relocated/reconfigured
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AGENDA BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Bacciocco Auditorium, 2Nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2020 DON HORSLEY, CHAIR EMILY BEACH, VICE CHAIR CAROLE GROOM JULIA MATES KARYL MATSUMOTO RICO E. MEDINA CARLOS ROMERO JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AGENDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 January 9, 2020 – Thursday 5:00 pm 1) Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance 2) Swearing-in: a) Don Horsley (Board of Supervisors Representative) b) Emily Beach (Cities-at-Large Representative) c) Rico Medina (Northern Cities Representative) 3) Roll Call 4) Election of 2020 Officers MOTION 5) Public Comment For Items Not on the Agenda Public comment by each individual speaker shall be limited two (2) minutes. Items raised that require a response will be deferred for staff reply. 6) Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee 7) Consent Calendar Members of the Board may request that an item under the Consent Calendar be considered separately a) Approval of Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of MOTION December 5, 2019 b) Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for MOTION November 2019 8) Report of the Chair 9) San Mateo County Transit District Liaison Report 10) Joint Powers Board Liaison Report Note: All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board. Page 1 of 3 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2020 11) Report of the Executive Director 12) Program a) Adoption of 2020 Legislative Program MOTION b)
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Redwood City
    Port of Redwood City Critical Port Property Management Issues Port Property Management & Pricing Seminar June 25-27, 2008 Toronto, Ontario Battling Encroachment From Development Since 1850 In the 1850’s, the Port was founded along a natural channel, “Redwood Creek”, in what is today downtown Redwood City. 70 years ago the Port relocated about two miles east due to the growth of downtown and the need to deepen the channel for larger ships. The “New Port” Seemed Safe From Encroachment By 1937, well entrenched in the so-called industrial area, the Port appeared “safe” from the kind of development encroachment that surrounded it when it was in downtown during Redwood City’s pioneering days. Nearly $1 Billion In Development Built Around The Port Since 1985 Since 1985, and continuing today, major R&D and office park development has occurred on both sides of the Port. In fact, in the past 2 years both major developments were sold to new owners – for a combined $932,000 million. And the buyers of the older R&D are pledging to spend another $100 million to upgrade, bringing the total value to more than $1 BILLION DOLLARS. PortPort of of Redwood Redwood City City Pacific Shores Seaport Centre Seaport Centre: First Major High Tech Development When this project was approved by the City Council, the Port Commission fought to win these benefits: – Three acres of land donated to the Port for use as a public boat launch ramp. – 500,000 gallons per day capacity at the local wastewater plant, which today is valued at close to $700,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Shores Project) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK ENTRY ONLY NO RATING In the opinion of Nossaman LLP, Irvine, California, Bond Counsel, based on existing statutes, regulations, rulings and court decisions and assuming, among other matters, compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or corporate alternative minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observes that it is included in adjusted current earnings in calculating corporate alternative minimum taxable income. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is, under existing law, exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding other federal or State tax consequences relating to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. $5,555,000 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-1 (PACIFIC SHORES PROJECT) SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2012 Dated: date of issuance Due: September 1, as shown on inside cover The City of Redwood City, California (the “City”), for and on behalf of the City of Redwood City Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 (Pacific Shores Project) (the “District”), is issuing the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”) to (i) refund in full and defease the City of Redwood City Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 (Pacific Shores Project) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2000A (the “Prior Bonds”), (ii) fund a reserve fund for the Bonds, and (iii) pay costs of issuing the Bonds and refunding the Prior Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    Redwood City New General Plan 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses surface waters, groundwater resources, storm water collection and transmission, and flooding characteristics in the plan area. Key sources of information for this section include the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) prepared by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (January 2007), the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Redwood City (2005), and the Unified Stream Assessment in Seven Watersheds in San Mateo County, California by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (August 2008), Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton Consulting Engineers Water, Sewer Storm Drainage Master Plan dated 1986, and Winzler & Kelly’s Bayfront Canal Improvement Project Design Development Alternative Analysis, dated December 2003. 4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Hydrologic Conditions The regional climate of the plan area is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. Average annual precipitation in the plan area is about 20 inches. About 80 percent of local precipitation falls in the months of November through March. Over the last century for which precipitation records are available, annual precipitation has ranged from an historic low of 8.01 inches in 1976 to an historic high of 42.82 inches in 1983.1 Surface Waters Figure 4.4-1 (in Section 4.4, Biological Resources) depicts surface water bodies in the plan area, which include Redwood and Cordilleras Creeks and their tributaries. Also shown are bay channels, including Westpoint Slough, Corkscrew Slough, northerly reaches of Redwood Creek, Smith Slough and Steinberger Slough, the Atherton Channel (Marsh Creek), and the Bay Front Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Document
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 2. INTRODUCTION 6 3. HYDRODYNAMICS 8 3.1 Regional Setting ..........................................................................................................................8 3.1.1 Tides 8 3.1.2 Circulation 14 3.1.3 Residence Time 16 3.1.4 Wind-waves 17 3.1.5 Salinity 18 3.2 Project Setting ...........................................................................................................................20 3.2.1 Tributary Inflows 20 3.2.2 Salinity 22 4. SEDIMENT DYNAMICS 26 4.1 Regional Setting ........................................................................................................................26 4.1.1 Geological Evolution 26 4.1.2 Bathymetry 27 4.1.3 Sediment Transport 28 4.1.4 Sediment Budget 30 4.1.5 Spring Phytoplankton Bloom 30 4.2 Project Setting ...........................................................................................................................31 4.2.1 Tributary Sediment Load 31 4.2.2 Sediment Characteristics 32 4.2.3 Pond Bottom Elevations and Subsidence 32 4.2.4 Marsh Sedimentation 33 5. REFERENCES 36 6. LIST OF PREPARERS 42 TABLES Table 1 – Harmonic constants for San Francisco Bay 11 Table 2 – Harmonic constants for San Mateo Bridge, west side 12 Table 3 – Harmonic constants for Dumbarton Bridge 13 Table 4 – Approximate range in salinities expected for each type of pond management 24 Table 5 – Measured sedimentation data and MARSH98 SSC indices 34 South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project March 2005 Hydrodynamics and Sediment
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule
    2021 Invasive Spartina Project Treatment Schedule Updated: 7/26/21 Environmental Review Site Locations (map) Treatment Methods Where: How: Herbicide Use: of Imazapyr Treatment Method Treatment Location Treatment Dates* Imazapyr Herbicide Manual Digging, Site Sub-Area *(COI=Dug during Complete Amphibious Aerial: Mowing, Site Name Sub-Area Name Truck Backpack Airboat # Number course of inventory) for 2021? vehicle Broadcast and/or Covering 01a Channel Mouth X Lower Channel (not including 01b X mouth) 01c Upper Channel X Alameda Flood 4 years with no 1 Upper Channel - Union City Blvd to Control Channel 01d invasive Spartina I-880 (2017-2020) 01e Strip Marsh No. of Channel Mouth X No Invasive 01f Pond 3-AFCC Spartina 2020 02a.1a Belmont Slough Mouth X X X 02a.1b Belmont Slough Mouth South X X X Upper Belmont Slough and 02a.2 X X X Redwood Shores 02a.3 Bird Island X 02a.4 Redwood Shores Mitigation Bank X 02b.1 Corkscrew Slough X X Steinberger Slough South, 02b.2 X X Redwood Creek Northwest 02c.1a B2 North Quadrant West 8/14 X X 02c.1b B2 North Quadrant East 8/24 X X 02c.2 B2 North Quadrant South 8/12-8/13 X X 02d.1a B2 South Quadrant West X 02d.1b B2 South Quadrant East X 02d.2 B2 South Quadrant (2) X 2 Bair/Greco Islands 02d.3 B2 South Quadrant (3) X 02e Westpoint Slough NW X X 02f Greco Island North X X 02g Westpoint Slough SW and East X X 02h Greco Island South X X 02i Ravenswood Slough & Mouth X Ravenswood Open Space Preserve 02j.1 X (north Hwy 84) * Scheduling occurs throughout the treatment season.
    [Show full text]
  • Grassroots Advocacy Programs
    Port of Redwood City’s presentation for Effective ―Grassroots Advocacy Programs The Port of Redwood City has been a center for heavy industry on the San Francisco Peninsula ever since lumber companies floated logs down Redwood Creek to help build San Francisco more than 160 years ago. Its central location between San Francisco and San Jose has made it a key location for the shipping industry. But in the 1980s the Port‟s future looked bleak. The 1980s were a tough time for the port and the general economy as a whole, and there were times that the port finances were at their lowest points in history. At the same time, the dot com industry was flourishing, and many of the world‟s top companies found their way to Redwood City. In the „80s Oracle Corporation, a multinational computer technology corporation built a giant office campus on the former site of Marine World/Africa U.S.A., an amusement park that moved north of San Francisco. About the same time, less than two miles away, Electronic Arts, a developer and distributor of video games, mostly notably the top-selling John Madden football series, built an office campus too. High tech was thriving not only in Silicon Valley 10 miles south, but in Redwood City, which was becoming the Software Capitol. In the late 1980s the Port hired a new executive director, Floyd Shelton, and he hired his assistant, Mike Giari, who has now been Port Executive Director for the last 16 years, to turn the port around. And turn it around they did, a process that grew port revenues and wharf tonnage each year for almost 15 years before the most recent business recession.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit a Harbor Rules and Regulations
    EXHIBIT A HARBOR RULES AND REGULATIONS Thank you for choosing Westpoint Harbor as your “homeport” in the San Francisco Bay. Westpoint Harbor is a private marina complex established to provide a safe and comfortable haven for those who enjoy boating and water-oriented activities, or would like to. The following rules are for the safety and comfort of everyone, and are mostly restatements of government ordinances. The Harbor reserves the right to update lease rates as well as revoke permission to enter the facility at any time. This applies to members, guests and visitors. Owner agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and instructions of the U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal, State and Local authorities. “Owner” includes any person associated with the owner of a Vessel including family members, invitees, agents, employees and licensees on Harbor premises. We are concerned about the local marine environment and remind you that there are numerous Federal, State and Local regulations regarding discharge of any material into the Bay, including treated and non-treated sewage. All vessels are required to have a holding tank which is pumped out regularly. Any vessel found to have caused an improper discharge into the Bay will be asked to leave the Harbor. ON THE DOCKS 1. No running on the docks! Bicycles or scooters are not allowed on the docks, and no item may be placed or stored on the docks or walkways that could obstruct passage. 2. Mooring lines, water hoses and other dock connections shall be dressed to prevent obstruction or otherwise create a hazard.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Redwood City
    City of Redwood City Proposal for Ferry Financial Feasibility Study & Cost-Benefit and Economic Impact Analyses October 11, 2018 Acknowledgments City of Redwood City Council Members Project Team Diane Howard, Mayor Christopher Dacumos, Management Analyst II, City of Redwood City Shelly Masur, Vice Mayor Jessica Manzi, Transportation Manager, City of Alicia C. Aguirre, Council Member Redwood City Ian Bain, Council Member Radha Mehta, Management Fellow, City of Janet Borgens, Council Member Redwood City Giselle Hale, Council Member Kristine A. Zortman, Executive Director, Port of Redwood City Diana Reddy, Council Member Kevin Connolly, Planning & Development Port of Redwood City Commission Manager, WETA Arthi Krubanandh, Transportation Planner, Ralph A. Garcia, Chair WETA Richard (Dick) Claire, Vice Chair Chad Mason, Senior Planner & Project R. Simms Duncan, Port Commissioner Manager, WETA Richard “Dick” Dodge, Port Commissioner James Connolly, Project Manager, COWI Jessica Rivas, Marine Engineer, COWI Lorianna Kastrop, Port Commissioner Ashleigh Kanat, Executive Vice President, EPS San Mateo County Transportation Jason Moody, Principal, EPS Authority Kate Traynor, Senior Associate, EPS Jennifer Williams, Analyst II, San Mateo County Lindsey Klein, Project Planner, PlaceWorks Transportation Authority Charlie Knox, Principal, PlaceWorks Peter Skinner, Director of Grants and Funding, Bill Hurrell, Vice President, CDM Smith San Mateo County Transportation Authority Piyali Chaudhuri, Project Manager, CDM Smith Peter Martin, Project Technical
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 CENSUS - PUMA REFERENCE MAP: San Mateo County (East Central)--Redwood City, San Carlos & Belmont Cities 122.159566W
    37.576042N 37.580664N 122.346782W 2010 CENSUS - PUMA REFERENCE MAP: San Mateo County (East Central)--Redwood City, San Carlos & Belmont Cities 122.159566W LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE International CANADA PUMA Federal American Indian 00105 Reservation L'ANSE RES ALAMEDA 001 SAN MATEO 081 Off-Reservation Trust Land T1880 Alaska Native Regional Corporation NANA ANRC Public Use Microdata Area PUMA PUMA (PUMA) 00300 08103 Census Tract 183.01 Hillsborough State (or statistically equivalent entity) NEW YORK 36 County (or statistically equivalent entity) ERIE 029 Minor Civil Division (MCD)1 Bristol town Consolidated City MILFORD PUMA San Francisco Bay Incorporated Place 2 Davis Foster City 08104 Census Designated Place 2 Incline Village 92 (CDP) 92 Seal Slough DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL San Mateo Belmont Slough Interstate 3 Water Body Pleasant Lake U.S. Highway 2 Outside Subject Area State Highway 4 6103.03 Nonvisible Boundary or Feature Not Elsewhere Classified Where international, state, and/or county boundaries coincide, the map shows the boundary symbol for only the highest-ranking of these boundaries. Geographic areas outside the subject PUMA are labeled only as space allows. 1 MCD boundaries are shown in the following states in which some or all MCDs function as general-purpose governmental units: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals a Report of Habitat Recommendations
    Baylands Ecosystem Baylands Ecosystem Teams of Bay Area environmental scientists have assessed abitat Goals the past and present conditions of the baylands ecosystem and recommended ways to improve its ecological health. This report presents the Baylands Ecosystem Goals. Habitat Goals Habitat Goals H A Report of Habitat Recommendations Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project Db Deep Bay/Channel Basic Baylands Facts Sb Shallow Bay/Channel The baylands exist around the Bay between the lines of high and Tf Tidal Flat low tide. They are the lands touched by the tides, plus the lands that Tm Tidal Marsh the tides would touch in the absence of any levees or other unnat- Tp Tidal Marsh Pan ural structures. Lg Lagoon There are 73,000 acres of tidal baylands and 139,000 acres of diked Bc Beach/Dune baylands. Ag Agricultural Bayland There used to be 23 miles of sandy beaches. Now there are about Dw Diked Wetland seven miles of beaches. Most of the present beaches occur in differ- Sp Salt Pond ent locations than the historical beaches. St Storage or Treatment Pond There used to be 190,000 acres of tidal marsh with 6,000 miles of Uf Undeveloped Bay Fill channels and 8,000 acres of shallow pans. Now there are 40,000 Df Developed Bay Fill acres of tidal marsh with about 1,000 miles of channels and 250 Pr Perennial Pond acres of pans. Rw Riparian Forest/Willow Grove Only 16,000 acres of the historical tidal marsh remain. The rest of Mg Moist Grassland the present tidal marsh has naturally evolved from tidal flat, been Gr Grassland/Vernal Pool Complex restored from diked baylands, or muted by water control structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Official Statement Dated January __, 2012 New Issue – Book Entry Only No Rating
    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED JANUARY __, 2012 NEW ISSUE – BOOK ENTRY ONLY NO RATING In the opinion of Nossaman LLP, Irvine, California, Bond Counsel, based on existing statutes, regulations, rulings and court decisions and assuming, among other matters, compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or corporate alternative minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observes that it is included in adjusted current earnings in calculating corporate alternative minimum taxable income. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is, under existing law, exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding other federal or State tax consequences relating to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. $6,340,000* CITY OF REDWOOD CITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-1 (PACIFIC SHORES PROJECT) SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2012 Dated: date of issuance Due: September 1, as shown on inside cover The City of Redwood City, California (the “City”), for and on behalf of the City of Redwood City Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 (Pacific Shores Project) (the “District”), is issuing the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”) to (i) refund in full and defease the City of Redwood City Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 (Pacific Shores Project) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2000A (the “Prior Bonds”), (ii) fund a reserve fund for the Bonds, and (iii) pay costs of issuing the Bonds and es may not be sold nor offers to buy accepted prior the time refunding the Prior Bonds.
    [Show full text]