DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 CENSUS - PUMA REFERENCE MAP: San Mateo County (East Central)--Redwood City, San Carlos & Belmont Cities 122.159566W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Only governmental MCDs in the subject PUMA are labeled. Steinberger Slough 2 Place label color corresponds to the place fill color. Label colors: Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis 6103.04 6086 SUBJECT AREA COUNTIES ON MAP SHEET 06081 San Mateo Corkscrew Slough 6087 6088 Westpoint Slough 6090 Highlands-Baywood Park Belmont 6103.02 6091 101 101 6092.02 Redwood Crk 6089 6095 PUMA 08105 1st Slough 82 6092.01 Ravenswood Slough San Carlos Upper Crystal Reservoir 6096.01 6094 6101 6093 6096.02 6102.02 82 84 6100 84 6102.01 Menlo Park 6096.03 6102.03 6099 6109 Redwood City 84 North Fair Oaks 280 6098 280 6107 6108 6110 6111 Emerald Lake Hills 6112 PUMA 08106 Atherton 35 Palo Alto 81 0 O E 5 Woodside T 8 A 0 M 84 N A PUMA SA R L A 08501 A C NT SA West Menlo Park Stanford Bear Gulch Reservoir 37.427492N 37.432105N 122.340784W 122.153937W Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) are delineated based on the results of the 2010 Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic Decennial Census; all other legal boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2010. The Datum: NAD 83 PARENT SHEET 1 PUMA NAME: San Mateo County (East Central)--Redwood City, San Carlos & boundaries shown on this map are for Census Bureau statistical data collection and Spheroid: GRS 80 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 Kilometers Belmont Cities tabulation purposes only; their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not 1st Standard Parallel: 34 06 27 Total Sheets: 1 constitute a determination of jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement. PUMA CODE: 08105 2nd Standard Parallel: 40 25 20 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 Miles - Index Sheets: 0 Central Meridian: -119 18 20 STATE: California (06) Geographic Vintage: 2010 Census (reference date: January 1, 2010) The plotted map scale is 1:22623 - Parent Sheets: 1 Latitude of Projection's Origin: 32 31 43 Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau's MAF/TIGER database (ACS13) - Inset Sheets: 0 False Easting: 0 Map Created by Geography Division: December 13, 2013 False Northing: 0 PUMA REF MAP (PARENT) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau 23650608105001 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [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]
  • 4.9 Land Use and Planning
    Redwood City New General Plan 4.9 Land Use and Planning 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section describes existing land uses in and around the plan area, as well as applicable land use policies and regulations. Information in this section was derived from a technical land use background report, Redwood City General Plan Land Use Report, prepared in June 2008 by Hogle-Ireland, Inc., as well as CirclePoint’s reconnaissance of the plan area. 4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The plan area covered by the New General Plan consists of the corporate City limits as well as lands within the City’s sphere of influence. The plan area comprises approximately 38 square miles within a diverse physical setting, with flat lands near the Bayfront area; hills in the western portion of the City; and the San Francisco Bay, stream corridors, and tidal marshes in the north and east. Current Land Use Patterns The current land use patterns reflect the diverse physical features within the plan area, with most office, commercial and residential uses south and west of U.S. 101 while most open space and industrial uses are north of U.S. 101 or in the southwestern foothill areas. The City consists of residential neighborhoods with varying densities and characters; a conventional downtown with retail, restaurant, office, and civic uses; active industrial areas, including research and development and heavy industrial uses associated with the Port of Redwood City; open space areas; and civic areas, including County offices, parks, schools, and community centers. These uses have been clustered within five distinct areas of the City reflecting their specific geographies and function, described below.
    [Show 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).
    [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]
  • Berryessa Recycling Facility
    Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil Improvements Biological Resources Report Project #3732-01 Prepared for: Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 October 2015 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Property Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Existing Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Proposed Site Development .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background Review ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dredging at Lagoon Intake Structure Initial Study
    DREDGING AT LAGOON INTAKE STRUCTURE INITIAL STUDY City of Foster City September 16, 2016 1 2 SEPTEMBER 2016 FOSTER CITY DREDGING AT LAGOON INTAKE STRUCTURE INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ....................................................... 27 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................................ 29 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 30 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ...................................................................... 52 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 54 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 74 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 111 VI. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................ 116 VII. Hazards ........................................................................................................... 136 VIII. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 146 IX. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 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 43 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 76 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 67 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190 State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov May 5, 2020 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: I am pleased to transmit this updated San Francisco Bay Plan, which was revised by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the fall of 2019. The Commission approved two groundbreaking Bay Plan amendments – the Bay Fill Amendment to allow substantially more fill to be placed in the Bay as part of an approved multi-benefit habitat restoration and shoreline adaptation project to help address Rising Sea Levels, and the Environmental Justice and Social Equity Amendment to implement BCDC’s first- ever formal environmental justice and social equity requirements for local project sponsors.
    [Show full text]