DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacific Shores Project) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. See “PLAN OF REFUNDING.” The Prior Bonds were issued by the City, for and on behalf of the District, to finance public improvements authorized to be funded by the District. The Bonds are being issued pursuant to a Fiscal Agent Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012 (the “Fiscal Agent Agreement”), by and between the City, for and on behalf of the District, and U.S. Bank National Association, as fiscal agent (the “Fiscal Agent”). The Bonds are payable from the proceeds of an annual Special Tax (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement) being levied on certain property located within the District (see “THE DISTRICT”), and from certain funds pledged under the Fiscal Agent Agreement. The Special Tax is being levied according to a Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for the District. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS—Special Taxes” and Appendix B – “Rate and Method.” Interest on the Bonds is payable on March 1 and September 1 of each year, commencing on March 1, 2013. The Bonds will be issued in book-entry form only and, when delivered, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of the Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), which will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds will be made in book-entry form only. Purchasers of the Bonds will not receive physical certificates representing their ownership interests in the Bonds purchased. The Bonds will be issued in the principal amount of $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. Principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable directly to DTC by the Fiscal Agent. Upon receipt of payments of principal and interest, DTC will in turn distribute such payments to the beneficial owners of the Bonds. See “THE BONDS” and Appendix F – “DTC and the Book-Entry Only System.” The Bonds are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity from Special Tax Prepayments. See “THE BONDS—Redemption.” NONE OF THE FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE DISTRICT, THE CITY OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR OF ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS. EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIAL TAXES, NO OTHER TAXES ARE PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS. THE BONDS ARE NEITHER GENERAL OR SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY NOR GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRICT, BUT ARE LIMITED OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY FOR THE DISTRICT, PAYABLE SOLELY FROM CERTAIN AMOUNTS PLEDGED THEREFOR UNDER THE FISCAL AGENT AGREEMENT, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT. This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. Investors should read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision with respect to the Bonds. The purchase of the Bonds involves significant risks, and the Bonds are not appropriate investments for all types of investors. See “SPECIAL RISK FACTORS” in this Official Statement for a discussion of certain risk factors that should be considered, in addition to the other matters set forth in this Official Statement, in evaluating the investment quality of the Bonds. The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued, subject to approval as to their legality by Nossaman LLP, Irvine, California, Bond Counsel, and certain other conditions. Certain legal matters with respect to the Bonds will be passed upon for the City by the City Attorney, and by Quint & Thimmig LLP, San Francisco, California, in its capacity as Disclosure Counsel to the City for the Bonds. Certain legal matters related to the Bonds will be passed upon for the Underwriter by Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, acting as Underwriter’s Counsel. It is anticipated that the Bonds in definitive form will be available for delivery to DTC on or about July 31, 2012. The date of this Official Statement is July 18, 2012. $5,555,000 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-1 (PACIFIC SHORES PROJECT) SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2012 MATURITY SCHEDULE Maturity Date Principal Interest CUSIP (September 1) Amount Rate Yield Price Number(1) 2013 $1,340,000 2.000% 1.000% 101.074 757893 CW0 2014 1,375,000 2.000 1.500 101.021 757893 CX8 2015 1,410,000 2.000 1.875 100.372 757893 CY6 2016 1,430,000 2.000 2.125 99.512 757893 CZ3 (1) Copyright 2012, American Bankers Association. CUSIP data is provided by Standard & Poor’s CUSIP Service Bureau, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and are provided for convenience of reference only. Neither the City nor the Underwriter assumes any responsibility for the accuracy of the CUSIP data. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT The information contained in this Official Statement has been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable. No representation, warranty or guarantee, however, is made by the Underwriter as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this Official Statement, including, without limitation, the information contained in the Appendices, and nothing contained in this Official Statement should be relied upon as a promise or representation by the Underwriter. Neither the City nor the Underwriter has authorized any dealer, broker, salesperson or other person to give any information or make any representations with respect to the offer or sale of Bonds other than as contained in this Official Statement. If given or made, any such information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the City or the Underwriter. The information and expressions of opinion in this Official Statement are subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale of the Bonds shall under any circumstances create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of any party described in this Official Statement, or in the status of any property described in this Official Statement, subsequent to the date as of which such information is presented. This Official Statement and the information contained in this Official Statement are subject to amendment without notice. The Bonds may not be sold, and no offer to buy the Bonds may be accepted, prior to the time the Official Statement is delivered in final form. Under no circumstances shall this Official Statement constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, the Bonds in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. When used in this Official Statement and in any continuing disclosure by the City, in any press release and in any oral statement made with the approval of an authorized officer of the City or any other entity described or referenced in this Official Statement, the words or phrases “will likely result,” “are expected to,” “will continue,” “is anticipated,” “estimate,” “project,” “forecast,” “expect,” “intend” and similar expressions identify “forward looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Any forecast is subject to such uncertainties. Inevitably, some assumptions used to develop the forecasts will not be realized, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, there are likely to be differences between forecasts and actual results, and those differences may be material. All summaries of the documents referred to in this Official Statement are qualified by the provisions of the respective documents summarized and do not purport to be complete statements of any or all of such provisions. The Underwriter has provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement: “The Underwriter has reviewed the information in this Official Statement in accordance with, and as part of, its responsibilities to investors under the federal securities laws as applied to the facts and circumstances of this transaction, but the Underwriter does not guarantee the accuracy or the completeness of such information.” In connection with the offering of the Bonds, the Underwriter may overallot or effect transactions that stabilize or maintain the market prices of the Bonds at levels above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 4.13 Recreation, Parks, and Open Space
    Redwood City New General Plan 4.13 Recreation, Parks, and Open Space 4.13 RECREATION, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACE This section describes existing public parks, recreation facilities, and open space areas in Redwood City and the sphere of influence area, including the regulations and policies affecting these facilities. Impacts to these facilities that could result with adoption of the New General Plan are evaluated and mitigations identified for any potentially significant impacts. Information in this section was obtained from City publications, including the Parks and Facilities Needs Assessment (2008). 4.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Redwood City has approximately 226 acres of active developed parkland and approximately 700 acres of designated open space. Parks in the sphere of influence area contribute an additional 7 acres to the plan area, for a total of about 233 acres of developed parkland in the plan area (the City plus sphere of influence areas) as a whole.1 Approximately 19 percent (or about 43 acres) of the City’s active parkland is associated with school facilities (including athletic fields and playgrounds). Other public park and recreational facilities in the plan area include community centers, trails, and swimming pools, which may be within City parks. The open space areas provide passive recreational opportunities, but have other primary purposes, such as habitat protection, that preclude the areas from being considered as active developed parkland. Parks Parks in the plan area are classified in several subgroups: mini parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, special use parks, and active land on public school property. The City completed a Parks and Facilities Needs Assessment (PFNA) in 2008, which assessed the quality and quantity of parklands in the plan area.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Shores Center, Redwood City, CA
    Pacific Shores Center, Redwood City, CA PACIFIC SUBLEASE: 1400 Seaport Boulevard, Side B, Floor 3 – ±21,978 SF SHORES CENTER [ WORK. LIFE. NATURE. ] Brian Rieben 1950 University Avenue, Suite 220 Senior Vice President East Palo Alto, California 94303 +1 650 320 0262 ph: 650-852-1200 [email protected] fx: 650-856-1098 LIC #01850928 cushmanwakefield.com Pacific Shores Center, Redwood City, California PACIFIC SHORES CENTER FEATURES On-Site Amenities Adjacent to 135 acres of restored wetlands with a 3-mile nature walk Excellent freeway access to Hwy 101 with close proximity to Hwy 92 Centrally located between San Jose and San Francisco International Airports Abundant parking located adjacent to each building Functional floor plate design Monument signage available Shuttle service to Park from CalTrans/BART Brian Rieben 1950 University Avenue, Suite 220 Senior Vice President East Palo Alto, California 94303 +1 650 320 0262 ph: 650-852-1200 [email protected] fx: 650-856-1098 LIC #01850928 cushmanwakefield.com Pacific Shores Center, Redwood City, California PACIFIC SHORES CENTER 1400 Seaport Blvd Third Floor ±21,978 SF Third floor, side B in 1400 Seaport 20 offices 4 conference rooms Break room Copy room Fiber installed to the premises Furniture available Brian Rieben 1950 University Avenue, Suite 220 Senior Vice President East Palo Alto, California 94303 +1 650 320 0262 ph: 650-852-1200 [email protected] fx: 650-856-1098 LIC #01850928 cushmanwakefield.com Pacific Shores Center, Redwood City, California
    [Show full text]
  • DESIGN + BUILD a Partnership Focus
    H DESIGN + BUILD _A Partnership Focus History In 1959, Ed Moran was an acclaimed, but “starving artist.” At the time, the Santa Clara Valley was mostly apricot orchards, more than a decade before assuming its current day moniker, the “Silicon Valley.” To get by, he hand-painted Christmas scenes on storefronts for local grocery store owners. Soon, he opened one of the first sign shops in the Valley, serving the first local tech companies of the time: Fairchild Semiconductor, IBM and HP. Ed also developed lasting relationships with developers responsible for building out the early valley: Trammell Crow Company, Spieker Part- ners (now Hudson Pacific Properties) and Lincoln Property Company; customers that we still do business with today. Ed’s son Danny Moran grew up working in the family business and, in 1993, had the honor of taking ownership of the company. He currently serves as President and CEO. Over our 60-year history, Corporate Sign Systems continues to reinvent itself. With the recent addition of our internal design firm LUX Create, the company has come full circle, drawing from its artist roots. Our vertically integrated business model delivers a high level of creative services and “THE TRAITOROUS EIGHT” FOUNDERS OF FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR, CIRCA 1961 broad range of fabrication capabilities, resulting in increased value for our clients. WITH ED MORAN’S SIGNAGE WORK DISPLAYED About Us LUXcreate is the creative arm of Corporate Sign Systems, a leading Silicon Valley based design + build firm; providing signage & wayfinding, environmental graphics, and fine art to CRE investors, GC’s and corporate end users.
    [Show full text]
  • DESIGN + BUILD a Partnership Focus
    H DESIGN + BUILD _A Partnership Focus History In 1959, Ed Moran was an acclaimed, but “starving artist.” At the time, the Santa Clara Valley was mostly apricot orchards, more than a decade before assuming its current day moniker, the “Silicon Valley.” To get by, he hand-painted Christmas scenes on storefronts for local grocery store owners. Soon, he opened one of the first sign shops in the Valley, serving the first local tech companies of the time: Fairchild Semiconductor, IBM and HP. Ed also developed lasting relationships with developers responsible for building out the early valley: Trammell Crow Company, Spieker Part- ners (now Hudson Pacific Properties) and Lincoln Property Company; customers that we still do business with today. Ed’s son Danny Moran grew up working in the family business and, in 1993, had the honor of taking ownership of the company. He currently serves as President and CEO. Over our 60-year history, Corporate Sign Systems continues to reinvent itself. With the recent addition of our internal design firm LUX Create, the company has come full circle, drawing from its artist roots. Our vertically integrated business model delivers a high level of creative services and “THE TRAITOROUS EIGHT” FOUNDERS OF FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR, CIRCA 1961 broad range of fabrication capabilities, resulting in increased value for our clients. WITH ED MORAN’S SIGNAGE WORK DISPLAYED About Us LUXcreate is the creative arm of Corporate Sign Systems, a leading Silicon Valley based design + build firm; providing signage & wayfinding, environmental graphics, and fine art to CRE investors, GC’s and corporate end users.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA Congestion Management & Environmental Quality
    Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colma Daly City East Palo Alto Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo San Mateo County South San Francisco Woodside AGENDA Congestion Management & Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee Date: Monday, April 27, 2020 Time: 3:00 p.m. On March 16, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter-in-Place Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer effective March 17, 2020, which was expanded and extended on March 31, 2020, the statewide Shelter-in- Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC’s social distancing guidelines, which discourage large public gatherings, C/CAG meetings will be conducted via remote conferencing. Members of the public may observe or participate in the meeting remotely via one of the options below: Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98391401384 Meeting ID: 983 9140 1384 Join By Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 983 9140 1384 Persons who wish to address the Congestion Management and Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee on an item to be considered at this meeting, or on items not on this agenda, are asked to submit comments in writing to [email protected] by 2:00 PM on Monday April 27, 2020. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marina
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA SHORES VILLAGE PROJECT SCH Number: 2002022076 Prepared by the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY and WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in Association with Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Transportation Consultants Bottomley Design and Planning, Urban Designers Environmental Vision, Visual Simulation Consultants Wetlands Research Associates, Consulting Biologists Clearwater Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality Consultants Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Noise Consultants Donald Ballanti, Air Quality Management Consultant Holman & Associates, Consulting Archaeologists EDR, Inc., Governmental Records Search Service (Haz Mat) June 2003 WP9.0\622\FEIR\COVER.622 Marina Shores Village Project Final EIR City of Redwood City Contents July 8, 2003 Page i CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Relationship Between DEIR and Final EIR.............................................................1-1 1.2 Proposed Project Summary....................................................................................1-1 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ....................................................2-1 2.1 List of Draft EIR Commenters.................................................................................2-2 2.2 Summary of Draft EIR Comments by Commenter..................................................2-5 2.3 Master Responses................................................................................................2-43
    [Show full text]