My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2016-11-07 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
AgdaPkt 2016-11-07 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/29/2016 1:27:05 PM
Creation date
11/3/2016 4:10:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
11/7/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
365
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
and the fact that the committee isn't questioning the validity and just making a decision on <br />this bad information, is telling to the community that they already had their minds made up. <br />What are the full names of the members of the committee? I can't find that on the city's <br />website. What are the names of the individuals in city council who will actually be making the <br />final decision and is that the meeting that is supposed to happen on November 7th? <br />The resident tax payer supporters of this pilot change are such a minority in comparison to the <br />number who are clearly against and were completely blindsided by this surprise <br />implementation as it was 3 years after getting even poor data a reason to do the pilot in the <br />first place. <br />This whole project is a disaster and has been from the start, and the while it may be difficult to <br />take that responsibility of admittance and reverting back to the 4 lanes that it should be, given <br />all the city's approved and soon to be approved downtown expansion, it is the right thing to <br />do and will be noticed by the community. On the flip side, it will also be noticed if the city <br />council approves that this pilot stays, and ignores all of the real data and factors, resident <br />feedback, and common sense, and this will likely be reflected in the next election of the <br />members, as a result. <br />I would appreciate your response to my questions. <br />Thanks, <br />Sherine <br />On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:31 AM, CD-Jessica Manzi <jmanzi@redwoodcity.org> wrote: <br />Hi Sherine, <br />I apologize for not responding to your previous message. We are collecting all of the <br />feedback, reviewing it, and providing to the Complete Streets Advisory Committee and City <br />Council for their review. However, due to the volume of comments we don't have the <br />capacity to respond to the content of all messages at this time. <br />A couple of clarifications for what you noted below: <br />- the iterim report summarized the data collected at that point in the project, the final <br />report is based on the final round of data collection - both compared to the same pre-pilot <br />data. You can look at trends in the data from the two reports - but except for the collision <br />information, the data sets are not related. For your example of people crossing at Farm Hill <br />& McGarvey - the number of people crossing there went down between the time <br />8.A. - Page 68
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.