Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 5 of 36 <br />Figure 3 — Outreach Methods <br />Online Outreach <br />Physical Outreach <br />Virtual Open House at www.rwctransitplan.com <br />Newsletter mailed to over 6,300 residents and <br />businesses <br />Social Media outreach on Facebook, Next <br />Distributed over 700 newsletters via senior lunch <br />Door, Instagram and Twitter <br />recipients and Redwood City School District food <br />distribution pickups <br />E -News (City electronic newsletter) <br />Changeable traffic message signs <br />communications <br />"Live" Zoom Question and Answer session on <br />Signs posted in windows of vacant Cost -Plus World <br />December 9, 2020 and January 13 and 20, 2021 <br />Market store at Jefferson and Middlefield <br />In addition to these strategies, the City has made presentations to the Redwood City Chamber of <br />Commerce, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA), the Transportation <br />Advisory Committee, and local realtor groups, as well as the Teen Advisory Council. Comment letters have <br />submitted to the City regarding this project are provided in Attachment F. <br />As part of the virtual open house and newsletter, staff distributed a survey with questions about grade <br />separation priorities, community amenities, level of development, and demographic data. The age <br />breakdown of survey respondents was even across ranges over age 20, with approximately 120- <br />130 responses for each age group and 663 total responses. As noted, staff also met with the Teen <br />Advisory Council to get additional feedback on community amenities and to respond to questions <br />regarding the Transit District. Full results are located in Attachment B, but the following is a high-level <br />summary. <br />• Safe Walking Connections —Safe walking and biking were the top priority for transit <br />district amenities and grade separations. Other grade separation priorities were traffic <br />congestion and safety, while other transit district amenity priorities included open space, retail, <br />and restaurants. <br />• Support for Further Development- Approximately 74% of respondents prefer development <br />growth either at the existing planned densities or additional development beyond what is <br />planned. This support was correlated with age, with younger age groups more likely to support <br />additional growth than older ones. <br />• Support for Larger Residential Units - 72% of respondents supported fewer housing units if they <br />were larger, with two or more bedrooms. <br />• Taller Buildings for Housing or Amenities —Over 60% of respondents supported taller buildings if <br />they provided additional housing or community amenities. Respondents overall did not <br />support additional height for office uses. <br />Question and answer sessions on the grade separation study's preliminary alternatives were hosted on <br />December 9, 2020 and on January 13, 2021 to answer questions about the study, potential <br />community impacts of grade separations, and individual rail alternatives or options for the at -grade <br />crossings. There will be another session on February 3rd. <br />Page 5 of 12 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcitV.org <br />181 <br />