AgdaPkt 2010-08-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1 G '� Page 18 ��, ` ;� � �� ' � � � �� �'�� 1301 Ma ie Street IPotECe Department � - ��fi��, Redwood City, CA 94063 Lauis A. Cobarruviaz i��t� ------------- ' f0U1i1�d186)� Telephane (650) 780-7122 Chief of Poiice � FAX Line (650) 780-7149 �. j: � August 24, �o�a ��n�rable Clifford V. Crztan Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, Ca 94063 �ear Judge Cre�an, 4n June 10, 20�4, the Redwood City Council received the San Mateo Coun�y Civii Grand Jury report titled "The Effectiveness of Red Light Traffic Camera Enforcement." The report contained 18 "findings" and six "recommendations." The Redwood City Counci! was requested to submit �omments within 90 days to your Honor. Specifically, Council was requested to submit fhe following: For�he 18 "findings," Counci( was to �ndicate one af the following: 1. Council agrees with the finding. 2. Counci! disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shail specify fhe portion of the finding �hat is disputed, and shall include an explanafiion of the reasons therefore. Additionaily, for the Grand Jury's "recommendations," Counci[ was requested #o repor� one of the foilowing actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regardfng the impfemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, bu#wili be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implemen#ation. 3. The recommendation requ'sres further ana{ysis, with an explanafiion and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the offic2r or director of the agency or department being in�estigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agen�y when applic�b[e. This time frame i