This web page is
http://www.obri.net/2nd/040902email.html
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Speed control stop signs - 2nd St., Rio Linda
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:00:05 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Steve Stosich <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Mark Manoff <xxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>, Kathy Long
<xxxxxxxx@rcip.com>
County of Sacramento
Municipal Services Agency
Department of Transportation
Steve Stosich, Associate Civil Engineer
Dear Mr. Stosich,
I received a letter and yellow postage-paid vote card from you on
September 1, 2004, "RE: SECOND STREET SPEED CONTROL SURVEY" that was
sent to "Property Owner/Resident". I do reside on Second Street;
however, the letter was sent to my Post Office Box mailing address. I
received a second copy of the letter, with another yellow vote card, on
September 2; the second one was mailed to my street address.
Your letters state "in accordance with Board of Supervisors' criteria
for the Residential Speed Control Program", stop signs are proposed to
be located on Second Street [in Rio Linda] at Shady Woods Way. The
postcards included are titled "SECOND STREET SPEED CONTROL SURVEY". The
survey provided for two responses, allowing the recipient to vote
either supporting or opposing the "proposed stop signs on SECOND STREET
at SHADY WOODS WAY".
Neither the vote postcard or your letter include a statement of either
the projected benefits or the expected negative effects from the
installation of the proposed stop signs. The specific problem being
addressed was not articulated in your letter. Proponents or opponents
of the installation of the stop signs were not offered the opportunity
to explain their positions to those who have been chosen to cast a vote
on this matter.
In my opinion the vote postcards and your letter did not provide enough
detail for recipients to appropriately consider the issue and respond.
As it was written, it was a "have you stopped beating your wife"
question, as far as I am concerned, that predetermines a response of
support for your proposal to install stop signs on Second Street.
I called you on the telephone September first to discuss the issue. You
told me that you had received a petition signed by ten residents of
Second Street in support of speed control. You told me that you would
count the votes received, and if a majority voted in favor, you would
install the stop signs. You suggested that if I opposed the stop signs,
that I should now contact my neighbors and ask them to vote no.
I asked you for the names and addresses of the signers, as I feel the
petition is a public document. You declined to fax me a copy of the
petition, citing your concerns for confidentiality of the petitioners.
You did, however, provide me with the name and address of the principal
petitioner, Mr. John Houk. Even though you would not provide the names
or addresses of the others who signed the petition, you confirmed, by
virtue of their house numbers, that the signers were on Second Street
north of Shady Woods Way and south of Q Street.
I returned my first vote card immediately to you, opposing the
proposal, with the notation "It won't help the problem north of Shady
Woods!". I will not return the second card, as I feel it is
inappropriate to vote twice, but I must wonder how many others were
afforded the opportunity to vote more than once on this issue.
The west end of Shady Woods Way is an intersection with Second Street.
This three-way intersection, where you propose to install stop signs on
Second Street, is 120 feet south of my north property line. My property
has 660 feet of street frontage on Second Street. Thus I am the
property owner on the west side of both stop signs you propose to
install.
The proposed stop signs will interrupt traffic, including school buses.
I will receive the noise from a new stop and start of traffic, plus the
air pollution generated by the additional stop and start of traffic.
Once the stop signs are installed, if it is proven they did not
alleviate the problem, it is apparent to me that it would be very
difficult to see to their removal.
I spoke with Mr. Houk and asked him to convince me that stop signs were
needed. He told me that the petition he prepared asked for non-specific
speed control measures, and did not ask for stop signs.
Mr. Houk confirmed that the speeding problem area the petition
addresses is north of and out of sight of the stop signs you propose.
He agreed with me that your proposed stop signs will have no effect
whatsoever on the problem the petition addresses.
I object to the proposal to install two stop signs on the street
bordered by my property; I don't believe the "Board of Supervisors'
criteria for the Residential Speed Control Program" you cite authorizes
the installation of intrusive stop signs that will affect my quality of
life based on a mail vote of people a half-mile away from me that
County staff empowers to vote.
As your proposal is based on the County "Board of Supervisors' criteria
for the Residential Speed Control Program", should you wish to go
forward with the installation of stop signs on Second Street at Shady
Woods Way, I will be obliged to bring my case to the Board of
Supervisors to appeal your decision. Please provide your schedule so
that I can see to the timely addition of the item to the Board's agenda
prior to the beginning of any work toward the installation of stop
signs.
Please also provide the complete mailing list of those to whom you sent
your August 30, 2004 letter with your ballot card. I ask for this as it
is apparent that you did not send the letter only to street addresses
on Second Street; one of the letters I received came to my PO Box,
indicating to me that some cross-reference was used to identify
"Property Owner/Resident". As you have sent mail to those addresses, so
must I if your stop sign proposal continues.
Your letter states "Due to the rural status of most of Second Street,
speed bumps are not an option." I don't understand your conclusion. If
speed bumps were placed on Second Street north of Shady Woods Way,
where the problem exists, in my opinion that would divert the through
traffic to Rio Linda Boulevard where it belongs. As it stands, Second
Street is a "bypass" where motorists can avoid the Rio Linda Boulevard
arterial. I believe that speed bumps would reduce that attraction and
alleviate the speeding problem.
If stop signs are the only available method to mitigate this problem,
rather than enforcement of the speed limit, perhaps the stop signs
could be placed 1/4 mile north of Shady Woods Way, where the problem is
evident to the residents who signed the petition.
The speeding problem in Rio Linda was addressed in detail at the Rio
Linda Town Meeting called by the Chamber of Commerce on August 26th. I
understand that Transportation representatives could not attend, but
the meeting was well attended by other County and law enforcement
agencies. We were encouraged to assist the policing agencies, so that
they could enforce the law. I believe that law enforcement is what is
needed here, not stop signs nearly a half mile away from the problem.
Jay O'Brien
cc: John Houk (via US mail)
Mark Manoff, Interim Service Manager, North Area
Service Center
Ms. Kathy Long, President, Rio Linda / Elverta
Chamber of Commerce
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Speed control stop signs - 2nd St., Rio Linda
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 07:51:37 -0700From: Stosich. Steve (MSA)
<xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
1. I'll let you know the results of the survey after September 17th
when all the vote cards are due ( see the note at the bottom of your
card).
2. The "mailing list" is supplied by a service that gathers such
information from the County Recorders office and tax rolls. If the
"mailing address" doesn't match the "site address", then a
"Resident/occupant" letter is sent to the property owner and the
suspected tenant. Since your address was a post office box, we had no
way of knowing if you were a landlord or the resident of the address.
We ask for a name and address to verify these conditions. All property
owners and "residents" that have frontage along Second Street between M
St and Q St were given letters and survey cards.