This web page is http://www.obri.net/2nd/040902email.html

Return to Second Street Speed Control web page (Sept. 2)


-------- 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.
Return to Second Street Speed Control web page (Sept. 2)