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

My communication with
First District County Supervisor Roger Dickinson
relative to the Second Street speed control stop signs


Please use the "back" button on your browser to return to the last page viewed

or Jump to the 2nd St. speed control reference material page


Index of this web page:

Correspondence with Supervisor Roger Dickinson's Chief of Staff Cortez Quinn,  11/18/05 - 12/18/05

12/22/04 Response from Supervisor Roger Dickinson to my 12/18 email to Chief of Staff Cortez Quinn

1/3/05 email letter to Dickinson, responding to his message and summarizing the open issues

Followup to Dickinson 2/13/05 as he has not responded

Another followup 3/12/05 to Dickinson - still no response


This correspondence was included in the email I received from Supervisor Dickinson on December 22, 2004. It is the correspondence thread to which Dickinson replied, and leads into his December 22 email to me. This  correspondence has been placed in date order here for ease of review.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:16:18 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Cortez,

Would you please let me know the limits of the questionnaire survey area for the speed control stop signs on Second Street at Shady Woods Way?  This would have been coordinated at some time prior to August 30, 2004.

If correspondence or emails are available supporting your office's coordination of this issue, I would appreciate copies.

Thank you,

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:52:13 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Cortez,

Did you receive the message below I sent to you last week?

I'm interested in this as many residents that are close to and impacted by the stop signs were not included by DOT in the DOT "survey" that collected the votes that were used by DOT to authorize and justify the installation of the stop signs.

I'm sure that if your office was involved that you would have considered those residents, but there could well be some mitigating circumstances; I would like to know what input Supervisor Dickinson's office had to the creation of the "survey area" used by DOT. Your correspondence files should reveal your communication with DOT on this subject.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:06:47 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Cortez,

This is my third request to you for information on the "survey area" DOT coordinated with Supervisor Dickinson that was used to collect votes that resulted in the installation of speed control stop signs on Second Street at Shady Woods Way.

The new speed control stop signs are only 880 feet from the pre-existing stop signs on Second Street at M Street. The new stop signs potentially effect 52 residents, all within 880 feet of the new stop signs, that may traverse Second Street on the way to their properties on Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court and Shady Valley Court. These 52 residents were not designated to vote on this issue, and I want to know what prompted the decision to not allow them to vote, while requesting votes from only 34 other properties. A third of the 34 properties who were designated to vote are farther from the new speed control stop signs than the 52 who were not given the opportunity to vote.

I would appreciate a prompt reply.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:26:37 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>

Cortez,

Will I hear from you soon on this issue? This is my fourth request to you. I would prefer to have a response from Supervisor Dickinson's office before I write an article for The NEWS on this subject.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:32:41 -0800
From: Quinn. Cortez <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Dickinson. Roger <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Jay:

Happy Holidays!!


 I have received your messages, and I apologize for the delay in responding to you.  The survey area was 2nd Street from M to Q Streets. Additionally, 80% of those who participated in the survey were in favor of the stop sign installation. I believe that Supervisor Dickinson will not support the removal of the stop signs on 2nd Street at this time. However, we will be happy to revisit this situation when the new Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is adopted by the Board.

Please let me know whether or not this response answers your question.

Sincerely,

Cortez L. Quinn
Chief of Staff to
Supervisor Roger Dickinson


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:36:48 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Cortez,

Please confirm that the 52 residents of Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court and Shady Valley Court who may access their properties via the stretch of Second Street between M and Q Streets were not included by Supervisor Dickinson in the list of those whom he agreed could be authorized to vote to have
the speed control stop signs installed or not installed.

Thank you,

Jay


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay O'Brien [mailto:jayobrien@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:48 PM
To: Quinn. Cortez
Cc: Dickinson. Roger; Manoff. Mark; Don Flesch
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs

Cortez,

Thanks for discussing the speed control stop sign issue with me at the CPAC meeting Tuesday night.

You said that you would respond accordingly if you can get more information from the Department of Transportation.

Cortez, I'm asking for confirmation from your office that the list of people anointed to vote for or against the stop signs was actually coordinated with your office and that your office agreed that the residents on Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court and Shady Valley Court who may access their properties via the affected stretch of Second Street between M and Q Streets should not have been provided the opportunity to vote for or against the speed control stop signs that have been installed on Second Street at Shady Woods Way.

What I am asking for is a response from your office, not from the Department of Transportation. Their responsibility was to contact your office, per the Residential Speed Control Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, item 38. Your office, as the representative of the people affected by the stop signs that Transportation was proposing was to be contacted to coordinate the "limits of the questionnaire survey area."  I seek the details of this coordination.

It is your communication with the Department of Transportation, expressing your coordination, that I seek; not something that you would now obtain from the Department of Transportation.

As I said at the CPAC meeting, and you responded that you hear me, the issue is the process, not the stop signs. I have had many bad experiences with the arbitrary and capricious Department of Transportation. What is unfortunate, in my opinion, is that they don't know (or care) that they work for me. I don't work for them.

The Department of Transportation is a shining example of why Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova exist, and a shining example of what the Community Service Centers and Community Councils must overcome to be successful. My hat is off to Mark Manoff for even trying to pull this together.

Jay

Click here for other correspondence with Chief of Staff Cortez Quinn


Scroll up to read the emails from Cortez Quinn that were included with this email from Supervisor Dickinson.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:23:03 -0800
From: Dickinson. Roger <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
       Quinn. Cortez <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Manoff. Mark <xxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>
        Foust. Randy (MSA) <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>

Jay:

Insofar as I am aware, the survey area used by the Department of Transportation was designated consistent with the practice that had evolved over time and based upon numerous hearings before the Board of Supervisors on other neighborhood stop sign and speed bump proposals. That practice included surveying those on the street on which the stop sign would be placed and those on the corners of the intersection where the stop sign would be placed.  The intersection was also posted so that anyone using the intersection could contact the Department to obtain more information or to state any concerns.  I am satisfied that the Department acted in conformity with the general practice and procedure which the Board had sanctioned in past cases.

Department staff has acknowledged that the stop signs were installed by mistake prior to an intended neighborhood meeting which Mark Manoff had agreed to conduct.  Notwithstanding that mistake, the survey results overwhelmingly favored the stop sign, the posting at the intersection elicited no inquiries or objections, and, to my knowledge, there have been no reported complaints or concerns other than yours since the stop signs went in.

The practice and procedure that was used in this and other cases in recent years will be subject to discussion when the Board takes up the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in early 2005.  If you have comments or concerns, you may wish to raise them as that time.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

Scroll up to read the email from Supervisor Dickinson to which this email responds.

Click here to scroll directly to the 10 questions and requests contained in this email



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs - credibility
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:59:28 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Don Flesch <xxxxxx@aol.com>
        Robert Ryan <xxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Hal Morris <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>
        Tom Philp <xxxxx@sacbee.com>


Roger,

This letter is not about stop signs. This is about the credibility of the County of Sacramento. The stop sign issue is merely an indicator of the problem with those County staff members who interpret the rules and policies as it pleases them, and their imposition of the rules, as they interpret them, on the public.

Thank you your December 22, 2004 response to my November 18 request for documentation supporting the coordination of the Second Street speed control stop signs as required by The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process. The process was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994 [1]. Under speed control stop signs, it says, "The Board member will be contacted to coordinate limits of questionnaire survey area."  Your response did not offer specific details on this coordination, only your conclusion that you are "satisfied that the Department acted in conformity with the general practice and procedure which the Board had sanctioned in past cases."

It is unfortunate that you apparently did not have the opportunity to review the specifics of the proposed installation before the vote was taken, and even more unfortunate that the stop signs were installed in advance of the public meeting promised by Service Area Manager Mark Manoff. If you would have been given the complete details of how the action taken differs with the actual enacted Board policies, perhaps you may have asserted some control over staff.
 
Your letter states "there have been no reported complaints or concerns other than yours since the stop signs went in." I hope this isn't indicative of the "stick it in the ground and see who complains" procedure recently used with a no-left-turn sign on Watt Avenue at Wilhaggin Drive. The Bee's editorial [2] quoted the County's Lupe Rodriguez, "Now we'll have to sit back and come up with a solution that probably works for everyone". Good idea. I would like to see that philosophy used here.

I asked for a copy of the petition that was submitted and for a list of those given the power to vote to install the stop signs [3]. All I was able to obtain was the name of the person who submitted the petition; I talked to him on the phone and he agreed with me, that the location of the proposed stop sign was too far from the speed problem area. Apparently what the petitioners really wanted were speed bumps; it is my understanding that the speed control stop signs were offered by Transportation instead of speed bumps.

Based on Manoff's assurance that the signs would not be installed before a public meeting was held, I dropped my intention to contact you or to address your Board, even though I was convinced at the time that the actions of the County were inappropriate. I had ample time to communicate with you and the Board, but even given my past bad experiences with the Department of Transportation, I accepted Mark's honest assurance that he would hold a meeting before signs were installed. As you know, Transportation's commitment to Manoff, Manoff's commitment to me, and my commitment to my neighbors were broken by Transportation. Unfortunately, it is this kind of undermining that will make Mark Manoff's job more difficult. In retrospect, I should have known that the commitment made to Manoff by Transportation was false, and I should have addressed your Board. That was my mistake; I believed the County.

Transportation explained to me that all they do is enforce Board policy that you establish. They were adamant in this, as if they have nothing to do with formulating your policy. I asked them to provide that policy, and they did provide part of your Policy before the CPAC meeting that reviewed the stop sign issue after they were installed [4].  I was obliged to ask again to obtain the rest of your policy, which was finally sent to me in November [1]. What is hard to believe is that the person who seemed to have so much trouble in locating that policy to send to me was the author of the policy I received. Now that I have finally received both parts of the policy and a copy of the traffic survey and count[5], I will raise the issues with you that I was not offered the opportunity to raise in the public meeting that was promised.

At the public meeting on this issue held as part of the CPAC meeting of October 12, 2004 in Rio Linda, Mr. Rodriguez said "At this time the stop sign has gone in per the Board approved program."  Further, your email letter to me said you are "satisfied that the Department acted in conformity with the general practice and procedure which the Board had sanctioned in past cases."

I disagree. In my opinion the installation of the stop signs did not follow the Board approved program, regardless of what you were told that caused your satisfaction with the Department's action. The survey was flawed. The voting was flawed. The traffic count was flawed. The location was flawed. The notification was flawed.

Had the public meeting been held prior to the installation of the stop signs as promised, and had we been provided the actual Board policy statements for review before that meeting along with the study data that was claimed to justify the signs, I would have expected that answers to the following questions, related to the "Board approved program" cited by Transportation, would have been provided. My questions are still valid and are still unanswered.

To repeat my opening statement, this is about the credibility of the County of Sacramento, not just about stop signs. The stop signs are a symptom, and should not be trivialized. My experiences over the years with Transportation [11] are just one person's example of what the County must overcome to gain credibility. Hopefully the new Community Service Teams will be able to help, but to be successful, they will need solid support from the Board of Supervisors. Service Area Managers cannot be successful if undermined by County staff.

Please respond to my questions and my requests stated below.

Thank you,

Jay O'Brien


References:
-----------

[1] Board of Supervisors speed control petition policy revision 3/29/94: http://www.obri.net/2nd/940329.html

[2] Sacramento Bee Editorial: Now, lefts are legal http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/11633042p-12522451c.html

[3] Documentary: http://www.obri.net/2nd/home.html#doc

[4] Board of Supervisors speed control policy 11/25/86: http://www.obri.net/2nd/861125.html

[5] Traffic Count 8/19/04 and Speed survey 8/24/04 http://www.obri.net/2nd/survey.html

[6] County Counsel Correspondence http://www.obri.net/2nd/counsel.html

[7] O'Brien statement, 10/12/04 public meeting: http://www.obri.net/2nd/Oct12.html

[8] Speed Limits - Sacramento County Department of Transportation http://www.sacdot.com/services/Speed_Limits.asp

[9] Ballot received by first class mail, not certified, dated 8/30/04:http://www.obri.net/2nd/ref1.html

[10] Letter from R.W. Foust 11/15/04: http://www.obri.net/2nd/041115.html

[11] Map of the area, Federal, State, County regulations, pictures, Sacramento Bee and Rio Linda News articles, past experiences:  http://www.obri.net/2nd/ref.html


Questions, requests, review and conclusions:

1. Criteria warranting speed controls

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, bullet 2, states "Public Works Agency evaluates subject street for compliance with Board approved speed control warrants and guidelines"[1].

The Board policy adopted November 25, 1986, provides those warrants and guidelines. On page 4 of that policy, relating to semi-rural streets, item 7, it states, "minimum traffic volume of 500 vehicles per day." The traffic volume measured by DOT on Second Street on August 19, 2004, was 842 vehicles, seemingly meeting that criteria [4].

However, the traffic count was taken on Second Street just north of M Street; thus the traffic to and from Shady Valley Court, Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court and Second Street between M Street and Shady Woods Way was included in this count. There are 36 properties on these streets potentially reached via the section of M Street where the count was taken, compared to a total of only 19 Second Street properties in what I understand to be the identified speeding problem area between Shady Woods Way and Q Street.

Many of the 842 vehicles counted were destined for or came from these 36 properties not in the speeding problem area. How can the 842 vehicles measured be applied to the 500 volume criteria for the problem section of Second Street, without knowing the volume from and to the 36 properties that are not in the problem area? 

And, why was the traffic count taken just north of M Street rather than in the identified problem area between Shady Woods Way and Q St.?


2. Minimum spacing policy

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, bullet 2, states "Public Works Agency evaluates subject street for compliance with Board approved speed control warrants and guidelines [1].

The Board policy adopted November 25, 1986, provides the warrants and guidelines. On page 4 of that policy, in the fourth paragraph and in item 2, it states that the policy for the spacing of stop signs on semi-rural streets is 1320 feet or more [4].

The distance on Second Street between the stop signs at M Street and Shady Woods Way is 880 feet. With a Board approved minimum spacing policy of 1320 feet, how does the 880 foot spacing between stop signs comply with the "Board approved speed control warrants and guidelines"?


3. Notification method

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 4, states "If speed controls are warranted, all residents are sent certified letters with a questionnaire requesting concurrence or opposition to the proposed stop signs..."  [1].

The two letters I received with voting cards enclosed were sent to me via first class mail; they were not certified letters as required.[9]

I am aware of one other resident that also received two letters and, like me, could have returned two vote cards but only voted once.

With a Board approved policy delineating the use of certified mail, how does the mailing via first class mail comply with this policy? And why were some property owners empowered with more than one vote?

By the way, I have two valid mail addresses for one property, but it is only one parcel on the assessors records, and only one residence. As the vote card did not require a parcel number, how would duplications such as mine be identified? On the other hand, I have 660 feet of street frontage, or ten times as much as some parcels across the street. So, if I was authorized two votes, why not ten?


4. Questionnaire survey area

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 4, states "... The Board member will be contacted to coordinate limits of questionnaire survey area." [1].

I asked the following question of Mr. Quinn, your Chief of Staff:

"The new speed control stop signs are only 880 feet from the pre-existing stop signs on Second Street at M Street. The new stop signs potentially effect 52 residents, all within 880 feet of the new stop signs, that may traverse Second Street on the way to their properties on Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court and Shady Valley Court. These 52 residents were not designated to vote on this issue, and I want to know what prompted the decision to not allow them to vote, while requesting votes from only 34 other voters. A  third of the 34 properties who were designated to vote are farther from the new speed control stop signs than the 52 who were not given the opportunity to vote."

Your response did not identify any specific coordination, as required by the policy  [1]. Was this specific proposal actually identified and coordinated with you before the vote cards were mailed?


5. Consensus

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 5, states "If a consensus (2/3's or more) of the questionnaire respondents concur with the proposed stop signs..." [1].

DOT representative Steve Stosich told me on the telephone that only a majority vote was required to authorize the installation of stop signs. He said he was following Board policy. He made no mention of a 2/3 vote requirement.

I realize this is a moot point, but I decided to not attempt to contact the voters as I felt the way the ballot was phrased it would gain the votes of a majority of those provided the opportunity to vote. However, had I correctly been told by Stosich that a 2/3 vote was required, I certainly would have made the effort to contact everyone on Second Street between M and Q Streets to express my opinion before they cast their votes.

Is the vote requirement 2/3 as stated in the Board policy I was sent, or has it been changed to be only a majority as stated by Stosich?


6. Notices

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 5, states "...residents of adjacent and side streets will be notified of the proposed stop sign installation by ... notices (mailed or hand delivered) to other immediate affected residences. A minimum of two weeks advance notification is required before installation"  [1].

There were no mailed or hand delivered notices sent or delivered to any residences providing notification of the proposed stop sign installation.

With a Board approved policy to mail or hand deliver notices, and no such notices mailed or delivered, how does this comply with the policy?


7. Notification by prominent sign

The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 5, states "...residents of adjacent and side streets will be notified of the proposed stop sign installation by posting of a prominent sign at the proposed intersections ... A minimum of two weeks advance notification is required before installation" [1].

The "Speed control stop sign proposed" signs were installed on Monday, September 20, after the vote deadline of Friday, September 17. The County then installed the stop signs on September 27, only 9 days after the vote deadline.

With a Board policy requiring a minimum of two weeks advance notification, how does the installation of the notification signs for only seven days comply with the Board mandated two week notification policy?


8. Voting

County Counsel, in correspondence sent to DOT personnel on November 1, 2004, stated "County staff do not authorize citizens to 'vote' for stop signs."[6]  Mr. Steve Stosich, however, told me on the telephone that the "votes" would be counted and if a majority was in favor, the stop signs would be installed. Mr. Randy Foust, on September 29 in a public meeting, said "70 percent of the people on your street voted for that stop sign". Both Foust and Stosich used the word "VOTE" to describe the process.

As Counsel has stated that County staff do not authorize citizens to vote for stop signs, how do the County staff explanations of the process, clearly using the word "vote", follow Counsel's finding?


9. Request for speed survey

In addition to my request to receive answers to the questions detailed above, I am repeating here my request for a follow-up speed survey and traffic count, as articulated at the CPAC meeting October 12th; it was also requested by others at that meeting [7]. The signs have been in place for over three months; it is time to determine their effect by repeating the study at the same locations and times as it was done in August. I request that you have Mark Manoff designate an observer to monitor the traffic count to assure its accuracy; I would be pleased to perform that function if schedules can be coordinated should Mr. Manoff choose to appoint me to observe. Based on my prior experiences with Transportation, I cannot accept a survey and count they perform without an observer not part of that Department.

I suggest the traffic count be taken at the same, albeit inappropriate, location, so that valid comparisons may be made.


10. Request for Speed limit signs

In my opinion the stretch of Second Street between Shady Woods Way and Q Street is not adequately posted with the 30 MPH speed limit. This issue was brought up during the CPAC discussion; other residents agreed. I believe a case can be made that the speed limit northbound from Shady Woods Way is 55 MPH. A motorist on Shady Woods Way, an urban street with sidewalks and gutters, is in a 25 MPH zone. Turning north onto rural Second Street, there is no speed limit sign informing the motorist that this is not just another Sacramento County rural road with an "unposted maximum speed limit of 55 mph.[8]" Had the meeting we were promised been held before the stop signs were installed, we would have at least had the opportunity to see if proper speed limit signage would correct the problem.

Please see to the installation of a speed limit sign to inform motorists entering Second Street north bound from Shady Woods Way of the 30 MPH speed limit. And when the sign is placed, if not placed on the existing barrier, please coordinate the installation with the property owner. I do not wish the County to tell my neighbor that "that new sign is stuck in the ground in the middle of your property at the request of your neighbor, Mr. O'Brien."


Review and Conclusion

Had I not accepted the County's promise to hold a public meeting to discuss the stop signs before they were installed, I would have addressed you or the Board. I was wrong. I resolve to not blindly accept the word of the County in the future.

Had I been correctly informed by Mr. Stosich that a 2/3 vote was required, I would have personally visited each residence on Second Street between M and Q Streets, asking them to vote no and come to the meeting where many potential actions could be discussed, including enforcement, adequate posting of speed limit signs, the speed bumps they envisioned and other measures. However, as I was incorrectly advised that only a majority vote was required to cause the signs to be installed, I took no action. I felt that as the ballot statement was written in a manner that encouraged the voters to vote yes, that a 50% vote was assured. As I was unable to obtain the Board's written policy until after the stop signs were actually installed [10], I did not recognize that I was given incorrect information by Stosich about the vote count.

As the voters were incorrectly advised that their votes were only a questionnaire or a survey, and were not advised that they were casting binding votes that would cause the installation of the stop signs, I felt they would vote in favor. I felt a 50% vote was assured, based on the phrasing of the ballot cards. Given the assurance I received from Mark Manoff that a public meeting would be held prior to the installation of the stop signs, and as I was not given the opportunity to write an opposing ballot statement to be read by those casting votes to impose the stop signs, I decided to take no action. In retrospect, I was wrong.

It was incorrect to withhold the petition process policy from the voters; the policy should have accompanied the ballot cards so that the voters would fully understand the consequence of casting their votes.

DOT advised the public meeting October 12th that 34 cards were sent out, 14 responses were received, and only three opposed the stop signs. With a 2/3 vote requirement, only three additional "NO" votes would have caused the ballot measure to fail. It would have been trivial to assure those three no votes were cast; some votes were not cast at all, as the voters were awaiting the promised public meeting I told them would be held prior to the installation of the stop signs. These votes could well have been cast had the voters known that the County would renege on the promise to hold a public meeting before the installation of the speed control stop signs.

Unfortunately, the County commitment to hold the meeting was false, and the stop signs were installed regardless of the commitment made to me by Mark Manoff. The public meeting was held AFTER the stop signs were installed, not before.

I hope my documentation on this issue is adequate; please ask if there are other references or details I may be able to provide.  I have provided links for you to the policies, letters and documents involved. 

I look forward to your response to my questions and requests; I hope that you will be able to arrange for a prompt, accurate, and credible post-installation traffic count and study.

Questions, requests, review and conclusions presented by Jay O'Brien.

Followup message sent to supervisor Dickinson:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs - credibility
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:11:39 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Roger,

Did you receive my message sent January 3, 2005? I am including a copy.

Jay O'Brien

Another followup message sent to supervisor Dickinson:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs - credibility
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:05:46 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>


Roger,

You have not responded to my message sent to you on January 3, 2005, and resent to you on February 13, 2005. Copies are included herewith.

Will I be receiving a response from you soon?

Jay O'Brien


Please use the "back" button on your browser to return to the last page viewed

or  jump to the top of this page

or Jump to the 2nd St. speed control reference material page