The arbitrary and capricious
Sacramento County Department of Transportation (DOT)

This web page is http://www.obri.net/2nd/ref4.html

Please use the "back" button on your browser to return to the previous web page you viewed.
My letter to my neighbors relative to the stop signs installed on Second Street at Shady Woods Way includes this statement:

"Based on my experience over the years with the arbitrary and capricious County Department of Transportation (DOT), I then prepared to make my case and appeal directly to the Board of Supervisors."

Click here to review my letter to my neighbors, as published in the Rio Linda News on October 7, 2004.

Three additional specific examples of my experience with DOT, other than the stop sign issue, are cited here:

1. No Dumping sign
First they agreed to put them in, Stosich nixed them; I had to go to the Board, then the sign wasn't placed as agreed

2. No Parking Signs
First they said no problem, then they confiscated my signs without notice; the signs had been up over ten years when Stosich signed the removal order

3. Barrier "repair"
Escalation was required to get the County to "special order" materials to comply with the County "Standard drawing" and to return the barrier to an "as constructed" condition

4. Speed Control Stop Signs
They agreed to wait for a public meeting, I believed them and I should have known better than to take them at their word, especially when the letter accompanying the ballot was signed by Stosich; I should have gone to the Board when I had the opportunity
1. No Dumping sign:
In 1994, after many instances of illegal dumping in my ditch along Second Street, I started an effort to get "NO DUMPING" signs posted. It took many calls, but finally in 1997 signs were planned for installation by DOT Traffic Engineer Tom Braun. Braun called me with the bad news that his supervisor, Steve Stosich, had denied the request to install the signs as "there were no other complaints".

After escalation through the County Supervisor, the Supervisor's staff "went over the head" of Stosich, and finally a sign was installed on July 1, 1997.
It took over three years to get the sign.

See the email included in the next example for additional details.
2. No Parking signs:
On October 22, 2001, DOT Operations and Maintenance Supervisor Robert Cooley appeared at my residence. He told me that a complaint had been received about my "NO PARKING THIS SIDE OF STREET" signs. I installed these professionally made signs on my fence in 1990; the signs had been up for 11 years.

No Parking this side of street
December 2000
(Click here for the story that goes with this picture)

I told Cooley that DOT Traffic Engineer Tom Braun, who reviewed the NO DUMPING request in 1994 and 1997, had commented on my "NO PARKING" signs, but did not conclude they were illegal, took no action and recommended no action. Cooley said he would do some additional checking and get back to me.  I sent Cooley an email letter that included my records of the NO DUMPING sign installation, and my recollection of the comments Braun had made about the NO PARKING signs, and my rationale for installing the NO PARKING signs. That email is copied below as sent (Cooley's email address is obfuscated for privacy).

Mr. Cooley did not get back to me as he promised; the signs were removed from my fence posts without notice; the signs and mounting hardware were confiscated by the County. The work order to remove the signs was #2815, completed 11/15/01, approved by Steve Stosich.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: No Parking This Side of Street Signs
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:39:23 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Robert Cooley <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Dear Mr. Cooley,

It was my pleasure to meet you today at 2 PM. You were investigating the "No Parking This Side of Street" signs that I have placed on my fence adjacent to Second Street.

The signs are mounted flat against my fence posts and are entirely on my property. The signs do not state any authority, as in my opinion as they are on and inside my property, they need no authority other than my own.

I placed the signs in 1990, after the houses were built on small new lots across Second Street from me. This was because there were small children who played in the street, and if someone parked on my side (west) of Second Street, it was distressing to me to observe the close calls to the children from fast moving traffic on a very narrow street. I originally attempted to get my County Supervisor to intercede for me, but, as usual, I got the brush-off (unfortunately I didn't document that communication). My signs have now been up for eleven years.

As we discussed today, the signs were observed by Tom Braun in 1994 and 1997. After we talked, I refreshed my memory of the specifics from my notes. Below this message I am copying my notes which involve Tom's efforts to get (no dumping) sign(s) placed; I beg your indulgence as this is a bit off topic. This relates to my efforts to have illegally dumped material removed from my property, not to the NO PARKING signs. I've reset TOM BRAUN in caps in the notes for your easy reference.

When Tom was here to review the need for the no dumping signs, he and I discussed the "NO PARKING THIS SIDE OF STREET" signs I had installed. I explained to him that the paved west half of Second Street was only six feet wide. I asked him about the signs I had installed, and he said that as they didn't purport to be County signs, in his opinion they were not illegal. He said that if I wanted to take the effort to raise the issue, that the County would probably install "real" signs on posts saying the same thing. As my intent was only to stop the CONSIDERATE people, and as I had no intent to attempt to enforce the restriction, I took no action.

I would be interested to learn who has made the current complaint, as I certainly will consider no action until I can face the complainer.

Should I mount an effort (again) to get the County to place NO PARKING signs on the west side of Second Street in front of my property? If this seems to be appropriate at this time, I'll follow your direction.
 
I appreciate your interest in the placement of the existing (dumping) sign; I really would like to have another installed near the north end of my property. Hopefully you will be able to assist in this quest.

Regards,

Jay O'Brien

PS.. You may want to look at the pictures and some other correspondence: See http://obri.net/sco

5/20/94 8:30am
Call received from Tammy Derby, 386-6108, Environmental health.  She is the inspector and prosecutes cases.  She says she will have Highways and Bridges clean up the material and she will request them to post the area with "NO DUMPING" signs.

5/27/94 8:55am
Called Tammy Derby at 286-6108.  She says I should call Highways and Bridges to remind them to pick up, also that I should ask Highways and Bridges for information on "NO DUMPING" sign installation.

5/27/94
Called Highways and Bridges at 366-2271.  Jan can't find any record of pickup request!  She will put in a pickup order.  Says they don't put in signs, that isn't their job.  Says I should call 440-5966, County Transportation Traffic Investigator, about the signs.

Called 440-5966.  TOM BRAUN will investigate and see about putting up a NO DUMPING sign.  Has no previous request for this location.

6/22/94
Called 386-6108.  Says since Tammy was involved, I should call Tammy on July 1 when she returns.  Also says I should call Highways and Bridges at 366-2271 re pickup and signs.

Called 366-2271,  Mary will let supervisor know I called.  She found the original complaint, which was closed with the notation "neighborhood cleanup".  She will ask Craig Heuer, supervisor, to call me.  I asked her if they are now handling NO DUMPING signs, as I was referred to them again for follow up on the signs.  She says that that is not their job.

Called TOM BRAUN, Traffic Investigator, at 440-5966 (see 5/27/94).  He says he went out and looked when I first talked to him.  Says he found "the entire Rio Linda area is a giant dump site".  He suggested that he would put the site under survelliance for a few weeks to see if it recurs.  I explained that it won't happen again for a year as the dumping anticipates the neighborhood cleanup.  He says he needs to learn more about the neighborhood cleanup process, and that he will look into putting up NO DUMPING signs.

Called Hazardous wastes at 386-6160.  Clerk says I should call Richard Heckley at 386-6171.

Called 386-6171.  Richard Heckley.  He says that his organization does not pick up materials.  He will call Highway maintenance to see if he can get it picked up.  He will see if he can help on the sign issue.  Said "If this is not rectified, call me back.  I'll work with you on trying to get this taken care of".

2/2/95
Left word for Richard Heckley at 386-6171, as no sign installed.

2/3/95
Sent fax letter to Supervisor Roger Dickinson asking for help in getting a "no dumping" sign placed.

2/7/95
Richard Heckley called.  Told him neighboorhood cleanup to happen soon, still no NO DUMPING signs.  He doesn't remember previous conversation, says he will "look into" the problem.  Can't guarantee anything.  His operation doesn't do signs.

2/14/95
Robert Hill from Dickinson's office called.  He will "see about a sign".

2/12/96
Called for Robert Hill at 440-5485.  Karen Ziebron answered.  It is a holiday, but she took the message from me.  I explained the situation to Karen, and told her that I hold the County, and Supervisor Dickinson, responsible for the dumping that is presently going on on my property.  She agrees that I have done everything I can be expected to do.  I asked if she could arrange for an immediate pickup, as what is there is being spread by scavengers and added to as a dump site.  She receipted for my request.  Karen says that they have sent a lot of letters requesting signs, and as no one follows up that no one is aware that nothing was done.  She will have Robert Hill call me Tuesday.

2/13/96 10:47am
Rob Hill from Dickinson's office called.  He says that a supervisor from "Public Works Solid Waste" will call me today.  They will send a crew out today or tomorrow to pick up the debris.  Hill says that he was told that they were aware of Dickinson's request to place no dumping signs, but that nothing has been done.

I told Rob Hill that if a sign isn't posted, that when the stuff is removed that more will appear "in minutes" to replace it.  He said that he understands, and he will see that a sign gets posted.

2/13/96 12:30pm
James Trice, Senior Sanitation Supervisor, called and then visited.  He said he was here directly at the request of Supervisor Dickinson's office. Trice will report to his supervisor that I expect Dickinson's office to make good on the placement of a no dumping sign.  Trice is not responsible for signs.

8/13/96
Reminded Rob Hill that a sign has not been installed as promised.

4/3/97
I noted a large quantity of neighborhood cleanup program blue "door hangers" blowing south in front of my residence.  There were at least 25 of them, perhaps more.  A green "household Toxic Clean-up days" notice was stapled to each of the door hangers.  Each of the door hangers stated that the pickup would be on April 17, 1997.

I called 855-8555, the telephone number on the door hangers to call "if you have any questions".  I was on hold for 9 minutes before Ed answered.  Ed checked the schedule and told me that the 4/17 scheduled pickup was for Second street, going north, up to 6801 Second street.   That would be for addresses south of M Street.  Ed said that pickups for Second Street between M and Q Streets was scheduled for April 24, 1997.

Ed explained about the door hangers in the street.  "The people who do them just throw them in the gutter.  They just get lazy.  We have this problem all the time, because they don't want to put them on the doors."  Ed explained that a contractor delivers the door hangers, not a county employee.

4/3/97 2:45pm
I called Rob Hill in Supervisor Dickinson's office (440-5485) and advised him of the situation.  He said "I'll get back to you". 

4/10/97
Rubbish from the Ollis residence at 6900 Second Street was taken across the street by them and piled in front of my property.  I called Rob Hill, who said that he will again try to get "No Dumping" signs posted for me.  He explained that the reason that signs didn't get posted before was that the responsible person had retired.  He said the new manager is Warren Harada and that he would contact Warren.

4/21/97
Rob Hill Called.  I filled him in on the change of the pickup day and the haz-mat problem. He said he would call Ed to verify that the pickup schedule had been changed.  I agreed to bring copies of my notes and material for Rob tomorrow morning, as I am scheduled to receive a "1996 Citizen of the Year Award" presentation from the Board of Supervisors at 9:50am.

Rob said that he had asked Warren Harada to post many No Dumping signs in Rio Linda.

Rob Hill called again at 5:21pm.  Jan took the call.  Rob said that he talked to public works about no dumping sign.  They will call.

4/22/97 2pm
TOM BRAUN called from Traffic Engineering.  He will be out either Wed or Thurs pm to site two signs between M and Q on Second.  He will call me and meet me.  His recommendation will then have to be approved by his boss.

4/22/97 2:20pm
Called Rob Hill, advised him that I heard from TOM BRAUN.  Rob Hill asked that I call him to report, after TOM BRAUN comes out.

4/24/97
TOM BRAUN was here and inspected the situation.  He says he will recommend two signs on the west side of Second street, one just north of M and the other just south of my north property line which is just under 1000 feet north of the intersection of Second and M streets.   He says that his boss must approve before signs can be placed. 

4/25/97 9:30am
Called Rob Hill 440-5485.  Filled him in on visit from TOM BRAUN.  Rob will get date commitment on the installation of the signs.

5/6/97 2:45pm
TOM BRAUN called.  His supervisor, Steve Stosich, has denied the request to install the signs as "there were no other complaints".

5/6/97 2:50pm
Left message for Rob Hill recounting the call from TOM BRAUN.

5/6/97 2:55pm
Rob Hill called back.  He will call the supervisor.  Rob said "those signs were supposed to be there a couple of years ago".

5/28/97
Rob Hill says he is "going over the head" of the person who would not approve the signs.  He says he will "keep in touch".

6/17/97
Rob Hill says that "Bonnie" says "Mr. O'Brien will get his signs".

7/1/97
One sign installed.  The sign installer installed it mid way on my street frontage, was candid in stating that he selected the spot "because it was in the shade" (it was a VERY HOT day).

The sign says "   $500 - REWARD - $500
              COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO OFFERS
              A $500 REWARD FOR INFORMATION
               LEADING TO THE ARREST AND
                  CONVICTION OF ANYONE
                VIOLATING SECTION 374B OF
               THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
              BY DUMPING GARBAGE, RUBBISH
              OR OTHER OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
                EXCEPT AT AN AUTHORIZED
                       DUMP SITE"

Unfortunately the sign does NOT say "NO DUMPING".  Took picture of sign.

Sometime in 1999
The sign was changed out. It now says only "$1000 FINE FOR LITTERING"

3. Barrier "repair"
When the Rio Linda Woods subdivision was built, a barrier was erected as part of the development agreement to protect my property and fence. It was installed as a result of development conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors at my request.  The barrier was to be installed at the west end of Shady Woods Way.

This was one of my first encounters with the arrogant County Transportation department. As the subdivision was occupied by new owners and the barrier was not constructed, I was unable to obtain help from Transportation. I was obliged to escalate the issue to the Board of Supervisors for resolution in 1990. Click here to read the letters of escalation.

Ultimately, the barrier was constructed to County standards and turned over to the County for ongoing maintenance. It was constructed using three 6x6 posts set in concrete.

Over the 2003-2004 winter, the barrier was hit and was threatening my fence. I asked for the County to repair it. The "repair", in February 2004, would not continue to protect my fence and property as originally intended, as the 6x6 posts were replaced with 4x4s, tamped into the ground.  The workers told me that they only use 4x4 posts, regardless of what was there before. All the effort I went to, testifying to the Board of Supervisors and obtaining this barrier, was to no avail. The County Department of Transportation overruled the development conditions as specified in the County Standard specifications.

I escalated the issue in October, 2004, and 6x6 posts were "special ordered". The barrier was restored properly in December, 2004. Please read on for details.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay O'Brien
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 5:24 PM
To: Shoeman. Dan (PWA)
Subject: Barrier needs repair

Hi,

Can you help me? I'm sending this to you as you are listed as the Transportation contact in the NORCAST list distributed by the North Highlands Chamber of Commerce.

There is a barrier at the west end of Shady Woods Way in Rio Linda. It dead ends into Second Street. The barrier was erected by the developers who built the subdivision that created Shady Woods Way. It was a condition of development.

The barrier was turned over to the County. The barrier is placed in road right of way that is actually part of my property. It is immediately east of my fence. The barrier is no longer where it was originally placed; it now is in very bad shape and threatening my fence.

Would you please see to the repair or replacement of the barrier? As it is, it no longer provides any protection to my property.

Thank you,

Jay O'Brien
6851 Second Street, Rio Linda


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Barrier needs repair
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 4:17 PM
From: Shoeman. Dan (PWA) <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>

Mr. O'Brien:
I have submitted your request to the County's Traffic Operations and Maintenance Division for investigaton.  I will advise you of their findings and action as soon as I receive a report back.  Please feel free to contact me in the meantime if you have any additional questions or concerns.  Thank you.

Dan Shoeman
(916) 874-6222


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay O'Brien [mailto:jayobrien@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:37 PM
To: Shoeman. Dan (PWA)
Subject: RE: Barrier needs repair

Much appreciated. I'm working to accomplish some fence repair on my fence, as some of the posts are loose; I would prefer that the County barrier provide protection to my fence rather than threaten additional damage.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Barrier needs repair
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:53:10 -0800
From: Shoeman. Dan (PWA) <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Manoff. Mark <xxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Mr. O'Brien:
As you may already be aware, I have been informed by our Operations & Maintenance Division that the repair work on the barricade was completed yesterday.

Thank you for your request, and please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Barrier needs repair
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:49:32 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Dan Shoeman <xxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Mark Manoff <xxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Dan,

Yes, I noticed. I see that they replaced the cemented-in 8x8's with treated 4x4's that appear to be tamped in. The new barrier is solid, however I don't think it offers much protection to my fence, as the originally installed barrier was supposed to do. It was a condition of the subdivision development at the time. It is, however, much better than the old barrier, given its condition before the recent repair.

Thanks for handling this for me.

Regards,

Jay O'Brien


After the escalation detailed below, the County "special ordered" 6x6 posts, as they "do not stock" them, and now the barrier complies with the "County standard".


------- Original Message --------
Subject: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:30:51 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Thomas J. Zlotkowski, Director
Department of Transportation, County of Sacramento

Dear Mr. Zlotkowski,

Thank you for publishing the informative Strategic Operating Plan (SOP) booklet, describing your Department of Transportation (SACDOT) and how your Department does its job.

Your SOP was brought to my attention as a result of the community meeting on October 12th that I requested be held. The meeting, with 50people and SACDOT in attendance, included a discussion of the SACDOT procedure used to justify and install stop signs at my property. The issue of the controversial stop signs is not a subject of this letter; however, the stop sign issue remains as a matter of community concern and is not resolved.

I was especially interested in the Maintenance & Operations paragraph on page 12 of the SOP. It concludes that repairs are made by this section to maintain transportation related items in an "as constructed" condition.

Perhaps you can assist me in attempting to get a standard barrier that was installed as a condition of development to protect my property rebuilt to an "as constructed" condition, as described in the SOP.

The north portion of my property is west of the intersection of Shady Woods Way and Second Street in Rio Linda.

Shady Woods Way was extended to Second Street in 1989-1990 as part of the Rio Linda Woods Subdivision, unit number 2. At my request, the Board of Supervisors added development condition #26 requiring a barrier be placed on the west side of Second Street to protect my fence and property. The barrier was installed in accordance with County Specifications and turned over to the County by the developer. 

Note: At the close of this email letter, I am providing reference links to substantiating documents, figures, and photos, including correspondence from the Board of Supervisors Clerk and the consulting engineer that define condition #26.

The barrier was installed in accordance with Sacramento County Department of Public Works "Standard Drawing H-8" dated July 1988. Drawing H-8 has been replaced with drawing 4-38. See reference to view both drawings.

The barrier was originally installed with three 6x6 posts set in concrete, secured with 1/2" carriage bolts and painted white, exactly as specified by Drawing H-8. It was a very substantial structure and evidently did its job of protecting my property, as early this year I noted it had been moved, apparently as a result of a collision, nearly into my fence.  It clearly saved my fence from damage and prevented the cattle on my property from escaping to the street. By the way, the barrier was so substantial that I was convinced the posts were 8x8, but a measurement of the sharp concrete remnants that were not removed as part of the repair confirms that the posts were actually 6x6, the minimum size required by the standard drawing. See reference to view a photograph of the barrier as it was originally installed.

The barrier was replaced by SACDOT at my request in February 2004. The replacement barrier is not an "as constructed" replacement. It is not in the same location; it is now closer to the street. The posts are 4x4, not 6x6. They are tamped into the ground, not secured with concrete as were the original posts. I suspect the posts do not extend the specified 36" into the ground as I did not see a motorized post hole digger when the replacement was installed. The 2x12 barricade was reused and shows dry rot where previously secured to the 6x6 posts. The 2x12 is secured with 1/4" carriage bolts, not 1/2" bolts as specified. The specification calls for all exposed surfaces to be painted with white paint conforming to State specification 91-3; the center 4x4 is not painted above the 2x12 and the 4x4s are not painted to the ground line. The specification calls for the posts to extend out of the ground 36"; the actual measurement is 33", lowering the top of the barrier three inches from where it should be. The reflective sign is higher off the ground than it was "as constructed"; it is now out of the illumination pattern of low beam headlights. See reference for photos and correspondence related to the replacement of the barrier.

Based on my previous negative experiences with SACDOT, including an unsatisfactory response in 1990 related to the installation of this barrier (resolved by escalation to the Board of Supervisors), and based on a statement made by the repair crew this year, I did not attempt to escalate what I thought to be an extremely poor repair job. I felt it would be a waste of my time. However, given the present stop sign issue and reading your SOP causes me to bring this to your attention and to ask for your assistance.

As your SOP identifies your department's responsibility to maintain items in an "as constructed" condition, I would appreciate the barrier being replaced in accordance with the applicable Specification drawing and thus brought back to an "as constructed" condition so that it will again protect my property as originally intended. Please also see to the removal of the sharp concrete residue left from the original barrier; I fear that a pedestrian may be injured if the debris is not removed and replaced with soil.

Thank you,

Jay O'Brien

Reference links:
Documentation and pictures: http://obri.net/2nd/barrier.html
Correspondence re replacement (see item 3): http://obri.net/2nd/ref4.html (a link to this web page)
Escalation to Board of Sups in 1990: http://obri.net/2nd/BOS1990.html
Community Meeting October 12 about stop signs on 2nd St at Shady Woods:
Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/antelope_north_sacramento/story/11152722p-12068860c.html
Rio Linda News: http://rlenews.com/04/041021.html#county


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:37:32 -0700
From: Zlotkowski. Tom (MSA) <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>

Sir:

I will investigate and get back to you early in the week. Thanks for reading the SOP and your interest in the Dept.

Tom Zlotkowksi


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay O'Brien [mailto:jayobrien@att.net]

Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 4:41 PM
To: Zlotkowski. Tom (MSA) <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement

Tom,

Thank you very much for your prompt response. Please let me know if you have any trouble viewing my reference web pages; I'll be glad to send them to you as attachments to email if you like.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:25:45 -0800
From: Zlotkowski. Tom (MSA) <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Foust. Randy (MSA) <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>

Mr. O'Brien:

I've met w/ staff and asked Randy Foust to look into your request. He'll evaluate and work with his staff on an appropriate solution. Please expect to hear from him shortly or you can E-mail him @xxxxxx@saccounty.net. If you do not hear from him by Friday, please let me know. Thanks for your interest.

Tom Z


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:06:25 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Tom Zlotkowski  <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Tom,

Thank you.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:11:08 -0800
From: Foust. Randy (MSA) <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Zlotkowski. Tom (MSA) <xxxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
       Moghissi. Reza (MSA) <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
       Quinn. Cortez <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
       Manoff. Mark <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Jay,
We will reconstruct the roadway barricade at 2nd St and Shady Woods Way within the next 60 days as weather, crew workloads and priorities permit.

Randy Foust, DOT


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement, policy & data requests
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:02:06 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Randy Faust <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Reza Moghissi <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
        Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net> 
        Hal Morris <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>

Mr. Faust,

Thank you for your commitment to reconstruct the barricade at Second Street and Shady Woods Way.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:54:28 -0800
From: Foust. Randy (MSA) <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>

Jay,
We have had to Special Order the 6x6 posts as we do not stock them. Our vendor says it will be a couple of weeks. As soon as they are in, we will reconstruct the barricade.
Randy


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Strategic Operating Plan : Road barrier replacement
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:07:51 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Randy Faust <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Reza Moghissi <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
        Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net> 
        Hal Morris <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>


Randy,

I am pleased to hear that you have ordered the 6x6 posts that are specified by your standard drawing 4-38 that replaced drawing H-8.

It is unfortunate that you were not able to order the posts on November 5, when you provided your commitment to me that you would reconstruct the barrier within 60 days.

Jay


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 2nd St. Barricade replacement: County Standard drawing
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:35:05 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Randy Faust <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Reza Moghissi <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
        Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net> 
        Hal Morris <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>


Randy,

Your crew was here Thursday and reconstructed the barricade on Second Street at the west end of Shady Woods Way. They did a great job. The barricade now is 8' longer, and the sign is lower so now it is in the line of vision for a west bound driver on Shady Woods Way. Thank you for attending to this issue, and well within your 60 day commitment to me.

Pictures of the barrier installed Thursday are posted on line at http://obri.net/2nd/barrier.html for your review. Please visit the page and view the excellent installation completed by your crew. Pictures of the previous iterations of the barrier are also on line, as are the developer correspondence and Board action covering the original barrier in 1989 and the County standard drawing used by the developer to construct the barrier. A link is also provided to my correspondence of escalation that I found necessary to get County Transportation to force the developer to install the barrier in the first place, thus protecting my fence.

Please review Standard Drawing 4-38 for the timber barricade. It calls for 6x6 timbers, which you special ordered for this job after my original request. The drawing also states that 1/2" carriage bolts are required; again, you used only 1/4" hardware. The Drawing states that the post carrying the sign should be the center post (as it was previously) or should be the post to the right of center. It is not, it is on the post to the left of center. Your crew painted the post supporting the sign white above the horizontal 2x12 only because I told them it was shown that way on the standard drawing; otherwise they would not have painted it. Your crew confirmed that you ALWAYS replace 6x6 posts with 4x4 material; 6x6's are never used. The crew confirmed that the 6x6 posts for this barrier were specially ordered, as you said in an earlier email to me.

Now that the barricade is supported with 6x6 posts, I have no further reason to suggest that what is specified in the standard drawing is better than what your crew installed. I am pleased with the barricade as it is now, and I am not suggesting it should be changed again merely to comply with the standard drawing.

I must wonder, however, given your previous admonition to me asserting that you and your people dutifully follow the policies and rules that are established and enacted directing the performance of your duties.

This begs the question, WHY DO YOU HAVE A STANDARD DRAWING if you don't follow it? It is my opinion that your very capable and competent crew was not even aware of the drawing. I suggest that your crews should at least be aware of what is called for by the standard, as after all it is the standard drawing that developers are required to follow when they install something to County standard specifications, as was done for the original installation of this barricade. If it is your decision to not follow the standard, which initially in this case, as a result of using 4x4's instead of 6x6's, reduced the protection provided to my adjacent property, then in my opinion you should initiate the appropriate changes so that the standard drawing reflects your decision.

I suggest that arbitrary changes, like reducing the size of the support posts, without the authorization of a standard drawing, could expose the County to legal liability for damage that could arguably been prevented had the standard drawing been followed. I suggest that the County should be concerned about the legal ramifications of reducing the structural strength of previously installed items for which the County has accepted maintenance responsibility.  What if my fence was broken because the weaker barrier didn't protect the fence, and an enraged escaping bull charged a child just exiting a school bus?

Standard drawings that must be followed by developers and that are not followed by the County are not standard drawings. Why should developers be held to a higher standard than the County? If you have defined rules for something, you should follow the rules. All of the rules.

Again, thank you for replacing the barricade. I really appreciate you ordering the special material so that the standard post size could be installed, appropriately replacing the original posts. I also appreciate you making the barrier wider to provide more protection to my fence and resident cattle.

I look forward to receiving your responses to my questions about the use and relevance of Sacramento County Standard Drawing 4-38.

Jay O'Brien


------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 2nd St. Barricade replacement: County Standard drawing
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:33:26 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Randy Faust <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Reza Moghissi <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
        Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Hal Morris <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>


Mr. Faust,
 
Did you receive the message copied below that I sent to you two weeks ago?  [The message above dated December 18 was included in original email as sent]

I look forward to receiving your responses to my questions.

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: 2nd St. Barricade replacement: County Standard drawing
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:17:10 -0800
From: Foust. Randy (MSA) <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Zlotkowski. Tom (MSA) <xxxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
       Moghissi. Reza (MSA) <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
       Quinn. Cortez <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
       Manoff. Mark <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Yes I received your message below. [The message above dated January 1 was included in original email as received]

The timber barricades that are installed are not intended to provide a crash-proof barrier. There function is to alert the motorist that routine vehicular access at a particular location is not allowed. The barricade assembly is simply the visual format for that purpose. 6x6 posts are required to provide max. initial life before they need replacement.

Thank you for your comments regarding timber barricades. They will be considered should the need arise.

Randy


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 2nd St. Barricade replacement: County Standard drawing
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:46:35 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Randy Faust <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Reza Moghissi <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
        Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Mr. Faust,

Your reply is not responsive to my questions. I asked you about the use and relevance of Sacramento County Standard Drawing 4-38. I also asked "WHY DO YOU HAVE A STANDARD DRAWING if you don't follow it?" Please respond.

Do I understand your response to be a justification for using 4x4 posts to replace 6x6 posts, somehow qualifying as maintained in an "as constructed" condition? Please respond.

You have been adamant that your department only follows the Board Policy, as set by the Board of Supervisors. Isn't the "standard" drawing, as followed by developers in constructing barriers to meet County specifications, also a "Board Policy"? If the Board Policy is to be applied to others, why is it not also applied to the County itself?

Jay O'Brien


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: 2nd St. Barricade replacement: County Standard drawing
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:21:18 -0800
From: Foust. Randy (MSA) <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Zlotkowski. Tom (MSA) <xxxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
       Moghissi. Reza (MSA) <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
       Quinn. Cortez <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
       Manoff. Mark <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

I understand your point regarding an apparent inconsistency between the standard and our long standing maintenance practice which has worked well for many years. We will take steps to initiate the process to assure consistency within the next 60 days.

Randy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 2nd St. Barricade replacement: County Standard drawing
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:15:24 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Randy Faust <xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
CC: Tom Zlotkowski <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Reza Moghissi <xxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
        Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
        Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>

Randy,

I am pleased to receive your 60 day commitment expressed in the email I received from you today.

Please send me copies of all information relating to "the process to assure consistency" you describe, relating to the barricade issue described in our previous correspondence.

Please confirm that you will be able to provide the information I am hereby requesting. I may wish to provide comments, objections, or support, and if so, at a time in the process whereby my statements are considered before changes are adopted by the County.

Thank you.

Jay O'Brien
jump to the top of this web page