Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News October 21, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
Cell
tower to be greened?
By Jay O'Brien
The Rio Linda/Elverta Community Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC), at
its October 12 meeting, heard a proposal again from Metro PCS to raise
the Cellular antenna at Dry Creek Road and Elkhorn Boulevard from 100
to 110 feet. The project was previously heard and rejected by CPAC in
August, as the landscaping requirements imposed when the tower was
originally approved in 2001 had not been met.
John Yu, representing Metro PCS, provided copies of the landscaping
plans prepared this month by the tower owner; Yu said Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) approval had not yet been received to extend the
tower. CPAC approved the application, subject to the receipt of FAA
approval and completion of the landscaping before starting the Metro
PCS addition to the tower.
CPAC heard a proposal from Jesse Bradman, the owner of the one acre
parcel on the south side of N Street between Front Street and Seventh
Avenue, to change the zoning from commercial to residential, and to
build and sell ten homes on the property. After much discussion and
comments from neighbors, CPAC rejected the proposal, suggesting that a
plan for only seven homes would be approved if brought back to CPAC.
Bradman tentatively agreed to change the plans to create only 7
parcels, not 10. He agreed to notify CPAC should he decide to continue
with an application for more than seven homes.
CPAC approved an accessory dwelling use permit at 7915 9th Street in
Elverta, with the condition that one of the homes on the parcel must be
occupied by the owner of the property.
Erwin Hayer reported on the removal of invasive Red Sesbania growth
from Dry Creek. A contractor has been removing the plant, starting in
Placer County. The work has progressed down to Q Street; he said the
work is scheduled to complete October 15. Hayer said, "the seed pods
can last 15 years in the stream, and continue to germinate, so this is
going to be an ongoing battle to try to keep that out of the creek."
The next CPAC meeting is scheduled for December 14, 2004, 7:00 PM at
the Community Center.
The CPAC is composed of volunteers from the community. CPAC relies on
the County to assure and enforce CPAC suggested conditions.
Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News October 21, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
Water Board
moves meetings to the Depot/Visitors center
By Jay O'Brien
With a 5-0 vote at it's October 18th meeting, the Rio Linda/Elverta
Community Water District Board of Directors decided to move future
Board meetings to the Sacramento Northern Depot Visitor Center. This
action will provide a meeting room that can accommodate more audience
members. The move will free up the existing Board room to be used as
much - needed office space, avoiding the need to expand the present
building.
The Visitor Center, at 6730 Front Street, is the newest addition to the
Rio Linda & Elverta Recreation and Park Districts' facilities.
In addition, the Board established a rebate program to encourage the
installation of new Ultra Low Flow Toilets in homes built before 1994.
Rebates of up to $75 per replacement toilet are available.
All Board members were present at this last meeting prior to the
November election. There were six audience members, including
prospective Board candidate Hal Morris. Three Director positions are on
the ballot in November; Incumbents Mel Griffin and Robert Blanchard are
running for re-election. No other Board candidates were present.
Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News October 21, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
Stop signs installed per Board
Policy?
County says more speed limit signs "unrealistic"
By Jay O'Brien
Sacramento County Department of Transportation (DOT), basing their
action on a Board of Supervisors policy, have installed stop signs on
Second Street at Shady Woods Way that have incurred the ire of some
residents of Rio Linda.
According to DOT, the petition, voting procedure and speed control stop
sign installation followed the policy of the Board of Supervisors. DOT
says the Board only allows the installation of stop signs as a speed
control measure on a rural street such as Second Street. Board policy
does not permit any other speed control measures, such as speed bumps.
DOT won't even install additional speed limit signs, saying it is
"somehow unrealistic".
Here's how it happened on Second Street. Prior to August 19, 2004, a
petition was sent to the County that was signed by ten residents
requesting speed control. In response to that, following what DOT says
is Board of Supervisors' policy, DOT mailed "questionnaires" to 34
residents of Second Street, asking their opinion of the installation of
stop signs on Second Street at Shady Woods Way to control speeding. The
"questionnaires", also called a "survey", asked for an opinion. The
County did not disclose in its mailing that the responses were actually
ballots to obtain binding votes that would cause the installation of
the stop signs if more than 50% of the ballots returned favored the
stop signs.
DOT will not provide the mailing list of the 34 addresses selected by
DOT to cast votes; however, as at least two residents received
duplicate ballots, the DOT mailing list is suspect. At least two of the
34 ballots mailed are invalid. DOT did not provide an opportunity for
an opposing ballot argument to be included on the "questionnaire" or
"survey" ballots.
When it was determined that the "questionnaire" was actually a binding
vote that would cause the installation of the stop signs without an
opportunity for opposition to be expressed or an opportunity for public
testimony, the new County Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) was
asked to intercede. DNS obtained a commitment from DOT that stop signs
would not be installed until after a community meeting was held to
discuss the issue, regardless of the vote count.
The fact that a community meeting would be held prior to the
installation of stop signs was shared with Second Street residents;
some ballots may not have been returned, in anticipation of the
promised meeting.
The community meeting would have allowed residents and affected parties
to discuss the speeding problem, perhaps with law enforcement in
attendance.
The meeting would have provided an opportunity to review the applicable
laws and policies, learn about and question the traffic studies
performed by DOT, and examine all potential mitigation measures,
including a simple first step of merely installing additional speed
limit signs.
The meeting would have provided an opportunity to resolve the fact that
34 ballots were sent out yet there are only 32 parcels on Second Street
between M and Q Streets.
Had the meeting been held, the fact that the speed control stop sign is
only 880 feet from the closest existing stop sign could have been
questioned; the Board policy produced later by DOT specifies a minimum
spacing of 1320 feet for stop signs on semi-rural streets such as
Second Street.
DOT, however, in spite of its agreement with DNS, went ahead and
installed the stop signs without the community meeting, and later
repeatedly apologized for it "falling through the cracks".
The stop signs are installed, however, and many residents who were not
asked to vote, did not return their votes, or who voted "no", are
incensed. DOT claims that of the 34 ballots sent out, 14 were returned;
11 votes, or 79% of the ballots returned, support the stop signs. DOT
claims that the stop signs were thus installed exactly following the
policy of the Board of Supervisors.
The 11 positive votes were 32% of those asked to vote, and as the vote
card did not include a statement that stop signs would be installed as
a result of the votes received, it is argued that perhaps the 20 who
did not return their votes would have done so if the consequences of
not responding were disclosed in advance by DOT.
DOT disclosed their traffic study that supports their installation of
the speed control stop signs. The study determined, on August 19, (when
school was out) that there were a total of 842 trips made that day on
Second Street between M and Q Streets, or more than one vehicle every
two minutes, averaged over the full 24 hours. Thus 842 people, most of
whom did not vote on the stop signs, are now obliged to incur an
additional stop and start each day, thanks to the 11 positive votes
that caused the installation of the stop signs.
The DOT speed analysis documents the speed of 40 cars in one hour on
August 24, between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. The average speed was 37.8 MPH;
the fastest vehicle was clocked at 51 MPH.
Had the average speed been under 35 MPH, the stop signs would not have
qualified to be installed. If the fastest 8 vehicles in that one hour
had been going the speed limit of 30 MPH, the average speed would have
been under 35 and there would be no stop signs today. Thus, 8 cars in
one hour on one day have inconvienced 842 people every day from today
on, forever, thanks to the adopted policy of the Sacramento County
Board of Supervisors.
At the request of this reporter, DOT and DNS convened a community
meeting as an item of the Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) on
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, after the stop signs were installed. A few
Second Street residents spoke positively of the stop signs; Mike Lynch,
for instance, said, "It's gotten safer on that street for people
walking". Other Second Street residents, however, like Donald
Martin, said, "the stop signs won't have any significant impact" and
were the "wrong thing to do". Ted Cristodore, also of Second Street,
remarked after the meeting, "A lower speed would be better than a stop
sign."
Other Rio Linda residents related their dissatisfaction with the stop
signs and the fact that they were not allowed to vote on the issue.
Sharon McMasters, a representative to the School Board, pointed out
that the increased pollution from the starts and stops would have a
negative effect on school children, especially those with asthma.
At the meeting, speakers suggested that the County speed survey was
flawed, as the speed limit was not properly posted on Second Street for
those motorists entering from Shady Woods Way. DOT responded that it
would be "somehow unrealistic and so that's why you don't see them
(speed limit signs) from every residential street coming into a major
street".
Federal and State regulations say "STOP signs should not be used for
speed control." The County web site urges careful evaluation before
installing speed control stop signs. But the "Board Policy" overrides
these regulations and guidelines, allowing only the use of stop signs
for speed control on rural streets like Second Street. Lloyd Myers
asked why the County doesn't follow the Federal and State guidelines.
Randy Faust, DOT Principal Civil Engineer, explained the Board policy
and added, "The Board of Supervisors has been a fan of stop signs for
speed control for 20 plus years..."
Rio Linda residents Karla Alsgood and Vicki McKnight are among those
who object to the present Board policy and suggest that voting on stop
signs for speed control should be extended to those who travel on the
street, not just the residents, as it is a community-wide issue. Shady
Woods Way resident Armand Nadeau, who was not notified by the County of
the meeting or the stop signs, asked that in the future the County
should inform all stakeholders; "spend the 37 cents", said Nadeau.
Pete Byrne, after attending the community meeting, said, "If that
.......'s apologies were really sincere, he would remove the stop sign
in question immediately and scrupulously follow the law and county
policy before bringing it back. His superiors should put a
serious reprimand in his folder as well. Instead, you/we got a
load of hot air."
DOT produced a 1986 recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that
includes some of the "Board policy" that DOT claims directs the process
for approval and installation of speed control stop signs. DOT,
however, has not produced the actual, approved, "Board Policy",
including that which delineates the "questionnaire" or "survey" voting
procedure, determines who should vote, how the ballot language is
written and approved, specifies that opponents are denied access to the
list of who is authorized to vote, and how the votes are counted. We
are continuing in our attempt to obtain that "Board Policy".
Please visit http://obri.net/2nd for
more details, references to the applicable regulations, and the history
of this issue.
Link to previous article, published in The NEWS
October 7, 2004.
jump to top of page