PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING

Purpose of the Public Open House
The second public Open House was structured to present the background, status, and progress of the Hazel Corridor study, while also providing the opportunity for neighbors and community members to speak directly with CAC and study team members, ask specific questions, and provide feedback on the long-list of alternatives.

Report on the Public Open House
The second public Open House meeting was held on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 at The Orangevale Grange (between Madison and Greenback), located at 5807 Walnut Avenue in Orangevale, California from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Over 100 residents, business and property owners, and other interested parties attended the meeting, in addition to CAC and study team members.
The second edition of the Study newsletter served as the primary method for noticing the February 7th Open House meeting. In addition, a press release was distributed to local media as follows:

In addition, the Sacramento County Department of Transportation purchased space in the following local newspapers to publish a display advertisement preceding the public meeting:

The format of public meeting included an informal open house between 5:00 and 6:30 p.m., followed by a brief presentation and question-and-answer session. This structure was selected to encourage one-on-one discussion between attendees and study team members during the open house segment, as well as a formal opportunity to ask questions and make comments (both to team members and other members of the public). Study team members were identifiable by their nametags. Each attendee was provided a program outlining the informational exhibits, a copy of the newsletter (outlining improvement alternatives under consideration), and a comment sheet to leave with staff or to be mailed to the County of Sacramento at a later date. Attendees were reminded that all comments (verbal and written) would be documented, summarized and forwarded to members of the CAC and TAC for further consideration, and encouraged to bring extra copies of comment sheets to others who were unable to attend the meeting.

Sacramento County Department of Transportation staff and consultants assisting the County with technical and logistical support, led the presentation and question-and-answer portion of the Open House. Attendees listened to presentations on the study background, process, timeline, and structure, and on the eight alternatives being considered.

A total of 22 comment sheets have been submitted to-date. In addition, 26 comments have been posted to the Study Web site in direct response to the alternatives presented in the newsletter and at the 1/16/01 Adjacent Property Owner and 2/7/01Open House meetings.


Summary of Issues Based on Comments Received
The General Public Meeting and Open House provided the second in a series of opportunities for the community as a whole to learn more about the study and talk directly with CAC and study team members. The Open House portion of the meeting allowed for one-on-one conversations while the presentation and question and answer session provided a formal opportunity for dialogue about the project. Key objectives for the meeting included:

• Demonstrating the County 's commitment to incorporating community input into the study process, the crafting of the alternatives and, eventually, into the design of a selected and approved project.
• Providing a forum for members of the public to directly address study team members, as well as other members of their community.
• Providing an opportunity for Community Advisory Committee members to introduce themselves and the interests they represent
• Building community awareness and understanding of the eight alternatives currently being considered as well as the criteria that will be used to screen and evaluate them.

During the Open House portion of the meeting participants inquired about the study alternatives and the impacts associated with each. A number of residents asked about the process for developing alternatives and how they would be evaluated. In addition, a number of people asked about the traffic numbers and their origins as well as how the various alternatives would effect congestion along the corridor. Several residents expressed support or opposition to the various alternatives.

During the question and answer session (following the presentation) a number of people expressed concern about the impacts any future project would have on the corridor. Comments were particularly focused on the impact growth outside the area would have on the corridor. Several people noted that this area has to pay for, both financially and in terms of impacts, development for which they are not responsible. Other examples of general issues noted include the following:

• A number of the alternatives seem unrealistic in terms of relieving congestion, especially those emphasizing bus/HOV lanes, versus the opinion that bus/HOV service is a necessary ingredient of any improvement scenario.
• Widening alternatives are impractical in terms of improving level-of-service over the long term, as more lanes will only attract more cars/commuters.
• The traffic and growth projections used as the basis of the study were called into question.
• The lack of regionalism in transportation planning needs to be addressed instead of simply forcing adjacent communities to pay for and endure the effects of growth in Placer County.
• Hazel is in a poor condition and should be improved, but to the benefit of the community that lives there, not for Placer County.
• What are the criteria that the County will use to determine whether a property is completely, or partially, acquired? What are the requirements for setbacks? How is fair market value determined?
• Based on comments received to-date, community members appear to be evenly divided between their support for widening and non-widening alternatives.