HAZEL AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES BASED ON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AT PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE No. 1

Methods of Receiving Comment
Attendees of the public open house (primarily residents of the Hazel Avenue Corridor) were encouraged to both communicate with Project Team members directly and to document their personal concerns and recommendations for alternatives by using a comment sheet. Comment sheets were distributed with meeting materials and attendees were asked to either deposit their comments in a comment box or to mail them to the County of Sacramento. A panel entitled “Your Comments and Concerns” with oversized paper and markers was also part of the Open House stations. Those unable to attend the public meeting were encouraged to submit their individual comments via e-mail or the web site. A debriefing exercise was conducted immediately following the open house to summarize verbal comments received by Project Team members. All comments and this report will be forwarded to all study team members and Community Advisory Committee members.

Comments Summarized by Issue
The document below outlines the comments received at the open house. Actual comment sheets can be found in Appendix I.

Comments have been grouped into the following key categories:

• Right-of Way Acquisition, Relocation and Property Values
• Access and Traffic Observations
• Trucks
• Safety Concerns
• Environmental Concerns
• Land Use, Growth and Long-Term Planning
• Alternative Modes of Transportation
• Recreation and Open Space Resources
• Project Alternatives/Specific Improvement Suggestions
• Recommendations on Bridge Crossings
• Process and Public Participation
• Public Meeting Format/Materials

Right-of Way Acquisition, Relocation and Property Values

• Participants expressed a common concern regarding the likelihood of a widening project and (1) the impact of a large-scale construction project on property values, (2) the impact of a six-lane thoroughfare in close proximity to homes, and (3) the potential of a six-lane thoroughfare attracting even more traffic and congestion to the area and adversely affect property values.
• Adjacent property owners had many questions regarding which side of the road would be widened in the event of a widening project, and the property acquisition process should this be necessary.
• In the event of a widening project, adjacent property owners varied on a desire to relocate versus a desire to have their houses set farther back on their lots, others were opposed to the idea of partial acquisitions.
• Various residents complained that improvements to Hazel Avenue have already decreased their property values.
• One resident expressed concern that compensation monies, in the event of acquisition, would not be sufficient to buy a comprable house/property in a neighboring community.
• One new resident felt deceived that they had not been informed of a potential widening project before they purchased their home. Another resident expressed feeling “in limbo” in terms of home sale or options for the future and asked that they be informed as soon as possible as to the results of the study and the future of Hazel Avenue.
• One resident reported that, due to frequent flooding, she had been informed by the County that her property would need to be acquired if Hazel is resurfaced one more time.

Access and Traffic Observations

• Residents expressed a common frustration regarding access to driveways and adjacent streets, especially with the inability to make left-hand turns. Access from Renoir Court, Degas Court, Trimm and Britland were noted in particular.
• Residents noted that Hazel is grid-locked in the morning, during the lunch hour, and in the evening between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. \
• One resident commented that Hazel Avenue’s morning traffic has been backed up to Madison for 10 year.s
• One resident described themselves as “landlocked.”

Trucks

• Residents were in general agreement that there is too much heavy industrial truck traffic on Hazel Avenue and felt that big-rigs and 18-wheelers should not be allowed.
• Various residents noted that trucks on Hazel Avenue exceed the speed limit and frequently run red lights.
• Several residents considered controlling trucks on Hazel as the top priority.
• Numerous residents noted that trucks use Hazel Avenue to avoid the scales on I-80 and that truck weight and size limitations should be should be enforced with CHP weight checks.
• One resident suggested that Hazel be reengineered to handle big-rig use, since re-routing trucks will mean detouring them through downtown Sacramento.
• One resident suggested allowing local trucks only.
• Truck-related noise was frequently reported as a nuisance. Comments include “windows rattling and shaking” and “difficulty sleeping.”
• “Trucks belong on major freeways not on residential roads.”

Safety Concerns

• Many residents expressed grievances related to aggressive drivers and excess speeds. The most common of these was the lack of access from adjacent streets and a notable increase in accidents and near-misses.
• While the traffic-light installed at the intersection of Hazel and La Serena was described by one resident as a “life-saver,” it is also the source of increased collisions according to many.
• Miscellaneous safety-related concerns included (1) an inability to let children play in the yard because Hazel Avenue has encroached too close to their house, (2) injury to personal property from collision-related debris, and (3) concern about an increase of impervious surfaces, increased runoff, and associated drainage problems should Hazel be widened.
• One resident requested that no modifications be made that will speed up traffic. Another requested a safety wall.

Environmental Concerns

• Many residents complained of the excessive noise on Hazel Avenue. Noise related comments included (1) traffic noise equivalent to a freeway, (2) noise pollution as an issue even for residents not directly on Hazel Avenue, (3) the inability of one adjacent property-owner to watch TV or talk on the phone, and (4) need for 12-foot sound walls.
• Negative effects on air quality and increased litter were expressed as concerns by a number of residents
• Water quality issues related to runoff (storm water) into the American River were raised by one resident.
• There were concerns about the necessary removal of oak and redwood trees in the case of a widening project noted by two residents.

Land Use, Growth and Long-Term Planning

• Many residents doubted that widening Hazel Avenue would ease the congestion problem and would only attract more traffic from Roseville, American River Canyon, etc.
  Various attendees suggested that the scope of the project was too small to make any real impact and that it was just a “band-aid solution” to a major traffic problem.
• One participant asked why growth in traffic was exhibited to be greater at the Placer County line.
• Various residents agreed that the county needs to consider transportation when approving land use, such as AeroJet and the proposed Safeway Promenade/Home Depot. One resident denounced the Safeway proposal as a “magnet project” that should not have been placed at a major intersection.
• In terms of long-term planning, many residents asked that children, seniors and the disabled not be forgotten, and asked that facilities such as activity and community centers be considered, as well as day care/senior care centers at light rail stations.
• Many residents were opposed to the idea of Hazel Avenue as Sacramento County’s major north-south thoroughfare and questioned why a beltway or major north-south cut-through was not thought of previously.
• Many residents asked for a long-term, regional solution that does not redirect impacts. Many felt that Placer County should be more active in developing alternate thoroughfares (besides Hazel Avenue) since they are the primary source of traffic and should support light rail, such as a light rail loop.
• One resident denounced widening as “not a solution” speculating that a six lane road would need to be widened to eight lanes in five years. Another resident speculated that by the time the Hazel project is implemented, it will already be obsolete due to growth.
• One resident questioned whether Madison and Greenback are slated to be widened to encourage more traffic on Hazel Avenue.
• Two residents raised issue with the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s “SACMET” Transportation Model suggesting that the model favors road-construction by not reflecting the true costs of car ownership (the example model sets gas prices at $1.20/gallon), driving induced demand, and noise/water/air pollution. One resident urged that this be done before project alternatives are considered. Another suggested adding a pedestrian and transit accessibility metric as equivalent to Auto COS Congestion measures.

Alternative Modes of Transportation

• Some residents supported light rail along the Hazel Corridor, with connections to other public transportation. One resident feared light rail attracting undesirable persons to the community, and recommended increased bus service (two exiting RT 109 busses/day) with connections to light rail.
• One resident encouraged completing the RT loop.
• One resident expressed concern related to the noisiness of public transportation.
• One resident commented that people do not want to transfer between various modes of transportation.
• One resident asked that the County consider more transit instead of just widening.
• One attendee suggested widening bus turnouts and terminals
• One attendee recommended constructing parking structures in the middle of Hazel Avenue with bus connections to light rail and express busses.

Recreational and Open Space Resources

• Many residents noted an inability to ride bikes on Hazel Avenue because of safety issues and unclear markings. Several stated that safe recreation would require more traffic lights and slower speed limits along the Corridor.
• Many participants asked that bike lanes and bike and pedestrian access (especially to the American River) be incorporated into any proposal. One participant specifically requested a bike route on the north side of the American River, west of Hazel Avenue.
• One resident stated that he does not care about sidewalks, bike lanes, horses or trails.

Project Alternatives/Specific Improvement Suggestions

• Some participants recommended closing off-side street access to Hazel Avenue and implementing an expressway by using frontage roads or other connections to link these streets with cross streets at traffic signal intersections.
• Some residents recommended one lane connecting Highway 50 and Interstate 80 or building a freeway either east or west of Folsom. One resident recommended the construction of a double-decker freeway. One resident speculated that by using Hazel Avenue as a connector between Hwy-50 and I-80, it would be less expensive than bridge crossings at Sunrise and/or Watt as there are no major businesses, industries, or high-end residential developments along Hazel Avenue.
• Many residents recommended designating center lanes southbound (toward the River) in the morning and northbound (toward Madison) in the afternoon, perhaps by alternating the center lanes and limiting left turn access to either northerly or southerly traffic.
• One attendee stated that alternatives other than widening would only have minimal impact on noise and congestion.
• Miscellaneous recommendations included: (1) a toll at the Placer County line or on the bridge, (2) redirecting traffic down other roads such as Folsom, Sunrise, Madison, Greenback, and Douglas, and (3) synchronizing traffic lights.
• Although outside the study area, one resident recommended changing the stripping plan to improve truck backup during rush hour and to eliminate dangerous merge at the ramp.
• Participants recommended installing stop lights at the following intersections: Timm, Lake Nimbus, and Renoir Court.
• Miscellaneous improvement suggestions included: (1) widening Hazel Avenue starting at the Fun Center, (2) adding a signal at the first street south of Madison, (3) extending four lanes from Hazel south to Grantline, establishing a new connection at Kruithoff to Hazel, (4) improving access from Illinois to Sailor Bar, (5) cutting down the hill at Quail Ridge to improve visibility, and (6) closing Curragh Downs and having access on Illinois.
• One resident expressed the need to pave/improve the elevated trail on the west side of Hazel at the Bluffs. It was noted that residents of Curragh Downs will not like this.
• One resident emphasized that as improvements are made to Hazel, it will be necessary to fix the on-ramp and off-ramp problems on Highway 50.
• One resident requested that the southbound information sign just north of Curragh Downs Drive be moved to a non-residential position farther south.
• One resident suggested a six lane, 110-foot arterial highway (12’ median, 8’ shoulders each side for bicyclists and entering traffic 4’ sidewalks each side, 1’ for power poles and sign-posts each side) with noise attenuate houses fronting Hazel Avenue shielded by sound walls be implemented. The highway would eliminate of mid-block left-hand turns, reduce in the number of median openings at low volume side streets, and a provide for left-hand and u-turns at major intersections.

Recommendations on Bridge Crossings

• Some residents recommended closing the bridge while others recommended building more bridges. One participant specifically suggested consideration of an American River crossing between Sunrise and Watt or a tunnel under the river.
• Miscellaneous recommendations included: (1) a double-deck bridge to accommodate pedestrians/bicyclists, (2) diverting traffic to use the new Folsom Bridge which is underutilized, and (3) widening the bridge to six lanes.

Process and Public Participation

• One resident emphasized that all homeowners should be surveyed, including those on interconnecting residential streets.
• Various participants expressed the belief that the fate of Hazel Avenue has already been decided and asked for information on those alternatives really being considered.
• One attendee recommended having the public weigh the issues.
• Numerous attendees desired clarification on the process for selecting the Citizens Advisory Committee and its membership. Many had concerns about adequate representation.
• One resident requested a listing of Technical Advisory Committee members as well as all others involved in the study.
• One resident requested that all documents, including the Citizen Advisory Committee meeting agendas, be placed on the Web site.
• One attendee requested a brief presentation on the history of Hazel and surrounding areas (like was done for Watt).
• One participant suggested that if this project will go through CPAC, having CPAC members on the Citizens Advisory Committee is a conflict-of-interest.
• One attendee suggested that Roseville representation be removed from the Technical Advisory Committee.
• One resident requested a meeting of adjacent property owners only.
• One resident of Quail Ridge requested representation on the Citizens Advisory Committee.
• In terms of potential gaps in knowledge, attendees requested: (1) extending the study area to Folsom Boulevard, (2) a better understanding of where northerly and southerly cars are coming from/trip origins, (3) a clear evaluation of growth including impacts for each alternative, and (4) a separate “Origins and Destinations” study to include southerly traffic from the hours of 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. Monday through Friday.
• One attendee recommended that 2022 Projections be updated with the reuse of AeroJet property to better direct the eventual EIR.
• One resident suggested that developers be required to mitigate for traffic projects.

Public Meeting Format/Materials

• One resident described the Open House as a one-sided sales presentation rather than the advertised opportunity to express concerns and alternatives.
• One attendee recommended that speakers and project team members should stand in front so they are more easily identifiable.