FOREfront – Working for the People of Roseville

Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2000

ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL: YEAR END REPORT CARD

In 1999, the Roseville city council made many decision affection our quality of life and the future of all Roseville residents. Following are some of those decisions and our comments.

FEBRUARY 14^TH BUDGET MEETING – The mayor, without council member objecting, prevented the public from commenting on the budget. He maintained that only budget goals and objectives were to be covered even though the agenda did not state that. The Press-Tribune, in an editorial, also painted out that the mayor erred. Grade: "F."

WATER TREATMENT PLANT – The council is commended for cooperating with Granite Bay residents. Residents complained that the expanded plant would be unsightly and adversely impact their neighborhood. The council wisely agreed to make changes suggested by the residents. Grade: "A+."

BIG SHOT BILLIARDS – Since 1998 Big Shot’s has hosted live "rock" bands several times a week. Noise and bass vibrations from those bands and vandalism and parking lot disturbances have adversely affected the residents. The planning department and city attorney have supported Big Shot’s rights over those of the residents. The council did agree to limit occupancy to available parking, but the limit has not been imposed. Meantime, residents suffer unnecessarily. Grade: "D-."

ARBOR VIEW PROJECT – Located on the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove and Foothills Boulevards, the specific plan called for small one or two story (8,000 to 10,000 square feet) buildings in a "village type" setting. The Pleasant Grove Neighborhood Association, armed with the specific plan and backed by about 100 residents, believed the proposed development, that included two 40,000 + square feet buildings, one of which is three stories high, would negatively impact the neighborhood and the city. The council, in effect, threw out the specific plan when it approved the staff recommended project. Grade: "F."

CIRBY/RIVERSIDE GAS STATION – Despite ongoing traffic jams and the number of accidents, the council approved a high , traffic generating gas station, mini-mart and Carl’s Jr. restaurant on the Northeast corner of Riverside and Cirby over the objection of many residents. Grade: "F."

RIVERSIDE/CIRBY WAY IMPROVEMENTS – Congratulations to the council for finally allocating funds to improve the Riverside/Cirby intersection, and to widen Cirby Way – projects which should have been completed by 1995. The intersection is now at 100% capacity, but improvements cannot be done before 2003, if then. The council should immediately commission a study of staff’s proposed triple left and dual right turn lanes, patterned after the Watt Avenue-Fair Oaks intersection. A State Farm study rated that Sacramento intersection the seventh highest in auto accidents in the nation. There must be a better solution. The right consultant can find it. Grade: "C-."

LINDA AND CIRBY CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT – The council (and staff) deserve more than a slap on the wrist for the fiasco surrounding work in the creeks, which has caused a summer of frustration for Sunrise Avenue drivers and THREATS of more winter flooding for nearby residents. The council refused to accept a plan that would have saved many oak trees, as well as providing protection equal to the city staff’s plan for nearby homes. Work in the creek was to have been completed this past October, yet it is nowhere near finished. City engineers said the creek work cannot be completed until October 2000 (which keeps residents in continued flood jeopardy), and Sunrise Avenue remains twolane through the winter. Grade: "F."

UTILITY USERS TAX – The council has refused to remove the 5% utility users tax that is on each rate payer’s electric, gas, water, sewer, trash, cable, and telephone bill or to put it on the ballot so that residents can vote on it. On average, residents pay over $150.00 a year on this tax. Grade: "F."

THE BRIDGES APARTMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – What was to be single family housing on the Northeast corner of Misty Wood and Foothills Boulevard turned into apartments which will nearly double the number of housing units. The Pleasant Grove Neighborhood Association made a good case to retain the single family units, but the council overrode their objections. Grade: "F."

USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS – The council erred greatly in pursuing what may be considered a vendetta against Sandra and Al Saraceni and "taking" their property next to city hall for about one-half its value. The city spent nearly $100,000.00 of our tax dollars which included hiring a major Sacramento law firm to best the Saracenis who represented themselves in court. Even so, the Saracenis received $30,000.00 more for their property than the city offered. The Press-Tribune, in an editorial, said it best – "What price spite." Grade: "F."

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM – Congratulations to the council for appointing a Campaign Finance Reform Committee to recommend a city ordinance to eliminate future individual $100,000.00 (or higher!) fund raising city council campaigns. Hopefully, the committee’s recommendations will contain substance and that the council adopts them in time for the November 2000 city council elections. Not on the table is elections by districts which would reduce the money needed by candidates to reach the electorate. Grade: "C."

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS – The council’s support to form neighborhood associations throughout the city is commendable. Also, the council’s support of the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhoods Associations, the umbrella organization, is also applauded. Those organizations make it possible for local problems to be resolved with some ease. However, the council should not consider those organizations arms of the city and should treat them for what they are – representatives only of their respective neighborhoods, but that they walk a fine line in that role. Grade: "A-."

ATLANTIC STREET WIDENING – While the construction produced a very attractive and well designed thoroughfare, the City of Roseville doesn’t get a very good grade in prioritizing their improvement projects! Atlantic Street definitely needed some improvements, but it would not be considered the premier section for reaching the influential centers of this town. If construction and realignment of Douglas/Sunrise intersection had started when the Atlantic Street project was initiated, it could possibly have been completed by now. We must ask ourselves: What criteria does the planning department use in the decision process? Could it be that they took the comments of Mayor Harry Crabb to heart when he told the citizens at a televised meeting, "If you don’t like the traffic at Sunrise and Douglas, find another way home." It’s time to seriously assess the events taking place, and who is making the decisions in Roseville that affect our quality of life. Grade: "F."

How many atta boys do you need to offset one aw s_____?

UTILITY 4% IN LIEU FRANCHISE FEE SUIT AWAITING COURT HEARING

The Howard Jarvis Association lawsuit to repeal the 4% In Lieu Franchise Fee on your water, sewer and trash bills is awaiting a March 14^th court hearing. The Jarvis Group will take the deposition of city officials to obtain information that should have been provided in response to earlier discovery. City officials will answer questions on all aspects of the In Lieu Fee on water, sewer and trash service. Since that fee exceeds the cost of providing those services, the Jarvis Group contends that the fee is illegal under Proposition 218. One has to wonder if the city is purposely delaying the process in hopes that evasions and technicalities, not the law, will make the case go away.

LOUD RAILROAD TRAIN HORNS MAY BE PASSE

Residents may be able to sleep easier if the city council’s decision at the December 15^th meeting to pursue the automated horn as an alternative to loud train horns pays off. Several residents spoke about the adverse effects of the increased train horn noise and other residents presented written testimonials about how severe the problem has gotten. Staff did offer some promising suggestions to resolve the problem. The council promised to address the residents concerns about the noise as well as the pollution in negotiations with railroad and governmental agencies.

Staff is to meet with State legislators to solicit approval to use the new automated horns at our public crossings. The automated horn system has improved the quality of life, without compromising safety, in many cities experiencing similar noise problems.

A BIG SHOT’S NIGHTCLUB COULD AFFECT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

We made an extensive report on Big Shot’s in our November 1999 FOREfront. That article reported on the city council’s October decision to limit Big Shot’s to 140 patrons and 70 parking spaces. That decision was appealed by Big Shot’s in the form of a variance to the planning commission who heard it on January 13^th.

The commission would not take testimony on the noise emanating from rock bands, stating it was a hearing on a requested variance to the number of patrons and parking spaces the council approved. However, the staff report contained extensive discussion on noise and recommended that the planning commission accept a negative declaration of environmental impacts. It is a clear violation of the California Environmental Quality Act to prohibit public discussion of any item contained in an environmental impact report. However, and to their credit, the planning commission denied the variance.

Unfortunately, that is not the end of the on going fiasco. The planning commission decision can be appealed to the city council. City staff maintains there is nothing they can do to relieve the residents of the noise and bass vibrations while the city attorney told residents that they should hire an attorney and pursue relief in civil court. The residents have hired an attorney, but at considerable expense.

The city is concerned about being sued by Big Shot’s. One city council member stated that the council represents everyone in Roseville, and cannot put all city residents at risk of a lawsuit just to protect one small neighborhood.

That is actually the opposite of the council’s obligations and responsibilities. If just one resident is being wronged – if the rights of a single resident of Roseville are being taken away, the council is obligated to protect that person! If it were you reading this newsletter, wouldn’t you want the city to support your rights to peace and quiet in your home? If the council – and city staff – treat the Windermere Avenue residents this way, they will apply the same rationale to anyone else in the city.

If the Big Shot’s rock bands began playing next door to anyone of the council member’s homes, Big Shot’s would have been shut down the first night. The council needs to reconsider its approach to this and similar problems as if their own rights were being violated.

ROSEVILLE AND OROVILLE ATTORNEY BILLINGS A MATCH?

Roseville’s city attorney has been asked on many occasions to provide figures on the cost of outside attorneys that have represented the city in litigation. Some figures have been made available, but for the most part outside attorney cost, according to the city attorney, are too hard to determine because different city departments pay the costs of outside attorneys depending on the type of litigation because it must keep track of expenditures and the city knows which law case is funded by what department. Is that a means to keep secret the amount of money that goes to outside attorneys?

An object lesson for the city. A superior court has ruled that the city of Oroville has no right to keep secret the amounts if has paid to outside counsel for litigation services, ordering the city to disclose fees paid in connection with two lawsuits in particular, as well as "detailed billing records" concerning one law firm’s services to the city over a period of two years ending last June.

If Roseville is not keeping secret the cost of outside counsel, then the absence of providing such requested costs, the public records act is being purposely disregarded.

PROPOSITION 26 – THE "FIX OUR SCHOOLS" INITIATIVE

A proper education for every child is a principle we embrace. We all know good facilities are a factor in achieving this goal, and that good facilities require money. To improve and maintain schools, Californians already have passed over 60 percent of proposed school bonds, approving those of merit and declining the outrageous and overblown. And, even the overblown requests usually are approved after they are pared to a realistic level.

Proposition 26 seeks to solve California’s school problem by throwing even more money at it. This measure would enable nearly every proposed school bond, even the most outrageous, to pass. How would Proposition 26 do this? By reducing the two-thirds vote requirements to a simple majority. That way, even people who have no obligation to pay anything can vote to obligate property owners to long-term bonds that raise property taxes to the level of extreme hardship and foreclosures.

Make no mistake about who pays for these bonds: it is property owners alone. It doesn’t take much imagination then to see why the two-thirds vote has been a valued part of California’s Constitution for over 120 years. It is there as a safeguard against unreasonable expenditures by those who will vote to impose taxes they will never have to pay.

In our last issue, we asked, "Why lower the bar?" Is it because throwing more money at the schools will solve their problems? If you believe that, you have not tracked the spending record of California’s school districts. The truth is that Californians are already appropriating enough money to solve the school facilities problem. The government is like a five-year old asked for $10.00 to buy one more candy bar.

Without the two-thirds vote requirement, 97 percent of all bonds proposed in recent years would have passed. This is tantamount to giving politicians a blank check. With this kind of "pass" rate, how many more local bonds would have been tried out on the voter? Obligating property owners to long-term bond payments should require a thoughtful and considered vote of those who will actually have to make those payments or two-thirds of the general electorate. FORE thinks the 120-year old two-thirds vote in the State Constitution is still a good idea today.

Before you vote, you are urged to read the unbiased evaluation by the State’s Legislative Analyst. What caught our attention was, ". . . increased local indebtedness in the hundreds of millions. . . ." "Increased" means additional debt on property owners if Proposition 26 is passed. Once you read the analysis, you will know that a NO vote on Proposition 26 is the only alternative.

INITIATIVES NEARLY READY FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CITY

The election by district and repeal of the 5% utility users tax initiatives are almost in final form. Call Sandy at 786-5228 for information on the initiatives and to help in any way you can.

FORE’S ANNUAL MEETING

The annual meeting, with dinner, will be held beginning at 6:00 PM on March 20^th, at the Lyman Leak Community Center, 1303 Gabrielli Drive. The center is located at Sunrise Avenue and Cirby Way behind the Gabrielli fire station on Cirby and the Bel Air market on Sunrise. Elections will be held for four directors at two-year terms, and a chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer at one-year terms. Nominations will be taken at the February 21^st and annual meeting. A member may bring a friend. Call 786-9414 or 783-3570 to reserve your place(s) at the dinner table.

ROSEVILLE IN REVIEW, A NEW FORE TV PROGRAM

What government is and how it operates is complicated, particularly the government of Roseville. Also the public’s role in government is not fully understood. To help the public to have a better understanding of government and the public’s role in government, FORE will be presenting programs on Roseville’s channel 8 on: What is government; How government operates; The public’s role in government; The outcomes of the interaction of the public with the government.

The emphasis will be on Roseville in these educational programs which should air monthly. Following any broadcast we welcome your comments and suggestions. Look for the credits listed at the end of the programs. If you do not catch the address or phone numbers following the programs, call 783-9891.

DRIVE BY MAIL BOXES

We are still working to get mail boxes where you can drop your mail from the driver’s side. It seems that postmasters are hard to keep since our latest discussions have been with the third one. But there’s hope.

Copyright 1999 FORE, Roseville, CA

WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF ROSEVILLE

HOME | FOREfront | CONTACTS

FORE, 305 Hemphill Way, Roseville, CA 95678

916-783-9891 or 916-783-7632 FAX 916-783-9349

info@friendsofroseville.org

Friends of Roseville is a non-profit, non-political, tax exempt 501 ( c ) 3 organization.