CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Meeting Date: May 3, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Mario Landeros, Interim City Engineer
Subject: Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution approving the Local Road Safety Plan Funding: Currently Budgeted: _______ Yes _______ No ___X__ N/A *This item is a continuation from April 19, 2022 Meeting Account Code/Costs authorized in City Approved Budget (if applicable) __AK (n/a)______ (verified by Administrative Services Department) INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE:
The item is to request Council provide commentsto the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), receive input from the public and adopt a Resolution approving the Local Road Safety Plan.
BACKGROUND:
In 2021 the City of Sebastopol was awarded a Local Road Safety Plan Grant (Grant) from Caltrans in the amount of $40,000 to create a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) for the purpose of complying with new state and federal requirements related to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP provides grant funding opportunities to agencies for roadways with identified safety issues through a competitive grant application process. An LRSP is required to be eligible for future HSIP project funding. To qualify for project specific grant funding, local agencies are required to show identified safety issues through traffic data and demonstrate that the implementation of Caltrans approved countermeasures would enhance roadway safety. The proposed LRSP identifies key safety activities and projects to ensure a safe public transportation system for all modes. The countermeasures and recommendations include the “5 E’s” of highway safety – engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. A LRSP is different from a transportation planning document, or bicycle and pedestrian plan, in that the LRSP is a data driven process that recommends countermeasures to enhance traffic safety. Transportation planning documents focus on creating programs, policies, and projects to enhance traffic safety and plan for roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity and expansion projects and requirements.
Quality safety data is the foundation of the HSIP planning process. State, regional, and local agencies analyze this data to identify potential locations for systemic safety improvements, conduct engineering studies, and prioritize roadway safety improvement projects for implementation. The City Council ratified approval of Amendment No. 23 to Master Agreement 2010-01-36 for a Local Road Safety Plan on September 7, 2021 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with GHD to prepare the LRSP. The City retained GHD Inc, an engineering firm with local traffic safety and engineering experience preparing other LRSPs, to develop the City’s LRSP. GHD applied a systematic approach which included a citywide analysis of the roadway system in Sebastopol comprising of the current collision patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics, and collaboration with a stakeholder working group that consisted of representatives of the other “E’s”, with a goal to identify safety countermeasures to help mitigate the City’s primary crash type trends and reduce overall collision severity.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
DISCUSSION:
Collision data over the past six (6) complete years (2015-2020) was collected and evaluated for City roadways.
Based on the collision data analysis and the stakeholder working group input, the LRSP addresses multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) challenge areas such as bicyclists, intersections, pedestrians, distracted driving, and aggressive driving/speeding. The LRSP provides a list of countermeasures for priority intersections and roadways segments based on collision analysis and the feedback from City staff, other stakeholders, and the public. Nonengineering strategies were also developed through stakeholder and public input with City staff. The engineering countermeasures in the plan coincide with HSIP funding requirements. Tables 1 and 2 below list the top fourteen intersections and top twelve roadway segments identified through the data analysis, and the suggested countermeasures that may be applied to those locations. Table 3 is a general list of recommended non-engineering strategies and systemic engineering countermeasures that may be applied throughout the City of Sebastopol. After approval by the Council, the LRSP is required to have a formal approved update every five years.
TABLE 1: Highest Ranking Priority Intersections and Recommended Countermeasures
Intersection Recommended Countermeasures
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Upgrade intersection pavement markings
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Morris St / Laguna Park Way Evaluate conversion to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)* Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)
Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Install "Keep Clear" pavement markings in intersection
Add intersection lighting
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Upgrade intersection pavement markings
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Install larger advanced signal warning sign
Enforcement during school start and dismissal times
Install centerlines on intersection approaches
Caltrans Jurisdiction
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) Add intersection lighting
Evaluate removal of parking close to intersection
Install bike conflict markings through intersection and at Rite Aid driveway adjacent Evaluate closure or restriction of movements of Rite Aid driveway Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Install other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) McKinley St / Laguna Park Way Add intersection lighting Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Evaluate removal of parking in front of the Masonic Center * Intersection must meet CA MUTCD warrants to implement countermeasure S Main St / Burnett St
N Main St / Bodega Ave
City Jurisdiction
N Main St / Analy Ave
Pleasant Hill Ave / Valentine Ave
Robinson Rd / Leland St
Bodega Ave / Jewell Ave/Dutton Ave
Bodega Ave / Pleasant Hill Ave
Wallace St / Bonnardel Ave
N Main St / Wallace St
Healdsburg Ave / Murphy Ave
Petaluma Ave / Sebastopol Ave
N Main St / Keating Ave
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
TABLE 2: Highest Ranking Priority Segments and Recommended Countermeasures TABLE 3: Recommended Non-Engineering Strategies and Systemic Countermeasures GOALS:
This action supports the following City Council Goals and General Plan Actions:
• Goal 2 - Maintain, Improve and Invest in the City’s Infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Streets, Circulation, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
In late 2021 and early 2022 public outreach, including a survey and interactive map on the project website with the draft plan, was conducted to gather input from the community on roadway safety needs. On March 25, 2022 the LRSP Draft Document was made available for public review and comment through and after the stated April 8, 2022 end date for public comment (refer to Appendix A in the LRSP). In addition, more comments were received after the April 19, 2022 Meeting from which the item was continued, and these comments have been included in Appendix A.
Segment Recommended Countermeasures
Add segment lighting
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Add segment lighting
Install guardrails
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
Add segment lighting
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Add segment lighting
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Add segment lighting
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Add segment lighting
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Evaluate on-street parking and where to reduce
Caltrans Jurisdiction
Sebastopol Ave (Brown St to Morris St) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Add segment lighting
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Sebastopol Ave (Morris St to E City Limit) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Healdsburg Ave (Pitt Ave to N Main St) Evaluate sight distance at major driveways SR 116 (Petaluma Ave to Hutchins Ave) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs SR 116 (Hutchins Ave to Fircrest Ave) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Ragle Rd (Ragle Ranch Rd to Bodega Ave)
City Jurisdiction
Bodega Ave (Washington Ave to Main St)
Bodega Ave (W City Limit to Ragle Rd)
Bodega Ave (Pleasant Hill Ave to Virginia Ave)
SR 116 (Hurlbut Ave to Covert Ln)
Morris St (Community Center Prking Lot to SR 12)
Burnett St (High St to Petaluma Ave)
Location Type of
Countermeasure Countermeasure Reasoning
Education
Pedestrian and bicycle education
campaign (crossing at crosswalks,
wearing high-visibility clothing at night,
following the bicycle rules of the road
etc.)
Lots of pedestrians and bikers around town
and ped/bike collisions. Have education
campaign for active transportation and for
drivers to be alert and aware of bikers and
walkers.
Education Safe driving campaign for students Many collisions around the high school due to students speeding and inexperience
Engineering Install segment lighting Lighting around city is insufficient and there is a large amount of nighttime collisions
Engineering Add sidewalks (where feasible)
There are many narrow shoulders and not
many connecting sidewalks. Sidewalks will
keep pedestrians out of the road
Engineering Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements1 Would provide enhanced safety features to existing crossings throughout the city.
Citywide
1 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements are part of the HSIP Set Aside funding and do not require previous collision history Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
As of the writing of this staff report, the City has not received any further public comment for this agenda item.
Staff anticipates receiving public comment from interested parties following the publication and distribution of this staff report. Such comments will be provided to the City Council as supplemental materials before or at the meeting. In addition, public comments may be offered during the public comment portion of the agenda item.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to schedule meeting date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for this Council action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Sebastopol City Council adopt the Resolution approving the Sebastopol Local Road Safety Plan.
Attachments:
1 Resolution
2 Summary of Changes in revised LRSP
3 Local Road Safety Plan (revised 04/26/22)
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
APPROVING THE SEBASTOPOL LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is prepared for the purpose of complying with new state and federal requirements related to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); and WHEREAS, the City acquired the engineering services of GHD Inc. to prepare the Sebastopol LRSP; and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan is a requirement for future HSIP grant applications; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been developed through the coordinated efforts of City of Sebastopol staff and consultants, stakeholder working group meetings, and input from the public through a series of public online and virtual engagements and a public review period.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sebastopol does hereby approve the Sebastopol Local Road Safety Plan.
IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 3rd day of May 2022.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: __________________________________
Patrick Slayter, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________________________ Mary Gourley, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, MMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________________ Larry McLaughlin, City Attorney
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Summary of Changes in Local Road Safety Plan Draft Document, Revised April 26, 2022
p. iv: Updated “Recommended Non-Engineering Strategies” to “Recommended Systemic Countermeasures” and updated table to include leading pedestrian intervals, bike conflict markings at intersections, and bike boxes at intersections.
p. v: Updated HSIP Cycle 11 opening date to May 9, 2022, per Caltrans p. 1: Changed wording in introduction for clarification p. 6: Added section 2.3 Adopted Documents and changed 2.3 Methodology to 2.4 Methodology.
Addressed Sebastopol General Plan and Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan p. 18: Added percentage of bicycle to vehicle collisions to Section 4.2.3.1 p. 19: Added Figure 16 that shows the severity by year for bicycle related collisions p. 21: Added percentage of pedestrian to vehicle collisions to Section 4.2.3.3 and added Figure 20 that shows the severity by year for pedestrian related collisions p. 28: Added Section 5.1.3 Draft LRSP Document
p. 38: Updated Systemic Countermeasures table (same as table in Executive Summary p. iv) p. 39: Added recommendation of bicycle detection at signalized intersections to Section 6.2.2 Emerging Technologies
p. 41: Added text to clarify the 5-year collision period used to determine the HSIP Benefit-to-Cost Ratios (2016 to 2020)
p. 45: Updated date that the document is expected to go to council p. 47: Appendix A – Added all public comments on draft report from Social Pinpoint and email with responses
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Local Road Safety
Plan
Draft Document
City of Sebastopol
April 26, 2022
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan i This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to all the Safety Partners that contributed to this plan.
City of Sebastopol
Mayor and Council Members
Public Works
City Consultant
Caltrans, District 4
Sebastopol Police Department
Sebastopol Fire Department
Sebastopol Union School District
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
Sonoma County Transit
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
Sonoma County Department of Health Services
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan ii This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Executive Summary
In 2020, the City of Sebastopol was awarded a state grant from Caltrans to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).
The LRSP is a requirement for Cycle 11 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. The LRSP includes a citywide analysis of the roadway system in Sebastopol comprising of the current collisions patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics (systemic analysis). Sebastopol’s goal is to identify safety countermeasures to help mitigate the City’s primary crash type trends and reduce the overall collision severity.
The LRSP is a collaborative process that is similar to a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) except a LRSP has a local leadership group that represents the 5 E’s (not just engineering) and public outreach. The 5 E’s of traffic safety include Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies.
This holistic approach allows certain areas of concern not showing a crash pattern to be analyzed. Also, it fosters local, state, and agency partnerships to advance local road safety.
In following the overall LRSP process, a Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group) was formed with the City as the lead and local organizations from the 5 E’s and anyone with an interest in improving the City’s roadway safety. This group gathered for meetings to discuss the overall collision analysis, goals, priorities, safety recommendations, and overall development of the safety plan.
Based on the past 6 years collision analysis and the City’s Stakeholder Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas including but not limited to:
1. Bicyclists
2. Pedestrians
3. Intersections
4. Distracted Driving
5. Aggressive Driving
In addition, the vision, mission statement, and goals were established in guiding the development of the LRSP. It was also decided that the LRSP for the City of Sebastopol would be a living document with a recommended update every five (5) years.
The following strategies are recommended for the focused study locations and Citywide systemic applications for the 5 E’s of Traffic Safety.
1. Engineering: Apply low-cost safety countermeasures at current locations experiencing collisions and systemically at locations with similar risks (comprehensive approach).
2. Enforcement: Enforce actions that reduce high-risk behaviors to include speeding, distracted roadway usage, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
3. Education: Educate all road users on safe behaviors.
4. Emergency Response: Improve emergency response times and action Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan iii This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
5. Emerging Technologies: Utilize emerging technologies in conveying and collecting information from the roadway users in an effort to improve safety and operations.
Through collision data analysis, public input, and City feedback, priority locations were identified in the City. These locations, along with their proposed engineering countermeasures, are shown in the tables below.
Priority Intersections and Recommended Countermeasures
Intersection Recommended Countermeasures
Bodega Ave / Ragle Rd Pedestrian crossing improvements occurred at this intersection in 2018 Bodega Ave / Nelson Wy Improvements occurred at this intersection in late 2018/early 2019 with the installation of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Upgrade intersection pavement markings
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Morris St / Laguna Park Way Evaluate conversion to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)* Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)
Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Install "Keep Clear" pavement markings in intersection
Add intersection lighting
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Upgrade intersection pavement markings
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Install larger advanced signal warning sign
Enforcement during school start and dismissal times
Install centerlines on intersection approaches
Caltrans Jurisdiction
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) Add intersection lighting
Evaluate removal of parking close to intersection
Install bike conflict markings through intersection and at Rite Aid driveway adjacent Evaluate closure or restriction of movements of Rite Aid driveway Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Install other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) McKinley St / Laguna Park Way Add intersection lighting Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Evaluate removal of parking in front of the Masonic Center * Intersection must meet CA MUTCD w arrants to implement countermeasure N Main St / Wallace St
Healdsburg Ave / Murphy Ave
Petaluma Ave / Sebastopol Ave
N Main St / Keating Ave
S Main St / Burnett St
N Main St / Bodega Ave
City Jurisdiction
N Main St / Analy Ave
Pleasant Hill Ave / Valentine Ave
Robinson Rd / Leland St
Bodega Ave / Jewell Ave/Dutton Ave
Bodega Ave / Pleasant Hill Ave
Wallace St / Bonnardel Ave
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan iv This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Priority Segments and Recommended Countermeasures
Systemic countermeasures were also recommended for City roadways. These countermeasures included Citywide recommendations that can also be used for more specific project locations. The table below shows some of the nonengineering strategies that are incorporated in the plan.
Recommended Systemic Countermeasures
Segment Recommended Countermeasures
Add segment lighting
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Add segment lighting
Install guardrails
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
Add segment lighting
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Add segment lighting
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Add segment lighting
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Add segment lighting
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Evaluate on-street parking and where to reduce
Caltrans Jurisdiction
Sebastopol Ave (Brown St to Morris St) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Add segment lighting
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Sebastopol Ave (Morris St to E City Limit) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Healdsburg Ave (Pitt Ave to N Main St) Evaluate sight distance at major driveways SR 116 (Petaluma Ave to Hutchins Ave) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs SR 116 (Hutchins Ave to Fircrest Ave) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs SR 116 (Hurlbut Ave to Covert Ln)
Ragle Rd (Ragle Ranch Rd to Bodega Ave)
Morris St (Community Center Prking Lot to SR 12)
Burnett St (High St to Petaluma Ave)
City Jurisdiction
Bodega Ave (Washington Ave to Main St)
Bodega Ave (W City Limit to Ragle Rd)
Bodega Ave (Pleasant Hill Ave to Virginia Ave)
Location Type of
Countermeasure Countermeasure Reasoning
Education
Pedestrian and bicycle education
campaign (crossing at crosswalks,
wearing high-visibility clothing at night,
following the bicycle rules of the road
etc.)
Lots of pedestrians and bikers around town
and ped/bike collisions. Have education
campaign for active transportation and for
drivers to be alert and aware of bikers and
walkers.
Education Safe driving campaign for students Many collisions around the high school due to students speeding and inexperience
Engineering Install segment lighting Lighting around city is insufficient and there is a large amount of nighttime collisions
Engineering Add sidewalks (where feasible)
There are many narrow shoulders and not
many connecting sidewalks. Sidewalks will
keep pedestrians out of the road
Engineering Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements1 Would provide enhanced safety features to existing crossings throughout the city.
Engineering Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at
signalized intersections
Would provide pedestrians time to cross before
vehicles begin entering the intersection,
potentially reducing collisions from turning
vehicle conflicts
Engineering Evalute installation of bike conflict
markings at intersections
Would provide increased visibility of bicyclists
for drivers turning or entering intersections
Engineering Evalute adding bike boxes at
intersections (as needed)
Allow bikers a buffer zone and space in front of
vehicles stopped at intersections and better
visibility of bikers
1 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements are part of the HSIP Set Aside funding and do not require previous collision history Citywide
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan v This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
It is important to understand the upcoming funding opportunities in the successful implementation of these safety projects. Most of the proposed engineering countermeasures are HSIP fundable (Cycle 11 is scheduled to open on May 9, 2022). However, safety countermeasures can be implemented through other funding sources to include:
– Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6 – Due June 15, 2022 – One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG) – To be determined (TBD)
– USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program
– Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (Sustainable Communities) – Local Partnership Project (LPP) – anticipated to be due fall 2022 – Stimulus funding sources
– Capital Improvement Program or with on-going maintenance work – Office of Traffic Safety grants
– Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding sources • State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funding for Caltrans roadways Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan vi This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Background 2
2.1 Purpose and Need 2
2.2 Guiding Documents 2
2.2.1 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 3
2.2.2 Sonoma County Vision Zero 3
2.2.2.1 Vision Zero 4
2.2.4 Standards and Guidelines 5
2.3 Adopted Documents 6
2.3.1 Sebastopol General Plan 6
2.3.2 Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 6
2.4 Methodology 7
3. Safety Partners/Stakeholders 8
3.1 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Members 8
3.2 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings 8
3.3 SHSP Challenge/Emphasis Areas 8
3.4 Guiding Principles 9
3.4.1 Vision 9
3.4.2 Mission Statement 9
3.4.3 Goals 9
4. Analyze Safety Data 10
4.1 Recent and Planned Safety Projects 10
4.1.1 Ives Park Master Plan 11
4.2 Collision Data 11
4.2.1 Collisions on City Maintained Roadways 11
4.2.2 Collisions on Caltrans Maintained Roadways 15
4.2.3 Collisions Related to Challenge Areas 18
4.2.3.1 Bicyclists 18
4.2.3.2 Intersections 20
4.2.3.3 Pedestrians 21
4.2.3.4 Distracted Driving 22
4.2.3.5 Aggressive Driving 22
4.3 Field Reconnaissance 22
5. Public Outreach 24
5.1 Social Pinpoint Website 24
5.1.1 Interactive Map 25
5.1.2 Public Survey 26
5.1.3 Draft LRSP Document 28
6. Identify Strategies 29
6.1 Engineering Strategies 29
6.1.1 City Intersection Projects 29
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan vii This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
6.1.2 City Segment Projects 32
6.1.3 Caltrans Intersection Projects 34
6.1.4 Caltrans Segment Projects 36
6.1.5 Identified Challenge/Emphasis Areas 37
6.1.6 Systemic Safety Countermeasures 38
6.1.7 Active Transportation 38
6.2 Non-Engineering Strategies 39
6.2.1 Education 39
6.2.2 Emerging Technologies 39
6.2.3 Enforcement 39
6.2.4 Emergency Response 40
7. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies 41
7.1 Funding Sources 41
7.2 Prioritized Projects 41
8. Evaluation Process 44
9. Next Steps 45
10. References 46
Table Index
Table 1 Other Safety Projects within the City of Sebastopol 10 Table 2 Comprehensive Collision Costs and EPDO Weights (2020 dollars) 14 Table 3 Top Intersections, per Collision Analysis 15
Table 4 Top Segments, per Collision Analysis 15
Table 5 Top Intersections, per Collision Analysis 18
Table 6 Top Segments, per Collision Analysis 18
Table 7 Priority Intersection Characteristics 30
Table 8 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Intersections 31 Table 9 Priority Segment Characteristics 32
Table 10 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Segments 33 Table 11 Priority Intersection Characteristics 35
Table 12 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Intersections 36 Table 13 Priority Segment Characteristics 37
Table 14 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Segments 37 Table 15 Recommended Systemic Countermeasures 38
Table 15 Priority of City Intersection Projects 42
Table 16 Priority of City Segment Projects 43
Figure Index
Figure 1 California SHSP (2020-2024) 1
Figure 2 FHWA’s LRSP Development Process 1
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan viii This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 3 High Severity Collisions in the City of Sebastopol 2 Figure 4 SHSP Challenge Areas 3
Figure 5 Sonoma County Transit Authority Vision Zero Website 4 Figure 6 Safe Systems Approach 5
Figure 7 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map (Source: Federal Highway Administration) 7 Figure 8 Total Collisions within the City of Sebastopol (2015-2019) 11 Figure 9 Collisions by Year on City of Sebastopol Roadways (2015-2020) 12 Figure 10 Collision Density on City Roads (2015-2020) 13 Figure 11 Top Violation Categories for Collisions on City Roadways 13 Figure 12 Summary of City Collisions 14
Figure 13 Collision Density on Caltrans Roads 16
Figure 14 Top Violation Categories for Collisions on Caltrans Roadways 17 Figure 15 Summary of Caltrans Collisions 17
Figure 16 Top Violation Categories for Bicycle-Related Collisions 19 Figure 17 Map of Bicycle Collisions (2015-2020) 20
Figure 18 Top Violation Categories for Intersection Collisions 20 Figure 19 Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision 21
Figure 20 Map of Pedestrian Collisions 22
Figure 21 Public Website Home Page 24
Figure 22 Public Website Promotion 25
Figure 23 Public Website Interactive Map 25
Figure 24 Top Comment Locations 26
Figure 25 Public-Identified Roadway Issues 27
Figure 26 Public-Identified Preferred Crossing Enhancements 27 Appendices
Appendix A Stakeholder and Public Input
Appendix B Collision Data
Appendix C Field Reconnaissance
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan ix This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials APS Accessible Pedestrian Signal
ATP Active Transportation Program or Plan
AWSC All Way Stop Control
BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio
BUI Biking Under the Influence
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
DUI Driving Under the Influence
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FSI Fatal and Severe Injury
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SSAR Systemic Safety Analysis Report
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TWSC Two Way Stop Control
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 1 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
1. Introduction
The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a traffic safety planning document for local agencies to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions. This comprehensive document will both help to guide the City’s implementation of safety countermeasures and allow eligibility for funding in future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant applications.
Preparing an LRSP facilitates local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that contribute to California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) overall vision and goals. This SHSP focuses on reducing fatal and severe injury collisions (FSI collisions) with focused challenge areas with a focus on the Five “E’s” of Traffic Safety (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 California SHSP (2020-2024)
The City and GHD will follow the Federal Highways Administration’s (FHWA) Local Road Safety process in the following six (6) steps as shown in Figure 2:
Figure 2 FHWA’s LRSP Development Process
In working with the first step of establishing leadership, the City Engineer (previous Joe Gaffney and now Mario Landeros), served as Safety Champion/Lead for this project with a stakeholder working group that consisted of the other E’s (enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies) and other important safety partners. This stakeholder working group was paramount in creating a comprehensive safety plan that is tailored to address the local needs and issues.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 2 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
2. Background
2.1 Purpose and Need
The City of Sebastopol is located in central Sonoma County approximately 8 miles west of Sant Rosa, California with an approximate population of 7,800. Sebastopol has grown to be a popular wine country destination with its development of The Barlow and increase in local vineyards. The City of Sebastopol has a mix of traffic that includes tourist, local, and commuter traffic, especially along Bodega Avenue and SR 116.
Focusing in on the roadway safety needs, the past six (6) years of collisions (2015-2020) were evaluated for the City roadways and Caltrans roadways. As presented in Figure 3, there was one (1) fatal and nine (9) severe injury collisions on City roadways as well as twelve (12) severe injury collisions on Caltrans roadways. In improving roadway safety for the City of Sebastopol, it is important to focus on mitigating these high injury collisions. More information on these collisions can be found in Section 4.2: Collision Data.
Figure 3 High Severity Collisions in the City of Sebastopol
2.2 Guiding Documents
FHWA requires that each state has a SHSP to receive federal funding. The California SHSP is a statewide safety plan that helps provide a framework to reduce fatal and high severity collisions. Sonoma County recently completed a countywide Vision Zero Action plan with similar goals (for more information, see Section 2.2.2). In 2020, Sonoma County Transportation Authority procured seven (7) LRSPs throughout Sonoma County. These LRSPs will have similar goals to the California SHSP and Sonoma County Vision Zero but will be more tailored to the local roadway Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 3 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. needs of each agency.
2.2.1 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The LRSP will complement California’s SHSP 2020-2024. Per this plan the recommended challenge areas are shown in Figure 4. This plan will focus on challenge/emphasis areas that are determined through data analysis and stakeholder input.
Figure 4 SHSP Challenge Areas
2.2.2 Sonoma County Vision Zero
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Department of Health Services launched a Vision Zero plan for all of Sonoma County. This LRSP aims to complement this plan with elements catered specifically for the City of Sebastopol. SCTA’s goal is to produce “a project that will focus on action-oriented strategies to reduce serious injuries and fatalities caused by traffic collisions, and improving health, quality of life and economic vitality, particularly for low-income and disadvantaged communities”. The vision and goals of this document will follow similar standards.
FHWA
California
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
Sonoma County
Vision Zero
Local Road Safety
Plans (procured
through SCTA)
• City of Sebastopol
• Town of Windsor
• City of Santa Rosa
• City of Healdsburg
• City of Cotati
• City of Rohnert Park
• City of Petaluma
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 4 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 5 Sonoma County Transit Authority Vision Zero Website
2.2.2.1 Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a significant departure from the status quo in two major ways:
– Vision Zero recognizes that people will sometimes make mistakes, so the road system and related policies should be designed to minimize those inevitable mistakes and reduce their likeliness to result in severe injuries or fatalities. This means that system designers and policymakers are expected to improve the roadway environment, policies (such as speed management), and other related systems to lessen the severity of crashes. Roadway users are however still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all applicable laws and use reasonable judgement when conducting themselves within the public right of way. – Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary stakeholders to address this complex problem. In the past, meaningful, cross-disciplinary collaboration among local traffic planners and engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals has not been the norm. Vision Zero acknowledges that many factors contribute to safe mobility -- including roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology, and policies -- and sets clear goals to achieve the shared goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries.
2.2.3 Safe Systems Approach
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is using the Safe System approach to work towards their goal of zero fatalities in vehicles. In providing a comprehensive approach to safety, the Safe System approach is to design our vehicles and infrastructure in a manner that anticipates human error and accommodates human tolerances with a goal of reducing fatal and serious injuries. The following framework is intended to assist the vehicle and infrastructure communities in making decisions in alignment with Safe System principles. Implementing and selecting safe system practices and design will incrementally improve safety over time.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 5 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
FHWA defines the Safe System Approach Principles and Elements as follows:
• Safe Road Users—The safety of all road users is equitably addressed, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, or travel by other modes.
• Safe Vehicles—Vehicles are designed and regulated to minimize the frequency and severity of collisions using safety measures that incorporate the latest technology. • Safe Speeds—Humans are less likely to survive high-speed crashes. Reducing speeds can accommodate human-injury tolerances in three ways: reducing impact forces, providing additional time for drivers to stop, and improving visibility.
• Safe Roads—Designing transportation infrastructure to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances can greatly reduce the severity of crashes that do occur. Examples include physically separating people traveling at different speeds, providing dedicated times for different users to move through a space, and alerting users to hazards and other road users.
• Post-Crash Care—People who are injured in collisions rely on emergency first responders to quickly locate and stabilize their injuries and transport them to medical facilities. Post-crash care also includes forensic analysis at the crash site, traffic incident management, and other activities.
Adopting a Safe System approach does not absolve users of their responsibility. Other safety practices such as speed management strategies, driver education, enforcement, and effective emergency response will remain essential to improving road safety. With the passing of Assembly Bill (AB) 43, there will be flexibility in setting speed limits.
As shown in Figure 6, is a safe systems approach.
Figure 6 Safe Systems Approach
2.2.4 Standards and Guidelines
In developing the City of Sebastopol LRSP, the following standards and guidelines were followed:
1. “Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5, April 2020.
2. 2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 6 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
3. “Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway Administration, March 2012.
4. “Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets: Local Road Safety Plans,” Federal Highway Administration, November 2014.
5. “Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.
6. “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014.
2.3 Adopted Documents
To aid in future growth and development, the City of Sebastopol has adopted documents to provide a framework for implementation and city goals. The primary guiding plans are the Sebastopol General Plan and Sebastopol Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.
2.3.1 Sebastopol General Plan
The City of Sebastopol General Plan (General Plan) identifies the community’s vision for the future and provides a framework that will guide decisions on growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources in a manner that is consistent with the quality of life desired by the city's residents and businesses. The General Plan addresses land use, circulation, community services and facilities, conservation and open space, noise, community design, safety, economic vitality, community health and wellness, and housing elements citywide. This plan was adopted on November 15, 2016.
2.3.2 Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is a document to be used by the City of Sebastopol to guide implementation of local projects and programs and document city policy. It is also designed to be a component of the SCTA Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan to improve coordination in realizing the countywide bicycle and pedestrian system. The SCTA plan was updated in 2014.
The purposes of the Plan are to:
• Assess the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in Sebastopol and throughout Sonoma County in order to identify a set of local and countywide improvements and implementation strategies that will encourage more people to walk and bicycle;
• Identify local and countywide systems of physical and programmatic improvements to support bicycling and walking;
• Provide local agencies that adopt the Plan with eligibility for various funding programs, including the State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA);
• Act as a resource and coordinating document for local actions and regional projects; and • Foster cooperation between entities for planning purposes and to create Geographic Information System (GIS) maps and a database of existing and proposed facilities countywide.
The Plan includes recommendations for physical improvements and programs that could be developed to enhance and expand existing facilities, connect gaps, address constraints, provide for greater local and regional connectivity, and increase the potential for walking and bicycling as transportation modes. This plan was adopted on November 15, 2011.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 7 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
2.4 Methodology
The LRSP methodology followed the FHWA’s LRSP development process as shown in Figure 7 and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual document.
Below is a roadmap created by the Federal Highway Administration to show the process of creating the Local Road Safety Plan. Here are the primary steps used to create this plan:
1. Identify Stakeholders
i) Working Group was formed of the 5 E’s and other interested representatives.
2. Use Safety Data
i) Past 6 years of collisions were analyzed with discussion of other high-risk locations.
3. Chose Proven Solutions
i) FHWA Proven Countermeasures and Caltrans safety countermeasures were used in mitigation collision trends and risk characteristics.
4. Implement Solutions
i) Projects were identified for specific locations and systemically.
Figure 7 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map (Source: Federal Highway Administration) Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 8 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
3. Safety Partners/Stakeholders
3.1 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Members
Based on community connections, the City of Sebastopol led the formation of the LRSP Stakeholder Working Member Group. This leadership group was crucial in the development of the LRSP and helped in capturing the safety needs, goals, and priorities including safety countermeasures for the City of Sebastopol.
The LRSP Stakeholder Working Group included the following representatives:
– City of Sebastopol
– Caltrans, District 4
– Sebastopol Police Department
– Sebastopol Fire Department
– Sebastopol Union School District
– Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
– Sonoma County Transit
– Sonoma County Transportation Authority
– Sonoma County Department of Health Services
3.2 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings
Two meetings were held with the stakeholder working group. The virtual meetings were as follows:
1. November 30, 2021 – 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
a. Discussed the LRSP overall process, working group member’s safety priorities, past 6 years of collisions (City and Caltrans roadways), vision, goals, and priorities.
2. February 3, 2022 – 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
a. Reviewed first meeting, discussed public comments and ways to address their concerns, recent developments, safety countermeasures and projects, refined of LRSP’s guiding principles, and coordinated next steps.
The meeting summaries for the stakeholder working group meetings are in Appendix A: Stakeholder and Public Input. The stakeholder working group also provided their feedback and comments on the draft Local Road Safety Plan document before the plan was finalized. With many of the safety countermeasures to include engineering, enforcement, and emergency response, it is important to have buy off from the stakeholders in understanding how the plan will be implemented.
3.3 SHSP Challenge/Emphasis Areas
Based on the collision data analysis and LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas including:
1. Aggressive Driving/Speed Management
2. Distracted Driving
3. Bicyclists
4. Intersections
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 9 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
5. Pedestrians
3.4 Guiding Principles
The members of the stakeholder working group coordinated to establish the vision, mission statement, and goals that guided the development of the document. Ideally, this document will help the City move toward Vision Zero. The aim of Vision Zero is to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Traditionally traffic deaths and severe injuries have been considered as inevitable side effects of modern life. The reality is that these tragedies can be addressed overtime by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue.
3.4.1 Vision
A vision statement describes what the Local Road Safety Plan is trying to achieve.
3.4.2 Mission Statement
The mission statement defines the purpose of the plan, what it does, and what it is about. The mission statement was developed in collaboration with the working group.
3.4.3 Goals
Safety goals were developed for the Local Road Safety Plan. It is important to capture realistic goals that can be measurable or evolve over time.
Goal 1
Strive to achieve zero deaths and life altering injuries on local roadways.
Goal 2
Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
Goal 3
Create a healthy and happy community with equitable and safe transportation systems.
Goal 4
Foster a sense of community that is safe for all users.
Goal 5
Increased safety with roadway infrastructure improvements.
Goal 6
Identify countermeasures to correlate to emphasis areas (5-E’s) Goal 7
Increase walking, biking, rolling (wheelchair, skateboard, scooter, etc.) to downtown district, to work, and to school Working together in Sebastopol, we will ensure all people have the transportation choice to walk, bike, drive, and use transit while we work to achieve zero fatalities and no life-altering injuries on our roadways – because every person in our community matters.
The City of Sebastopol will provide a safe and sustainable multimodal transportation system for all users of the public roadways in the city.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 10 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
4. Analyze Safety Data
4.1 Recent and Planned Safety Projects
The City of Sebastopol conducted previous safety analysis that developed the following safety projects. Table 1 shows these improvements within the city and their respective locations.
Table 1 Other Safety Projects within the City of Sebastopol Projects Locations Details Agency Lead Funding/Status
Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements Bodega Ave at Ragle Rd
Pedestrian refuge, pedestrian
activated warning beacons,
and striping changes
City CIP; Completed Summer
2018
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Bodega Ave at Nelson Way Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon and striping improvements City CIP; Completed Winter 2018/2019 Bike Lanes Striping SR 116
Part of pavement overlay
project. Installed bike lanes
with green conflict markings
for vehicle and bike mixing
zones and yield markings at
uncontrolled crossings
Caltrans Caltrans; Completed 2018
Quick Strike Project - ADA
Curb Ramps SR 116
Installation of ADA compliant
curb ramps along SR 116 in
locations where Caltrans
pavement overlay project was
completed
City CIP/Quick Strike Grant; Est.
Completion 2023
Quick Strike Project -
Intersection Pedestrian
Crossing Improvements
Bodega Ave and Florence
Ave, Bodega Ave and
Robinson Rd
Installation of pedestrian
safety improvements including
pedestrian activated beacons,
signage, markings, and
crosswalk improvements
City CIP/Quick Strike Grant; Est.
Completion 2024
Bodega Ave Bike Lanes and
Pavement Rehabilitation
High St to Nelson Way
(Phase 1), Nelson Way to
Pleasant Hill Rd (Phase 2)
Repave Bodega Ave from
High St to Pleasant Hill Rd and
install bike lanes with new
striping
City
CIP/SCTA/OBAG; Phase 1
expected construction in
2022; Phase 2 awaiting
funding
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon SR 116 and Danmar Dr
Installation of Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon at intersection
to accommodate increase of
pedestrians with opening of
Sebastopol Charter School
Caltrans Caltrans; Expected
construction 2022
Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
Petaluma Ave and McKinley
St, Petaluma Ave and Depot
St
Installation of Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon at McKinley
St, other crossing
enhancements at Depot with
incoming development on the
northeast corner
Caltrans
Caltrans; PHB in design,
expected contruction 2022;
Depot St enhancements
pending development
SR 116 Corridor Safety Study SR 116
Study previously completed
identified closure of sidewalk
gaps on northern portion of
116 and installation of signal
or other control at 116 and
Covert Ln. See Table 5 in SR
116 Safety Study for complete
list of recommendations.
City/Caltrans CIP/Caltrans; In planning
Completed Projects
Planned Projects
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 11 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
4.1.1 Ives Park Master Plan
In 2013, the City Council adopted a Master Plan for the revitalization of Ives Park. The City has been working towards implementing this vision, and has completed ADA (accessibility) upgrades to Ives Pool. The City is currently working on several other components of the Master Plan, including the planning for naturalization of Calder Creek. There will be several community meetings on this project, hosted by the Planning Commission, which also serves as the City's Parks Commission. This plan intends to improve accessibility to the park which includes improvements to the intersection of Jewell Avenue and Willow Street.
4.2 Collision Data
The City of Sebastopol collision data was gathered using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Each data set was analyzed, crosschecked, and compiled into one complete comprehensive data set. This process was done to ensure that all reported collisions occurring within the city are accounted for and to provide additional information that one system may not have captured. The data set contains six complete years’ worth of collisions spanning from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020.
During this period, a total of 557 collisions were reported in the City of Sebastopol. These collisions were classified based on roadway jurisdiction (City or Caltrans). Collisions were further categorized into intersection related collisions and roadway segment related collisions with a separate focus on the city streets and Caltrans roadways.
The chart in Figure 8 depicts the number of collisions by roadway jurisdiction and collision location (intersection or segment). The highest number of collisions were at Caltrans intersections (223 collisions) followed by city segments (111 collisions).
Figure 8 Total Collisions within the City of Sebastopol (2015-2019)
4.2.1 Collisions on City Maintained Roadways
There were 206 collisions recorded on the city roadways between 2015 and 2020. Figure 9 shows the breakdown of collisions by year and severity. The highest number of collisions were reported in 2016 with the one (1) fatal collision in 2017. Even though the total collisions on the city roadways is trending downward from 2016-2019 with a slight Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 12 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. uptick in 2020, the collision severity remains consistent with two (2) severe injury collisions and eight (8) injury (other visible) collisions in 2019 and 2020.
Figure 9 Collisions by Year on City of Sebastopol Roadways (2015-2020) As shown on the collision density map (see Figure 10 below), areas with high density of collisions include Laguna Park Way, N Main St near the high school, and the entire span of Bodega Avenue. There was one (1) fatal collision and nine (9) severe injury collision on the city roadways. Rear end collisions were the most common collision type.
Figure 11 displays the top 4 violation categories (not including unknown/not stated) and the number of collision types per category. Unsafe Speed was the top violation category with the majority of collisions being rear ends.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 13 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 10 Collision Density on City Roads (2015-2020)
Figure 11 Top Violation Categories for Collisions on City Roadways Figure 12 summarizes the city collisions based on severity and type. The main collision type was hit object followed by rear end. The majority of collisions were recorded as property damage only with 32% of the collisions in the past six years recorded as injury collisions.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 14 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 12 Summary of City Collisions
The total number of collisions and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) rating were assessed at the City intersection locations to aid in the determination of the top study intersections (refer to Appendix C: Collision Data for the breakdown of collision severity and violation type by intersection). Per the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, it is recommended to rank locations with higher severity as higher focus. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodology of Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) rating assigns a weight to collisions in capturing the relative severity in equivalent property damage only (PDO=1).
Table 2 provides the comprehensive collision costs and EPDO weights that were used in ranking the collisions.
Collision costs include both direct and indirect costs. Direct crash costs include ambulance service, police and fire services, property damage, insurance, and other costs directly related to the crashes. Indirect collision costs account for the value society would place on pain and suffering or loss of life associated with the crash.
Table 2 Comprehensive Collision Costs and EPDO Weights (2020 dollars) The intersection of Bodega Avenue and Ragle Road had the highest EPDO (577) due to the fatality at that location, and the intersection of Bodega Avenue and Dutton Avenue had the highest number of collisions (8). Table 3 shows the top intersections, per collision analysis. Further detailed collision analysis is in Appendix C: Collision Data.
Crash Severity Crash Cost* Severity Ranking**
Fatal $ 7,219,800 543
Severe Injury $ 389,000 29
Other Visible Injury $ 142,300 11
Complaint of Pain $ 80,900 6
Property Darmage Only 13,300 $ 1
** Based on Equivalent Property Damge Only (EPDO)
* Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. Adjusted to 2020 dollars.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 15 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 3 Top Intersections, per Collision Analysis
Primary Road Secondary Road Control EPDO Total Crashes
Bodega Ave Ragle Rd TWSC 577 5
Bodega Ave Nelson Way TWSC 43 5
Pleasant Hill Ave Valentine Ave AWSC 36 3
Robinson Rd Leland St TWSC 29 1
Morris St Laguna Park Way TWSC 29 1
Bodega Ave Jewell Ave/Dutton Ave Signal 23 8
N Main St Analy Ave TWSC 29 4
Bodega Ave Pleasant Hill Ave Signal 19 4
The segment collisions were also analyzed by EPDO and total number of collisions. Table 4 shows the top segments, per collision analysis. Bodega Avenue from Washington Avenue to Main Street had the highest EPDO rating (94) and highest number of segment collisions (19) due to nine injury collisions and 10 PDO collisions.
Table 4 Top Segments, per Collision Analysis
Street Name Begin Segment End Segment EPDO Total Crashes Bodega Ave Washington Ave Main St 94 19
Bodega Ave West City Limit Ragle Rd 53 5
Bodega Ave Pleasant Hill Ave Virginia Ave 43 5
Ragle Rd Ragle Ranch Rd Bodega Ave 36 3
Morris St Community Center
Parking Lot
SR 12 32 4
Burnett St High St Petaluma Ave 4 4
4.2.2 Collisions on Caltrans Maintained Roadways
There were 351 collisions on Caltrans roadways (SR 116 and SR 12) between 2015 and 2020. As seen by the collision density map (see Figure 13), the intersections where State Route 116 and State Route 12 meet have the highest collision densities. In total, there were no fatal and twelve (12) severe injury collisions overall. Just over half of the collisions were property damage only.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 16 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 13 Collision Density on Caltrans Roads
Figure 14 displays the top 5 violation categories (not including unknown/not stated) and the number of collision types per category. Unsafe Speed was the top violation category with the majority of collisions being rear ends. Figure 15 summarizes the Caltrans collisions based on severity and type. The main collision type was rear end followed by sideswipe. A little over half of the collisions were recorded as property damage only with 49% of the collisions in the past six years recorded as injury collisions.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 17 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 14 Top Violation Categories for Collisions on Caltrans Roadways Figure 15 Summary of Caltrans Collisions
The intersection of N Main Street (SR 116) and Bodega Avenue had the highest EPDO (114), and the highest number of collisions (18). Table 5 shows the top intersections, per collision analysis. Further detailed collision analysis is in Appendix C: Collision Data.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 18 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 5 Top Intersections, per Collision Analysis
Primary Road Secondary Road Control EPDO Total Crashes
N Main St (SR 116) Bodega Ave Signal 114 18
S Main St (SR 116) Burnett St TWSC 80 12
N Main St (SR 116) Berry Ln TWSC 68 5
Petaluma Ave (SR 116) Sebastopol Ave (SR 12) Signal 62 12 Healdsburg Ave (SR 116) Murphy Ave Signal 59 6
McKinley St (SR 116) Laguna Park Way Signal 42 12
N Main St (SR 116) Wallace St TWSC 53 10
The segment collisions were also analyzed by EPDO and total number of collisions. Table 6 shows the top segments, per collision analysis. Sebastopol Avenue (SR 12) from Brown Street to Morris Street had the highest EPDO rating (106) and highest number of segment collisions (16) due to twelve (12) injury collisions and four (4) PDO collisions.
Table 6 Top Segments, per Collision Analysis
Street Name Begin Segment End Segment EPDO Total Crashes Sebastopol Ave (SR 12) Brown St Morris St 106 16
Gravenstein Hwy N (SR 116) Hurlbut Ave Covert Ln 62 9
Sebastopol Ave (SR 12) Morris St E City Limit 53 13
Healdsburg Ave (SR 116) Pitt Ave N Main St 50 10
Gravenstein Hwy S (SR 116) Petaluma Ave Hutchins Ave 49 9 Gravenstein Hwy S (SR 116) Hutchins Ave Fircrest Ave 32 12
4.2.3 Collisions Related to Challenge Areas
4.2.3.1 Bicyclists
Bicyclist to vehicle collisions were approximately 4.7% of the total collisions and there was a total of six (6) bicycle to vehicle collisions on the City roadways and twenty (20) on Caltrans roadways. Of these collisions, five (5) were severe injury collisions. Figure 16 shows the bicycle collision severity by year. The top violation categories for bicycle-related collisions not including unknown/not stated are shown in Figure 17 below. The primary collision type is listed as other followed by broadside with the top violation category of Automobile Right of Way. The majority of bicycle collisions were along SR 116. The location of each collision is outlined in Figure 18.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 19 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 16 Severity by Year for Bicycle-Related Collisions Figure 17 Top Violation Categories for Bicycle-Related Collisions Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 20 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 18 Map of Bicycle Collisions (2015-2020)
4.2.3.2 Intersections
As mentioned in Section 4.2, there were 95 collisions at City intersections during the study period. These account for approximately 46% of all collisions on City roadways. The top collision type is sideswipe, and the top violation category is unsafe speed. Figure 19 outlines the top five violation categories and their associated collision types for the intersections.
Figure 19 Top Violation Categories for Intersection Collisions Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 21 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
4.2.3.3 Pedestrians
Pedestrian to vehicle collisions were approximately 5.2% of the total collisions and there were eight (8) total pedestrian collisions on the City roadways and twenty-one (21) on Caltrans roadways. 2017 had the highest collision severity with one (1) fatal and one (1) severe injury collision followed by 2019 with three (3) severe injury collisions.
Figure 20 presents the pedestrian collision severity by year. The pedestrian location at the time of collision, along with corresponding severity, is shown in Figure 21. Most pedestrians were crossing in the crosswalk at an intersection.
One (1) pedestrian collision resulted in a fatality and six (6) resulted in severe injuries. The mapped location of each collision is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 20 Severity by Year for Pedestrian-Related Collisions Figure 21 Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 22 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 22 Map of Pedestrian Collisions
4.2.3.4 Distracted Driving
Distracted driving is categorized in collision data as inattention. Categories for inattention include cell phones (handheld or hands-free), electronic equipment, smoking, eating, children, animals, personal hygiene, and reading.
From 2015 to 2020, there were 17 collisions with at least one party cited due to inattention. This is approximately 3 percent of all collisions. The most common type of inattention was distraction by an animal with 5 of the 17 collisions citing this type. The second most common type of inattention was distraction by eating and by the radio, both of which were cited in 3 of the 17 collisions each.
4.2.3.5 Aggressive Driving
Aggressive driving can be quantified through collision data through unsafe speed violations. There were 46 collisions on City roadways and 102 collisions on Caltrans roadways due to unsafe speed between 2015 and 2020. This is approximately 22 percent of all collisions on City roadways and 29 percent of all collisions of Caltrans roadways. Many of these collisions resulted in rear end collisions. There were no fatal and 2 severe injury collisions as a result of unsafe speed – both occurring on Caltrans roadways.
4.3 Field Reconnaissance
A field visit was performed on Thursday, March 17, 2022, to analyze the roadways throughout the City of Sebastopol and observe areas with high densities of public comments and collisions. Notes and photos from this visit are compiled in Appendix D: Field Reconnaissance.
Some general notes made based on what was observed during the sight visit are as follows – All traffic signals citywide appear to have the yellow retro-reflectivity tape on them.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 23 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. – Signalized intersections in the core downtown area have leading pedestrian intervals before the vehicles go, which helps improve pedestrian visibility and established presence in the crosswalks. – There are a lot of pedestrian crossings that have “yield” pavement markings (“sharks-teeth” triangles) and Pedestrian Warning signs (W11-2). But they don’t have “Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs (R1-5). – Speeding was not observed during the field visit as there was steady traffic on all main roadways that limited speeds.
– Parking along some roadways block sight distance for minor road vehicles.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 24 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
5. Public Outreach
5.1 Social Pinpoint Website
A project website was created on the Social Pinpoint platform to inform the public about the LRSP and provide a platform for input. Figure 23 displays the homepage for the website found at lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/sebastopol.
The project website had Google Translate enabled that could translate the webpage in over 100 languages and detect the user’s browsers settings to automatically display the website in their language preference. In addition, the user could toggle the preferred language on the upper right corner of the webpage. Visitors to the page were invited to provide comments on an interactive project map and share their thoughts through a project survey. Comments from the interactive map and detailed results from the survey are included in Appendix A: Stakeholder and Public Input.
Figure 23 Public Website Home Page
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 25 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
The website was promoted through a variety of sources including posts on the City’s social media pages, newsletter, and website (Figure 24). Overall, 66 unique people interacted with the website, and it received 122 interactive map comments and 22 survey responses.
Figure 24 Public Website Promotion
5.1.1 Interactive Map
The interactive map feature on the website allowed the public to drag icons to a location within the City and leave a comment regarding driving, pedestrian, or bicycle suggestions at that location. Most comments were related to driving (55.7%) but there was also a high volume of pedestrian comments (35.2%). Figure 25 shows the interactive map feature from the website.
Figure 25 Public Website Interactive Map
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 26 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
As seen through the heatmap in Figure 26, the top comment locations include:
– N Main St (SR 116) at Wallace Ave
– SR 116 and SR 12 intersections
– SR 116 and Palm Ave intersections
– Jewell Ave at Bodega Ave
– Bodega Ave between Washington Ave and SR 116
– SR 116 and Fellers Ln
Figure 26 Top Comment Locations
5.1.2 Public Survey
The City of Sebastopol Public Survey asked six (6) questions relating to the LRSP. The survey was open for responses from December 8, 2021, to January 31, 2022, and received 22 responses. According to the survey, one of the primary safety issues for Sebastopol was intersection safety with lack of infrastructure and pedestrian collision tied for 2nd most common response (see Figure 27 for a chart with the responses). A summary of the survey responses is listed below.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 27 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Figure 27 Public-Identified Roadway Issues
Some details regarding the main safety concerns selected are as follows:
− “Every single street “improvement” Sebastopol makes has made congestion worse. [..] How about synchronize the lights?”
− “I think it's critical to fill in sidewalk gaps. There are some streets around town where there are sizable sidewalk gaps”
− “116 is confusing especially to those from out of town. and the 1-way nature of it is tricky.” − “Failure to maintain infrastructure. Failure to modernize infrastructure to meet the goals of the general plan.
Failure to adequately plan for increased urban development. Failure to access federal/state funding in a timely manner.”
The second and third questions asked about the respondents’ preferred crossing enhancement and the locations where they would like to see them implemented.
Figure 28 Public-Identified Preferred Crossing Enhancements Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 28 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Some of the requested locations for crossing enhancements are:
− Washington Ave and Murphy Ave
− Occidental Rd and Joe Rodota Trail
− Covert Ln and Zimpher Dr
− Florence Ave and Bodega Ave
Question four asked what location(s) would the respondents like to see new/upgraded bike lanes. A few of these locations were:
− Occidental Rd (to safely connect the two sections of the Rodota trail) − Ragle Road
− Bodega Highway between Virginia Ave and Pleasant Hill Ave − Pleasant Hill Ave
− Jewell Ave
− Valentine Ave
In addition to these locations, the public would like to see separate bike paths and bike routes along residential streets.
The fifth question asked what improvements the respondents would like to see in and around school zones. Some of the responses are listed below.
− “Crossing guards”
− “Bulb-outs at intersections and mid-block crosswalks” − “More traffic calming structures to reduce speed”
− “Places for parents to drive through rather than parking on the street waiting for their student” − “Speed bumps”
− “More protected bikeways”
The final question asked what other roadway safety improvements the respondents would like to see in Sebastopol.
Some of the responses were:
− “Sidewalk along Ragle Rd”
− “I would like a roadway that functions as a roadway. I’m convinced that Sebastopol's plan is to make it so miserable to drive there that everyone stays away.”
− “City needs to monitor and improve site limits along streets” − “Pave bodega Ave!!!! It’s the most traveled road and one of the worst roads in the county!!!” − “Smart urban planning that prioritizes non-vehicular centric, high density, low income, mixed use residential within the city core. Thus, remaining consistent with the priorities of the general plan.”
5.1.3 Draft LRSP Document
The Draft LRSP document was posted on the project website for comments from March 24, 2022 to April 8, 2022.
There were a total of 22 commentors with several comments. In addition, there were some comments sent to City Council and City staff. All comments are included and addressed in Appendix A.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 29 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
6. Identify Strategies
Through coordination and feedback from the City of Sebastopol, LRSP working group, and public outreach, safety projects and strategies were identified for the Local Road Safety Plan. Countermeasure development was coordinated with the City to collect feedback and identify recommended countermeasures.
The LRSP will reference specific location engineering projects and systemic safety applications. In addition, safety strategies and projects that address the other E’s to include Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies will be discussed below.
6.1 Engineering Strategies
Per the HSIP program, engineering countermeasures are available for grant funding. In accordance with the most recent HSIP Cycle (Cycle 10), the approved countermeasures and crash reduction benefits were quantified in the HSIP Analyzer. The recommended countermeasures for the nine (9) priority intersections are presented below. Since the next HSIP Cycle 11 is in 2022, further safety analysis should be conducted at that time in refining the collision data and subsequent safety projects and Benefit to Cost Ratios (BCRs).
Countermeasures were evaluated and prioritized based on benefit to cost ratios as prescribed in Caltrans most recent Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM). The benefit value of a crash is the expected reduction in crashes with the countermeasure and the associated costs with the crash. Caltrans has opted to use 5 years of observed crashes in estimating future expected crashes. A benefit in reduction of cost can include benefits derived from savings of societal cost (emergency response, medical cost, and property damage). Cost associated with a project is based on planning level estimates of construction cost, planning and environmental cost and costs associated with right-of-way and utilities.
6.1.1 City Intersection Projects
The locations and characteristics of the nine (9) priority intersections on City roadways are shown in Table 7 below.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 30 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 7 Priority Intersection Characteristics
The countermeasures recommended for these locations are presented in Table 8.
Primary Road Secondary Road Control Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes Top Type of
Collision
(Number of
Collisions)
Top Violation
Category (Number
of Collisions) Fatal + Severe Injury % at Night Wet Ped Bike Involv. w/Fixed Object Pedestrian Not in Crosswalk Alcohol Involved Dark with No Streetlights City Jurisdiction
Bodega Ave Ragle Rd TWSC 577 5 Veh-Ped (2) Pedestrian Violation (2) 1 20% 0 2 0 0 0 2 0
Bodega Ave Nelson Wy TWSC 43 5 Rear end (3) Unsafe speed (3) 1 40% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pleasant Hill Ave Valentine Ave AWSC 36 3 Broadside (3) Traffic Signals and Signs (2) 1 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Robinson Rd Leland St TWSC 29 1 Broadside (1) DUI (1) 1 100% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Morris St Laguna Park Way TWSC 29 1 Broadside (1) Improper Turning (1) 1 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bodega Ave Jewell Ave/Dutton
Ave Signal 23 8
Rear end (3), Hit
Object (3) Unsafe speed (4) 0 38% 1 0 0 3 0 1 0
N Main St Analy Ave TWSC 29 4
Head on (1),
Sideswipe (1),
Broadside (1),
Veh-Ped (1)
Wrong Side of Road
(1), Improper Turning
(1), Auto Right of Way
(1), Unknown (1)
0 25% 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Bodega Ave Pleasant Hill Ave Signal 19 4 Rear end (3) Unsafe speed (3) 0 25% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wallace St Bonnardel Ave TWSC 23 3
Head on (1),
Rear end (1),
Broadside (1)
Wrong Side of Road
(1), Improper Turning
(1), Traffic Signals and
Signs (1)
0 33% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Crash Characteristics
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 31 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 8 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Intersections Some of the proposed countermeasures at City intersections are highlighted below.
Intersection Control Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes Top Type of Collision Countermeasure Number1 CRF
1 Funding Eligibility1
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
Bodega Ave /
Ragle Rd TWSC 577 5 Veh-Ped (2) - - -
Bodega Ave /
Nelson Wy TWSC 43 5 Rear end (3) - - -
NS21PB 35% 100% Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Current crossings are not in optimum locations at the
intersection due to the existing curb ramps and intersection skew, causes sight distance issues and cars queue back
into crosswalk on west leg as the stop bar is set in front of crosswalk. Potentially reconstruct curbs to accommodate.
Also located in close proximity to school
NS06 15% 100% Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
2 collisions that were sign related - violation for running the stop signs. May benefit from larger signs
NS07 25% 100% Upgrade intersection pavement markings Only very narrow stop bar that is faded on Leland St, could benefit from wider stop bar
NS11 20% 90% Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Sight distance issue from Leland St
Morris St /
Laguna Park
Way
TWSC 29 1 Broadside (1) NS02 50% 100%
Evaluate conversion to all-way STOP control (from
2-way or Yield control)2
1 broadside collision, drivers use Morris St as a cut through and speed, would slow down traffic and reduce conflict. *This intersection will need to meet CA MUTCD multi-way stop control warrants.
S02 15% 100%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
4 unsafe speed collisions and 3 rear end collisions, 3
nighttime collisions, retroreflective borders will increase visibility of signal
S03 15% 50% Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) 3 rear end collisions, 2 traffic signals and signs violations S08 30% 100% Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestalmounted) Signal heads on Dutton are pedestal mounted, complex
geometry on these legs would benefit from mast arm
S09 10% 100% Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
1 improper turning collision, complex geometry may confuse drivers turning
- - -
Install "Keep Clear" pavement markings in
intersection
Potential back up of vehicles into intersection trying to enter the school drop off driveway
NS01 40% 100% Add intersection lighting 1 nighttime collision, no lighting to cover whole intersection NS11 20% 90% Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
Horizontal curve on north leg makes intersection sight
distance from Analy to vehicles on N Main difficult, drivers may pull out into oncoming traffic
NS06 15% 100% Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Stop sign on Analy Ave, Analy Ave is mostly a parking lot but it's unclear if there are two entrances or just one - install signage to clarify
NS07 15% 100% Upgrade intersection pavement markings No existing stop bar on Analy, no yield markings at existing crossing on south leg of N Main St.
S02 15% 100%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
3 rear end collisions, 3 unsafe speed collisions, and 1 nighttime collision, retroreflective borders will increase visibility of signal
S03 15% 50% Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation)
3 rear end collisions and 3 unsafe speed collisions, drivers potentially approaching signal too quickly
- - - Install larger advanced signal warning sign
WB leg of Bodega Ave has a crest vertical curve, drivers not expecting stopped traffic or signal. Only install on WB leg as EB leg already has flashing beacon.
- - -
Enforcement during school start and dismissal
times
Located within close proximity to the high school. Students and parents use this as a cut through to the parking lot, drivers use Wallace St as a cut through to Main St
- - - Install centerlines on intersection approaches
1 head on collision, no existing centerlines. Will keep vehicles on the appropriate side of the road at the
intersection
1 Subject to change with HSIP Cycle 11
2 Intersection must meet CA MUTCD warrants to implement countermeasure Pedestrian crossing improvements occurred at this intersection in 2018 Improvements occurred at this intersection in late 2018/early 2019 with the installation of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Broadside (3)
1 Broadside (1)
City Jurisdiction
3 N Main St /
Analy Ave TWSC 29 4
Pleasant Hill
Ave / Valentine
Ave
AWSC 36
Robinson Rd /
Leland St TWSC 29
Wallace St /
Bonnardel Ave TWSC 23 3
Rear end (3),
Hit Object (3)
Head on (1),
Rear end (1),
Broadside (1)
Bodega Ave /
Jewell
Ave/Dutton Ave
Signal 23 8
Head on (1),
Sideswipe (1),
Broadside (1),
Veh-Ped (1)
Bodega Ave /
Pleasant Hill
Ave
Signal 19 4 Rear end (3)
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 32 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
6.1.2 City Segment Projects
Through the analysis period there were 111 collisions reported on City of Sebastopol roadway segments (nonintersection related). A breakdown of roadway collisions on City streets are included in Appendix C: Collision Data.
Segment countermeasures were developed in the same manner as the intersections. Six (6) priority segments on City roadways were chosen based on EPDO and collision frequency. These priority segments and their characteristics are shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9 Priority Segment Characteristics
Primary Road Limits Length
(mi) Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes
Top Type of
Collision
(Number of
Collisions)
Top Violation
Category
(Number of
Collisions) Fatal + Severe Injury % at Night Wet Ped Pedestrian Not in Crosswalk Bike Involv. w/Parked Car Involv. w/Fixed Object Alcohol Involved City Jurisdiction
Bodega Ave Washington Ave to
Main St 0.29 94 19 Rear end (8) Unsafe Speed (5) 0 42% 2 0 0 0 6 4 3 Bodega Ave W City Limit to
Ragle Rd 0.28 52 4
Broadside (1),
Hit Object (1),
Overturned (1),
Veh-Ped (1)
Wrong side of road
(3) 1 0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Bodega Ave Pleasant Hill Ave to
Virginia Ave 0.24 44 6 Rear end (5) Unsafe Speed (4) 1 33% 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 Ragle Rd Ragle Ranch Rd to
Bodega Ave 0.51 36 3 Rear end (2) Wrong side of road (2) 1 33% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Morris St Community Center
Prking Lot to SR 12 0.35 32 4
Head on (1),
Sideswipe (1),
Hit Object (1),
Other (1)
Wrong side of road
(1), Improper
turning (1), Unsafe
Starting or Backing
(1), Not stated (1)
1 50% 0 0 0 1 2 1 0
Burnett St High St to
Petaluma Ave 0.13 4 4
Head on (1),
Rear end (1),
Broadside (1),
Hit Object (1)
Unsafe Starting or
Backing (2) 0 50% 0 0 0 0 3 0 1
Crash Characteristics
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 33 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
The countermeasures recommended for these locations are presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Segments Some of the proposed countermeasures along City segments are highlighted below.
Segment Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes
Top Type of
Collision Countermeasure Number
1 CRF
1 Funding Eligibility
1 Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
City Jurisdiction
R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting 8 nighttime collisions, large gap between existing lighting R27 15% 100% Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 4 hit object collisions
R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 5 unsafe speed collisions R28 25% 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines 2 wrong way collisions, current striping is botts dots R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting No existing segment lighting R04 25% 100% Install guardrails 2 run off the road collisions R27 15% 100% Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Hit object collision
R28 25% 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines 3 wrong way collisions, current striping is botts dots R30 20% 100% Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 3 wrong way collisions R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting 2 nighttime collisions R27 15% 100% Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
1 hit object collision, residents placing trash cans along curb
R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 3 unsafe speed collisions - crest vertical curve along segment causes speeding for WB downhill vehicles
R28 25% 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines 1 wrong way collision. Current striping is botts dots striping
R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting 1 nighttime collision, streetlights only at intersections R27 15% 100% Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Hit object collision, many mailboxes right along curb R28 25% 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines
2 wrong way collisions - existing striping is botts dots and difficult to see, also centerline is not in direct center of road due to parking along northbound curb
R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting 2 nighttime collisions, a couple streetlights but only at intersections
R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Drivers use this as a cut through and consistently speed along segment
R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting 2 nighttime collisions, currently only 2 streetlights along segment
R28 25% 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines One head on collision, no centerlines currently - - -
Evaluate on-street parking and where to
reduce
3 collisions involved with parked vehicles, narrow
roadway
1 Subject to change with HSIP Cycle 11
Bodega Ave
(Pleasant Hill
Ave to Virginia
Ave)
Ragle Rd
(Ragle Ranch
Rd to Bodega
Ave)
36 3 Rear end (2)
Burnett St
(High St to
Petaluma Ave)
4 4
Head on (1),
Rear end (1),
Broadside (1),
Hit Object (1)
Head on (1),
Sideswipe (1),
Hit Object (1),
Other (1)
32 4
Morris St
(Community
Center Prking
Lot to SR 12)
94 19 Rear end (8)
Bodega Ave
(Washington
Ave to Main St)
Broadside (1),
Hit Object (1),
Overturned (1),
Veh-Ped (1)
52 4
Bodega Ave (W
City Limit to
Ragle Rd)
44 6 Rear end (5)
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 34 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
6.1.3 Caltrans Intersection Projects
There were seven (7) study intersections chosen for the Caltrans roadways in Sebastopol. These priority intersections and their characteristics are shown in Table 11 below.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 35 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 11 Priority Intersection Characteristics
The countermeasures recommended for these locations are presented in Table 12.
Primary Road Secondary Road Control Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes Top Type of
Collision
(Number of
Collisions)
Top Violation
Category (Number
of Collisions) Fatal + Severe Injury % at Night Wet Ped Bike Involv. w/Fixed Object Pedestrian Not in Crosswalk Alcohol Involved Dark with No Streetlights Caltrans Jurisdiction
N Main St Bodega Ave Signal 114 18 Sideswipe (5),
Rear end (5)
Auto Right of Way (3),
Traffic Signals and
Signs (3), Unsafe
Starting or Backing (3)
2 28% 4 3 2 0 0 3 1
S Main St Burnett St TWSC 80 12 Sideswipe (5) Auto Right of Way (4) 1 17% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 N Main St Keating Ave TWSC 68 5 Other/Bicycle (3) Improper Turning (2) 1 0% 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Petaluma Ave Sebastopol Ave Signal 62 12 Sideswipe (4), Rear End (4) Improper Turning (4) 0 17% 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Healdsburg Ave Murphy Ave TWSC 59 6 Broadside (2) Auto Right of Way (2) 1 0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 McKinley St Laguna Park Way TWSC 42 12 Sideswipe (3),
Hit Object (3) Unsafe Speed (3) 0 50% 2 2 1 3 0 1 0
N Main St Wallace St TWSC 53 10 Broadside (4)
DUI (2), Improper
Turning (2), Auto Right
of Way (2)
1 30% 1 0 1 4 0 2 0
Crash Characteristics
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 36 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 12 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Intersections
6.1.4 Caltrans Segment Projects
There were six (6) study segments chosen on Caltrans roadways in Sebastopol. These priority segments and their characteristics are shown in Table 13 below.
Intersection Control Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes Top Type of Collision Countermeasure Number1 CRF
1 Funding Eligibility1
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
S02 15% 100%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
5 rear end collisions, 5 nighttime collisions, retroreflective borders will increase visibility of signal
S03 15% 50% Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation)
5 rear end collisions, 3 auto right of way collision, 3 traffic signals and signs violations. Improving all red time can help clear intersection and reduce conflicts between late vehicles NS21PB 35% 100% Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Very minimal signage for existing crosswalks on S Main St. 1 ped right of way collision. Identified improvements in SR 116 Safety Study include signage, ped activated warning signs, and curb extensions
NS01 40% 100% Add intersection lighting
2 nighttime collisions, only have existing overhead lighting on one leg. Other legs have lamp posts that do not appear to light up the roadway properly
- - - Evaluate removal of parking close to intersection Recommended on Burnett St through segment mitigations.
Evaluate removal of one or two spots on S Main St to
increase the distance one can see on coming vehicles
- - -
Install bike conflict markings through intersection
and at Rite Aid driveway adjacent 3 bicycle collisions
- - -
Evaluate closure or restriction of movements of
Rite Aid driveway
Very close proximity to intersection. Increases number of conflict points. Difficult to see turning vehicles from Keating and vice versa
S02 15% 100%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
4 rear end collisions, 2 nighttime collisions, retroreflective borders will increase visibility of signal
S03 15% 50% Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation)
3 broadside collisions, 3 traffic signals and signs violations.
Improving timing will help clear the intersection and reduce conflicts
NS11 20% 90% Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
2 broadside collisions due to auto right of way. Buildings and vegetation on the corners may be blocking view of
vehicles
NS06 15% 100% Install other intersection warning/regulatory signs No existing intersection warning signs. Murphy seems to appear out of no where due to surrounding buildings
blocking the view of the street
NS21PB 35% 100% Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Existing ped crossing has one flashing beacon but only
facing WB direction. Does not alert cars coming from the west traveling EB. One ped collision here
NS01 40% 100% Add intersection lighting
2 nighttime collisions, only have existing overhead lighting on one leg. Other legs have lamp posts that do not appear to light up the roadway properly
NS11 20% 90% Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
Vegetation and parking along N Main St seem to block view of oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. Location of multiple public comments
- - -
Evaluate removal of parking in front of the
Masonic Center
Existing parking here appears to block view of oncoming vehicles and pedestrians for turning vehicles from Wallace St.
1 Subject to change with HSIP Cycle 11
53 10 Broadside (4)
The installation of a Pedestian Hybrid Beacon (or HAWK) is planned for this intersection on the south leg.
TWSC
Other/Bicycle
(3)
Sideswipe (5)
Caltrans Jurisdiction
N Main St /
Bodega Ave Signal 114 18 Sideswipe (5), Rear end (5)
N Main St /
Wallace St
Sideswipe (3),
Hit Object (3) TWSC 42 12
McKinley St /
Laguna Park
Way
Petaluma Ave /
Sebastopol Ave
TWSC 59 6 Broadside (2)
Healdsburg
Ave / Murphy
Ave
Sideswipe (4),
Rear End (4) Signal 62 12
N Main St /
Keating Ave TWSC 68 5
TWSC 80 12 S Main St /
Burnett St
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 37 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 13 Priority Segment Characteristics
The countermeasures recommended for these locations are presented in Table 14.
Table 14 Recommended Countermeasures for Priority Segments
6.1.5 Identified Challenge/Emphasis Areas
Per the SHSP, the identified challenge/emphasis areas for the LRSP were as follows:
1. Bicycling – Bicycling safety countermeasures/projects were recommended at multiple locations.
2. Intersections – Projects were identified for the top intersections with collision severity and frequency.
Primary Road Limits Length
(mi) Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes
Top Type of
Collision
(Number of
Collisions)
Top Violation
Category (Number
of Collisions) Fatal + Severe Injury % at Night Wet Ped Pedestrian Not in Crosswalk Bike Involv. w/Parked Car Involv. w/Fixed Object Alcohol Involved Caltrans
Sebastopol Ave Brown St to Morris
St 0.16 106 16 Rear End (7) Unsafe Speed (4) 0 25% 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 SR 116 Hurlbut Ave to
Covert Ln 0.19 62 9 Rear End (5) Following Too Closely (3) 1 22% 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 Sebastopol Ave Morris St to E City
Limit 0.37 53 13 Rear end (11) Unsafe Speed (6) 0 15% 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 Healdsburg Ave Pitt Ave to N Main
St 0.09 50 10 Broadside (6) Auto Right of Way (7) 0 0% 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 SR 116 Petaluma Ave to
Hutchins Ave 0.14 49 9
Rear end (3), Hit
Object (3) Unsafe Speed (5) 0 22% 2 0 0 1 1 3 0
SR 116 Hutchins Ave to
Fircrest Ave 0.20 32 12 Rear end (8) Unsafe Speed (7) 0 8% 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 Crash Characteristics
Segment Relative Severity (EPDO) Total Crashes
Top Type of
Collision Countermeasure Number
1 CRF
1 Funding Eligibility
1 Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
Caltrans Jurisdiction
Sebastopol Ave
(Brown St to
Morris St)
106 16 Rear End (7) R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 4 unsafe speed collisions R01 35% 100% Add segment lighting 2 nighttime collisions R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Rear ends as a result of speeding and following too closely
Sebastopol Ave
(Morris St to E
City Limit)
53 13 Rear end (11) R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 6 unsafe speed collisions Healdsburg Ave
(Pitt Ave to N
Main St)
50 10 Broadside (6) - - - Evaluate sight distance at major driveways 6 broadside collisions SR 116
(Petaluma Ave
to Hutchins
Ave)
49 9
Rear end (3),
Hit Object (3) R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 5 unsafe speed collisions SR 116
(Hutchins Ave
to Fircrest Ave)
32 12 Rear end (8) R26 30% 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 7 unsafe speed collisions 1 Subject to change with HSIP Cycle 11
62 9 Rear End (5)
SR 116 (Hurlbut
Ave to Covert
Ln)
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 38 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
3. Pedestrians – Providing pedestrian accommodations to include crossing enhancements. Other locations for pedestrian improvements are identified in the engineering strategies. Non-engineering strategies to improve pedestrian safety will be discussed in a later section of the report.
4. Distracted Driving – Prevention of distracted roadway usage is addressed though education and enforcement component of the non-engineering strategies. These strategies can be communicated through the police department, social media channels, and through the schools.
5. Aggressive Driving – Aggressive driving can include improper speeds, improper turning and improper passing. Engineering strategies were identified for intersections and segments at locations where these issues were identified. Non-engineering strategies to prevent aggressive driving includes enforcement in selective areas with a speed management education campaign.
6.1.6 Systemic Safety Countermeasures
When selecting countermeasures, just focusing on locations with a current collision issue is a reactive approach to roadway safety planning. A reactive approach targets recent hot-spots and specific problems that are associated with these locations; as a result of this approach, locations with low traffic volumes but with similar safety issues as hot spot locations are not addressed. In order to mitigate collisions in a both a reactive and proactive approach, Caltrans’ Local Road Safety Manual suggests agencies utilize a comprehensive approach that includes systemic and hot spot location improvements in developing a safety plan.
Some systemic safety countermeasures options at intersections for the current high-risk roadway characteristics are listed below:
Table 15 Recommended Systemic Countermeasures
6.1.7 Active Transportation
Sebastopol has an active walking and biking community, with many multimodal improvements already on the roadways or in planning and design. In evaluating future transportation projects, it is important to look for opportunities to incorporate facilities and safety improvements for bicycle, pedestrians, and transit, including evaluating protected Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 39 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. bicycle and pedestrian pathways. This will help to provide a safe alternative to driving and reduce greenhouse gases while increasing the health and vitality of the community.
6.2 Non-Engineering Strategies
A comprehensive approach to selecting countermeasure recognizes that not all safety issues can be addressed through infrastructure improvement. The comprehensive approach to safety involves the 5 E’s of traffic safety. Besides engineering safety countermeasures, it is important to recommend safety countermeasures to coincide with the other safety E’s.
6.2.1 Education
Education strategies are listed below.
− Pedestrian education campaign
− Bicyclist education and resources
o Partner with Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
− Driver education through distracted driving campaigns − Safe Routes to School maps and outreach at schools
− Social media blasts with quick education tools for all users − Dangers of speeding/speed management campaigns
The California Office of Traffic Safety has resources that can be used by the City to help in traffic safety education for residents. Some campaigns highlighted in their website include impaired driving, distracted driving, pedestrian & bicycle safety, and speeding. The website provides educational materials, safety tips, facts, and resources to use in educating the public on traffic safety.
6.2.2 Emerging Technologies
Possible emerging technologies strategies are listed below. − ITS infrastructure, web/mobile application (apps) and smart cities practices − Upgraded controllers for flashing yellow arrows and leading pedestrian intervals as needed − Installing touchless Accessible Pedestrian Signals
− Crash warning system
− Changeable message signs
− Bicycle detection at signalized intersection through video detection
6.2.3 Enforcement
Enforcement strategies are listed below.
− Targeted speed enforcement
− Focused DUI check points or routine stops
− Increasing number of traffic enforcement officers
o Possible through grants/OTS funding
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 40 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. − Distracted driving enforcement
6.2.4 Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies are suggested below.
− Emergency vehicle preemption at signalized intersections − Improve and maintain access for emergency response vehicles Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 41 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
7. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies
7.1 Funding Sources
The City of Sebastopol can look for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements with the Capital Improvement Program. However, it is noted that funding is very limited and typically used from roadway paving. Additional funding opportunities can come through grant funding to include HSIP, ATP, OBAG, and CMAQ.
The primary source of potential funding for projects recommended in this plan is HSIP funding. Each cycle has available project funding for Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) and funding set-aside projects. BCR projects use expected benefit and estimated cost to determine eligibility and likelihood for receiving funding. The expected benefit is determined using the crash history and the predicted collision reduction from the recommended countermeasures. On the other hand, funding set-aside projects do not require a collision history. Per the last call for HSIP projects (closed November 2020), the set-aside countermeasures available to agencies consisted of guardrail upgrades, pedestrian crossing enhancements, installing edgelines, and tribal land. These set-aside countermeasures could be applied at multiple locations (systemically) as long as the requested funding was within the amount available per agency.
ATP funding for engineering projects is primarily for installing or improving non-mobilized transportation infrastructure.
Projects are more likely to receive this type of funding if it helps to increase the number of walkers and bikers, in a disadvantaged community, or improves the safety of children, specifically at school zones. Ultimately, the goal of this type of funding is to increase the use of active transportation.
7.2 Prioritized Projects
In evaluating how to implement safety projects, prioritized lists of projects are included below. Table 15 contains a prioritized list of the proposed intersection projects on City roadways based on their respective benefit to cost ratios.
Table 16 shows a prioritized list of the proposed segment projects for City roadway segment based on the benefit to cost ratios. All benefit to cost ratios were calculated using the 2016 to 2020, 5-year collision period. While 2015 had more collisions, 2020 saw higher severity collisions as shown in Figure 9 in Section 4.2.1. These tables also show potential funding opportunities.
In addition, the last HSIP call for projects, Cycle 10, the awarded projects through the BCR application started at a BCR of 12. Even though the minimum for the grant application was a BCR of 3.5, the projects submitted were very competitive. Some of this was due to funding shortfalls with COVID lockdowns and the HSIP grant application deadline extension which allowed more agencies to submit. Therefore, the maximum project cost is also included for a BCR of 10.
Low-cost systemic countermeasures are preferred by Caltrans in the HSIP process. Therefore, with locations with high BCRs, it is recommended to add other similar high-risk locations that could benefit from the same countermeasures in applying the improvements systemically. This approach will reduce the BCR but provide a more competitive application.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 42 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 16 Priority of City Intersection Projects
Intersection Recommended Countermeasures Max Project Cost for B/C Ratio of 10 Preliminary B/C Ratio Total Expected Benefit Preliminary Estimated Project Cost* HSIP Funding Reimbursement Ratio HSIP Set-Aside** Other Potential Funding Sources
City Jurisdiction
Morris St / Laguna
Park Way
Evaluate conversion to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)* $252,862 129.7 $2,528,615 $19,500 100%
Upgrade intersection pavement markings 100%
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) 90% Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 100% PCE ATP
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs 100%
Add intersection lighting 100%
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) 90% Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs 100%
Upgrade intersection pavement markings 100%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 100%
Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) 50% Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) 100% Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through
Intersection) 100%
Install "Keep Clear" pavement markings in intersection - Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 100%
Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) 50% Install larger advanced signal warning sign -
Wallace St /
Bonnardel Ave Install centerlines on intersection approaches $0 0.0 $0 $6,500 - Caltrans Jurisdiction
Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) 90%
Install other intersection warning/regulatory signs 100% Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 100% PCE
McKinley St /
Laguna Park Way Add intersection lighting $64,829 6.6 $648,285 $97,500 100% Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) 90%
Evaluate removal of parking in front of the Masonic Center - Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 100%
Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) 50% Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 100%
Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) 50% Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 100% PCE
Add intersection lighting 100%
Evaluate removal of parking close to intersection -
Install bike conflict markings through intersection and at Rite Aid driveway adjacent -
Evaluate closure or restriction of movements of Rite Aid driveway - 1 Non-engineering countermeasure
2 Not HSIP Cycle 10 countermeasure
3 Not included in project benefit, as HSIP applications limit the number of countermeasures to 3 * Includes 30% contingency
**PCE = Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
1.2 0.0
4.8 42.4
4.9 $126,451
$208,000
$19,500
$78,000
$117,000
$26,000 N Main St /
Wallace St
$28,168 3.6 $281,676 $78,000
$24,767
$0
$37,425
$495,828
$12,645
$247,665
$0
$374,254
$4,958,277
N Main St / Bodega
Ave
S Main St / Burnett
St
N Main St / Keating
Ave
Petaluma Ave /
Sebastopol Ave
Healdsburg Ave /
Murphy Ave
Pleasant Hill Ave /
Valentine Ave $78,683 7.6 $786,829 $104,000
Bodega Ave /
Jewell Ave/Dutton
Ave
$42,239 2.2 $422,385 $188,500
Robinson Rd /
Leland St $202,289 77.8 $2,022,892 $26,000
Bodega Ave /
Pleasant Hill Ave $8,631 1.1 $86,312 $79,300
N Main St / Analy
Ave $47,429 3.6 $474,286 $130,000
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 43 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Table 17 Priority of City Segment Projects
Segment Recommended Countermeasures Max Project Cost for B/C Ratio of 10 Preliminary B/C Ratio Total Expected Benefit Preliminary Estimated Project Cost* HSIP Funding Reimbursement Ratio HSIP Set-Aside** Other Funding Sources
City Jurisdiction
Add segment lighting 100%
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 100%
Install edge-lines and centerlines 100% E
Add segment lighting 100%
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 100% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 100% E
Install edge-lines and centerlines 100%
Add segment lighting 100%
Install guardrails 100% G
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines 100% E
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 100%
Add segment lighting 100%
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 100%
Add segment lighting 100%
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 100% Install edge-lines and centerlines 100% E
Add segment lighting 100%
Install edge-lines and centerlines 100%
Evaluate on-street parking and where to reduce - E
Caltrans Jurisdiction
Sebastopol Ave
(Brown St to Morris
St)
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs $83,498 32.1 $834,983 $26,000 100% Add segment lighting 100%
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 100%
Sebastopol Ave
(Morris St to E City
Limit)
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs $42,427 16.3 $424,268 $26,000 100% SR 116 (Petaluma
Ave to Hutchins
Ave)
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs $38,865 14.9 $388,648 $26,000 100% SR 116 (Hutchins
Ave to Fircrest
Ave)
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs $25,786 9.9 $257,859 $26,000 100% Healdsburg Ave
(Pitt Ave to N Main
St)
Evaluate sight distance at major driveways $0 0.0 $0 $19,500 - 1 Non-engineering countermeasure
2 Not HSIP Cycle 10 countermeasure
3 Not included in project benefit, as HSIP applications limit the number of countermeasures to 3 * Includes 30% contingency
**G = Upgrade Guardrail, E = Install Edgelines
$168,809 17.3 $1,688,094 $97,500 SR 116 (Hurlbut
Ave to Covert Ln)
Bodega Ave
(Washington Ave
to Main St)
$207,656 16.8 $2,076,561 $123,484
Bodega Ave
(Pleasant Hill Ave
to Virginia Ave)
$462,161 32.2 $4,621,606 $143,655
Bodega Ave (W
City Limit to Ragle
Rd)
$397,846 16.8 $3,978,462 $237,453
Morris St
(Community Center $398,934 25.8 $3,989,336 $154,700
Ragle Rd (Ragle
Ranch Rd to
Bodega Ave)
$167,038 7.5 $1,670,376 $223,855
Burnett St (High St
to Petaluma Ave) $5,915 0.9 $59,154 $65,192
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 44 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
8. Evaluation Process
To evaluate the success of this plan, yearly collision analysis, along with requests for public feedback, can take place and be compared to the established goals.
Goal 1
Strive to achieve zero deaths and life altering injuries on local roadways.
Measure of Success: There is a reduction of fatal and severe injury collisions on Sebastopol roadways over a 5-year period.
Goal 2
Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
Measure of Success: A downward trend of pedestrian and bicycle collisions in a 5-year period.
Goal 3
Create a healthy and happy community with equitable and safe transportation systems.
Measure of Success: There is a noticeable increase in residents creating healthy transportation routines after the implementation of safe systems. This can be measured through a public survey.
Goal 4
Foster a sense of community that is safe for all users.
Measure of Success: Residents express a feeling a safety in their community. This can be tracked through a public survey.
Goal 5
Increased safety with roadway infrastructure improvements.
Measure of Success: There is a downward trend of collisions after the implementation of roadway improvements.
Goal 6
Identify countermeasures to correlate to emphasis areas (5-E’s) Measure of Success: Countermeasures that correlate to the emphasis areas are implemented throughout the city.
Goal 7
Increase walking, biking, rolling (wheelchair, skateboard, scooter, etc.) to downtown district, to work, and to school.
Measure of Success: The number of residents choosing active transportation more often noticeably increases. This can be captured through a public survey.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 45 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
9. Next Steps
The City of Sebastopol plans to send the Local Road Safety Plan to City Council for adoption on May 3, 2022. This safety plan will be a living document and will guide the City’s roadway safety needs for the next five years. It will be updated as needed and the goals will be monitored.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 46 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
10. References
Traffic Data
• City of Sebastopol Collision Data, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2015-2019. • City of Sebastopol Collision Data, Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2015-2019. • Collision Reports, City of Sebastopol, 2015-2020.
Manuals
• “Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway Administration, March 2012, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/. • 2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.
• “Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5, April 2020 • “Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.
• “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014.
Websites
• California Department of Transportation, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/shsp.
• California Department of Transportation, “Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highwaysafety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans. • California Department of Transportation, “HSIP Cycle 10”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fedand-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/apply-now. • City of Sebastopol Local Road Safety Plan, https://lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/Sebastopol.
Surveys
• Local Road Safety Plan Project Survey, https://lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/Sebastopol.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 47 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Appendix A
Stakeholder and Public Input
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Meeting Summary
The Power of Commitment
11222175 1
November 30, 2021
Author Kathryn Kleinschmidt Project no. 11222175
Meeting info September 30, 2021 from 1 p.m. to 3
p.m.
Subject Sebastopol Local Road Safety Plan –
Working Group Meeting #1 Summary
The following is GHD’s understanding of the discussions and decisions for the above referenced meeting.
Please notify GHD of any discrepancies in the information recorded.
This meeting record has been prepared to serve as documentation for the virtual meeting conducted on November 30, 2021, via Microsoft Teams platform. A PowerPoint presentation was used to focus the discussion.
All participants attending virtually, no sign-in sheet was circulated. Rather, the list of attendees will be provided at the end of this document.
1. Introductions
a. Safety Champion/City Engineer – Joe Gaffney
b. LRSP Stakeholder Working Group members
i. Role and interest in serving on this committee
2. Background
a. LRSP Process
i. Focused Challenge Areas per Strategic Safety Highway Plan b. Purpose of LRSP
i. Engages stakeholders representing all E’s and other local community stakeholders (neighboring jurisdictions, advocacy groups, and officials) in developing a plan of action to increase safety and create a prioritized list of projects.
3. Data Analysis
a. Collision Analysis
i. Past 6 complete years (2015-2020)
1. City Roadway Collisions vs. Caltrans Roadway Collisions
2. Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Locations
3. Collision Lighting
4. Top Violation Categories
5. Pedestrian Collisions
6. Bicycle Collisions
ii. Top ranking intersections and segments
1. Top Citywide Intersections
a. Bodega Ave and Ragle Rd*
b. Bodega Ave and Nelson Rd*
c. Pleasant Hill Ave and Valentine Ave
d. Robinson Rd and Leland St
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
The Power of Commitment
11222175 2
e. Morris St and Laguna Park Way
f. Bodega Ave and Dutton Ave
g. N Main St and Analy Ave
h. Bodega Ave and Pleasant Hill Ave
i. Wallace St and Bonnardel Ave
*Study intersection has improvements recently completed
2. Top Caltrans Intersections
a. N Main St and Bodega Ave
b. S Main St and Burnett St
c. N Main St and Berry Ln
d. Petaluma Ave and Sebastopol Ave
e. Healdsburg Ave and Murphy Ave
f. McKinley St and Laguna Park Way
g. N Main St and Wallace St
3. Top Citywide Segments
a. Bodega Ave (Washington Ave to Main St)
b. Bodega Ave (W City Limit to Ragle Rd)
c. Bodega Ave (Pleasant Hill Ave to Virginia Ave)
d. Ragle Rd (Ragle Ranch Rd to Bodega Ave)
e. Morris St (Community Center Parking Lot to SR 12)
f. Burnett St (High St to Petaluma Ave)
4. Top Caltrans Segments
a. Sebastopol Ave (Brown St to Morris St)
b. SR 116 (Hurlbut Ave to Covert Ln)
c. Sebastopol Ave (Morris St to E City Limit)
d. Healdsburg Ave (Pitt Ave to N Main St)
e. SR 116 (Petaluma Ave to Hutchins Ave)
f. SR 116 (Hutchins Ave to Fircrest Ave)
iii. Other Areas of Concern
1. Areas identified by citizen complaints/concerns
iv. Identify the approach to evaluating collisions (spot, systemic, or comprehensive).
1. Currently using a comprehensive approach
2. Implement low-cost safety countermeasures systemically b. Previous Safety Projects
i. Bodega Ave at Ragle Rd – Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
1. Pedestrian refuge installed
2. Striping improvements
3. Completed summer of 2018
ii. Bodega Ave at Nelson Way – Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
1. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) installed
2. Striping improvements
3. Completed winter 2018/2019
iii. SR 116 Bike Lanes Striping Project
1. Completed with Caltrans pavement overlay project in 2019
2. City still needs to complete curb ramps
c. Planned Safety Projects
i. SR 116 Corridor Safety Study
1. Add sidewalks along northern SR 116
2. Intersection improvements to Healdsburg Ave/Covert Ln
3. Currently conceptual drawings
4. Awaiting funding
ii. SR 116 and Danmar Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
1. Caltrans funded project
2. Provide safer crossing for students walking to nearby charter school
3. In design phase
iii. Bodega Ave Bike Lane Striping
1. Connecting existing bike lanes and expanding bike routes down Bodega Ave Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
The Power of Commitment
11222175 3
2. Project still in development
3. Phase I (High St to Nelson Way) scheduled for construction in 2022
4. Remaining phase (Nelson Way to Pleasant Hill Rd) not yet funded d. Stakeholder Input
i. Invite additional stakeholders – CHP and Caltrans
ii. Look at better connection to existing multiuse trails iii. Pleasant Hill is used as an alt. bike route to SR 116 – consider improvements here iv. Sebastopol has significant pass-through trips – how can we improve roadway safety for these and local users?
4. Vision, Goals, and Priorities
a. Identify a vision, goals, and mission statement for the LRSP i. LRSP needs a vision, goals, and mission statement to guide the document. ii. Identify countermeasures to correlate to emphasis area
1. Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Response, Education, and Emerging Technologies (5Es)
b. HSIP grant funding for safety projects
i. Prioritize based on B/C ratio and citizen feedback?
1. GHD will quantify estimated benefits through the HSIP Analyzer / Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual and include results in the LRSP.
5. How Will the Plan be Updated and Monitored?
a. Living document that is updated as needed
b. Official update every 5 years.
c. LRSP schedule for completion
6. Other Items to Discuss
a. Public Outreach
b. Next Meeting
Next Steps
• Social Pinpoint Public Outreach website to be set live soon • Survey for feedback on Vision, Mission Statement, and Goals sent out to stakeholders • Stakeholder Working Group meeting 2 set tentatively for January 2022 List of Attendees
1. Kari Svanstrom – City of Sebastopol Planning Director
2. Joe Gaffey – City Engineer
3. Kevin Kilgore – Sebastopol Chief of Police
4. Brent Ono – Sebastopol Unified School District Facility Supervisor
5. Eris Weaver – Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Executive Director
6. Steven Schmitz – Sonoma County Transit
7. Seana Gause – Sonoma County Transportation Authority
8. Kathryn Kleinschmidt – GHD
9. Kiera Bryant – GHD
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Meeting Summary
The Power of Commitment
11222175 1
February 03, 2022
Author Kathryn Kleinschmidt Project no. 11222175
Meeting info February 3, 2022, from 10am to 12 pm Subject Sebastopol Local Road Safety Plan – Working Group Meeting #2 Summary
The following is GHD’s understanding of the discussions and decisions for the above referenced meeting.
Please notify GHD of any discrepancies in the information recorded.
This meeting record has been prepared to serve as documentation for the virtual meeting conducted on February 3, 2022, via Microsoft Teams platform. A PowerPoint presentation was used to focus the discussion.
All participants attending virtually, no sign-in sheet was circulated. Rather, the list of attendees will be provided at the end of this document.
1. Introductions
a. Safety Champion/City Engineer – Mario Landeros
b. LRSP Stakeholder Working Group members
2. 1
st Meeting Summary
a. Meeting summary
i. Challenge/emphasis areas
1. Bicyclists
2. Pedestrians
3. Intersections
4. Aggressive Driving / Speeding
5. Distracted Driving
ii. Sample mission, vision, and goals
iii. Collision analysis from past 6 years
b. Guiding principles
i. Mission
ii. Vision
1. Option 2 preferred by group
iii. Add motto
1. Walk safe. Bike safe. Drive safe. Safety for all.
iv. Goals
1. Added 2 goals: Create a healthy and happy community with equitable and safe transportation systems. Foster a sense of community that is safe for all users.
2. Going to rework a few goals so all goals are cohesive.
3. Recent Developments
a. Recent projects
i. LED Pedestrian Activated Warning Signs
b. Public website engagement
i. Promotion
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
The Power of Commitment
11222175 2
ii. Overall engagement
1. 66 unique stakeholder, 122 comments, 22 survey responses iii. Summarized interactive map comments
1. Driving comment was top comment type
2. Top comment locations:
a. N Main St at Wallace Ave
b. SR 116 and SR 12 intersections
c. SR 116 and Palm Ave intersections
d. Jewell Ave and Bodega Ave
e. Bodega Ave between Washington Ave and SR 116
f. SR 116 and Fellers Ln
iv. Summarized survey results
1. Main safety concern was intersections, followed by lack of infrastructure and pedestrian collisions
2. Top preferred crossing enhancement was flashing beacons
3. New/upgraded bike lanes preferred along Occidental Rd, Ragle Rd, Bodega Ave, Pleasant Hill Ave, Jewell Ave, Valentine Ave
4. School zone improvements preferred are crossing guards, bulb-outs, traffic calming structures, speed bumps
4. Safety Countermeasures
a. Methodology
b. Priority Locations
i. Intersection Countermeasures
ii. Segment Countermeasures
c. Systemic Countermeasures
d. Non-Engineering Strategies
i. Education
ii. Emerging Technologies
iii. Enforcement
iv. Emergency Response
5. Next Steps
a. Draft LRSP document
List of Attendees
• Dante Del Prete – Public Works Superintendent, City of Sebastopol • Kari Svanstrom – Planning Director, City of Sebastopol • Mario Landeros – City Engineer / Project Manager, City Consultant • Jennie Bruneman – Dir. Of Facilities and Bond Construction Management, West Sonoma County High School District
• Seana Gause – Sonoma County Transportation Authority
• Janet Spilman – Sonoma County Transportation Authority • Laurel Chambers – Sonoma County Department of Health Services • Kathryn Kleinschmidt – GHD
• Kiera Bryant – GHD
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 99
98 96
95 94
93 92
91 89 88
87 86
85 84
83 82
81 80 79
78 77
76 75
73 72
70 69
68 67
66 65
64 62
60 59
56 55
54 51
50 49
48 47
44 42
41 39 38
37 36
34 35 33
32 31
30 28
27 25
23 22
21 20
19 17
16 15
14 121
119
118
114
113
108
105
104
102
101
100
FIGURE 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Project No.
Revision No. -
11222175
Date 03/23/2022
CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984
Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI A
o N:\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\561\11222175\GIS\Maps\Working\Public Comments.mxd Data source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community. Created by: kbryant Print date: 23 Mar 2022 - 13:56
Legend
Comment Type
! Biking Comment
! Driving Comment
! Pedestrian
Comment
! School Comment
Sebastopol City
Limits
LOCATIONS OF
INTERACTIVE MAP
COMMENTS
·|}þ12
·|}þ116
·|}þ116
Valentine
Ave
Washington Ave
Bodega Ave
Pleasant Hill
Ave
Hayden Ave
Palm Ave
Morris St
Southpoint
Ave
S Main St
Leland
St
Nelson Wy
Healdsburg Ave
Fircrest Ave
Walker Petaluma Ave
Covert Ln
Ave
Florence Ave
Dutton
Ave
McKinley St
Depot St
Bodega Ave
Murphy
Ave
Eddie Ln
Johnson St
Ragle Rd
Robinson Rd
Laguna Park Way
Jewell Ave
Calder Ave
Willow St
Ellis Ct
Soll Ct
Cleveland Ave First St
Analy
Ave
Bonnardel
Ave
Maple Ave
Lynch Rd
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Interactive Map Comments
ID Created on Type Comment Up
Votes
Down
Votes Latitude Longitude Referrer View on map Response to Comment 1 12/9/2021 10:33 Pedestrian
Comment
This crosswalk is dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. There is one at the light just a few feet away. The one marked backs up traffic at the light and drivers often don’t see the pedestrians on this one. Plus there is no flashing light to indicate someone is crossing.
3 0 38.402637 -122.822854 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263859
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
planned crossing improvements with the future
development on Depot.
2 12/9/2021 10:35 Pedestrian
Comment
There should be a sidewalk on Ragle Road from the park to Mill Station Rd. People drive fast along here and there is no shoulder. I see lots of pedestrians along here (I am one of them) and there is more and more traffic along Ragle Rd. 2 0 38.409995 -122.847147 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263865
This portion of Ragle Rd is not within the city limits. The segment of Ragle Rd from Covert Ln to Bodega Ave
has been identified as a priority in this plan and may be addressed in the future.
3 12/9/2021 10:38 Pedestrian
Comment
The speed limit on this road is 25 but cars drive really fast along here. There are some driveways where it is very difficult to see if anything is coming. It’s especially bad when school gets out in the afternoon
0 0 38.41208 -122.837105 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263868
Thank you for sharing your concern. This section of
roadway is not under city jurisdiction and therefore will not be addressed by this plan. You comment will be
passed along.
4 12/9/2021 10:52 Driving
Comment Litchfield/Palm & 116 is very dangerous! Please do something! 3 0 38.394218 -122.819166 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263879
Thank you for sharing your concern. SR 116 is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
5 12/9/2021 11:39 Driving
Comment
Loud cars speed around this corner and lots of near misses of cars veering into the middle with oncoming cars. Traffic calming is greatly needed here! 1 0 38.405186 -122.823715 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263898
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving has been identified as a
focus area in this plan.
6 12/9/2021 11:43 Driving
Comment
Where the road curves in front of West County HS gym, buses and cars will park and it makes it impossible to see students entering the street to cross. Also causes a traffic back up at times. School buses may be parked here in the red zone for hours. 2 0 38.406262 -122.824273 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263899
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
not been identified as a priority but pedestrian safety is addressed. Your comment will be passed along.
7 12/9/2021 11:51 Pedestrian
Comment
I eat at Sebastopol sunshine cafe a lot and see people at the crosswalk almost hit often. There needs to be a crosswalk flashing lights at this intersection 6 0 38.401416 -122.823817 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/263901
Thank you for sharing your concern. Safety at this
intersection as well as pedestrian safety are addressed in the plan.
8 12/9/2021 16:13 Driving
Comment
Ragle Road needs both SPEED and PARKING enforcement. It’s 25mph yet majority speed down that road; cars, busses, big rigs. Parking should be residential only, every week I see park goers jet across the street without looking for cars, swing their car doors open with no care, let their kids use the street as a play ground while they unload. It’s insane!
2 1 38.407111 -122.846053 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264026
The segment of Ragle Rd from Covert Ln to Bodega
Ave has been identified as a priority in this plan and may be addressed in the future.
9 12/9/2021 19:29 Pedestrian
Comment
I've noticed several times where cars didn't see/realize pedestrians were crossing here. On the flip side I've also seen some pedestrians race across and not click the button for the light. Not sure the right solution but wanted to call out in case it's helpful.
1 0 38.391337 -122.816936 https://l.facebo
ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264105
Thank you for sharing your observations. Pedestrian
safety is addressed in this plan.
10 12/9/2021 19:31 Driving
Comment
Turning from Baker onto Bloomfield (in either direction) can be scary. Many cars are speeding around that bend so there've been some near misses. Wondering if more speed signage / flashing lights to slow down would help? I also worry as this is close to the middle school.
0 0 38.372153 -122.806112 https://l.facebo
ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264109
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this area is not within the City's jurisdiction and therefore will not be addressed by this plan. We will pass on your
comment to the County.
11 12/9/2021 19:40 Driving
Comment
No pedestrian safety lights here and if pedestrians cross, it causes traffic to back up at the intersection of hwy 12 and Petaluma Ave 2 0 38.402598 -122.822874 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264110
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
planned crossing improvements with the future
development on Depot.
12 12/9/2021 19:45 Driving
Comment
I have absolutely no idea how this left turn into the Handline parking lot got approved. It requires using the same turn lane as people making a left heading onto Fellers and causes near miss head m-on collisions daily between traffic going in opposing directions but required to utilize the same spot to make their turns. I am a resident on Fellers. This should have never been approved for commercial use into that restaurant parking lot
6 0 38.392178 -122.817641 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264115
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location will
not be covered in the LRSP as it is within Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
13 12/9/2021 19:47 Driving
Comment
People in the left lane on this one way stretch are constantly racing to get ahead and merge into the right lane to continue on hwy 116 north…it’s dangerous…more enforcement needed here
3 0 38.403626 -122.823527 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264121
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection is identified as a priority in the plan.
14 12/9/2021 20:13 Pedestrian
Comment
There is a city bus stop here that the elementary kids use, they sit on the curb with their legs hanging out into the street. Please put benches in this area for the kids who ride the daily city bus.
1 0 38.412416 -122.843424 https://m.faceb
ook.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264131
This area has not been identified as a priority location and will not be addressed in this plan but has been
discussed with transit who is aware of the issue.
15 12/10/2021 1:19 Driving
Comment
Corner of Florence Ave/Christian Society ChurchThe parking spot in front of church is a safety/traffic hazard. Obstructed views when large vehicles park there hinder view of oncoming traffic when trying to turn into Bodega Hwy. In order to see if safe to pull out you have to pull half way into oncoming lane to see. Very dangerous.
Should be made a red zone or loading zone only!
0 0 38.400973 -122.827464 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264155
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
falls in one of the identified priority segments and may be addressed by this plan.
16 12/10/2021 12:52 Driving
Comment
When traveling east on Walker Ave and crossing Petaluma Ave. the driver's view of traffic travelling north on Petaluma Ave. is restricted by cars parked on the west side of Petaluma Ave south of Walker. If one or two parking spaces were eliminated the line of sight from Walker Ave to the cars travelling north on Petaluma Ave. would be very much improved and potential collisions averted.
Also - restricting parking on the east side of Petaluma Ave would help cars entering or crossing Petaluma Ave
5 0 38.397884 -122.821076
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264367
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. This roadway
falls under Caltrans jurisdiction and any improvements
will need to be coordinated with them. Your comment
will be passed along.
17 12/10/2021 12:59 Pedestrian
Comment
When the last parking space is occupied on the east side of Main St just north of the intersection of Abbott and Main, it obscures pedestrians in the crosswalk until the last minute. Removing that last parking space would make the pedestrian crosswalk safer.
2 0 38.401111 -122.822365
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264372
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
is addressed in the LRSP but SR 116 is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
18 12/10/2021 13:08 Driving
Comment Pavement has disintegrated to the point that the ride is jarring when hitting dips 4 0 38.398149 -122.827513 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264377
Thank you for sharing your comment. Pavement
improvement is not addressed in this report but your
comment will be passed along.
19 12/10/2021 13:13 Driving
Comment
Probably the worst pavement coupled with the hill and a stop sign at the summit.
Witnessed vehicles running stop sign and becoming airborne. Possibly the worst hazard in the city.
0 0 38.390261 -122.821323
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264382
Thank you for sharing your comment. Pavement
improvement is not addressed in this report but your
comment will be passed along.
20 12/10/2021 13:19 Driving
Comment
This section of Palm Ave should be blocked or made one way east to west. As with most stop signs in Sebastopol, people do not stop entering 116 north from Palm. 3 0 38.395836 -122.819998 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264389
Thank you for your suggestion. This segment is not
addressed in this report buy your comment will be
passed along.
21 12/10/2021 13:23 Pedestrian
Comment This stretch of Bodega needs sidewalks 1 0 38.39809 -122.835941 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264391
Thank you for your suggestion. This segment of Bodega
is addressed as a priority location in the report.
22 12/10/2021 13:28 Driving
Comment
Mailbox at this location presents a hazard as driving users block left hand turn lane.
Have seen several tense moments using this route to Bodega. 0 1 38.399902 -122.827696 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264393
Thank you for sharing your concern. It is not clear what mailbox is being referred to in this comment and
therefore cannot be addressed fully.
23 12/10/2021 13:36 Driving
Comment
Turning left from Litchfield one encounters southbound traffic from downtown AND vehicles coming from Palm that are turning left to join southbound traffic OR driving across to Litchfield; this is challenging as most drivers coming from Palm focus only on the moving traffic and never see the car turning right from Litchfield. 3 0 38.395605 -122.820711
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264396
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this intersection has not been identified as a priority in the report. Your comment will be passed along.
24 12/10/2021 15:38 Pedestrian
Comment
Huntley Streetbetween Dutton and Florence has a hill where cars pick up speed plus their are no sidewalks on either side. It should not be 25 MPG because that is too fast for these conditions. Additionally on the other streets such as Washington where there are no sidewalks the speed limit should be less than 25. 0 0 38.401108 -122.830346
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264435
Thank you for sharing your concern. A speed survey
and engineering study will need to be completed to
change the speed limit. Speed management and
aggressive driving are identified in the plan.
25 12/10/2021 15:44 Driving
Comment
Cars come fast through the Washington/Murphy intersection. It's blind as you're turning right on the Washington, dangerous. The block between there and Nelson Way is used as a fast cut-off. Dangerous block with no sidewalks. Especially dangerous at night. (And I hate to think what this block will be like if the large housing project on Bodega gets approval. There will be hundreds of more cars daily using this block after they turn right on Nelson and right on Washington.) 1 1 38.399739 -122.832248
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264438
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location is not identified as a priority but speed management and
aggressive driving are addressed in the plan.
26 12/10/2021 15:46 School
Comment
This should be a Safe Routes to School route. I see no sign of children being kept safe. 0 0 38.39959 -122.829923
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264440
Thank you for sharing your concern. Your comment will
be passed along.
27 12/10/2021 15:48 School
Comment
This part of Washington is used by students coming from Brookhaven so it should be part of the Safe Routes to School program. Another area with no sidewalks in parts. 0 0 38.400015 -122.838296 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264441
Thank you for sharing your concern. Your comment will
be passed along.
28 12/10/2021 15:51 Driving
Comment
It's very hard to see past the parked cars when turning onto Petaluma Ave.
Sometimes you have to just go and hope there's no one going over the speed limit. 2 0 38.398164 -122.821251 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264442
Thank you for sharing your concern. SR 116 is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
29 12/10/2021 16:43 Driving
Comment
Very dangerous traffic intersection. Cars from LGuba Parkway and the Barlow all trying merge into McKinley with high level traffic at high speeds. Very dangerous to try to merge into McKinley from Laguna ParkwAy. I need 4 heads to watch for cars, bikes and pedestrisNs
5 0 38.403587 -122.823511
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264450
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection is identified as a priority in the plan.
30 12/10/2021 18:20 Pedestrian
Comment
Many Cars traveling out of Sebastopol a or into town pay no attention to the posted speed limit. The joe rodota trail crosses north main (high school rd.) at Eddie lane. I feel a painted crosswalk, a camera, and a flashing yellow light at that location would help slow traffic significantly.
2 0 38.408175 -122.827427
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264458
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving has been identified as a
focus area in this plan.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Created on Type Comment Up
Votes
Down
Votes Latitude Longitude Referrer View on map Response to Comment 31 12/10/2021 18:45 Driving
Comment
Dangerous intersection at Valentine and Springdale. Many times I am stopped on South Springdale and cars disregard the stop sign on Valentine and blow right through!
1 0 38.401773 -122.834938
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264459
Thank you for sharing your concern. Intersection safety and increased enforcement are addressed in the report.
32 12/10/2021 19:03 Pedestrian
Comment
The location of the current crosswalks are a bit ineffective, as many people head to Handline by crossing here at Fellers, creating dangerous conditions. It might be great to have a cross walk or traffic light, which would also help people who want to make a left turn coming out of Fellers.
2 0 38.392058 -122.817589
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264464
Thank you for your suggestion. Pedestrian safety and
crossing enhancements have been identified as
priorities in the report.
33 12/11/2021 10:51 Driving
Comment
People use Washington Ave as a bypass from Bodega Ave, and they drive too fast.
Traffic calming measures could slow cars down, e.g. signage or bollards in the middle of the street, roundabouts, or closing the street at Golden Ridge. 1 0 38.399734 -122.833843
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264539
Thank you for your suggestion. An engineering study
would need to be completed to determine suitable traffic calming devices in this location.
34 12/11/2021 10:53 School
Comment
Washington Ave is supposedly a safe route to school street, but the street itself is in terrible repair. 0 0 38.399482 -122.830861
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264540
Thank you for sharing your concern. Washington Ave
has not been identified as a priority location in this
report. Your comment will be passed along.
35 12/11/2021 10:55 Pedestrian
Comment
There are NO sidewalks on this safe route to school (Washington Ave). Parents with children walking to school have to be on the side of what can be a busy street. 1 0 38.399499 -122.83021 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264542
Thank you for sharing your concern. Washington Ave
has not been identified as a priority location in this
report. However, pedestrian and bicycle safety is
addressed.
36 12/11/2021 10:58 Pedestrian
Comment
Although there is a crosswalk from Murphy to the shopping strip, traffic is coming oddly from 3 directions, especially from Healdsburg Ave onto Covert Lane. 0 0 38.404897 -122.837942 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264543
Thank you for sharing your concern. Citywide
pedestrian crossing enhancements are recommended
in this report.
37 12/11/2021 10:59 Driving
Comment
It is very difficult to see oncoming traffic from the right when exiting the Pacific Market driveway. Prohibiting parking along the curb for a space or two could give a better line of sight.
2 0 38.404925 -122.838242
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264544
Thank you for sharing your concern. A field review of
the sight distance may need to be performed at this
location to remove parking.
38 12/11/2021 11:03 Driving
Comment How bout speed bumps on Washington Ave to slow down traffic? 0 0 38.398864 -122.829337 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264546
Thank you for your suggestion. An engineering study
would need to be completed to determine if speed
bumps are a suitable traffic calming device in this
location.
39 12/11/2021 11:05 Pedestrian
Comment
I like to cross here to get into the cemetery for walks, but traffic is pretty heavy both ways, so it's a little difficult. 0 0 38.397966 -122.837394 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264547
Thank you for your comment. This segment of Bodega
Ave has been identified as a priority and citywide
crossing enhancements are recommended in the report.
40 12/11/2021 11:12 Driving
Comment
It would be good to have a restricted area for brief parking to return books on both sides of High Street. We often have to double park. 0 0 38.401733 -122.825657 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264548
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. It will be passed along.
41 12/11/2021 11:39 Driving
Comment
With new, large affordable housing project going in on Bodega Ave, I think there will be a LOT of traffic coming onto Nelson Way and Washington Ave as drivers from the apartments get frustrated with turning left onto Bodega Ave; it will be easier to turn right and go through our neighborhood. That would further jeopardize children on the "safe" route to school that has no sidewalks. I suggest closing Nelson Way at Bodgea Avenue.
2 0 38.398454 -122.833071
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264553
Thank you for sharing your concern. During the planning and development phase of any new project, a traffic
study will be completed to determine the best traffic
calming and operational devices for all affected
roadways and intersections.
42 12/11/2021 11:42 Driving
Comment
With the apartment complex going in, there should be a traffic light at this intersection aligned with their exit driveway. The developer should pay for it. I can't believe that a traffic study would not warrant a light here, given the extraordinary traffic on Bodega Ave going to/from schools and to/from the coast. 7 0 38.397994 -122.831193
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/264555
Thank you for sharing your concern. During the planning and development phase of any new project, a traffic
study will be completed to determine the best traffic
calming and operational devices for all affected
roadways and intersections.
43 12/17/2021 6:34 Driving
Comment
Cars exceed the 25 mph routinely and drive through pedestrian pathways despite people waiting to cross. Too few, safe cross walks to park 2 0 38.398931 -122.827342 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol/
map
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266095
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and speeding/aggressive driving are addressed in this
report.
44 12/17/2021 14:22 Pedestrian
Comment
Crossing the sidewalk on Wallace and S Main is dangerous because cars coming north on S Main can't always see pedestrians because cars are parked on the street in front of the Masonic Center.
1 0 38.403677 -122.825621
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266301
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
has been identified as a priority in the report. The
removal of parking in front of the Masonic Center has
been recommended.
45 12/17/2021 14:44 Driving
Comment
Lots of congestion on Wallace Street,high School traffic and it's a alternative route through town. A brightly colored speed hump could do two things, vehicles would turn slower and be a better crosswalk for pedestrians.
0 1 38.404366 -122.825553
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266306
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. This location
has been identified as a priority in the report. To install a speed hump, a traffic engineering study would need to
be completed to determine if this is a feasible and
proper traffic calming device.
46 12/17/2021 14:48 Pedestrian
Comment Wallace St. needs a better crosswalk, perhaps a brightly colored speed hump. 0 1 38.404813 -122.825835 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266307
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. This location
has been identified as a priority in the report. To install a speed hump, a traffic engineering study would need to
be completed to determine if this is a feasible and
proper traffic calming device.
47 12/17/2021 14:51 Driving
Comment
Lots of congestion with cars, and speeding problems.Pedestrians need to be seen better. Brightly colored speed bump could help both issues. 0 1 38.404839 -122.825797 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266310
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. Pedestrian
safety has been identified as a priority in the report. To install a speed hump, a traffic engineering study would need to be completed to determine if this is a feasible and proper traffic calming device.
48 12/18/2021 6:58 Driving
Comment
Center island slows emergency vehicles. Depending on traffic fire trucks have to take alternative routes, police cars have gotten stuck in traffic. Take out barrier and move crosswalk to Bodega & Jewel Ave to be at a safer intersection that is controlled by a light. Pedestrians get a safer crossing to use. A win for all. In the picture SPD is stuck behind a bus who stopped for his emergency light and siren.
The officer had to turn the lights off to get the bus to move so he could proceed. 1 0 38.399455 -122.828436
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266363
Thank you for sharing your concern. Emergency vehicle
access is very important and this center island will need review. Your comment will be passed along.
49 12/18/2021 7:01 School
Comment
Cross walk needed here. That would allow children to use neighborhood streets to reach 116 on Danmar and then cross to the Sidewalk on the other side to continue safely to school.
1 0 38.410694 -122.841423
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266364
This intersection has previously been identified by
Caltrans. Crossing improvements are in the
planning/design phase.
50 12/18/2021 7:05 Biking
Comment
road is crumbling and has deep groves that tires get stuck in. Fix the Road and both bicycles and cars get a safer street 0 0 38.403484 -122.836847 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266366
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pavement
improvements are not addressed in this report but your
comment will be passed along to the City.
51 12/18/2021 16:38 Pedestrian
Comment
Dangerous intersection for pedestrians. Fast driving on Morris end of Johnson St. north of stop sign where street is wide. Morris St seems to be designed for fast driving but it feeds right into narrow Johnson St and Sunset Ave where there are homes and schools. Visibility of cars coming down from top of Sunset impaired.
Lighting is not good here either.
0 0 38.406996 -122.822009
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/266442
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving are addressed by this
report and adding lighting is a proposed systemic
countermeasure.
52 12/27/2021 8:32 Driving
Comment
Confusing intersection coupled with Sebastopol drivers ignoring stop signs make this angled portion a hazard. Follow thru with the Ives park plan and eliminate the angled portion of Willow.
5 0 38.399142 -122.827248
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267528
Thank you for your suggestion. This location has not
been identified as a priority in the report but may be
addressed with future developments.
53 12/28/2021 9:30 Pedestrian
Comment
The northern crosswalk going across S Main could use some flashing crosswalk lights but the southern crosswalk at the same intersection on S Main needs to be removed! It is a hazard due to the one-way street. Drivers coming off Burnett are looking northbound in the direction of oncoming traffic and when there is a break in the traffic, they jump in going southbound not noticing that people are in the southern crosswalk. HUGE hazard that many have pointed out for years. 2 0 38.401416 -122.823798
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267688
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
has been identified as a priority in the report and
crossing enhancements have been recommended.
54 12/28/2021 11:19 Pedestrian
Comment
We need a safe pedestrian and bike crossing here. This is one of the main crossing points to the Rodota trail for all the people living on the west side of 116. It's extremely dangerous to cross on a bike and on foot right now. 0 1 38.410774 -122.841429
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267785
This intersection has previously been identified by
Caltrans. Crossing improvements are in the
planning/design phase.
55 12/28/2021 11:20 Biking
Comment
We need a safe bike crossing here so people can get to the Joe Rodota trail from the west side of 116. 0 1 38.410799 -122.841498
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267786
This intersection has previously been identified by
Caltrans. Crossing improvements are in the
planning/design phase.
56 12/28/2021 11:21 Pedestrian
Comment
We need a sidewalk along Ragle Rd. Many people are walking on the road and there isn't enough room to be safe, especially at rush hour. 1 0 38.409039 -122.84675 https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267791
The segment of Ragle Rd from Covert Ln to Bodega
Ave has been identified as a priority in this plan and may be addressed in the future.
57 12/28/2021 11:28 Biking
Comment
This is one of the main connection routes between two protected sections of the Rodota trail. I feel very unsafe when biking here, especially at night. There are garbage cans often in the way and cars speed by. We need a clearly marked bike lane on both sides.
0 0 38.425055 -122.857018
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267807
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this area is not within the City's jurisdiction and therefore will not be addressed by this plan. We will pass on your
comment to the County.
58 12/28/2021 11:28 Pedestrian
Comment
Need safe crossing for pedestrians here who are parking on the south side of occidental rd and crossing to get to the Rodota. 0 0 38.42334 -122.863948 https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267809
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this area is not within the City's jurisdiction and therefore will not be addressed by this plan. We will pass on your
comment to the County.
59 12/28/2021 11:35 Pedestrian
Comment
I almost got ran over here 2 months ago while ON the southern cross walk by a car coming from Burnett St. 0 0 38.401395 -122.823755
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/267828
Thank you for sharing. This intersection has been
identified as a priority and crossing enhancements have been recommended.
60 12/29/2021 13:48 Pedestrian
Comment
With several restaurants in a row, and very little parking, I've seen many pedestrians running across Healdsburg Avenue particularly in front of Flavor Bistro. Presumably they have parked across the street or in surrounding neighborhoods. With more and more tourists in the area, they are unaware of the number of pedestrian involved accidents that have occurred on Healdsburg Avenue. More lights or yet another cross walk are needed.
1 1 38.405197 -122.829734
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/268038
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and crossing enhancements are identified in this report.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Created on Type Comment Up
Votes
Down
Votes Latitude Longitude Referrer View on map Response to Comment 61 1/7/2022 12:19 Biking
Comment
Currently, bicycle traffic stopped on North Main @ intersection with Healdsburg Avenue will not trigger the traffic light to change from a red light. Traffic light is programmed to keep a green light on Healdsburg Avenue unless triggered by vehicle on North Main. Cyclists are either forced to wait for a vehicle to arrive or ignore the red light and enter the intersection which is unsafe. The sensor at the intersection needs to be either reprogrammed or replaced so that a cyclist is detected. 0 0 38.405272 -122.826279
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269500
Thank you for providing your feedback. This signal is
operated by Caltrans and will need to be addressed by
them. Your comment will be passed along.
62 1/7/2022 12:23 Driving
Comment
The traffic at 3:30 pm in downtown Sebastopol near the Safeway stoplight is outrageous! The merging of the two high schools has created a disaster in traffic.
Cars are bumper to bumper all the way through town in both directions. I am frustrated and want to ask that the high school in Forestville reopen next year and relieve this problem!
1 0 38.404076 -122.827234
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269501
Thank you for sharing your concern. The reopening of
the high school is not under the juridsdiction of the city. 63 1/7/2022 12:49 Biking
Comment
The pavement in the bike lane is in terrible condition. This has been the case for YEARS! Twice in the past 3 years I have submitted requests to the County to address this issue and nothing has been done. (Although the issue status was changed by the County to "Closed".) In order to avoid the situation cyclists are forced into the traffic lane. Vehicles move very fast here and cycling use is heavy - it's very close to the access point of the bike trail.
0 0 38.423676 -122.863058
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269508
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this area is not within the City's jurisdiction and therefore will not be addressed by this plan. We will pass on your
comment to the County.
64 1/7/2022 12:57 Pedestrian
Comment
The neighborhood would be much more walkable if a sidewalk could be installed here. 0 0 38.398294 -122.838489
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269512
Thank you for your suggestion. Adding sidewalks where
feasible is a proposed systemic countermeasure.
65 1/8/2022 13:54 Driving
Comment
This is a three way stop. On the left side of Lynch there is a tree right at the crosswalk that blocks the pedestrians view of traffic and the drivers view of people starting across in crosswalk. Would not be a big deal if people EVER stopped at this Stop Sign. I have lived here for over a year and attempt to cross here. I have yet to see anyone come to a complete stop here. Many people attempt to cross but it is not safe unless there is no traffic in site on any of the three directions. 4 0 38.387152 -122.824471
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269655
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and increased enforcement are recommended in this
report.
66 1/8/2022 13:59 Driving
Comment
Dangerous Stop at Leland and Jewel. No-one stops. Big Pick-ups roar up and down never stopping. 0 0 38.396073 -122.827148
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269658
Thank you for sharing your concern, Increased
enforcement is recommended in this report.
67 1/8/2022 14:51 Driving
Comment
The Jewell-Willow intersection needs an overhaul (traffic circle or tee or whatever).
Meanwhile, even though I am not a fan of stop signs (wasteful, unenforceable, useless for cyclists), one of the very few yield signs we have really should be a stop sign. Driving southwest on Willow, getting ready to turn left onto Jewell, it's impossible to see traffic coming down Jewell until you're right on it. You _have_ to stop to be safe. I've had several close calls here, riding my bike down Jewell. 1 0 38.398765 -122.827224
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269669
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
has not been identified as a priority in this report but has been previously identified for intersection updates.
68 1/8/2022 14:55 Driving
Comment
Stop signs on Jewell at Leland are worse than useless. As another comment says, nobody stops there; nor should they. Jewell is clearly the through street; traffic from the side street, Leland, should stop (or, better, yield).
What does need to happen is to slow cars down on Jewell. Speed bumps or humps do that effectively; Stop signs definitely don't.
2 0 38.396813 -122.827621
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269671
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
has not been identified as a priority in this report but has been previously identified for intersection updates.
69 1/8/2022 14:59 Driving
Comment
Four-way stop at Jewell-Woodland intersection is useless. Cars run it all the time, often at speed. These unenforceable, cycling-unfriendly traffic measures are a holdover from a different era. If you want to calm traffic and make it efficient and safe, traffic circles are the way to go. If that's too expensive, at least put in speed bumps or humps.
1 0 38.39075 -122.827266
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269673
Thank you for sharing your concern. An engineering
study will need to be completed to determine the proper traffic calming devices for this roadway.
70 1/8/2022 15:06 Driving
Comment
South Main at Palm Ave/Litchfield is one of two truly bizarre intersections in Sebastopol. (The other, of course, is Jewell at Willow.) This five-way intersection cries out for a traffic circle. Get Caltrans to chip in. 1 0 38.395778 -122.820851
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269674
Thank you for sharing your concern. SR 116 is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
71 1/8/2022 16:23 Pedestrian
Comment
Westbound cars going onto Bodega Ave often run the red light—usually at great speed, too. Probably speeding up to make the green, after having just waited at the Petaluma Ave intersection. Still, it's scary, and I always wonder why I never see a cop waiting at that intersection.
1 0 38.402013 -122.82416
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269677
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection as well as speeding/aggressive driving are identified as
priorities in this report.
72 1/8/2022 16:28 Pedestrian
Comment
Sidewalk on the north side of Hayden disappears for the better part of a block—right across from the school.
There may be some issues with private property lots, but come on, no sidewalk, near a school?
0 0 38.39388 -122.823588
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269678
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
not been identified as a priority but pedestrian safety is addressed. Your comment will be passed along.
73 1/8/2022 16:34 Pedestrian
Comment
Sidewalk disappear. Next to the senior center, downtown. Really? Also a bizarre and incredibly confusing sign telling pedestrians to use the other side of the street (I think).
1 0 38.40286 -122.826183
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269679
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
not been identified as a priority but pedestrian safety is addressed. Your comment will be passed along.
74 1/8/2022 22:23 Pedestrian
Comment
Not exactly traffic, but the walkway through Ives Park is a pedestrian hazard. Uneven and broken-up pavement. Try navigating a stroller or wheelchair through it.
Accidents waiting to happen. And that in the central place where (pre- and hopefully post-pandemic) we have festivals and events.
2 0 38.39986 -122.826639
https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol/
map
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269712
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
has been identified as a priority in this report.
75 1/9/2022 9:23 Driving
Comment
Low hanging vegetation blocks view of traffic coming down Jewel Ave. when turning from Willow St. 0 0 38.398852 -122.827384
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269759
Thank you for your comment. It will be passed along to
the city.
76 1/9/2022 9:34 Driving
Comment
Excess vegetation makes it hard to see pedestrians walking north on Main St. trying to cross Litchfield Ave. 0 0 38.395742 -122.820707
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269760
Thank you for your comment. It will be passed along to
the city.
77 1/10/2022 11:15 Pedestrian
Comment
Visibility is very poor at the top of Hutchins. The angle makes it hard for drivers to see pedestrians. Many people park at the top of Hutchins to walk to nearby restaurants. Cars zoom off 116 around the corner onto Hutchins. Cars also cannot see pedestrians or vehicles from the south when leaving Hutchins because of a utility vault. Visibility needs to be improved, a crosswalk added, and a way for pedestrians to get from Hutchins onto the sidewalk on 116 by Papa’s N Pollo. 0 0 38.392948 -122.817999
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269981
Thank you for sharing your concern. A field review of
the sight distance may need to be performed at this
location to determine visibility improvements.
78 1/10/2022 11:22 Driving
Comment
If I turn on my blinker here to turn for North Main/High School Rd, drivers from Wallace think I’m going to turn on Wallace. Many near miss accidents. Now I avoid using my blinker.
1 0 38.404724 -122.825845
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269983
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
been identified as a priority in the report.
79 1/10/2022 11:26 Driving
Comment
Speeding has increased on this whole stretch ever since putting a stop light at Lynch. How can you get traffic to slow down? It’s impossible to make a left turn from a side street or from Fircrest Market.
1 0 38.389757 -122.815701
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269984
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving has been identified as a
focus area in this plan. This may be a location for
additional enforcement.
80 1/10/2022 13:08 Driving
Comment
If you count the center turn lanes on 116, the intersection of 116 and Redwood Ave. has 6 separate lanes of traffic from four different direction to pay attention to. With vehicles coming from so many different lanes, it's hard to notice the crosswalk lights, particularly in daylight. It is a confusing and dangerous intersection!!! 0 0 38.389437 -122.814188
https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269993
Thank you for sharing your concern. SR 116 is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
81 1/10/2022 13:16 Biking
Comment
This comment is both for Driving and Biking. The bike lane indicators are extremely confusing, as both a driver and a biker. The most extreme example is between Whole Foods and the corner of N. Main St., but there are dozens of places where it's not clear what is allowed and what isn't. This lack of clarity makes it dangerous while you're moving (either in a vehicle or on a bike).
1 0 38.402891 -122.823458
https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269994
Thank you for sharing your concern. Bicycling safety
and education are addressed in this report. Clarification of bicycle facilities may be a potential topic.
82 1/10/2022 13:27 Driving
Comment
If you're passing the Library heading west, as soon as you pass High St. with no warning the driving lane curves to the left to avoid cars parked on the right side of the street. Because Bodega is heading up hill, you can't see the next block. Unless you know about that change, at night the inclination is to stay straight and plow into the parked cars.
0 0 38.399561 -122.826591
https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269997
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
been identified as a priority in the report and proposed countermeasures may address this issue.
83 1/10/2022 13:33 Driving
Comment
Coming down the hill heading west on Bodega, traffic is speeding up as you leave town, yet because it's a single lane and many people turn right onto Ragle Rd., people looking beyond the intersection often have to slam on their brakes to avoid the right turners. There appears to be adequate space to divide the roadway into a thru lane and a right turn lane which could correct that danger. 0 0 38.397846 -122.841868
https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/269998
Thank you for your suggestion. Due to the existing
configuration of the lanes, there does not appear to be adequate room to add right turn lanes. Field
measurements would need to be completed to confirm.
84 1/20/2022 11:56 Driving
Comment
Traffic coming and going from Safeway is an absolute mess. I’ve witnessed three collisions in the center lane. 0 0 38.405256 -122.827342 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/273782
Thank you for sharing your concern. SR 116 is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any improvements will need to be
coordinated with them.
85 1/20/2022 19:37 Driving
Comment
There are too many drivers that speed up and down Calder Ave. I've seen many close calls between motorists and some pedestrians. I would like the city to consider adding speed bumps or tables.
0 0 38.39889 -122.824033 https://l.facebo
ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274164
Thank you for sharing your concern. An engineering
study will need to be completed to determine the proper traffic calming devices for this roadway.
86 1/20/2022 19:45 Pedestrian
Comment
There is no sidewalk on Palm Avenue between Swain Woods Terrace and Western Avenue. Pedestrians are forced to walk in the street, sometimes around parked cars.
The city should consider adding sidewalks on both sides of Palm Avenue. 0 0 38.395958 -122.82434 https://l.facebo
ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274169
Thank you for sharing your concern. Sidewalks have
been recommended as a systemic countermeasure
where feasible throughout the city. Existing roadway
width and public right of way will determine whether this location is feasible.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Created on Type Comment Up
Votes
Down
Votes Latitude Longitude Referrer View on map Response to Comment 87 1/20/2022 21:33 Driving
Comment
People wanting to make a right turn onto High School Road need to put their signal on at this point to start crossing over to the right but traffic coming from Wallace waiting to turn into main mistake the blinker as indicating a right turn on Wallace and often start proceeding, causing near collisions with high school traffic…has happened to me, my son as he was learning to drive, and to many others…the bike lane there adds to the confusion.
0 0 38.404836 -122.825889 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274224
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
has been identified as a priority in the report.
88 1/20/2022 23:47 Pedestrian
Comment
When pedestrians cross here during a green light for cars traveling north, it creates a dangerous situation with cars stopped in the intersection and it creates a backup of cars waiting to travel north on Petaluma Ave. This backup can be severe in the best of times, but with pedestrians crossing here during a green light, it creates a dangerous situation at worst and highly inconvenient situation at best. Pedestrians must not be allowed to cross Petaluma Ave at Depot Street. 0 0 38.402659 -122.822922 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274234
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
been previously identified for crossing enhancements by Caltrans.
89 1/21/2022 6:52 Driving
Comment
I think one more parking spot should be removed at the intersection of Bodega and High. It makes for a tight squeeze. I often use the left hand turn lane as a buffer when heading west.
0 0 38.401489 -122.825764 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274281
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. It will be passed along.
90 1/21/2022 8:21 Driving
Comment
High school road is a speedway. It is not just students going to school, everyone speeds on this road. We need a way to slow people down. Speed bumps would be great.
0 0 38.416544 -122.822685 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274333
Thank you for sharing your concern. An engineering
study will need to be completed to determine the proper traffic calming devices for this roadway.
91 1/21/2022 8:48 Driving
Comment
It is time now to remove the two bank buildings to create better flow though this congested intersection, 0 0 38.40193 -122.824182 https://l.facebo ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274355
Thank you for your suggestion. This may not be a
feasible solution for this location.
92 1/21/2022 10:03 Driving
Comment
When residence along Petaluma Avenue need to leave their driveways, the traffic can be so thick, we have to risk pulling out in front of cars coming towards us. 0 0 38.399628 -122.821655 https://l.facebo ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274409
Thank you for sharing your concern. Any improvements
along Petaluma Ave will need to be coordinated with
Caltrans.
93 1/21/2022 12:43 Driving
Comment
Cars turning off Wilton onto Florence often are nearly hit. Cars on Florence are often traveling quite fast along this stretch. I have seen one accident and many close calls.
Recommend traffic calming (stop sign, narrow road ...) to slow traffic on Florence. 1 0 38.401872 -122.828806
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274534
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving are addressed in this
report. For any traffic calming devices, an engineering study will need to be completed to determine the most
suitable for the roadway.
94 1/21/2022 18:48 Pedestrian
Comment
The intersection of 116 in the area of Rotten Robbies gas and Cleveland Ave is increasingly hazardous to
1) pedestrians crossing a cross walk without a light
2) cars entering / exiting the gas station, car wash, D’s Diner, or on the opposite side entering or exiting the donut shop, Mexican restaurant. Freight trucks regularly park in the middle turn lane making any turn dangerous.
My ideas are - decrease speed to 25 instead of 30 with a flashing warning of over speeding.
1 0 38.404951 -122.829064
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274854
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and speeding/aggressive driving are addressed in this
report. To reduce the speed limit, a speed survey and
engineering study would need to be completed.
95 1/21/2022 20:45 Pedestrian
Comment
Cars are traveling very fast through this intersection. Intersection is wide and allows cars to turn from Huntly onto Dutton at high speed. I recommend a narrowing the end of Dutton with bulbouts to shorten the cross walk distance and slow vehicles that are turning off of Huntley.
0 0 38.401219 -122.830716
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274922
Thank you for you suggestion. Speeding/aggressive
driving are addressed in this report. To install bulbouts and calm traffic, an engineering study would need to be completed to determine the most suitable traffic calming devices.
96 1/21/2022 20:51 Driving
Comment
Cars travel way too fast and there are many pedestrians crossing in areas without cross walks. I recommend mid-block chokers with crosswalks. 0 0 38.402762 -122.844479 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274926
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and speeding/aggressive driving are addressed in this
report.
97 1/21/2022 20:57 Pedestrian
Comment
People are constantly trying to cross here to Handline from Fellers instead of walking up or down 100 yards to the existing crosswalks. It’s dangerous for them, and it’s dangerous for cars when a car in front stops unexpectedly for the jay-walking pedestrians who may not be highly visible to cars coming down 116. 0 0 38.392132 -122.81757 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274929
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and crossing enhancements are identified in this report. 98 1/21/2022 21:01 Driving
Comment
It is difficult to see southbound traffic while waiting at the stop sign at Burnett unless one pulls out into the crosswalk. I think this is due to the parking spots at the corner. 0 0 38.401475 -122.823757 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274933
Thank you for sharing your concern. This intersection
has been identified as a priority in the report and it has been recommended that the city evaluates the removal
of parking near the intersection.
99 1/21/2022 21:01 Pedestrian
Comment Crosswalk with signal at this intersection would be a great improvement. 0 0 38.392003 -122.817492 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274934
Thank you for your suggestion. Pedestrian safety and
crossing enhancements have been identified as
priorities in the report.
100 1/21/2022 21:06 Driving
Comment
It’s nearly impossible to turn left onto 116 from Sparkes. There needs to be a center turn lane similar to the one at Elphick/116. 0 0 38.38366 -122.810937 http://m.facebo ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274937
Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately this
location is not within city limits and is also Caltrans jurisdiction. Any improvements would need to be made
by them.
101 1/21/2022 21:09 Pedestrian
Comment
There are a lot of jay-walkers crossing to/from Ragle from parking spots along Ragle Ave. 0 0 38.403837 -122.844835 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/274940
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location is
identified as a priority in the report.
102 1/22/2022 6:30 Driving
Comment
People speed like crazy coming onto Lynch from 116. They take the first blind turn in the road and end up crashing into the ditch in front of our house. 4 accidents in the last 3 months. Significant damage to our property. We need speed bumps coming off 116 before this blind turn to remind people that it’s 25MPH here not 60!! 1 0 38.388689 -122.817761 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275011
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving are addressed in this
report. For any traffic calming devices, an engineering study will need to be completed to determine the most
suitable for the roadway.
103 1/22/2022 8:48 Driving
Comment
See a light colored VW beetle blow thru stops signs frequently. Must be local scofflaw that knows he won’t be stopped. Heard he was a privileged city employee but can’t confirm.
0 0 38.396837 -122.827513
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275058
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving and increased
enforcement are recommended in this report.
104 1/22/2022 8:53 Driving
Comment
Have seen the light colored VW Beetle run this and other stop signs in area. A special privileged local the police will not stop nor cite. 0 0 38.393776 -122.824938 https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275059
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving and increased
enforcement are recommended in this report.
105 1/22/2022 13:52 Pedestrian
Comment
please improve the walkway between elphick and trader bucks. It's narrow and treacherous and a primary foot/bike path into town for a lot of folks. 0 0 38.387016 -122.813382 https://l.facebo ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275291
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this segment is not within city limits and is Caltrans
jurisdiction. Any sidewalk improvements would need to
be completed by them.
106 1/22/2022 15:24 Pedestrian
Comment
This intersection has reverted to prioritizing single-occupancy vehicle traffic again.
Pedestrian crossings were removed and now one has to walk the long way around and cross at the unprotected Depot Street crossing (which already has comments).
This intersections should I be an all ways “scramble” for pedestrians. Or - at minimum- return the pedestrian crossing on the east side of the intersection. 0 0 38.402299 -122.822909 http://m.facebo
ok.com
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275325
Thank you for sharing your suggestion. This location
and pedestrian crossing enhancements have been
identified as a priority in the report
107 1/23/2022 12:15 School
Comment
Cars often block both lanes of traffic waiting to turn in to the school to pick kids up.
The side by the school isnt as bad because they sometimes pull onto the side of the road to let traffic past while they wait, but the other side is often backed up a dozen carlenghts, blocking through traffic.
Having a designated "waiting area", such as the curb on the school side of the road, or an area of the school parkinglot, and asking parents to not park in the middle of the street, would be nice.
1 0 38.370105 -122.806828 https://l.facebo
ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275537
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this location is not within the City of Sebastopol limits and will not be addressed by this report.
108 1/24/2022 6:35 Driving
Comment
Florence Ave & Bodega
Can not see west bound cars at all when trying to make a left hand turn if a car is in front of the church. You have to sneek out on Bodega to see around the parked car.
That spot needs to be red or a loading zone for the elderly members of the church. 0 0 38.406119 -122.820754
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275786
Thank you for sharing your concern. This segment of
Bodega Ave has been identified as a priority location in the report.
109 1/24/2022 6:41 Pedestrian
Comment
Florence & Bodega
Hazard for both bike riders and pedestrians. If a car is parked at the front of the church and a car on Bodega turns on to Florence they cant see the pedestrian already crossing. Same for Bike riders. Most cars don’t stop for pedestrians at the Florence cross walk that goes directly to the Cere’s property. 0 0 38.403227 -122.819896
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/275789
Thank you for sharing your concern. This segment of
Bodega Ave as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety
have been identified as a priorities in the report.
110 1/24/2022 16:21 Driving
Comment
I would suggest to remove the parking space before the first driveway after going through intersection (N High St & Bodega ave). When a vehicle is parked here it leaves little room to drive by, if there is a car driving East and in the turn lane to turn left on High St it causes some drivers to stop in the middle of the road or swerve almost hitting car in turn lane.
0 0 38.401609 -122.825654
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/276031
Thank you for your suggestion. This location has not
been identified as a priority in the report but your
comment will be passed along.
111 1/24/2022 16:28 Driving
Comment
When on Florence turning right onto Bodega Ave it is hard to see around vehicles parked here. I personally have almost been hit trying to make the right hand turn, or hitting someone trying to pull out. The photo I have uploaded shows the vehicle that is parked there 99% of the time. Removing this spot will help keep both drivers and pedestrians safe.
0 0 38.400985 -122.827427
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/276034
Thank you for your suggestion. This segment of Bodega
is addressed as a priority location in the report.
112 1/28/2022 12:25 Driving
Comment
Many cars do not understand how this intersection works. It is unclear if it is one lane or two. Seen many close calls. 1 0 38.395101 -122.819251 https://l.facebo ok.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277890
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location is
under Caltrans jurisdiction and any improvements would
need to be approved by them.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Created on Type Comment Up
Votes
Down
Votes Latitude Longitude Referrer View on map Response to Comment 113 1/28/2022 12:57 Pedestrian
Comment
Sidewalks through out Sebastopol really need to be fixed. We want this to be a walking city but it is often dangerous especially for the elderly to walk. Buckled sidewalks, pots holes. We really need to invest in redoing the sidewalks first on the major streets like Main St , Petaluma, Bodega & Healdsburg Ave and then move into the neighborhoods and start fixing them there. 0 0 38.397418 -122.822599
https://www.ci.
sebastopol.ca.
us/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277899
Thank you for sharing your concern. Adding sidewalks
are proposed as a systemic countermeasure in this
report. This may allow for existing sidewalk
improvements.
114 1/28/2022 15:08 Driving
Comment
Lots of dangerous left turns into/out of Florence; speeding on Healdsburg and cut through traffic on Florence; suggest closing Florence to local access only or one way 0 0 38.405221 -122.830614 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277953
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving are addressed in this
report. For any traffic calming devices, an engineering study will need to be completed to determine the most
suitable for the roadway.
115 1/28/2022 15:09 Driving
Comment
Have experiences dangerous movements here - people going to/out of high school and cutting through on Wallace (uncontrolled) 0 0 38.40506 -122.826039 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277955
Thank you for sharing your concern. This location has
been identified as a priority in the plan.
116 1/28/2022 15:10 Driving
Comment People cut through WF parking to avoid Bodega Ave/116 loop 0 0 38.403557 -122.824331 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277956
Thank you for sharing your concern. This may be a
viable location for increased enforcement.
117 1/28/2022 15:11 Pedestrian
Comment People cut across in between Handline and parking lot on opposite side of the street 0 0 38.392488 -122.817847 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277957
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and crossing enhancements are identified in this report. 118 1/28/2022 15:12 Driving
Comment
It is alarming how many times a vehicle has driven through property's concrete wall at this location (twice in past year) 0 0 38.396264 -122.850783 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277958
Thank you for sharing your concern. Unfortunately, this location is not within the City of Sebastopol limits and will not be addressed by this report.
119 1/28/2022 15:14 Driving
Comment
It's hard for people to make left turns onto/off of Sebastopol Ave and see dangerous maneuvers especially when there is a traffic congestion in the afternoons 0 0 38.402719 -122.819882 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277959
Thank you for sharing your concern. This segment has
been identified as a priority in the report.
120 1/28/2022 15:14 Driving
Comment Speeding on Bodega Avenue into/out downtown 0 0 38.400402 -122.827786 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277960
Thank you for sharing your concern.
Speeding/aggressive driving has been identified as a
focus area in this plan.
121 1/28/2022 15:22 Pedestrian
Comment Sidewalk gaps on southside of Bodega Ave 0 0 38.397875 -122.837959 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277962
Thank you for your suggestion. Adding sidewalks is a
proposed systemic countermeasure and may address
these gaps.
122 1/28/2022 15:26 Pedestrian
Comment
There is a ped flashing beacon here but multi-threat risk; I've experienced vehicles trying to go around/pass vehicles yielding at crosswalk and almost hitting pedestrian 0 0 38.403456 -122.824135 https://lrsp.mys
ocialpinpoint.c
om/sebastopol
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/277965
Thank you for sharing your concern. Pedestrian safety
and crossing enhancements are identified in this report. 123 1/31/2022 21:19 Driving
Comment
Can we get our two lanes back? That bike lane is useless!! It's rarely used and it has created so much additional traffic getting through town from 116! 0 0 38.395322 -122.819257 https://lm.faceb ook.com/
https://lrsp.mysocialpinp
oint.com/sebastopol/ma
p#/marker/278755
Thank you for your suggestion. This location is under
Caltrans jurisdiction and any changes would need to be
addressed by them.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Additional Public Comments
Comment
ID Comment Response
1 The LRSP must address the conflict between bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles. Sebastopol needs a safe, connected network of bike/ped pathways separate from roadways. Bike lanes on road don’t cut it.
Even with protection, most folks will not ride near traffic. Paint on roads is not enough! [Provide] protected bikeways and intersections. Cameras at dangerous intersections to catch those who run red lights seem appropriate.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your
comments. Pedestrian and bicycle safety are
addressed as priorities in this report and
Sebastopol is reviewing opportunities to
incorporate safe infrastructure improvements.
For red light cameras, the City of Sebastopol
is not currently providing enforcement
through this method and any implementation
of these devices would need to occur through
changes in City policy.
2 My main concern is the intersection nearest to where I live, Hwy. 116 and Redwood Ave. I’ve almost been hit several times crossing there and one of my neighbors was hit last year and spent several weeks in the hospital and then months in a care facility. He still hasn’t fully recovered.
There is a flasher set up there, both overhead and imbeded in the road, but there is so much going on at that intersection that drivers are paying attention to traffic from all directions and are distracted from the flashing lights (which, by the way, are virtually invisible during daylight hours).
After living in Sebastopol for 50 years, I consider this the most dangerous and confusing intersection in the city.
At that location there are 3 lanes in each direction on 116, with people making left turns in both directions. Additionally there are 2 lanes turning from Redwood Ave going north and south on 116, as well as cars leaving the dry cleaners parking lot turning north and south on 116.
So there are the potential for 10 different vehicles to intersect at that spot. As a driver passing through that intersection and keeping your eyes on all 10 places where vehicles are moving is extremely difficult and distracting, making the flashing lights relatively invisible.
Also, Fircrest Mobile Home Park is on Redwood Ave. behind the Hollyhock development. Living there are more than 100 seniors, most of whom walk across 116 to shop at Fircrest Market.
A much more effective flashing set up is needed at this spot.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your
comments. This location is under the
jurisdiction of Caltrans and any improvements
would need to be coordinated through them.
Pedestrian, bicycle, and intersection safety
are addressed as priorities in this report.
3 The Road Safety Report was unacceptable because it barely addresses the safety concerns related to bicycle use of roads. It is, like most city studies, auto centric. Four points:
1. Roads are not safe, if they are not safe for bicycles.
2. Roads are safer for drivers if they are not distracted by cyclists.
Providing off-road bicycle paths would reduce the use of roads by cyclists.
3. Roads with unprotected bike lanes are not safe. Scientific studies have found that unprotected bike lanes afford little improvement in safety.
4. Roads with “sharrows” are not safe. Scientific studies have shown that the “sharrow” symbol painted on streets is just one more distraction for drivers. Their studies show that it actually decreases safety! Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. While bicycle safety is a priority, it
is not the main focus as this plan is for the
safety of all roadway users which,
unfortunately, is mostly vehicles. The Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan addresses more
of these concerns.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Public Comments for Draft Report
ID Comment Response
1 Please add more bike parking throughout Sebastopol, with attention to bike rack design details, and location.
There are some existing ones, but more is needed.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Unfortunately, this report does
not address adding bike parking but your
comment will be passed along to the City.
*Submitted via Social Pinpoint and Emailed to City Council* Comments on the Sebastopol LSRP
Please find comments to the Sebastopol LSRP, please have these made part of the public record.
General Comments
The study fails to take into account that the impact of COVID-19 has permanently change the way people work: many now work from home and will never go back to commuting and thus will never use cars, bicycles or public transportation again for this purpose. Many studies are available to identify this fraction of the workforce.
The Local Road Safety Plan fails to address the needs of cyclists: safe and separate trails that serve multiple uses. These have been identified and recommended by the Complete Streets Committee. The LSRP fails to discuss this alternative for which funding is readily available or to even discuss its feasibility.
Specific Comments
1. Although bicyclists are listed first among the stakeholders on Page ii, no cyclist specific issues were identified in the Priority Intersections and Recommended Countermeasures on Page iii. Cycling advocates should be contacted and this omission remedied. Although there are commonalities between the needs of cyclists and the needs of pedestrians it seems as if the needs of cyclists have been ignored.
2. Motorists frequently run red lights at the intersection of Bodega/116 and Lynch/116 among others. Why aren’t red light cams included among the Recommended Countermeasures in page iii and iv?
3. The Recommended Non-Engineering Strategies on Page iv lists Education for drivers. Education is a feel-good bullet but is there any evidence that education contributes to safer streets?
4. The only mention of cyclists in the Recommended Non-Engineering Strategies on Page iv is education. Is it really the result of this survey that cyclist injuries and fatalities is lack of cyclist education? How about a better infrastructure of cyclists and pedestrians.
5. Sebastopol does very poorly relative to to other similar cities in pedestrian/cyclist safety, see the report and data from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Link to OTS Data:
https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2019&wpv-wpcfcity_county=Sebastopol&wpv_filter_submit=Submit Raw Data: Fatalaties and Injuries Reported
The last column is OTS ranking, comparison to to other municipalities.
Ranking/# similar cities, low number bad, high number good Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. We will respond to each point to
the best of our ability.
While COVID-19 has had an impact on the
way people work and commute, there has
not been enough time passed to determine
whether these effects will be long term or if
work/travel/commute conditions will return
to some semblance of what they were
prepandemic. As more time passes, these
findings will begin to be included in reports.
Bicycle trails will not be included in this
report as they do not fall under the roadway
LRSP, Comments, Multi-use Trails
Something major is missing from from this report - trails. We had two excellent trail opportunities recommended to the Council by the Complete Streets Committee. The Council has ignored them. The Council instead determined, without public input, that what the community wants are bike lanes along the edges of our two intersecting highways, 116 and 12 (1).
Hwy 116 bike lanes were finished three years ago. A great majority of our community’s bike riders do not like these lanes. They consider them unsafe. They are unsafe. These lanes have had an average of three reported bike/car injury accidents a year, (Sebastopol Police records). But according to Sebastopol Bike Center owner, Denver Booker, who has repaired many bikes struck by vehicles, the number is much higher (2).
These Hwy 116 unprotected lanes are next to heavy traffic, eight times the traffic count of state and federal guidelines. Speed limits exceeds guidelines. And have huge traffic numbers making turns across the bike lanes. Bike riders do not feel safe, so the lanes are little used.
Now again, the City Council plans on asking for funding for bike lanes going down Bodega Ave (Hwy 12.) These will be even less safe and less used. The vast majority of bike riders, including all local bike shop owners, and most highly competent bike riders have judged this plan unsafe and poorly designed. The list of safety issues and unmet design standards is long. (Bodega Ave attachment below details the many safety concerns.)
Our town still has the opportunity for two multi-use trails on corridors parallel to our cross town highways. These trails, the Apple Blossom and the Gravenstein Trail, have excellent connections, are scenic, and would be safe for every age and ability. The trails would be well used and appreciated. These trails were recommended by Complete Streets to the City Council in 2014. Then, Council told the hundred plus community members in attendance asking for these trails that the City would soon hire a consultant to study these routes. This action has been delay over a dozen times. Still, we have not had one public meeting to discuss trail issues. Not one step has been taken. (3) I bring up these two trails because for them the Council has made the decision to develop bike lanes over these trails. These trails are not the only trail possibilities. There are several other excellent ones awaiting. Together they would be transformative for getting around Sebastopol.
These trails will do so much to help people move around our community safely and enjoyably. They would make Sebastopol a better place to live. Please add this to your report, encourage the Council to update our the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and move forward on these trail opportunities.
(1) Well over 50 people have written letters to Council asking for the trails. An equal number have spoken before the Council asking for the trails. Conversely, there is no public record of anyone who prefers these bike lanes. (2) From Sebastopol Police accidents reports, to Nov. 2021. NHTSA studies show only one in ten accidents are reported to police. (3) Council disbanded the Complete Streets Committee several months after the this presentation. Since then, within the City structure there is no person, department, or organization responsible or interested in discussion of trails or updating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
This Plan has not ben updated since its inception in 2008. While a cover page in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan states the Plan was updated in 2012 this is hardly true. This “update” was a 15 minutes meeting held late at night. Besides the brief staff report there was no public comment, and only one (not relevant) comment by a Council member. No changes to the Plan were made or even discussed. This Plan was intended to be updated every 5 years. It has been 14 years and no update is pending. 2 Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. This purpose of this plan is to
address safety on the roadways within the
City of Sebastopol. Unfortunately, trails do
not fall under the coverage of this plan and
therefore will not addressed. Your
comments and concerns regarding trails
and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
will be passed along to the city.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Comment Response 3
2019 Composite 34
Pedestrians 9 2/74
Pedestrians < 15 0 59/74
Pedestrians 65+ 3 1/74
Bicyclists 3 9/74
Bicyclists < 15 0 60/74
2018
Pedestrians 4 8/75
Pedestrians < 15 1 9/75
Pedestrians 65+ 0 56/75
Bicyclists 5 8/75
Bicyclists < 15 0 63/75
2017
Pedestrians 8 2/66
Pedestrians < 15 0 54/66
Pedestrians 65+ 2 4/66
Bicyclists 5 5/66
Bicyclists < 15 0 53/66
2016
Pedestrians 5 7/67
Pedestrians < 15 1 8/67
Pedestrians 65+ 2 6/67
Bicyclists 3 10/67
Bicyclists < 15 0 49/67
2015
Pedestrians 1 32/67
Pedestrians < 15 0 53/67
Pedestrians 65+ 0 52/67
Bicyclists 8 3/67
Bicyclists < 15 1 9/67
2014
Pedestrians 4 6/65
Pedestrians < 15 0 57/65
Pedestrians 65+ 2 2/65
Bicyclists 3 10/65
Bicyclists < 15 0 45/65
2013
Pedestrians 7 2/63
Pedestrians < 15 1 8/63
Pedestrians 65+ 1 4/63
Bicyclists 1 23/63
Bicyclists < 15 0 45/63
2012
Pedestrians 3 7/75
Pedestrians < 15 0 61/75
Pedestrians 65+ 1 9/75
Bicyclists 4 4/75
Bicyclists < 15 0 57/75
2011
Pedestrians 6 4/75
Pedestrians < 15 0 55/75
Pedestrians 65+ 0 59/75
Bicyclists 4 13/75
Bicyclists < 15 2 5/75
2010
report as they do not fall under the roadway
classification of this report. Separate multiuse trails would be addressed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
1. Thank you for bringing this to our
attention. Additional bicycle improvements
have been added to the report.
2. Red light cameras are not an improved
countermeasure and will not be included in
this report. The City of Sebastopol is not
currently providing enforcement through this
method and any implementation of these
devices would need to occur through
changes in City policy.
3. Many drivers become complacent the
longer they drive. Providing education
reminds drivers of the rules of the road and
teaches them how to properly navigate new
roadway developments (such as
roundabouts, buffered bike lanes, green
conflict markings, Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons, etc.)
4. Not all collisions are as a result of lack of
cyclist education but teaching younger
riders proper biking ettiquette and all riders
how to use any new biking infrastructure is
a start in reducing bicycle collisions.
5. Thank you for providing this information.
6. It will be the school's choice on whether
driver's ed is offered. The safe driving
campaign is meant more as a reminder for
students on how to drive safely and the
consequences of unsafe driving practices.
7. Stakeholders are generally
representatives from groups or agencies
and not individual people. At the time of the
development of this group, Sebastopol did
not have their own active bicycle
coalition/group. The representative from
SCBC was very thorough and familiar with
Sebastopol.
8. Your concern is noted and will be
provided to the city.
9. As previously mentioned, this report
focuses on the roadways as a whole and
the overall collision rates decreased during
that time. The sections for bicycle and
pedestrian specific data break down trends
for those collisions and show the increases
there.
10. As previously mentioned, red light
cameras are not an approved
countermeasure and the City is not currently
providing enforcement through this method.
11. These bike lanes were installed by
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Comment Response
4 Traffic signals often don’t respond to my bicycle. I’ve complained about this years ago but conditions never changed. Usually one has to wait for a car to trigger the light to change (or run a red light). Fixing this satisfies all seven of the “Guiding Principles “ goals in the LRSP.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Video bicycle detection at
signalized intersections has been added as
a recommendation for emerging
technologies.
5 More attention is needed for biking. For instance Traffic lights often are not triggered when bikes approach them, the sensors in the road are apperently not sensitive enough
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Video bicycle detection at
signalized intersections has been added as
a recommendation for emerging
technologies.
6 Re: pleasant hill/Bodega intersection-Increase length of left turn lane to reduce bodega back up westbound. Move stop line for a left turn back to improve left turn access off of Pleasant Hill Avenue. Signal timing is really pretty good already.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment and share your suggestions. In
field measurements and observations would
need to be completed to determine if there
is adequate space.
7 Sebastopol will not rest until cars are used with petroleum products are banned. This plan is the first step to reach this goal.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. This report does not address any
reduction in petroleum products or provide
any recommendations for change in
emissions. This plan aims to provide lowcost projects that create safer conditions for all roadway users, not just vehicles.
2010
Pedestrians 4 9/78
Pedestrians < 15 0 59/78
Pedestrians 65+ 1 11/78
Bicyclists 4 12/78
Bicyclists < 15 1 17/78
2009 composite 32
Pedestrians 8 1/75
Pedestrians < 15 2 5/75
Pedestrians 65+ 2 3/75
Bicyclists 5 7/75
Bicyclists < 15 0 62/75
6. On page iv a “Safe Driving Campaign for Students” is mentioned. Will the schools do drivers ed?
7. Section 3.1 identifies the stakeholders. However a Sebastopol specific stakeholder for cyclists is not identified. The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition is identified and is a fine organization but may not be familiar with Sebastopol area issues. A Sebastopol specific stakeholder should be identified.
8. Table 1 “Other Safety Projects with the City of Sebastopol” lists planned bike lanes on Bodega Avenue. As has been pointed out by much the Sebastopol cycling community, this is an unsafe roadway for cyclists and will be little used. The bike lanes on SR 116 are dangerous and remain little used.
9. Section 4.2.1 claims there is a downward trend in collisions from 2016 to 2019. However the pedestrian/cyclist collision data from the OTS shows exactly the opposite with 8 reported inguries/fatalaties in 2016 and 12 reported injuries/fatalaties in 2019. This is statistically significant.
Since this LSRP focuses on pedestrian and cyclist safety as described in the Mission Statement, the OTS data that includes pedestrian and cyclist accidents should be carefully considered.
10. Table 5 shows SR116 and Bodega Ave to the be most dangerous in the city. The answer is put in a red light camera.
11. Section 4.2.3.1 identifies SR116 as the most dangerous in the City. Why then was this then chosen for bike lanes which do little to improve safety?
12. Section 4.2.3.2 identifies many causes of collisions at intersections in the city. However running red lights is not shown, is this an omission or this frequently observed violation of the law combined with another category ?
13. Section 4.2.3.3 shows pedestrian collisions. Extraordinarily notable is that the vast majority are pedestrians crossing within the crosswalk.
14. In Table 7 none of the Priority Intersection Characteristics address cycling issues.
15. In Section 6.6.16 the only Systematic Safety Countermeasure shown related to cycling is Education. Is there any empirical evidence bicycle education works? How about building safe and separate multi-use trails, separating cars and cyclists will definitely reduce auto/cyclist collisions. Although education is always feel-good and is cheap, there is not unambiguous evidence it actually works for children or adults.
See the following from NHTSA regarding this.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/bicycle_safety_education_for_children-811880.pdf
16. Section 6.2.3 lists enforcement strategies. How about red-light cameras at some of the intersections where motorists run the red light all the time?
17. Many funding sources are available for significant multi-use trail infrastructure but Sebastopol needs to adopt trail proposals into its Master Plan which it has not done.
18. Table 16 shows Priority of City Intersection projects totaling about $1M and yet no significant cycling infrastructure include. This is likely a result of a lack of input from cyclists in Sebastopol.
19. Table 17 Priority of City Segment Projects shows guardrails installed along Bodega. This will allow cars to crush cyclists on the guardrail.
20. Table 17 Priority of City Segment Projects budgets over $1M and has no infrastructure that will benefit cyclists.
21. Section 8 Evaluation Process Goal 1 is to achieve zero deaths on roadways and while there are a number of cycling deaths in Sebastopol, no money is allocated to safer cycling infrastructure.
22. Section 8 Evaluation Process has a wonderful set of goals that could be applied to almost any civic endeavor. There is a major disconnect between the projects proposed in the preceding sections and these goals, it is unlikely that any of the proposals would score well against them.
How about conducting what is known in engineering as a “Trade Study” of the proposals against these goals?
11. These bike lanes were installed by
Caltrans. All plans and safety studies were
completed by them prior to installation. Any
discussion regarding these bike lanes
should be done with them.
12. Running red lights is generally covered
by the violation categories "Traffic Signals
and Signs" and "Automobile Right of Way"
13. Thank you for noting this. This is
generally due to driver and pedestrian
inattention/impatience. Crossing
enhancements may address the issue of
inattention and provide safer crosswalks.
14. These priority intersections may not
have had bicycle collisions and therefore,
specific countermeasures are not identified.
Additional bicycle countermeasures have
been added to the systemic
countermeasures to address this.
15. As previously mentioned, multi-use trails
are not addressed in this report and will
need to be covered by the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
16. See previous comments regarding red
light cameras.
17. Noted.
18. Noted. Bicycle countermeasures have
been added to the systemic
countermeasures.
19. Noted. These guardrails are for a short
segment along Bodega near the city limit
only.
20. Bicycle countermeasures have been
added to the systemic countermeasures.
21. In the past 6 years, there was only 1
fatal collision involving a pedestrian and no
fatal bicycle collisions within city limits. This
plan may bring more funding for safer
bicycle infrastructure.
22. Noted.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Comment Response
8 The City of Sebastopol spent local resident and tax payer monies to hire the international consulting firm GHD that is held by stockholders and located in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, and throughout the United States to develop a Local Road Safety Plan.
Has city council and staff lost their minds? This makes absolutely no common sense.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. While GHD is an international
company, those located in the Santa Rosa
office have been working with and within
Sonoma County and other surrounding
agencies for multiple decades and have a
vast knowledge of the area. This location
was previously a smaller firm that was
acquired by GHD in 2011 and has
maintained their relationship with the nearby
cities, towns, and counties. All work was
completed by engineers located in
California.
9 So in looking at your map of high areas of traffic collisions, I note that on Bodega Ave. between Main St and Nelson Way has a high number of accidents. In looking at your report I feel that the addidtion of a bicycle lane on Bodega is going to continue to cause more accidents involving cars and bicycles. Maybe you could find some side routes that could be used instead of Bodega to designate as bike area. With Bodega Ave. you have such a high volume of traffic from the schools (THUSD and Parkside) and if the housing developement procedes at the area of Bodega and Nelson way and the one by the Luther Burbank farm, and the traffic that is heading out to Bodega Bay in the summer, I feel that a bike lane is just asking for more interaction between cars and bicycles. Bodega Ave. is not that wide and unless you eliminate all parking on that road I feel that you are endangering any bicycle rider that uses that road.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Your suggestion and concern will
be passed along.
10 This is just another study that cost a lot of money that will end up on the shelf with umpteen other studies that are now collecting dust at City Hall. Please stop wasting resident and tax payer monies on wishful and wasteful consultants.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. This report is required to receive
funding from the state for roadway safety
projects.
11 As a resident and parent of a school aged child living near Parkside Elementary School and Castle Pre-School, I am very concerned about the rate of speed at which vehicles travel down Huntley Street. This two block stretch of street is on a downslope and we have observed vehicles traveling faster than the speed limit and not giving pedestrians (most often parents and young children) the right of way. I urge the city of include an evaluation of Huntley street in it's research.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Speed management/aggressive
driving are identified as priorities in this
report. This location may benefit from
additional enforcement. Your comment will
be passed along.
12 Palm Avenue between South Main Street and Petaluma Avenue is missing about 40 feet of sidewalk on the north side of the street. This is ironic, given that there are safety crosswalks for pedestrians on Palm at both South Main and Petaluma Avenue, encouraging pedestrian use of the street. This actually adds to the danger of the missing sidewalk section, as pedestrians are forced to walk in the street itself along the section without sidewalk. Please add this to your list of priorities. Thank you Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. The installation of sidewalks as
well as pedestrian safety are addressed in
this report.
13 I live in front of Ives park on Willow & most drivers come around the curve on Jewell to Willow really fast. Not only is it dangerous for me to pull out of my driveway, but pedestrians cross Willow to Ives west of the crosswalk. I would like speed bumps after drivers make that turn. Also, move the crosswalk to the Ives driveway where peds cross. Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Pedestrian safety, intersections,
and speeding/aggressive driving are all
addressed as priorities in the report. An
engineering study would need to be
completed to determine the proper traffic
calming devices for this location.
14 I live on the 116 at the cross street of Lone Pine.
We have crashes here regularly and cars and semis blow throw here at 60 miles per hour constantly.
The kids and parents that have to turn left onto Line Pine Road are constantly at risk.
There needs to be a reduction in the speed limit and a turn signal for Lone Pine when heading south on the 116.
Check with the Sheriff for all the accident reports here. And do something before someone gets killed!!!! Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Unfortunately, this location is not
within city limits and will not be addressed
by this plan. Your comment will be passed
along to the proper jurisdiction.
15 post -crash care - improve process. Example: A car/bike collision that I was involved in (in Sebastopol, on 116) did not include recording of any forensic crash information by the police department. They did not record any names, or details of the accident. An accident victim is typically stunned, and is expected to collect information for insurance reasons. A better police report with relevant information would have helped.
Page.5
Segment Lighting and dynamic speed warning signs: consider powering with independent solar+battery systems. Reduced installation costs (no trenching), more reliable (than grid power), and zero emissions(addressing city’s climate goals). There are many proven products available.
.
Traffic light sensors that work for bicyclists. There are many intersections where cyclists must wait for a car to trigger the light. If no car is there, then one must cross the street and go across a crosswalk several times before being back on the road in the desired direction past the traffic light. One example is when cyclists come off Joe Rodota Trail from Santa Rosa and try to cross to Morris Street - the traffic light doesn’t trigger, requiring one to go through the crosswalk option. There are several other similar locations - I can provide a longer list of these.
The list of potential funding sources seem to all be for infrastructure/engineering costs. Are there any sources that will help pay for the Education part of improving road safety for all?
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. For post-crash care and record
collection improvements, training and policy
updates may need to be completed
internally by the police department. For
segment lighting and speed warning signs,
these are great suggestions that will be
passed along for city consideration.
Additionally, camera detection for bicycles
at signalized intersections has now been
recommended for emerging technologies.
As far as funding for education, this may
come from grants, city funds, or private
funding as available.
16 Two-way street traffic in 'the box' on 116 North Main Street from Bodega to McKinley to Petaluma / ending at 12.
Bring the Hotel Sebastopol into the process.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Your concern at this location has
been noted. These roadways fall under
Caltrans jurisdiction and improvements will
be coordinated with them.
17 Glad to see research is being done and measures to improve are on the way. S. Main and Burnett is a priority for me.
Thank you for taking the time to comment
and sharing your concern. The intersection
of S Main St and Burnett has been identified
as a priority in this report and crossing
enhancements have been recommended.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
ID Comment Response
18 Every single thing that the city has done to "improve" the roads has made traffic worse, The roadway flow and lane alignment is a nightmare.
Apparently the cities goal of to have as many idling cars as possible. You think that it will encourage bike travel or public transit or whatever.
What your forgetting is that most of the traffic is just passing through your shitty little town. I'm certain that whatever decision the city makes with this report will be the worst possible choice.
Sincerely, Everyone
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Sorry to hear that you feel this
way. Roadway safety for all users is the
number one priority of this report, including
pass through traffic.
19 I have to admit I did not read it all, but the Fellers Lane/Hwy. 116 South intersection needs to be addressed! People heading north and wanting to turn left on Fellers Lane have near head-on collisions regularly with people pointing south but needing to turn left into the Handline parking lot. It required using the same exact position in the turn lane, resulting in cars driving straight towards each other…and the pedestrian situation is out-of-control…also Handline customer traffic..,no one wants to walk up to the controlled crosswalks nearby and jaywalk all the time. This intersection is an accident waiting to happen!
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. This intersection has been
identified as an area of public concern.
Intersection improvements will need to be
coordinated with Caltrans as they have
jurisdiction over SR 116. Pedestrian
crossing enhancements have been
recommended in this report and this
location may benefit fom the installation of
new crossings.
20 Since traffic speeds seem to be the primary cause of accidents we need engineering solutions that make it uncomfortable for people to speed.
I don't believe signage or installing dynamic/variable speed warning signs is going to cut it. Lane widths need to be narrowed, physically, or at least visually. The goal should not be to move as many cars through town as quickly as possible, but that is what the primary roadways feel like, particularly 116, 12 and Bodega Ave.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Speeding/aggressive driving
have been identified as priorities in this
report. An engineering study will need to be
completed to determine the best traffic
calming devices for each location
throughout the city. Your suggestion will be
passed along.
21 Draft Report does not include any reference to adjusting the light at the corner of North Main / Healdsburg Avenue to trigger when a bike is waiting. Currently, a southbound bike waiting at the intersection on North Main / Healdsburg Avenue will not trigger the red light to change. If no car approaches from behind, the light will remain red indefinitely forcing the bicyclist to ride through the red light to make a left hand turn onto North Main Street. Adjusting or replacing the sensor does not sound like an expensive solution, not sure why it was not addressed.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a
comment. Video bicycle detection at
signalized intersections has been added as
a recommendation for emerging
technologies.
22 I reviewed the info and strongly suggest the intersection on N. Main St and Burnett be included for assessment. I work on the corner and cross it daily. Almost every time I cross - slowly - 5 -7 cars go by before any stop. I know the danger there - tourists and other locals don't. It is only a matter of time before someone dies there. It needs a blinking light of some kind to signal pedestrians crossing.
Thank you for taking the time to comment
and sharing your concern. The intersection
of S Main St and Burnett has been identified
as a priority in this report and crossing
enhancements have been recommended.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 48 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Appendix B
Collision Data
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Collisions at Selected Intersections
FatalInjury (Severe)Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed201520162017201820192020EPDOFatal + Injury 1 N Main St Eddie Ln City 1 1 1 6 1 1
2 N Main St Analy Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 3 4 3 Taft St Sunset Ave City 1 1 1 11 1 1
4 Laguna Park Way Flynn St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
5 Laguna Park Way Johnson St City 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 2
6 Wallace St Bonnardel Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 23 2 3
7 McKinley St Brown St City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
8 Ragle Rd Valentine Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
9 Pleasant Hill Ave Valentine Ave City 1 1 1 3 3 36 2 3 10 Valentine Ave Springdale St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
11 Jesse St Brittain Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
12 Neva St Brittain Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
13 Florence Ave Huntley St City 2 2 1 1 2 0 2
14 Florence Ave Wilton Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
15 West St Snow St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
16 Pitt Ave Snow St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
17 Pitt Ave Keating Ave City 1 1 1 1 2 12 1 2
18 Washington Ave Murphy Ave City 1 1 1 11 1 1
19 Virginia Ave Swartz Ave City 1 1 1 6 1 1
20 Bodega Ave Valley View Dr City 1 1 1 1 0 1
21 Bodega Ave Ragle Rd City 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 577 4 5 22 Bodega Ave Pleasant Hill Ave City 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 19 2 4 23 Bodega Ave Golden Ridge Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
24 Bodega Ave Virginia Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
25 Bodega Ave Nelson Way City 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 43 3 5 26 Bodega Ave Robinson Rd City 1 1 1 1 11 1 1
27 Bodega Ave Washington Ave City 1 1 1 1 1 2 12 1 2
28 Bodega Ave Dutton Ave City 1 1 6 1 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 23 2 8 29 Bodega Ave Florence Ave City 2 2 1 1 2 0 2
30 Bodega Ave High St City 1 2 3 1 1 1 8 1 3
31 Bodega Ave Edman Way City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
32 Ragle Ave S Valley View Dr City 1 1 1 1 0 1
33 Robinson Rd Leland St City 1 1 1 29 1 1
34 Leland St First St City 1 1 1 1 6 1 1
35 Jewell Ave Calder Ave City 1 1 1 1 11 1 1
36 Jewell Ave Willow St City 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 3
37 Willow St High St City 3 2 1 1 2 3 0 3
38 High St Burnett St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
39 Calder Ave Vine Ave City 1 1 1 11 1 1
40 Calder Ave High St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
41 Palm Ave High St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
42 Hayden Ave High St City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
43 Litchfield Ave Fellers Ln City 1 1 1 1 0 1
44 Litchfield Ave Evan Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
45 Fircrest Ave Litchfield Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
46 Cedar Ave Evergreen Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
47 Jewell Ave Dowd Dr City 1 1 1 1 0 1
48 Lynch Rd McFarlane Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
49 Lynch Rd Pearl Ct City 1 1 1 1 0 1
50 Valentine Ave Zimpher Dr City 1 1 1 1 0 1
51 Morris St Laguna Park Way City 1 1 1 29 1 1
52 Bodega Ave West Hills Cir City 1 1 1 1 2 12 1 2
1201 N Main St Bodega Ave 116/12 2 2 4 10 5 5 3 3 1 3 2 6 3 1 1 5 2 114 8 18 1202 Petaluma Ave Sebastopol Ave 116/12 3 4 5 4 4 3 1 1 4 1 3 2 1 62 7 12 1203 Sebastopol Ave Brown St 12 2 2 2 2 0 2
1204 Sebastopol Ave Barnes St 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 41 2 3 1205 Sebastopol Ave Morris St 12 3 2 3 6 2 2 5 1 48 5 8 11601 Gravenstein Hwy Mill Station Rd 116 2 1 1 1 1 12 2 2 11602 Gravenstein Hwy Danmar Dr 116 1 1 1 11 1 1
11603 Gravenstein Hwy Tocchini St 116 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 1 4 11604 Gravenstein Hwy Hurlbut Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
11605 Gravenstein Hwy Soll Ct 116 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 2
11606 Healdsburg Ave Covert Ln 116 1 1 1 5 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 51 3 8 11607 Healdsburg Ave Murphy Ave 116 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 59 4 6 11608 Healdsburg Ave Dufranc Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
11609 Healdsburg Ave Florence Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
11610 Healdsburg Ave Ellis Ct 116 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 2
11611 Healdsburg Ave Cleveland Ave 116 1 1 1 6 1 1
11612 Healdsburg Ave Pitt Ave 116 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 59 5 6 11613 Healdsburg Ave N Main St 116 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 10 1 5 11614 N Main St Wallace St 116 1 1 1 7 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 53 3 10 11615 N Main St Berry Ln 116 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 68 5 5 11616 N Main St Wilton Ave 116 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 19 2 4 Bicycle Year
Total
Intx ID Primary Road Secondary Road
Severity Type
LocationPedestrian
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Fatal
Injury (Severe)Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
Bicycle
201520162017201820192020EPDOFatal + Injury
Year
Total
Intx ID Primary Road Secondary Road
Severity Type
LocationPedestrian
11617 N Main St McKinley St 116 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 36 3 6 11618 S Main St Burnett St 116 1 2 4 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 80 7 12 11619 S Main St Willow St 116 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 2
11620 S Main St Walker Ave 116 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 2 6 11621 S Main St Maple Ave 116 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 2
11622 S Main St Palm Ave 116 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 48 5 8 11623 Gravenstein Hwy S Southpoint Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
11624 Gravenstein Hwy S Hutchins Ave 116 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 37 2 4 11625 Gravenstein Hwy S Fellers Ln 116 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
11626 Gravenstein Hwy S Redwood Ave 116 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48 3 5 11627 Gravenstein Hwy S Fircrest Ave 116 2 5 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 17 2 7 11628 Gravenstein Hwy S Corline Ct 116 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 18 2 3 11629 Gravenstein Hwy S Lynch Rd 116 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 0 3
11630 Gravenstein Hwy S Cooper Rd 116 1 1 1 6 1 1
11631 McKinley St Weeks Way 116 1 2 2 1 2 1 13 1 3
11632 McKinley St Laguna Park Way 116 2 2 8 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 42 4 12 11633 Petaluma Ave Weeks Way 116 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 30 4 5 11634 Petaluma Ave Depot St 116 1 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 10 1 5
11635 Petaluma Ave Burnett St 116 5 5 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 35 5 10 11636 Petaluma Ave Abott Ave 116 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 30 3 5
11637 Petaluma Ave Fannen Ave 116 2 1 1 2 2 0 2
11638 Petaluma Ave Walker Ave 116 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 27 2 7 11639 Petaluma Ave Palm Ave 116 3 1 5 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 44 4 9 11640 N Main St Fannen Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
Total 1 15 60 63 177 11 79 82 57 50 2 23 11 24 19 56 52 58 52 58 40 - - 316 Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
Collisions at Selected Segments
Begin Segment
FatalInjury (Severe)Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Stated201520162017201820192020EPDOFatal + Injury 1 Bodega Ave West City Limit Ragle Rd City 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 52 3 4 2 Bodega Ave Ragle Rd Pleasant Hill Ave City 1 1 2 2 17 2 2 3 Bodega Ave Pleasant Hill Ave Virginia Ave City 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 2 44 3 6 4 Bodega Ave Robinson Rd Washington Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 5 Bodega Ave Washington Ave Main St City 6 3 10 4 8 2 4 1 1 7 2 4 2 3 94 9 19 6 Covert Ln Pleasant Hill Ave Zimpher Dr City 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 Analy Ave N Main St Bonnardel Ave City 1 1 1 1 6 1 1
8 Morris St Eddie Ln Community Center Prking Lot City 2 2 2 2 0 2 9 Valentine Ave Ragle Rd Pleasant Hill Ave City 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 10 Brittain Ave Murphy Ave Neva St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
11 Wilton Ave Florence Ave N HIgh St City 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 3 12 Laguna Park Way McKinley St Morris St City 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 3 13 West Hills Cir Bodega Ave End City 1 1 1 1 0 1
14 Leland St Robinson Rd Jewell Ave City 2 1 1 2 2 0 2
15 Willow St Jewell Ave High St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
16 Willow St High St S Main St City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
17 Burnett St High St Petaluma Ave City 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 0 4 18 Abbott Ave Petaluma Ave Barnes St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
19 Calder Ave Swain Ave S Main St City 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 3 20 Palm Ave Swain Ave S Main St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
21 Hayden Ave Jewell Ave McFarlane Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1 22 Walker Ave S Main St Eleanor Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
23 Fircrest Ave McFarlane Ae SR 116 City 1 1 1 1 29 1 1 24 Redwood Ave SR 116 Juniper Ave City 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 25 Corline Ct SR 116 End City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2
26 N Main St Eddie Ln Healdsburg Ave City 1 2 1 2 2 1 8 1 3 27 High School Rd North City Limit Eddie Ln City 1 1 1 1 0 1 28 Norlee Rd North City Limit Covert Ln City 1 1 1 1 0 1 29 Ragle Rd Ragle Ranch Rd Bodega Ave City 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 36 2 3 30 Pleasant Hill Ave N Valentine Ave Bodega Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 2 3 31 Zimpher Dr Covert Ln Valentine Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 32 Murphy Ave Healdsburg Ave Valentine Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1 33 Murphy Ave Valentine Ave Washington Ave City 3 3 2 1 3 0 3 34 Florence Ave Healdsburg Ave Bodega Ave City 4 3 1 1 1 2 4 0 4 35 Morris St Community Center Prking Lot SR 12 City 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 32 1 4 36 Washington Ave Huntley St Bodega Ave City 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 37 Nelson Way Washington Ave Bodega Ave City 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 38 Robinson Rd Bodega Ave Stefenoni Ct City 3 2 1 2 1 3 0 3 39 Pleasant Hill Rd Bodega Ave South City Limit City 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 40 Valley View Dr Bodega Ave Valley View Ct City 1 1 1 1 0 1 41 Pinecrest Ave South Ave Hayden Ave City 1 1 1 1 0 1
42 Litchfield Ave Palm Ave Gwendolyn Pl City 1 1 1 1 0 1 43 McFarlane Ave Hayden Ave Lynch Rd City 1 1 1 1 0 1
44 Meadowlark Dr Jewell Ave McFarlane Ave City 1 1 1 6 1 1 45 Flynn St Laguna Park Way End City 1 1 1 1 0 1
46 Sunset Ave Taft St Johnson St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
47 West St Snow St Wilton Ave City 1 1 1 11 1 1
48 Valentine Ave Pleasant Hill Ave Zimpher Dr City 1 1 1 11 1 1 49 Wallace St N Main St Taft St City 1 1 1 1 0 1
1201 Sebastopol Ave N Main St Brown St 12 1 2 2 1 2 1 8 1 3 1202 Sebastopol Ave Brown St Morris St 12 6 6 4 1 7 4 2 1 1 2 1 6 4 3 2 106 12 16 1203 Sebastopol Ave Morris St East City Limit 12 1 6 6 11 2 2 2 1 2 5 1 53 7 13 11601 SR 116 Mill Station Rd Hurlbut Ave 116 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 10 1 5 11602 SR 116 Hurlbut Ave Covert Ln 116 1 1 3 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 5 62 5 9 11603 Healdsburg Ave Covert Ln Murphy Ave 116 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 13 1 3 11604 Healdsburg Ave Murphy Ave Florence Ave 116 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 14 2 4 11605 Healdsburg Ave Florence Ave Pitt Ave 116 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 30 4 5 11606 Healdsburg Ave Pitt Ave N Main St 116 3 2 5 1 3 6 2 2 3 5 50 5 10 11607 N Main St Healdsburg Ave McKinley St 116 1 3 3 1 3 1 14 1 4 11608 N Main St McKinley St Bodega Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
11609 S Main St Bodega Ave Walker Ave 116 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 35 4 5 11610 S Main St Walker Ave Palm Ave 116 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 30 3 5 11611 S Main St Palm Ave Petaluma Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1
11612 SR 116 Petaluma Ave Hutchins Ave 116 2 4 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 49 6 9 11613 SR 116 Hutchins Ave Fircrest Ave 116 4 8 2 8 2 2 2 4 1 3 32 4 12 11614 SR 116 Fircrest Ave Cooper Rd 116 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 24 3 4 11615 Petaluma Ave Palm Ave S Main St 116 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 3 11616 Petaluma Ave Walker Ave Palm Ave 116 3 2 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 46 5 6 11617 Petaluma Ave Fannen Ave Walker Ave 116 1 1 1 1 0 1 11618 Petaluma Ave Sebastopol Ave Fannen Ave 116 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 4 11619 Petaluma Ave McKinley St Sebastopol Ave 116 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 11620 McKinley St N Main St Petaluma Ave 116 2 2 2 2 0 2 Total 0 6 39 53 140 6 37 97 30 50 1 4 13 5 7 33 55 43 47 38 22 - - 238 Bicycle Year
Total
Segment
ID Street Name End Segment
Severity Type
Location
Pedestrian
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
GHD | City of Sebastopol | 11222175 | Local Road Safety Plan 49 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.
Appendix C
Field Reconnaissance
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
11222175 | Field Visit Notes 1
Field Visit Notes | Sebastopol LRSP
Date: March 17, 2022
Table 1 Notes from Visited Priority Intersections
Intersection Recommended Countermeasures Notes
Pleasant Hill Ave /
Valentine Ave
All-Way Stop Control (4 Leg)
1 Severe Injury Collision
Top Type: Broadside
Top Violation: Traffic Signals and
Signs
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (with enhanced safety features)
• Crosswalk sight distances appear adequate, except possibly for offset crosswalk on west side for NB left turns from Pleasant Hill Ave.
• There is no crosswalk for the WB Valentine approach due to the intersection offset
• There was not much traffic or pedestrian activity in the morning or afternoon. (Not much school activity.)
• No obvious traffic violations.
• The block of Valentine Ave to the east (between Pleasant Hill Ave and Zimpher Dr) has WB speed limit signs (25 mph), but none in the EB direction.
• The existing STOP signs (R1-1’s) appear to be the “large” ones.
Consider installing ALL WAY plaques (R1-3P) to the Stop signs? • There is no centerline on the SB Pleasant Hill Ave approach (other three do).
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Morris St / Laguna Park
Way
Two-Way Stop Control (3 Leg)
1 Severe Injury Collision
Top Type: Broadside
Top Violation: Improper Turning
Evaluate conversion to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)
• Sight distances appear good, except maybe at the EB Laguna Park Way stop, where a retaining wall on the NW corner may block sight distance to the north on Morris. However, traffic is low, and you can pull forward to see.
• Traffic volumes were very low during observations
• There were no speeding issues observed but speeding above speed limit on Morris St (25 mph) may occur given that it is straight, flat, and long.
• There were some RV’s parked on Morris Street. It looks like there may have been more in the past, but there appear to be some new “3 Hour Parking” signs along the west side of Morris Street.
Bodega Ave / Jewell
Ave/Dutton Ave
Signal (4 Leg)
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• Wide median on Jewell Ave, so there is an offset, particularly from SB Dutton to SB Jewell.
• Placing signals on mast heads might be good idea. (?) Consider striping a centerline on SB Dutton?
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
11222175 | Field Visit Notes 2
Top Type: Rear End, Hit Object
Top Violation: Unsafe Speed
Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) • During observation at end of school day (1:15 pm) school driveway was full plus 1-2 cars queued onto Bodega Ave. • The north crosswalk is “zebra” striped
• Consider retiming the ped-walk signals to provide a lead time for pedestrians before vehicles can go.
• A lot of pedestrians crossing street at end of school day. Consider adding some kind of Yield-to-Ped” warning signs, such as “Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrian” (R10-15).
Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through
Intersection)
Install "Keep Clear" pavement markings in intersection
N Main St / Analy Ave
Two-Way Stop Control (3 Leg)
1 Pedestrian Collision
Top Types: All Unique
Top Violations: All Unique
Add intersection lighting • Analy Ave serves as a de facto driveway for West County High School. (Including diagonal parking spaces.) Analy Ave is very busy with vehicles and pedestrians during school start and end times (but is relatively uncrowded at other times of the day). • At school times, lots of students are walking around, but most stay on the east side of Main St and walk to the Healdsburg/Main intersection (not a lot of pedestrians cross Main St at the Analy intersection).
• There is a crosswalk across Main St with flashing beacons (RRFB’s) on the south side of the intersection and it also has curb bulb-outs to reduce the crossing distance.
• Sight distances from the WB Analy approach are probably ok during non-busy times. But when busy, sight distances can be very limited looking both south and north onto Main St. due to so many vehicles.
• Left turns from WB Analy onto SB Main St are difficult to navigate during busy school times.
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight
Triangles)
Upgrade intersection pavement markings
Bodega Ave / Pleasant
Hill Ave
Signal (4 Leg)
Top Type: Rear End
Top Violation: Unsafe Speed
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• During observations, vehicle speeds did not appear to be too high.
During the day at least, traffic is consistently high enough on Bodega Ave to limit speeds. Speeds may be higher at off times. • Pavement markings at the intersection are somewhat faded (lane stripes, turn arrows, “merge” arrows on SB Pleasant Hill Ave). • There are YIELD signs for the Pleasant Hill right-turn lanes, but no “yield line” pavement markings.
Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) Install larger advanced signal warning sign
Wallace St / Bonnardel
Ave
Two-Way Stop Control (3 Leg)
Top Type: All Unique
Top Violation: All Unique
Enforcement during school start and dismissal times • This intersection also provides access to West County High School.
• Street parking occupancy is high. It is residential permit parking on Wallace St (no parking is allowed on the north side of Wallace St east of Bonnardel) and on the west side of Bonnardel Ave.
Parking on the east side of Bonnardel is not restricted but is occupied by student vehicles during the day. The high parking occupancy contributes to a sense of narrow lanes.
• Sight distance from Bonnardel looking east onto Wallace St is somewhat limited due to a sloped area with some trees and bushes. (Keep the bushes trimmed as low as possible.)
• There are no crosswalks at this intersection.
Install centerlines on intersection approaches
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
11222175 | Field Visit Notes 3
S Main St / Burnett St
2 Severe Injury Collisions
Two-Way Stop Control (4 Leg)
Top Type: Sideswipe
Top Violation: Auto Right of Way
Upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations
(with enhanced safety features)
• Sight distance from EB Burnett St stop sign looking north up Main St may be limited if a vehicle is parked on west side of Main Street near intersection
• The north crosswalk on Main St has one “Ped Crossing” warning sign (W11-2 sign) on the east side. There are no W11-2 signs on the south crosswalk.
• The SB Main St approach has a Yield-Line pavement marking (“sharks-teeth” triangles), but no “Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs (R1-5).
• It is noted that a similar crosswalk at the Petaluma Ave/Burnett St intersection has a crosswalk with flashing beacons. Whereas this intersection does not.
Add intersection lighting
Evaluate removal of parking close to intersection
N Main St / Keating Ave
1 Severe Injury Collision
Two-Way Stop Control (3 Leg)
Top Type: Other/Bicycle
Top Violation: Improper Turning
Install bike conflict markings through intersection and at Rite Aid driveway adjacent
• N Main St volumes (traffic conditions) along this section appear to be busy throughout the day.
• Vehicle queuing/stopped vehicles also occurs along this section of Main St.
• There is a crosswalk on the north side with flashing beacons. At times queued vehicles were seen stopped in the crosswalk and queued through the Main/Keating intersection.
• EB left turns are allowed from Keating, but Main St traffic is busy.
Consider adding KEEP CLEAR legends?
• The adjacent parking lot (Rite Aid) did not appear to conflict with the intersection, as volumes are pretty low.
Evaluate closure or restriction of movements of Rite Aid driveway
Petaluma Ave /
Sebastopol Ave
Signal (4 Leg)
Top Type: Sideswipe, Rear End
Top Violation: Improper Turning
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• Did not observe signal violations by vehicles. The intersection is busy, and vehicles tend to flow fairly slowly through the intersection.
• There are faded “Sharrow” pavement markings on Petaluma Ave (no bike lanes), but traffic is busy and bikes on this section of Petaluma Ave would be in close proximity to vehicles.
• The pedestrian crossing signals have a long pedestrian lead time before cars are allowed to go.
Improve signal timing (phases, red, yellow, or operation) N Main St / Wallace St
1 Severe Injury Collision
Two-Way Stop Control (3 Leg)
Top Type: Broadside
Top Violation: DUI, Improper
Turning, Auto Right of Way
Evaluate/improve sight distance to intersection (Clear
Sight Triangles)
• This section of N Main St (116) is very busy with frequent vehicle queues. (Similar to N Main/Keating.)
• There is no crosswalk across Main St (There is a signalized crossing at the nearby Healdsburg/Main intersection.)
• Wallace St vehicle volumes increase at school times.
• There are KEEP CLEAR pavement legends on Main St, but WB left turns from Wallace St can be challenging due to volumes on Main Street.
• Also, sight distance from WB Wallace looking south on Main Street can be limited due to street parked vehicles on the east side of Main St in front of the Masonic Center
Evaluate removal of parking in front of the Masonic
Center
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
11222175 | Field Visit Notes 4
Table 2 Notes from Visited Priority Segments
Segment Recommended Countermeasures Notes
Bodega Ave (Washington
Ave to Main St)
Top Type: Rear End
Top Violation: Unsafe Speed
Add segment lighting • Similar to the other sections on Bodega Ave, traffic volumes during most of the day seem high enough to regulate speeds. • This section fronts Park Side Elementary school.
• There are no bike lanes, and it seems kind of narrow, but there are sidewalks on both sides.
• Street parking is allowed on Bodega Ave east of the Dutton intersection (not allowed west of intersection.)
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Bodega Ave (W City Limit
to Ragle Rd)
1 Severe Injury Collision
1 Ped and 2 Bike Collisions
Top Type: Broadside
Top Violation: Auto Right of Way
Add segment lighting • It’s possible speeding may be an issue at off-hours when volumes are lower. But most of day, there are enough vehicles on Bodega Ave which tends to regulate speeds.
• There is a “greenbelt” along the south side of Bodega Ave between Valley View Dr and Ragle Road.
• Bodega Ave lane widths along this section were measured. The total width is approximately 30 feet, with 11 feet WB and 19 feet EB (but the EB width is about 13 feet of flat surface and 6 feet of sloped surface near the curb which is not really drivable). • Existing pedestrians and bikes were observed to be low. (No peds and 1 bike during observations.)
Install guardrails
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
Bodega Ave (Pleasant Hill
Ave to Virginia Ave)
1 Severe Injury Collision
Top Type: Rear End
Top Violation: Unsafe Speed
Add segment lighting • On WB Bodega Ave, there is a hillside slope that creates a narrower section between Pleasant Hill Ave and Golden Ridge Ave. (no shoulder area). This may affect WB bicyclists by having to travel more directly in the travel lane. And may limit sight distance from Golden Ridge Ave looking west.
• Sight distances from Virginia Ave seem adequate (longer than Golden Ridge) and Virginia Ave is located further away from the crest on Bodega Ave than Golden Ridge.
• Although speeds on Bodega Ave may be an issue at times for side street traffic trying to turn onto Bodega Ave, the high volume of cars and limited gap times on Bodega Ave may also be relevant.
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Ragle Rd (Ragle Ranch
Rd to Bodega Ave)
1 Severe Injury Collision
Top Type: Rear End
Top Violation: Wrong Side of Road
Add segment lighting • Speeding issues were not observed during the field visit. But speeding above the speed limit (25 mph) may occur because the segment is relatively flat and straight. (Interestingly, the segment of Ragle Rd north of Ragle Ranch has a 30-mph speed limit. And used to be 35 mph as shown on Google earth.)
• There is a sidewalk with curb & gutter along the east side. The west side has unimproved/dirt shoulders.
• Somewhat faded lane markings and non-reflective raised centerline dots. May be harder to see at night.
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Install edge-lines and centerlines
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
11222175 | Field Visit Notes 5
Morris St (Community
Center Parking Lot to SR
12)
1 Severe Injury Collision
Top Type: All Unique
Top Violation: All Unique
Add segment lighting • The speed limit is posted 25 mph. And there is a “Curve 15 mph” warning sign for the NB approach to the curve. As noted in the Morris/Laguna Park intersection discussion, speeding above the speed limit on Morris St may occur given that it is straight, flat, and long.
• The traffic volumes were very low during the field observations, but volumes and cut-through traffic may pick up during commute times.
• A few RVs were parked on the east side of Morris Street. There are “3 Hour Parking” signs along the west side of Morris Street Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Burnett St (High St to
Petaluma Ave)
Top Type: All Unique
Top Violation: Unsafe Starting or
Backing
Add segment lighting • As noted in the Burnett/Main St intersection discussion, sight distances for the approaches to Main Street may be limited if vehicles are parked on Main Street near the intersection. Install edge-lines and centerlines Evaluate on-street parking and where to reduce
Sebastopol Ave (Brown
St to Morris St)
2 Pedestrian Collisions
Top Type: Rear End
Top Violation: Unsafe Speed
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs • This segment is in the core downtown area. • Traffic volumes/congestion are high throughout the day. • The high volumes appear to regulate speeds.
Sebastopol Ave (Morris St
to E City Limit)
Top Type: Rear End
Top Violation: Unsafe Speed
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs • This segment of Sebastopol Ave serves as a transition zone between the highway (higher speeds) and the downtown streets (lower speeds). The WB direction speed limit lowers from 45 mph outside of the City, to 35 mph approaching Morris Street. (And lowers to 25 mph west of Morris Street.)
• As WB vehicles slow down, there can be vehicle queues on the approach to Morris Street.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022
11222175 | Field Visit Notes 6
Field Visit Images
Intersections
• Pleasant Hill Ave / Valentine Ave
• Morris St / Laguna Park Way
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet for May 3, 2022