Sebastopol City Council
March 3, 2026

From: Lisa Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:56 AM
To: Mary Gourley <[email protected]>
Subject: FYI: 1990 Bypass Feasibility Report

Mary, please distribute to Council & Planning Commissioners. Thanks!

In case anybody has not seen this Feasibility Study from 1990, here it is. It's one of many studies done to look at the feasibility of doing one or more bypasses so traffic can avoid downtown. If we are to consider a bypass option, it's well worth looking at all the previous studies.

I think there is a growing understanding and recognition that our traffic will continue to worsen without some kind of bypass.

Thank you,

Lisa Pierce
—oot^— I
~—he-CLc^- ' '~t fc^=^=

THE SEBASTOPOL BYPASS

FEASIBILITY REPORT
Sebastopol Regional
Sonoma County Library
7140 Bodega Ave: sue
Sebastopol, Calif. 9S^i
PREPARED FOR:

THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
PREPARED BY:

CaJtrans
CALTRANS - DISTRICT 4

TRANSPORTATION STUDIES BRANCH
JANUARY 1990
1000 06 012711 0 9

FEASIBILITY REPORT
The Sebastopol Bypass

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
Executive Summary i
Introduction 1
The Need for a Bypass 2
Proposed Historical Solutions 9
- The Trafficwavs Plan Bypass 9
- The Route E Proposals 11
An Interim Solution - The Downtown Couplet Project 16
Current Bypass Proposals 25
- Alternative 1: Modified Trafficwavs Plan Alignment 27 ** Alternative 2: Llano Road Northeast Extension 31
- Alternative 3: Llano Road Northwest Extension 33
- Alternative 4: Llano Road Northwest to Rte. 116 35
- Alternative 5: No-Build 37
- Summary of the North/South Bypass Proposals 38
Funding and Priority of the Bypass 39
East/West Traffic Relief Proposals 42
* Occidental Road Improvements 43
- Todd Road Extension 44
- River Road 46
- Route 181 47
Summary of Findings 49
Recommendations 51
Appendices
A: Summary of Design Standards for Roadways
B: Timeline - The Sebastopol Bypass
C: FHWA's Detailed Capacity Analysis of Downtown Sebastopol Traffic D: Sebastopol City Council's Action and Public Meeting Comments

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit # Description Follows Page #
1 Study Area and Existing Conditions 8
2 Trafficwavs Plan Bypass Alignment 15
3 Routes E-l, E-2, E-3 15
4 North Extension - Route E 15
5 Downtown Couplets 15
6 Current Bypass Proposals North/South 38
7 East/West Bypass Proposals 38

LIST OF TABLES
Table f Description
1 1985 Traffic Volumes & Operating Conditions
2 Accident Rates - Downtown Sebastopol
3 2010 Traffic Volumes & Operating Conditions
4 Comparison of Rte. E Alternatives
5 Pk. Hr. ILV for 1985 - N/S Couplet
6 Pk. Hr. ILV for 1985 - N/S, E/W Couplet
7 Comparison of North/South Alternatives
Page #
3 5
7 13
17 18
38 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report discusses traffic congestion at and near the intersection of State Routes 12 and 116 in downtown Sebastopol/ California. A problem results from the mix of tourists and commuters passing through Sebastopol on their way to recreational, shopping and employment centers elsewhere in the Sonoma County area, and from local citizens who conduct business in the downtown district.

An historical problem
The need to mitigate traffic congestion in downtown Sebastopol has long been recognized. As early as 1958, the Trafficways—?l3R for Sonoma County. California (DeLeuw, Cather & Company, Engineers, San Francisco, CA.) proposed that a north/south by-pass roadway to the east of the downtown area be built on a separate alignment.

This proposal was modified in the 1970s to a series of shorter bypass alternatives, all lying south of Route 12 and east of Route 116. None of the proposals were implemented because of costs, environmental concerns, and the anticipated limited effectiveness of some of the shorter alternatives.

Interim traffic relief: the north/south couplet
A system of one-way couplets for downtown Sebastopol was first proposed in the late 1970s. The north/south couplet was i
completed in 1985, and has provided partial relief for the congested city streets. An evaluation should be made to determine the traffic benefits of installing the companion east/west couplet. Preliminary studies conducted in 1979 showed that the completed couplet system would reduce traffic congestion during the peak hour periods beyond the 1985 forecast year.

The one-way couplet system is not considered a long-term answer to downtown traffic problems. If it is completed, traffic will not be removed from the business district. Traffic will instead be re¬ routed, and more efficient use made of existing streets and intersections. The couplets are only part of an overall system of street and roadway improvements, most of which await commencement.

Increasing traffic volumes
Today, there is every reason to believe that projected traffic volumes for the year 2005 will occur, and will exacerbate the congestion in the downtown area now evident only during peak travel periods. Table 3 shows these forecast volumes. Because of the worsening traffic problems, a bypass roadway is again being proposed. ii
North/south bypass alternatives
Five north/south bypass alternatives have recently been studied by federal, state and local officials. These proposals are discussed in this report, and are as follow:

1. Alternative Is Trafficwavs Plan (Modified) Align¬
ment .

2. Alternative 2: Llano Road Northeast Extension

3. Alternative 3: Llano Road Northwest Extension

4. Alternative 4: Llano Road Northwest Extension to
Route 116

5. No-Build
Alternative 1 is proposed as an ultimate 4-lane freeway designed to state standards on a new alignment. It would initially be constructed as a 2-lane expressway.

Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 are upgrades of existing Sonoma County roads. The only new alignment required is for the portion connecting Occidental Road to the Llano Road intersection with Route 12.

Alternative 5, the No-Build, is likely to be impractical for future planning purposes. Forecast traffic volumes in and near Sebastopol will require that an alternative route be provided for motorists now passing through the Routes 12/116 Intersection.

Cost estimates, benefits, right-of-way requirements, en¬ vironmental concerns, travel time savings, and the overall feasibility of each of these alternatives are discussed in this report.
iii
While it is believed that any of the four build alternatives could provide effective traffic relief for the Routes 12/116 Intersection, Alternative 3 has emerged as the Preferred Alternative for the Sebastopol Bypass Project.

East/west traffic relief proposals
An east/west bypass, of downtown Sebastopol has been studied in the past. Generally, such a roadway would depend on upgrading and extending existing county streets and roads. The east/west bypass idea has usually stagnated because of the magnitude of the necessary improvements, including the need to upgrade many adjacent and connecting streets. The lack of funding,„ limited benefits to be derived from such an improvement, and environmental issues have also made this type of proposal unattractive. It is also doubtful that any east/west bypass could, by itself, effectively reduce traffic congestion in downtown Sebastopol. A north/south bypass will almost surely be needed as well. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have the potential to divert some of the east/west traffic from the Sebastopol central business district by encouraging Route 12 vehicles to use Occidental Road.
iv
Recommendation to act
As population, employment and traffic volumes grow in Sebastopol and its environs, it is necessary that an acceptable, feasible and affordable solution be found for relieving congestion in the central business district. Failure to do so may result in a deteriorating quality of life for the residents and commercial enterprises in the - affected area.

Finding, then, that a north/south bypass is both feasible and necessary, it is recommended that funding for such a project be sought at the federal, state and local levels of government.

Decision-makers should seek the appropriate funding from one or more of these sources to carry out all needed studies of impacts, obtain all necessary clearances and rights-of-way, and ultimately construct this bypass. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of building this bypass should be an integral part of all interim planning and funding decisions.

In addition, the operation of the existing downtown couplet should be reviewed and the feasibility of providing the companion east/west couplet should be evaluated.

Sonoma County may also wish to conduct further studies of an east/west bypass. Future traffic volumes may justify that an east/west bypass be built around Sebastopol. With the selection of a north/south bypass route now achieved, more informed studies of the east/west proposals should be possible.
v

FEASIBILITY REPORT - THE SEBASTOPOL BYPASS
Introduction
in April 1987, Congress directed the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation to "study the feasibility and necessity of constructing a bypass highway around the city of Sebastopol, California (Sec. 167 California Feasibility Study)." The Secretary was further directed to submit within nine months to the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives a report on the results of the study. The time limit was subsequently extended to April 1990.

What follows is this required report. It covers the need for a bypass roadway around Sebastopol; the history of the project; the alternatives considered and their related costs, benefits, environmental issues, design standards and disadvantages, if any; the potential funding sources for the project; and an analysis of the project in terms of other state and local transportation priorities.

The report deems this project both feasible and necessary.

The Preferred Alternative is recommended for further funding and design study. Exhibits and tables are included as appropriate to assist the reader in understanding the various options that were considered.
1 The Need for a Bypass
The City of Sebastopol is located in western Sonoma County approximately 56 miles north of San Francisco. It is 7 miles west of Santa Rosa, the county seat and largest city in the county. The Russian River recreational area is 10 miles to the northwest and the Pacific Ocean 13 miles to the west of the City.

The population of Sebastopol and its environs is estimated at 25,000 for 1985 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in "Projections "87." Approximately 7,800 residents live in the City of Sebastopol proper. Although the City is a small urban center, Sebastopol's surrounding areas are mostly rural. Agricultural land uses consisting of dairies, apple orchards and grazing fields are common. Major employers include several large processing plants for the apple industry.

Given the population of the area, traffic volumes through Sebastopol are nevertheless significant, and are affected by several factors: the location of Sebastopol at the hub of an extensive system of regional roadways and two state highways (Exhibit 1); weekend and vacation recreational travelers; and commuters. Although generally an east/west highway. Route 116 runs north/south through the town and is intersected by Route 12 in the central business district. Table 1 shows 1985 traffic volumes north, south and east of the Routes 12/116 intersection. All volumes are for Route 116 unless otherwise indicated.
2 TABLE 1
1985 Traffic Volumes & Operating Conditions
Downtown Sebastopol
Post Mile/Location AADT* PHV** v/c# LOS®

25.18 Mill Station Road 16000 1900 0.99 F

26.73 Jet. Route 12 21000 2800 0.66 D

28.56 Bloomfield Road 17000 2400 0.92 E

9.23 Route 12 east of 17000 1800 0.70E
Route 116
* Average Annual Daily Traffic
** Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions)
# Volume/Capacity Ratio (Demand/Capacity Ratio if > 1.00) @ Level of Service
(AADT and PHV from Trans. Studies Branch, Caltrans Dist. 4) Level of Service Definitions at Signalized Intersections A Very little delay.

B Some delay.

C Average delay. More vehicles stop at intersections.

D Longer delays. Congestion is noticeable.

E Limit of acceptable delay.

F Unacceptable delay, usually more than a minute per
vehicle. Capacity of intersection is exceeded.
3 Commuters heavily use Routes 12 and 116. Route 116, also known as the Gravenstein Highway in the Sebastopol area, connects with Route 101 at Cotati. Route 12, also known as the Luther Burbank Memorial Highway and Sebastopol Avenue, connects with Route 101 in Santa Rosa. Route 101 is a major north/south freeway which carries commuters to employment centers in southern Sonoma County, Marin County and the City of San Fpancisco. In addition to the abovementioned traffic, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimated in 1982 that another 20,000 people living outside the City limits enter Sebastopol for business and shopping purposes.

Besides Routes 12 and 116, other important roadways in and near Sebastopol include Bodega Highway, Occidental Road, Graton Road, and Stony Point Road. These roadways carry substantial numbers of people to and from work and recreational areas in the county. Besides the weekend recreational users, vacation travelers also traverse these roadways, especially during the summer months.

Adding to the problem of relatively high traffic volumes, according to the 1982 Sebastopol General Plan, is that the existing roadway network of arterial, collector and local streets is devoid of any extensive minor arterials capable of relieving traffic flows on the major arterials. Most street alignments and locations ... are the result of
discontinuous development patterns throughout the years.

Consequently, local and regional traffic are forced to use the same arterials. In addition, auto and truck traffic traveling through the downtown areas are increasing as
development grows to the north, west and south, and
employment opportunities increase in Santa Rosa and southern Sonoma County. The commuter (peak-hour) travel patterns converge at the intersection of Routes 116 and 12.
4 All of these factors — the unique location of Sebastopol, its attractiveness as a place to conduct business, and the number of commuters, trucks and recreational travelers — contribute to traffic congestion in downtown Sebastopol, particularly on that part of Route 116 known as North and South Main Streets. The City estimated recently that some 40,000 vehicles pass through the Routes 12/116 intersection each day, with consequent long delays and an increasing number of accidents.
*
Accident data from the Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) points up the problem of moving these relatively large volumes of traffic on the existing roadway system (Table 2) .

TABLE 2
Accident Rates
Downtown Sebastopol
January 1, 1984 - December 31, 1986
Post Mile/Location # of Statewide T —"""
Accidents Rate* Rate

25.18 Mill Station Road
75 2.67 3.05

26.73 Jet. Route 12
72 2.62 2.95

28.56 Bloomfield Road

9.23 Route 12 east of 37 8.02 2.90
Route 116
**Rates are per million vehicle miles driven (MVM)
5 While this table clearly shows that the north/south one-way couplet system is operating at a slightly safer rate than similar roadways elsewhere in California/ it also shows that the accident rate on Route 12f just east of the Route 116 intersection/ is be¬ tween 2-3 times higher than the expected statewide average. Added to the problems of congestion at this intersection, then, is the problem of a high rate of accidents.

Further dispersed development in Sonoma County in the years ahead will likely increase traffic and worsen congestion in some locations, including the downtown streets in Sebastopol. Association of Bay Area Governments now estimates that the population of the Sebastopol area will reach 30,400 by the year 2005, with approximately 9,800 residents living in the City proper. Table 3 summarizes the year 2010 operating conditions along relevant portions of Routes 12 and 116 assuming no changes are made to the existing roadway system.

These volumes are taken from Caltrans' Route Concept Reports, and are based on 1985 socioeconomic data. The forecast level of service at all locations is F, which indicates a severely deficient operating condition in the years ahead in and near downtown Sebastopol. 6 TABLE 3
2010 Traffic Volumes & Operating Conditions
Downtown Sebastopol
Post ;Mile/Location AADT* PHV** Y/C# L£3i

25.18 Mill Station Road 27000 3200 1.68 F

26.72 Jet. Route 12 36000 4800 1.13 F

28.56 Bloomfield Road 29000 4000 1.53 F

9.23 Route 112 east of 29000 3000 1.16 F
Route 116
* Average Annual Daily Traffic
** Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions)
# Volume/Capacity Ratio (Demand/Capacity Ratio if > 1.00) @ Level of Service
A downtown one-way couplet project on Route 116# described later in this report# has provided some traffic relief at the above locations. It will not# however# solve the traffic problems in downtown Sebastopol as Sonoma County grows in the next 15-25 years.

Congestion will increase at certain locations and will occur more frequently throughout the day. Traffic in downtown Sebastopol will become severely congested.

It has been recognized for nearly thirty years that some kind of mitigation will be needed to provide traffic relief for downtown Sebastopol. Population and traffic growth estimates now necessitate 7 that planning for an acceptable, feasible and affordable solution be undertaken expeditiously. Failure to do so will result in a deteriorating quality of life for the residents and commercial interests in the affected area.
8 Existing Conditions
Proposed Historical Solutions
Since 1958, two major north/south bypass routes have been proposed for Sebastopol. The first was part of an upgraded county¬ wide street and highway system designed to serve traffic into the next century. The second was a smaller project which had three alternative alignments. After extensive study, all alternatives were found to be impractical for several reasons.

The Trafficwavs Plan bypass (Exhibit 2)
De Leuw, Cather and Company, consultants studying land use, population and traffic trends in Sonoma County in 1958, believed that a sophisticated freeway and expressway system would be needed throughout the county by 1980. Their report, the Trafficways—P,l_an for Sonoma Countv. California, proposed, among other things, that east/west traffic through Sebastopol be carried by a 4—lane Sebastopol Freeway. The alignment for this route followed that of today's Route 12, connecting Sebastopol and Route 101. An upgraded, 2—lane Bodega Expressway was to carry the traffic westerly from Sebastopol toward Bodega Bay and the ocean.

North/south traffic, at that time carried by Route 12 on what today is Route 116, was to travel on the existing alignment south from Guerneville to Occidental Road. At Occidental Road, this 4-lane Guerneville Expressway then followed a new alignment, crossed High 9 School Road north of Hurlbut Avenue, then proceeded southeasterly to an interchange with the Sebastopol Freeway, just west of Llano Road.

The new roadway continued south/southwesterly of Route 12 and became the 4-lane Gravenstein Expressway, crossing Todd Road and intersecting with today's Route 116.

The authors of the Trafficwavs Plan noted that "We determined that in some cases major facilities should bypass communities." This north/south expressway did indeed bypass the central business district of Sebastopol, and is the earliest known proposal for such a roadway. Although never built, this bypass remained until 1975 a viable proposal for solving the north/south traffic problems in downtown Sebastopol.

Also prior to 1975, the State of California Needs Study, which identifies state highway construction needs and estimated costs, showed that a 4 to 8-lane freeway bypassing downtown Sebastopol to the east was needed. In 1975, however, this proposal was downscoped to a 2-lane expressway, described as being from north of Route 12 to south of Route 12. The estimated cost of this expressway was $12 million. This project was reaffirmed, for the same estimated cost, in the 1977 State Highway Construction Needs. By 1981, the estimated cost had risen to $15.3 million, at which time a different alternative to relieve traffic congestion in downtown Sebastopol was sought.

The Route E proposals (Exhibit 3)
In December 1974/ prior to the release of the Needs Study which downscoped the 4 to 8-lane freeway bypass concept/ the City of Sebastopol Traffic Committee studied various roadway alternatives, labeled A to E, to alleviate traffic in the central business district. Of these preliminary proposals. Route E emerged as the preferred choice because it seemed to produce the best results at the lowest cost and with the least impact to developed property. Route E was to be a north/south connector between Route 12 (Sebastopol Avenue) on the north and Route 116 (Gravenstein Highway) on the south. For the next ten years, variations of the Route E concept were the primary proposals for permanent downtown traffic relief.

Throughout the spring of 1975, the City advocated Route E to the various agencies that had an interest in, or responsibility for approving, the project. The City sent letters to the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railroad, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Sonoma County Department of Public Works, and the Sonoma County Planning Department. The Sonoma County Department of Public Works and Caltrans both responded favorably to the project. By June of 1975 , the Sebastopol City Council was reviewing alternative alignments for Route E. Initial engineering estimates prepared in November 1975 showed that it would cost approximately $446,000. A May 1976 right-of-way acquisition estimate, however, showed this cost alone to be $252,000.

Recognizing that funding for the bypass could not be realized in the foreseeable future, the Sebastopol City Council in June 1976 11 defeated a resolution to enter into an agreement with a consultant for preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) for Route E. In October 1976, in response to a Planning Commission letter regarding Route E, the Council indicated that it had no intention of re-opening discussion on the matter.

Yet, the bypass concept survived. in March 1977, the City sent a letter to County Supervisor Eric Koenigshofer presenting the case for alternate bypass routes for Sebastopol. Two years later, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors appointed the West Sebastopol Transportation Committee (WSTC) to look into the problem of traffic congestion in Sebastopol.

While other solutions were also evaluated during the late 1970s by traffic consultants, TJKM and others, the Route E bypass proposal remained viable, too. This was in spite of a warning from TJKM that its studies had shown that "the construction of such a route would not have much benefit from a traffic impact standpoint." Further, construction costs, irrespective of right-of-way and other costs, were now estimated at $500,000.

By 1981, acting on the August 1980 recommendation of the WSTC to retain the Route E option in the Sebastopol General Plan, pending further study, the City again started developing alternative Route E alignments. In the spring of 1983, the EIR for Route E was finally commissioned.

The Sebastopol Route E Bypass Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Elgar Hill, was released in November 1983. Three alignments, E-l, E-2 and E-3 were evaluated.
12 Table 4
I
Comparison of Route E Alternatives
Projected Traffic Total Cost
Length Travel (AADT (000's) (millions)
lailfi&l Time (mins.) North of Palm South of Palm (1983) E-l 0.9 2.33 16.2 12.0 $2.97
E-2 1.3 2.58 16.2 10.9 3.14
E-3 1.9 2.48 16.2 10.2 3.40
|j
(1983 Travel Time = 4.69 minutes) !
(Source: Route E Preliminary Plan - Report. May 1983
Hogan, Schoch & Associates, Inc.)
i
i
ji
! . Alteri nate
All of the alignments were 2-lane conventional roadways with 8- foot. shoulders, 40-foot total paved widths and 60-foot total rightof-way widths. All began at a signalized intersection with Route 12, required a railroad warning device at the Petaluma and Santa Rosa tracks 1000 feet south of Route 12, and a signalized intersection at Palm Avenue. All ended at a signalized intersection with Route 116:

E-l at Pircrest Avenue, E-2 at Cooper Road and E-3 at Bloomfield Road.

It was believed that additional lanes were also needed at the signalized intersections to maintain a consistent level of service throughout the bypass.
13 By 1983/ the City recognized that any effective north/south bypass east of Sebastopol would necessarily have to be extended north of Route 12/ connecting to Route 116 in the vicinity of Occidental Road. Accordingly/ Elgar Hill also issued a report entitled North Ex tension Sebastopol Bypass Route E Environmental Reconnaissance in November 1983. The study area for the extension was limited to 55 acres of land north of Route 12/ terminating near the Morris and Johnson Street intersection (Exhibit 4). A future link was shown to connect to High School Road, but even this upgraded proposal was only half the distance from Route 12 to Occidental Road.

During the environmental review phase for the Route E proposals, many objections to the bypass were raised:
o All three alignments crossed the Laguna de Santa Rosa, a swampy area subject to frequent flooding during the
rainy season. Critics pointed out that even the por¬
tion of Route 12 across the Laguna floods about every
five years.
o The new roadway would have had to be built on an elevat¬ ed berm to avoid frequent flooding. The cost and
aesthetic impacts of such construction would have had
to be measured against the benefits of the roadway. In
that the plans for the northern extension of Route E
were nebulous at that time, the TJKM warning about the
limited benefits of Route E was even more relevant,
o The Laguna, a highly sensitive environmental preserve with riparian woodland, open fields, endangered plant
14 species and wildlife, would have been disturbed.
o All three alignments would have adversely affected pre¬ viously unrecorded prehistoric archeological sites
thought to have scientific and cultural significance.
o Some houses and trailers would have been removed, and their residents relocated.
o Access to local streets would have been restricted for some residents.
o None of the alternatives were in full compliance with the provisions of the 1982 Sebastopol General Plan
dealing with the protection of natural resources.

Having, then, completed the further studies and held appro¬ priate hearings on Route E — as called for by the West Sebastopol Transportation Committee — the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3638 in December 1984 which eliminated all alternatives of Route E from the Sebastopol General Plan. Today, Route E is not considered a viable bypass option.
15 • t *
EL. 1150
A

WILD HOQ
HILL
BL 118 v\\\ =
W. Windsor
WINDSOR RIVEf] [ll''7\V
d 7
« / V?\ ’
IKEISER ^nciUdM fco/LU( PK. REIMAN ,
1 £j \
§-r , il\
JENSINjNJa. WO S
^Fe. Windsor ,
JL >vPLEASANT AV
EL. U35
SUCK MfW.

A
|yV '’• Forest Hills \ |
«g
H°llydsl§X Mirabel f iVS\'. par[<
mmmerhome J/Rio Dell
Park -?/ st. 20. vl- r5^-
st.*o g j S. § 3
'•••• II1 I ^
4 / v1 V Z
' I* s
^\ES7 | STATION RD.

I N. WILSON, \N
_J ) , SHILOH RQ
/> ,cft \ ~W~
<<? SI SANDERS RD.
• \> 2-!
A
%k>xs
N
3 E.
.SHILOH
\ RD.

L Mark West
)« Springs
EL. -130

A REDWOOD
HILL
EL. UOO
MA^/ i
•:v g[l.S ANDERSON
.A.
£ no-
? Forestville
\ EL. 170
1 f/ ' yv
RD.j AIRPORT
|S0/VQM,4 CO. |
AIRPORT ip^1-
S^WOOLSEV
WiSiup
\ RD.
“fullon' *
EL. 13S \
d \
101
5 d
/ CUNEOLCT.
/vine HILL
\ SCHOOL
\ RD.
\ W. OLIVET RD.
\
GUERNEVII l.E
(S
lh?y_ EL.425 g"
MT. PISOAH A
I *J9$r' iXr
)/ :

N^( —<« V'v-.RENTAL
RD.T1 F
C 3*
Freestone )J
£E. 300 7
g I g'r~ i ||/iGraton V \ |
A //|!/'•• 9^eachlanoV^
/ V
irfiAjssA Y'wslUofm,
X,r,” P) \Iu5SSJ2
d
Oi
UJ z
Q o
to §
O—1 —J
u.
3= RD.

A-BICENTENmALVi
\ Wy CO. 1
\ AOMIN.
w. \ ccor.i
STEELE\J-N/"
SantKRoss
COMM.

VA. hosp.
oV ico.j
sfew.^\
fv?. ? $
If , - S.W/I
1, H0S4
•I JP COLL.
(«N£OIUge a
sNSEf 'SQ^X'

OCCIDENTAL
COVERT
#/M2^
Vc
^Sebastopo|
ho
r <&
^SPR. HILL If |
X^SCII. RD. Ig l
’l 4>, / ^/r
rt EL-M
\v<m\ COOPER
}&L rift )
t £L. 164
'i'S3.1' i
nwT'gSANTA HOSA ’
£ _ _ Am i
S3 ^Ewren >
DC I J
\VJDWIG
cx
AsML
soumwfsn L
COA(W p« g
BELLEVUE^ S
^L05 \poTK
. I “T
.RDAELPHICK55J SgT a 01
£
RAKER ^|EN;
\
••V
V U
V" TAYLOR ;
\ el /;.-
„ w SCENIC
B5-- grsc S
g si 5
5 «t _•
j^ii|
- 8
AV. 1
WARrf(.

MOUNTAIN VIEW AV.f
BW/vrrjvmTTTvT
nB. V^VNEDY RaHCunninfeham MIUBRAE \. v -TT—V~i . Mill tnEIA 5l"AUJ «
L^_
KnowlesVX
Corner V
voiylr].—n?- 1m \^.

L-JfL no\<% oc / -\VV
wrr 3
EL 53s
Valley
Ford
EE. 100
Bloomfield
PETALUfo, *
"ST \_
< .
n ce vs. 1
^-Cl
UJ Vji ft!
o
c
o DU
/ROHfNRT _
Rohnert *g |; 5!
ParknV'of
^XCotati \>
WL M/V?
\ EAST '.PAli,
marsh
,HAMMEL /
Pf *< i
AV MAIH :

Exhibit 2
1958 Trafficways Plan Bypass Alignment
r116

FUTURE LINK
\
A n a ly
High
.School
Healdsbura Avu
Bodega Ave.

STUDY
AREA
%
V#
Spain).

AA^e.
• •
• «
Ffrcrest Ave. \/
• •
i V
V
Exhibit 4
North Extension
Sebastopol Bypass Route E
.•Cooper Rd.
116

An Interim Solution - The Downtown Couplet Project (Exhibit 5) Even as it studied the Route E alignments, the City of
Sebastopol pursued another means of traffic relief for its downtown.

In 1978 , the City hired TJKM to analyze existing traffic and make recommendations for relieving congested roadways in and near Sebastopol. The TJKM report, entitled the City of Sebastopol Traffic System Study# was released in July 1978. Among the proposals TJKM developed was a pair of one-way couplets through downtown Sebastopol.

The north/south route included Main Street, Petaluma Avenue and McKinley Street. The east/west couplet included Sebastopol/Bodega Avenues, High Street, Burnett Street and Petaluma Avenue. The estimated cost of installing the north/south couplet was $180,000; the east/west, $165,000.

TJKM forecast a year 2000 level of service (LOS) "A" at the Routes 12/116 intersection if both couplets were implemented. With only the north/south improvement, this LOS dropped to "E". Never¬ theless, TJKM believed that either or both couplets could provide effective traffic relief into the next century.

Following a public hearing in September 1978, the City ap¬ proved the couplet concept for both directions of traffic. The next month, the Sebastopol City Council adopted the City of Sebastopol Traffic System Study, and transmitted a letter to Caltrans asking that the State implement the couplets at the earliest possible date. 16 Caltrans studied the proposal during 1979/80. During this study, traffic projections for 1985 showed that, with the north/ south couplet in place, the Main Street/Sebastopol Avenue/Bodega Avenue intersection (Routes 12/116 southbound) would still be congested during the PM peak hour. Congestion was also forecast for the Petaluma Avenue/Sebastopol Avenue intersection (Routes 12/116 northbound) at the same time of day.

The Caltrans study indicated that with both couplets, traffic in downtown Sebastopol would operate satisfactorily for the forecast year 1985. Tables 5 & 6 summarize these findings.

Table 5
Peak Hour ILV* For Year 1985 Traffic
Sebastopol North/South Couplet
No Build N/S Couolet
Intersection M PM M PJ4
Main St./McKinley St. 980 1140 820 940
Main St./Sebastopol Ave./
Bodega Ave. (Route 12/116)
(southbound)
1250 1400 1040 1390
Main St./Burnett St. 800 960 400 470
Petaluma Ave./Burnett St. 470 540 600 580
Petaluma Ave./Sebastopol Ave.
(Route 12/116)
(northbound)
820 1270 1040 1260
* ILV * Intersection Lane Vehicles - the sum of the conflicting intersection movements, on a vehicles per lane basis.
17 Table 6
Peak Hour ILV* For Year 1985 Traffic
Sebastopol North/South & East/West Couplets
No Build N/S & E/W Couplets
Intersection AM PM AM PM
Main St./McKinley St. 980 1140 820 940
Main St./Sebastopol Ave./
Bodega Ave. (Route 12/116)
(southbound)
1250 1400 680 810
Main St./Burnett St. 800 960 s 700 710
Petaluma Ave./Burnett St. 470 540 960 910
Petaluma Ave./Sebastopol Ave. 820 1270 810 940
(Route 12/116)
(northbound)
* ILV = Intersection Lane Vehicles - the sum of the conflicting intersection movements, on a vehicles per lane basis.

The interpretation of the ILV volumes is:

ILV Description
0-1000 No significant delay
1000-1200 Minor delays - most vehicles
clear on each signal cycle
1200-1500 Congested - many vehicles wait
more than one signal cycle
1500 + Heavy congestion - long delays,
duration of congestion more than
one hour
Level of Service
A-B
C
D-E
F
(Source: Caltrans Project Report, July 1982)
18 Although this analysis showed that both couplets would function more effectively than just the north/south couplet, Caltrans concluded that only the north/south couplet should be im¬ plemented. Its operation could be evaluated later, and then a decision regarding the installation of the east/west couplet could be - made.

Since funding for a major bypass was not available, state and local officials believed that the couplets were the most feasible proposals for relieving the congested downtown traffic. Thus, in December 1979, the City of Sebastopol asked the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to include the couplet project in its 5-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) , and to give it highest priority. In advocating the couplets, the City pointed out that 40,000 vehicles passed through the Routes 12/116 intersection each day, resulting in long delays and increasing the number of accidents. The City further noted that heavy truck traffic in the area was also delayed, and that trucks were sometimes forced up over curbs, endangering pedestrians. Proponents viewed the couplet system as a transportation system management (TSM) measure because it used existing streets. No new construction was required. Signalization, lane markings and the re-routing of traffic constituted the main expenses.

The MTC included the project in its RTIP for fiscal year 1980/81, but for local funds only. The City of Sebastopol had, at the time, committed to the project about $100,000 of the estimated 19 $500,000 cost. The California Transportation Commission (CTC), however, excluded the project from its State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for that year.

In August 1980, the West Sebastopol Transportation Committee released its report. This committee recommended installing both couplets, with the understanding that they would be more than temporary traffic relief measures. The couplets would continue operating even after other improvements were made to the local transportation system. But with the action of the CTC, inadequate funding was available, and the couplet project became dormant.

During the 1981 Section 188.8 Need Estimate, the 2-lane ex¬ pressway bypass proposal was downscoped to a one-way couplet system with an estimated cost of $600,000. By November of the same year, the couplet project was revived. Caltrans agreed to support the project on the conditions that the City participate in the funding and maintain Petaluma Avenue and McKinley Street until they were brought up to highway standards. At that time, the State would assume maintenance of the streets.

In May 1982, two public hearings on the couplet were held, with no noticeable opposition emerging. Subsequently, in October, Caltrans recommended the adoption of the city streets into the highway system for the one-way couplet. That same month the CTC passed a resolution adopting the location of a section of Route 116 in Sebastopol on McKinley Street from N. Main Street to Petaluma Avenue, and on Petaluma Avenue from McKinley Street to S. Main Street. With this adoption, plans for completing the north/south couplet could proceed. 20 The State had accepted the responsibility for maintaining this new section of Route 116.

Further impetus to build the north/south couplet came in an advisory vote on June 6, 1984. Citizens voted 978 Yes to 926 No to proceed with the project. The north/south couplet was finally completed in June 1985.

In June 1987, residents of Sebastopol voted on Measure A, a proposal to return two-way traffic to Main Street and Petaluma Avenue; build a bypass around the City; impose a building moratorium inside the City limits until the bypass was built; and remove Caltrans from having jurisdiction over State highways inside Sebastopol City limits. Measure A was defeated by a vote of 387 Yes to 1210 No.

Since Measure A contained several different proposals, it is difficult to analyze the meaning of the vote. It may be seen in part, however, as supporting the continuance of the present north/south couplet.

The November 1985 Route Concept Report for Route 12 notes that the east/west couplet still requires further study. Part of that study will be the evaluation of the north/south couplet. Otherwise, no further steps toward implementing the east/west couplet are taking place. Problems in instituting the east/west couplet include:
o The minimum time required for route adoption, construc¬ tion and implementation, if similar to the north/south
couplet experience, is three years.
o The costs incurred in bringing the existing streets up to State highway standards are substantial, and the
sources for funding such improvements are uncertain.
21 o High and Burnett Streets are narrow and have some resi¬ dential land uses. Sharp right and left turns are
necessary to traverse these streets.
o The Burnett/Petaluma Intersection may require some
other kind of traffic control to replace the existing
stop signs. It is possible that, for this couplet to
work, the entire Burnett/Petaluma/Sebastopol Avenue
intersections might have to be rebuilt. At present,
traffic using Burnett must stop, yield to oncoming
northbound Petaluma Avenue traffic, then proceed left
for a short block before turning right onto Sebastopol
Avenue (Route 12). This would work poorly with the
higher traffic volumes generated by an eastbound one¬
way scheme on Burnett Avenue.

The east/west couplet system remains a stated policy of the Sebastopol General Plan, but is not a policy of the Sonoma County General Plan Circulation and Transit Element/Public Hearing Draft.

In that the east/west couplet remains a City policy, however, it is possible that further studies will be conducted to determine whether or not it should eventually be implemented.

The Route Concept Report for Route 116, issued in March 1985, warns that if the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park/Cotati areas grow as forecast by 2005, an additional alternative to the north/south couplet may be required. But even if completed, the north/south, east/west couplet system does nothing to remove traffic from downtown 22 I
I
I
I Sebastopol. It simply reroutes traffic in a more circuitous manner.

The couplet system, by itself, is now considered an inadequate | , solution to the downtown traffic problems in Sebastopol. \ !
Caltrans was asked by local officials to evaluate the operations of the north/south one-way couplet on Route 116 in Sebastopol that was completed in 1985. Our recent findings follow:
, *
i i
For the three-year period between January 1979 and December I i
1988, the accident rate decreased 36% on Route 116 and 27% on Route 12 compared to the pre-project years January 1979 and December 1981. The accident rates still remain above the expected or statewide rates. The couplet itself has eliminated head-on accidents.

The implementation of the north/south one-way couplet on Route 116 has resulted in significant improvement in traffic operations in the central business district of Sebastopol. This is especially true at the intersection of Main Street and Sebastopol Avenue/Bodega Avenue where the most severe congestion occurred before the couplet project was constructed. If the one¬ way couplet was returned to two-way geometry there, would be a recurrence of traffic congestion, which would be even more severe due to the high traffic growth in the past ten years. 23 1
l
i
!
The limited street width in the Route 12 corridor in and near Sebastopol limits the capacity to carry the increasing traffic volume. It is believed that an east/west couplet should be considered to resolve the recurring congestion westbound during the PM peak period. The traffic growth between Santa Rosa and western Sonoma County may still generate congestion even with an east/west couplet. An interim measure that may make the Main Street/Sebastopol Avenue/Bodega Avenue intersection more efficient would be to prohibit parking westbound on Bodega Avenue between Main Street and High Street to allow two-lane merging traffic westbound and to re-stripe the westbound left turn lane to southbound Main Street as an optional through/left turn lane.

Sebastopol officials must make such determinations.
24 Current Bypass Proposals (Exhibit 6)
Envisioning anew the need for an eventual north/south bypass around downtown Sebastopol, federal, state and local officials have again studied possible alternative alignments for such a project.

Proposals studied include building the bypass on an all new, separate alignment, upgrading local and county roads to carry increased volume of traffic and function as a bypass, and using a combination of upgraded existing roadways connected by newly built links. However built, the bypass may not necessarily become part of the State highway system, as Sonoma County may choose to retain jurisdiction over the new roadway.

Regardless of the type and location of the bypass, certain elements of the Sebastopol General Plan - 1.982 pertain to the planning of the roadway. Among other goals and principles, this document encourages the following policies:
o "To reduce automobile congestion by promoting other
modes of transportation and providing alternatives to
existing vehicle travel patterns."
o "To manage future growth in order to ensure the orderly development of the City, the logical extension of urban services, the reduction of traffic congestion, preser¬
vation of the area’s agricultural industry, and the
25 protection of the City's natural resources and environ¬ mental setting."
o "To protect the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Atascadero Creek and their environs from encroaching urbanism ... ."
A stated objective of the same General Plan is "to relieve traffic congestion at the main intersection of Highway 12 and 116." Although this has been partly achieved by the north/south couplet, the bypass remains a future concept. This was confirmed by local officials to Caltrans in an April 1985 letter and again in July 1987 meetings. In satisfying this objective, compliance with the other goals and policies of the General Plan remains an important consideration.

Five options for a north/sou.th bypass have been studied. The first is for a totally new roadway, ultimately, with routing modified to some extent from the Trafficwavs Plan for the Guerneville/ Gravenstein Expressways. The first phase of this option will, however, use a portion of Llano Road.

The next three alternatives are northerly extensions of Llano Road, which currently ends on Route 12 near Post Mile 10.5, about one mile east of the Laguna de Santa Rosa Bridge. The last option is to do nothing, or a no build proposal.

Design standards for the four build alternatives have not yet been decided. The bypass could be built to either State or County standards, which differ in some respects. Accordingly, the estimated construction costs, right-of-way requirements, and 26 environmental mitigation measures may vary, depending on the final standards selected. These design standards are summarized in Appendix A.

A license plate survey, conducted in August/September of 1987, yielded preliminary estimates as to what percentage of peak-hour through-traffic might divert to a hypothetical bypass. Appendix C summarizes this license plate survey.

Following is a profile of the five alternatives.

Alternative Is Modified Trafficwavs Plan Alignment
Location and length: The first proposal is for a new roadway beginning near Frei Road north of Sebastopol, then running southerly east of existing Route 116. The alignment crosses Route 12 and continues south across Todd Road, intersecting with Llano Road. The present Llano Road alignment is then followed southerly to Route 116. This would initially be a 2-lane expressway approximately 5.7 miles in length on new alignment with at-grade intersections and 76 acres of right-of-way would be required. It satisfies the recommendation made to Caltrans by the Sebastopol City Council in April 1985 for a bypass
"somewhere between Laguna de Santa Rosa and Llano Road." Ultimately, this new roadway could be developed into a 4-lane freeway approximately 10.3 miles in length connecting with Route 101 at Cotati. Should that become feasible in the future, the alignment will cross, rather than intersect with. Llano Road. It will then run north of and parallel to existing Route 116 27 eastward to Route 101. A new freeway to freeway connection will be required near the Route 101/Rohnert Park Expressway
interchange.

Traffic diversion/time savings; This alternative will shift through-traffic away from Route 116 in downtown Sebastopol. It is estimated that the initial 2-lane expressway will divert 7,200 vehicles daily.

Motorists traveling through Sebastopol will save 1.1 minutes on the 2-lane expressway and 2.7 minutes on the 4-lane freeway.

Congestion at the critical Routes 12/116 Intersection in Sebastopol will be significantly reduced under either option.

Costs (1989) : If built to State standards, the 2-lane
expressway will cost $10,400,000, the ultimate 4-lane freeway, $85,000,000. If constructed to Sonoma County standards, these respective estimated costs are $8,200,000 for the expressway, $85,000,000 for the freeway equal to State standards. Other related improvements discussed below are included in these estimates. A discussion of roadway standards is found in Appendix A.

Related improvements? A small segment of Todd Road, just west of Llano Road, should ideally be realigned to the southwest to intersect with the new bypass, thus providing an east/west alternative to Route 12. This will also reduce traffic on Route 28 116 between Cotati and the bypass. Todd Road east of the bypass will have to be upgraded throughout, however, if it is to be a viable alternative to Routes 12 and 116. Existing Todd Road and required improvements are discussed more fully under the East/west traffic relief proposals~later in this report.

Extending Todd Road westerly to Route 116 is not recommended under Alternative 1. Although such an extension is both City and County policy, residents served by this extension, from the Elphick Road vicinity, could enter the new bypass at Llano Road.

Trips to the north could be completed on the bypass, while trips to the east could use upgraded Todd Road or Route 12. The costs of extending Todd Road westerly over the environmentally sensitive Laguna de Santa Rosa will be avoided.

Additionally, a section of Llano Road between Route 116 and the new bypass would have to be improved. Of particular concern is the narrow, 2-lane blacktop portion between Meadow Lane and Todd Road. At a minimum, this segment, with unimproved shoulders, rough surfaces and a top speed of 35 miles per hour, would have to be upgraded.

Environmental considerations: If Alternative 1 is chosen, any construction in or near the Laguna de Santa Rosa or the Sonoma County Sanitary and Wastewater District operations could raise sensitive environmental questions and generate substantial 29 opposition to the plan. Any route taking productive agricultural land will be in conflict with the Sebastopol General Plan policies mentioned earlier. This could be a definite concern near Frei Road, where the alignment may infringe on existing apple orchards and recreational land uses.

Depending on the location of the segment north of Route 12, issues identified in the North Extension Sebastopol Bypass, Route E Environmental Reconnaissance could also be germane.

These issues include the loss of riparian vegetation, the loss of existing apple processing and other agricultural land uses, and the disruption of other planned land uses, including further industrial development.

Other issues: This alternative is contrary to Resolution No. 3518 to the Sebastopol General Plan, passed in 1984. This called for the implementation of both the east/west and north/ south couplets, the improvement of Occidental Road to relieve traffic through Sebastopol to and from the north, and the connection of Todd Road to Route 116 near Elphick Road, to improve circulation and to reduce traffic on Route 12.

Further, the Sonoma Countv General Plan Circulation and Transit Element/Public Hearing Draft, dated January 22, 1987, does not support a bypass of this type.
30 Alternative 2: Llano Road Northeast Extension
Location and length: The Sonoma County General—Pi an—C irculation and Transit Element/Public Hearing Draft proposes that Llano Road be extended to the north/northeast, west of Irwin Lane, from Route 12 to Occidental Road. If completed. Llano Road will connect Occidental Road to Route 116 (Gravenstein Highway) south of Sebastopol, near Post Mile 32 where Llano Road presently ends.

Presently, Llano Road is adequately improved, (though not to State standards), from Route 12 to Todd Road and from Meadow Lane to Route 116. The segment between Meadow Lane and Todd Road will need upgrading because of the narrow roadbed and right of way. (see Alternative 1, Related Improvements).

North of Route 12, the Llano Road extension will require construction on a new alignment to Occidental Road at the Piezzi Lane intersection. Improvements to Occidental Road will also be necessary. Following years of environmental review, a project is now under construction, including a new 40' wide bridge across the Laguna de Santa Rosa, from 0.3 mile west of High School Road to 0.1 mile East of Sanford Road that will upgrade Occidental Road, and will be completed in early 1990. Approximately 0.4 mile of High School Road is also being upgraded in this project.

Additional improvements west of the project to Route 116 intersection must await further funding.
31 Assuming that all affected portions of both Occidental Road and Llano Road are upgraded to the County standards for secondary arterials, the required right-of-way width throughout this alternative is 60 feet minimum. Alternative 2 will be
approximately 7.5 miles long.

Traffic diversion/time savings: It is estimated that 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd) will drive this bypass, shifting 10,900 vpd away from the Routes 12/116 intersection. The travel time is estimated at 1.1 minutes more than the Route 116 direct trip during non-peak periods.

Costs; To construct this alternative to County standards will cost about $6,340,000 . If State standards are used for these improvements, the estimated cost is $7,400,000.

Related improvements: The Sonoma County General Plan proposes extending Todd Road west to Route 116 south of Sebastopol. In conjunction with Alternative 2, this extension provides an east/west alternative to Route 12 and a north/south alternative to Route 116. This proposal differs from the short extension of Todd Road discussed under Alternative 1, which ends at the new bypass. An additional consideration is that Todd Road, under this alternative, will require the same amount of upgrading easterly to Route 101 as needed under Alternative 1. This is discussed 32 under East/West Traffic Relief Proposals. Thus, the cost of improving Todd Road would be higher under Alternative 2 since the westerly extension is longer.

Environmental considerations: The environmental issues for the extension of Llano Road north of Route 12 are similar to those previously studied in the North Extension Sebastopol Bypass Route E Environmental Reconnaissance.

The westerly extension of Todd Road, through the Laguna de Santa Rosa, is likely to meet with some objections from local residents. The impacts, and anticipated objections, will be similar to those which arose during the now defunct Route E studies (p. 13).

Other issues: The 1978 TJKM Traffic System Study, which analyzed a proposal similar to Alternative 2, noted that the im¬ provements would all lie outside the jurisdiction of the City of Sebastopol. The study concluded that an Occidental/Llano bypass would be helpful, "but beneficial only to county-wide traffic, and would not have any influence on traffic within the City of Sebastopol."
Alternative 3: Llano Road Northwest Extension
Location and length: This bypass proposal uses Occidental Road with its new bridge, a new road extending from Occidental Road 33 southeasterly to Llano Road, and Llano Road southerly to Route 116. The difference between this and alternative 2 is the new segment of road that will connect Occidental Road with Llano Road. This new segment will connect with Occidental Road east of Sanford Road, go southeast across Route 12, and connect with Llano Road south of Route 12. If designed to County standards, this alternative will require a 60 foot wide right of way. This alignment is approximately 7.1 miles long.

Traffic diversion/time savings: If Alternative 3 is built, it is estimated that 12,000 vehicles per day would use this route, removing 10,900 vpd from the Routes 12/116 intersection. The additional travel time savings over the present conditions is 0.8 minutes during the off-peak hours.

Costs: If Sonoma County arterial standards are applied, it will cost $7,078,000 to build this alternative. If State standards are used, the cost will be $8,000,000. The same westerly extension of Todd Road to Route 116, described under Alternative 2, could also be built under Alternative 3.

Related improvements: The westerly extension of Todd Road is the same as described under Alternative 2. The improvement of Todd Road easterly to Route 101 is described below, under East/West Traffic Relief Proposals.
34 Environmental considerations: The same environmental issues described under Alternative 2 also apply to this proposal.

Other issues: As with Alternative 2, TJKM believes that any arterial bypass involving Occidental and Llano Roads will have an impact on traffic countywide, but little impact on traffic within the City of Sebastopol.

Alternative 4: Llano Road northwest extension to Route 116 Location and length: The fourth alternative extends Llano Road northwest of Route 12 on new alignment, utilizing the new bridge on Occidental Road, than proceeds north and conforms to Route 116 in the vicinity of Frei Road. The existing portions of Llano Road which require upgrading to present design standards will be part of this alternative similar to Alternatives 2 & 3.

The new bridge is the only improvement necessary on Occidental Road under this proposal.

This 8.0 mile proposal would likely be built to County ar¬ terial standards, and will require a 60 foot wide right-of-way for a two-lane roadway.

Traffic diversion/time savings: It is estimated that 12,000 vehicles per day will use this bypass, shifting 10,900 vpd away from Route 116 through downtown Sebastopol. This will add 35 approximately 1.7 minutes travel time in off-peak hours based on increased mileage over existing Route 116.

Costs; It will cost approximately $8/500,000 to construct this alternative to County standards. If State standards are used, the estimated cost is $10,100,000.

Related improvements: The westerly extension of Todd Road to Route 116, described under Alternative 2, and the overall upgrading of Todd Road easterly to Route 101, proposed for all build alternatives, are also suggested as part of Alternative 4.

Environmental considerations: Any new construction near Prei Road may infringe on existing apple orchards and the nearby golf course. The northerly extension of Llano Road to just east of the Occidental Road bridge may cross the environmentally critical Laguna de Santa Rosa. Indian burial grounds have also been discovered near portions of this alignment close to Occidental Road.

Other issues: No other issues have been identified at this time relative to this alignment.
36 Alternative 5: No-Build
It is possible that none of the four north/south bypass al¬ ternatives will be built. If so, there will be no construction or right-of-way costs. No upgrading of existing roads will be needed for a bypass, although future traffic volumes might require that some roads be improved anyway. The environmental impacts associated with the build proposals will also not occur.

A no-build condition will have costs, however. Future traffic volumes will still reach forecast levels as growth continues in Sonoma County. This traffic will necessarily traverse existing routes, including through downtown Sebastopol where congestion continues even with the operating north/south couplet. This congestion will be exacerbated without workable roadway alternatives. With the increased congestion will come increased delays for motorists, more air pollution in downtown Sebastopol, and more traffic-generated noise.

Without a bypass and related improvements, local streets and roads will become more congested as motorists seek alternative routes around the Routes 12/116 bottleneck. Environmental conditions will deteriorate along the more heavily traveled alternative routes.
37 Summary of the Bypass Alternatives
Table 7 summarizes and compares the four build alternatives for a north/south bypass in Sebastopol.

Table 7
Comparison of North/South Alternatives, Initial Construction Alternatives - 1 2 3 4 5.
* of Lanes & type of
roadway * 2E 2C 2C 2C N
Length, Miles 7.5 7.5 7.1 8.0 O
Right-of-way width 84 C 60 C 60 C 60 C
120 S 100 S 100 S 100 S
Traffic diverted:

Vehicles per 7,200 10,900 10,900 10,900
B
day O
Travel time savings
Minutes per vehicle -1.1 +1.1 +0.8 +1.7
Cost $Million
-State standards 10.4 7.4 8.0 10.1 I
-County standards 8.2 6.7 7.1 8.5 L
Environmental mitigation D
Costs Unknown
Residences/businesses
Displaced (To be determined by Sonoma County)
* C - Conventional, E - Expressway, F - Freeway
There are tradeoffs in whatever alternative is chosen. It is also possible that improvements to east/west roadways will offer some relief to north/south congestion. This is discussed in a later section.
38 Exhibit 6
Current Bypass Proposals
North/South
EL. 1150
A
H/iO HOG
HILL
> Q
\$> g
EL. lie 'fWv §
W. Windsor \4j\m
Windsor river iif
d 7
.keisbh
£0MAf PX. REIMAN ; <^0
IN. WILSON,
! SP \
’ 5I I 1
100 i
E. Windsor /
L 7\PI.EASANT AV
EL. 1435
BLACK MtN.

A
«N. V
I I , SHILOH RD.))^
/ /V#t S SANDERS 3TNT RD. \
(«* v
tVESl I STATION RD.| A AIRPORT
J .~| ISOWO/UA C0.ll
Forest Hills
. *’V. ST •
35 trVNV Vi Js
^°IJyd3|e<\ .Mirabel
• gf .V\\\ p,.j. V>_J
mnimerliome J/Rio Dell>Kr s-J§ fx
Park y/ n. jo. \->~C 1 =
a'50 si,. g, §
'I;, gl .5 IANDERSON *T°* *°
mH \
3 E.
.SHILOH
\ RD.
d Mark West
)“ Springs
EL. 433

A REDWOOD
HILL
el. noo
m
AIRPORT |
Wikiup
twiKiur^p
rsTAsJreHfon
/Iaiighlin
^cyJoolsey"
\ no.
"flS-
£L. 132 \
Foreslville
k EL. 170
/ CIINElAcT.
/vine lilil
\ SCHOOL
\ • RD.
g of o j £ o ce
W. OLIVET RD.

V
•V-p
101
lk§
r^BfCENTEMmAlVl \ WV. CO \
\ ADMIN.
\V. V CENT.
steeRw^
GUEIINLVII IF.
i A
r. . R .j
/ > P
;UVW- .11 *YN
1 ,|’v1 RD. lire.
£L.4?5 g"
ATP. PISGAH A
|L/ ibr
3VU7'
Graton
W. RDcollege
'SantKRosi
COMM.

V%. WCW.
(CO.; •
mmy
I rV* • S 4
i! „ *°S4 LI JA. COLL.

U\c°iuce AV.
'STAGE
1 COACH RD.
/W|
/f tW
«fcV‘
l|>Sr
grmoii_,
nJ V^- RENTAL
13e.TL? IIUHLDIJ1
\\iv~m
/
Freestone >
EL. 300
J]\
t\!5 E.
\L I'Wkv \AV. O
% f\4 -_3»L/^ei)asti
,llu 5 i V
lal TBD b COOPER
r «v(gS/y
?.LJ/feN5? /SgL . xrdAelpihckJ S
'sols
o o
1 EL. 164
POV
AV.1 g'
>- SANTA P.OSA.

S _ _ Ain 1 L5 'j^ENTEfl •
g • _ J
1 w I 1
VViOVVIG
CL
,o'A
g/*SjL
^ c
§f
gj
TTm~,r
— £ §
g
BAKER ^ILNJ
\VSV Y.
|||;
p'VNEDY N
I g (oJiin.

S^- np\cun{
in iGis
! H-lr^
3 S
5 sourKwesn >.

COMM PK g
BELLEVUE^' S
AV.
ii
Q
RD. § g
(S<o:
§
V S
AV. \
' VC°o^oS
\pi*K‘
ImvorAxoi,.,
--
V" TAYLC~:
\ EL I

MOUNTAIN VIEW AV
-A -j >• i k < a -r

MILL BRAE

WILFRED
nnowles\^>
Corner \
ynlKERlS RD.
az
blank !
‘/’fir| '
JJt-rtn.

LEGEND

MODIFIED TRAFFICWAYS

LLANO NORTHEAST

LLANO NORTHWEST
LLANO NORTHWEST TO 116
x 11" Ul
V) XT’
a f
i
g.vfiZi
.* : M- f
V. ,T 1 j 1
_mvv^J j p
;|K.£lSf<
rohnFrT
EXPP.i
= CJL
* \
\ r„. H \/.
l-xL^Sf]f\Colali \>
„ T V‘"AV
| \ EAST \R;
JIAMMEl rtfi,i.,.Rr- *v Alt
Exhibit 6
Current Bypass Proposals
North/South
Funding and Priority of the Bypass
At the present time, no sources of funding for any of the abovementioned bypass alternatives have been identified. Tied to funding is the question of what priority a bypass around Sebastopol has in the overall list of transportation needs, both on a statewide and countywide basis.

State perspective
No bypass project for Sebastopol is currently programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP>. It is possible that the State will provide some local assistance funding for improvements to existing streets and roadways, such as proposed under Alternatives 2-4. Other local projects within Sonoma County and District 4 of Caltrans will compete for this funding, however.

If Alternative 1 were selected, the State might fund the project in whole or part since it would likely replace a portion of existing Route 116, particularly if built as a 4-lane freeway. Nevertheless, funding for new highways is scarce, even as the demand for new highways is strong. A bypass around Sebastopol, carrying an estimated average daily traffic of 7,200 to 12,000 vehicles will be low priority, given the much greater needs existing elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area. The chances for early State funding for a Sebastopol bypass appear to be unlikely.
39 Local perspective
Sonoma County has allocated no funds for a Sebastopol Bypass project at the present time, either. The County favors upgrading the county roads (Alternatives 2-4) over the more expensive Alternative 1, however. Alternative 1 has far more right-of-way, construction and potential environmental costs associated with it than do the other alternatives.

County funding prospects are no brighter than those of the State. Existing funds cannot cover all that needs to be done.

Legislation has now been passed in California that permits counties to place on the local ballot a 1/2 cent sales tax increase to pay for transportation projects. Such measures have already been passed in Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Contra Costa Counties.

Presently, Sonoma County is not scheduled to vote on such a measure, and the prospects are that any such vote will be held in conjunction with a similar.vote for Marin County. These two counties share one major transportation problem — the Route 101 corridor.

The Route 101 corridor is generally recognized as the highest transportation priority in both Marin and Sonoma Counties.

Consequently, improvements to and along Route 101 will have top priority as funds become available. A more localized project, such as the Sebastopol Bypass, may not be able to compete for funding with Route 101 improvements, even if a sales tax increase passes.

If some funding can be obtained for a bypass from the City of Sebastopol, some impetus might be given-for the County to consider the local roadway improvements needed to complete one of Alternatives 40 2-4. Countywide traffic will, after all, benefit most from a north/south bypass. Downtown Sebastopol traffic should improve as traffic is diverted to these county roads, although experts disagree on the extent of this traffic relief.

Without City~funds or State local assistance funds, it is likely that a bypass around Sebastopol will not be a high priority in Sonoma County.
41 East/West Traffic Relief Proposals (Exhibit 7)
Nearly every study of traffic in Sebastopol since 1958 has addressed the need for an east/west bypass of the Routes 12/116 intersection. It has been consistently thought that an improvement to the east/west traffic flow would also help relieve north/south traffic congestion through the downtown area. Today, there are four viable east/west traffic relief proposals. These shall be discussed below in general terms only, as current thinking favors a north/south bypass.

Over the years, some east/west proposals have called for major upgrading or construction of streets and roadways west of Route 116.

These have included plans to extend Todd and Lynch Roads westward to Bodega Highway, improve Occidental/Furlong Roads to Bodega Highway, and improve Occidental/Mill Station Roads to Bodega Highway. None of these are presently seen as viable solutions to the traffic problems in downtown Sebastopol. The West Sebastopol Transportation Committee noted that none of the roads west of Highway 116 and south of the Bodega Highway is an acceptable east/west bypass route because of the low-density dispersion of residences in the area. The Committee believed that the present road system west of Route 116 was adequate for the foreseeable future, and that the roads should only be upgraded when safety or operational efficiency could be improved.

West of Route 116 and north of Bodega Highway, the WSTC recommended that existing roadways be upgraded when needed. The Committee did not, however, recommend the construction of any new 42 roadways. Similarly, the Sonoma County General Plan Circulation and Transit Element/ Public Hearing Draft calls for existing streets and roadways west of Route 116 to be upgraded and maintained as necessary, but not extended. In the Sebastopol General—Plan, system upgrading west of Route 116 is proposed only for the purpose of providing local trip relief for Routes 12/116 in the downtown area.

Occidental Road Improvements
Occidental Road between Fulton Road and Route 116 provides an alternative for traffic using Route 12 west of Route 101. Traffic using Occidental Road and heading to Forestville and points west bypasses downtown Sebastopol. The West Sebastopol Transportation Committee noted this usage of Occidental Road, and urged that the roadway be upgraded so that "it is safe and efficient for this purpose."
The Sebastopol General Plan also encourages Sonoma County to improve Occidental Road to help alleviate commuter traffic passing through Sebastopol from the north. The Sonoma—County—General—Plan Circulation and Transit Element/Public Hearing—Draft classifies Occidental Road as a secondary arterial. Accordingly, it is anticipated that Occidental Road will eventually be upgraded to the standards set by the County for such roadways.

Nevertheless, upgrading Occidental Road will be costly, as there is substantial work required. The current Route 12/Fulton Rd./Occidental Rd. intersection would be inadequate if Occidental Road were to be used as a full-fledged bypass. Westbound from Fulton 43 Road to Irwin Lane, Occidental Road is a narrow, curving and deteriorating two-lane road with speed limits of 35-40 miles per hour. From Irwin Lane west to High School Road (portion under construction) , it improves to a wider 2-lane roadway with a speed limit of 40-50_ m.p.h. West of High School Road to Route 116, Occidental Road again becomes narrow and curving, with an overall deteriorating condition. Reconstruction of Occidental Road from Sanford Road to west of High School, including the bridge over the Laguna, will be complete in early 1990. An earlier estimate of an east/west bypass that included improvements southwest and northwest of Route 116, and an upgrading of Occidental Road, predicted that by the year 2000 such a road-way system could divert 5000 vehicles per day around Sebastopol. (Traffic Analysis of Recommendations of .the West Sebastopol Transportation Committee, Walter W. Laabs, Jr., Consulting Traffic Engineer, September 1982). While the Occidental Road improvements remain viable, improvements west of Route 116 are no longer considered necessary on the scale once proposed.

Todd Road Extension
It has also been proposed that Todd Road be extended to provide traffic relief for Route 12. Todd Road presently runs east and west from Route 101 south of Santa Rosa to just west of Llano Road. West of Llano Road, Todd Road curves sharply to the south before ending at the Old Gravenstein Highway near Fredericks Road. Existing Todd Road is a narrow, 2-lane blacktop road with steep slopes to either side and a 40 miles per hour speed limit. There is an at-grade railroad 44 crossing just west of Route 101. Land uses along the road are mainly rural, although there are some residential and commercial properties as well.

The proposed westerly extension of Todd Road would need to be built over the environmentally sensitive Laguna de Santa Rosa. Under the recommendation of the West Sebastopol Transportation Committee, Todd Road should intersect with Route 116 near Elphick Road. The present curve to the south is eliminated. According to the Committee, this proposal will "draw off a certain percentage of the traffic that now uses Highway 12." The Sebastopol General Plan also supports this extension.

The Sonoma Countv General Plan Circulation and Transit Elen ment/Public Hearing Draft also supports a westerly extension of Todd Road, although it does not explicitly state where the intersection with Route 116 should be built.

Mentioned before as part of Alternative 1 was the extension of Todd Road to this north/south bypass. This extension would be shorter and would not disturb the Laguna, in that the bypass would lie east of the Laguna and west of Llano Road.

If a Llano Road bypass is chosen (Alternatives 2-4), and Todd Road is extended westerly to Route 116, trips originating from the Elphick Road vicinity could directly connect to Llano Road.

Motorists could then use Llano Road (and connecting roads) to travel north, northwest and east of Sebastopol, avoiding the critical downtown intersection.
45 If, however, a north/south bypass is not built, an extension of Todd Road to Route 116 would still reduce traffic on Route 12. It is less likely, however, to have a significant impact on the congested Routes 12/116 intersection. Motorists traveling to downtown Sebastopol, west to Bodega Bay, or-north to Forestville and Jenner, will still take Route 116 north from the proposed Todd Road Intersection and pass through the Routes 12/116 Intersection to reach the Bodega Highway or continue north on Route 116. Only those Route 101 trips originating from or traveling to the area south of Bodega Highway and west of Route 116 will be removed from the Routes 12/116 intersection.

However Todd Road is finally extended, it will require sub¬ stantial upgrading to arterial standards throughout if it is to operate successfully as an alternative to Route 12.

River Road
Another suggestion to bring traffic relief to downtown Se¬ bastopol is to re-route Highway 116. It has been proposed that the present highway from Guerneville to Cotati be relinquished to Sonoma County. Route 116 would then travel easterly over River Road from Guerneville to the junction of Route 101, north of Santa Rosa. This new routing adds approximately seven miles to the trip between Guerneville and Cotati than if the present Route 116 is followed, but bypasses Sebastopol entirely.

If this re-routing occurs, motorists will be directed by re 46 signing of the route and through revisions to official road maps.

This may be an effective bypass for diverting motorists unfamiliar with the present routing, such as tourists or newcomers. Its impact on traffic through Sebastopol might be insignificant for many years, however, as much of the present congestion results from residents and other regular users already familiar with the existing street and highway system.

If the River Road re-routing is to occur, appropriate legis¬ lation regarding route adoptions and relinquishments will be required.

Local support from the county will also be needed. Issues to be resolved include improvements to a section of existing Route 116 between Guerneville and Forestville. The present Russian River Bridge at Guerneville is due to be replaced. Other flooding and safety problems will have to be resolved before the County will agree to trade River Road for the affected portion of Route 116.

Route 181
Route 181 is an unconstructed, unadopted legislative route from Route 116 in Forestville to Route 101 near Fulton. Its hypothetical alignment parallels River Road. The corridor is heavily wooded and supports productive agricultural land uses. Local planning efforts reflect a desire to preserve the rural character of the Santa Rosa area. In response to the considerable growth now occurring in Sonoma County, however, it may eventually be necessary to construct this 47 route as part of the highway system for the area. Both the County and the City of Santa Rosa have expressed interest in this route being built.

The Route Concept Report of June 1985, issued by Caltrans, calls for a 4-lane divided highway in the Route 181 corridor by the year 2005 . No funding for the proposal has yet been investigated. If built. Route 181 should divert traffic traveling between the coastal cities and Route 101 away from existing Route 116 south of Forestville, including the City of Sebastopol.

Routing, funding and environmental concerns all have to be studied closely before Route 181 can be built. The Route Concept Report estimates that this highway could carry average daily traffic volumes ranging from 6,000 east of the Route 116 junction in Forestville to 20,000 west of Route 101. If so, it will lessen the volume of traffic on both Route 12 and Route 116.

A routing of Route 181 on existing Mirabel Road/River Road is another option that could be considered. County and local support, plus appropriate legislation regarding route adoptions and relinquishments, will be required.
48 Summary of Findings
This report discusses the problem of traffic congestion in downtown Sebastopol at and near the intersection of State Routes 12 and 116. This congestion is the result of Sebastopol being a hub for tourists and commuters who pass through the downtown on their way to recreational and employment areas elsewhere in the region, and from local residents who come into or through the town to conduct business.

There is every reason to believe that the projected traffic volumes will occur, exacerbating the congestion already evident in the downtown area during peak travel periods. Unacceptable levels of service, resulting from these peak traffic volumes, will become more common and for longer durations.

The need to mitigate this congestion has long been recognized. A permanent solution, which has so far eluded the City of Sebastopol, is again being pursued.

Past proposals for a north/south bypass on a totally new alignment have been unworkable because of costs, environmental restraints, and the questionable effectiveness of some of the solutions. Similar problems have befallen east/west traffic relief proposals, which have relied mostly on the upgrading of existing roadways instead of building a new roadway.
49 Today, it is generally agreed that a north/south bypass of downtown Sebastopol is needed. For this to become a reality, however, funding must be found. Funding for transportation projects is generally limited at present to those improvements of highest priority on a regional and statewide basis. Accordingly, a bypass around Sebastopol may not now be competitive with other needed projects.

In the meantime, the one-way couplet system, partly instal¬ led and partly effective, was never envisioned as a long-term answer to downtown traffic congestion. It was instead seen as part of an overall system of improvements, the remainder of which await commencement.

Population and traffic growth in Sebastopol and its environs necessitate that an acceptable, feasible and affordable solution be found for relieving traffic congestion in the central business Failure to do so will result in a deteriorating quality of life for the residents and commercial interests in the affected area.

Recommendation
If the traffic problems in downtown Sebastopol are to be mitigated, serious consideration must be given to constructing a north/south bypass. The four build alternatives outlined in this report have been reviewed carefully by State and local officials.

Aspects considered were the effectiveness of each proposal in carrying forecast traffic volumes; costs, including right-of-way; the displacement of residents and commercial land uses; and other environmental concerns. From this review, Alternative 3 with modifications has emerged as the most feasible. (See appendix D for City Council's action and public meeting comments)
This alternatives can be constructed in usable stages with rather small initial capital outlay. The new roadbed for the Llano Road extension between Route 12 and Occidental Road complete with right-of-way is estimated to cost about $2,700,000 at County standards. This extension would provide route continuity for the entire bypass length on a county road system using Llano Road and Occidental Road to avoid the business district of Sebastopol.

Subsequent project stages listed by importance would be: 1.) widen Occidental Road from the intersection at Route 116 to west of High School Road, 2.) realign Llano Road near Todd Road by increasing the curve radius, 3.) widen Llano Road where the width(s) are below current standards and 4.) repair and overlay the remaining roadbeds with new asphalt concrete surfacing. Intersection upgrading. 51 including traffic signals, would be part of the projects at each segment.

Initially this bypass route may not carry the forecasted traffic volumes that would avoid the Routes 12/116 intersections in Sebastopol because of two areas of narrow roadbed. It can be expected that usage would increase proportionately with the stage upgrading.

It also is expected that some east/west traffic on Route 12 would divert to the Llano Road bypass as congestion increases in downtown Sebastopol.

It is therefore recommended that funding now be sought for the purposes of conducting detailed studies, obtaining clearances and right-of-way, and ultimately constructing this bypass.

Additionally, Sonoma County may wish to study further other east/west traffic relief proposals, most of which lie on roadways primarily under its jurisdiction. It is possible that future traffic volumes will justify both an east/west and north/south bypass system around the City of Sebastopol.

APPENDICES
Appendix A:

Appendix B:

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

Summary of Design Standards for Roadways
Timeline - The Sebastopol Bypass
FHWA's Detailed Capacity Analysis of Downtown
Sebastopol Traffic
Sebastopol City Council's Action and Public
Meeting Comments
Appendix A
Summary of Design Standards for Roadways
The Sebastopol Bypass
Arterial
Roadways
Conventional
_Hiohwavs
AASHTO # I County
2 + | 2-6
State County
Eirpresswavs St
Freeways
State County
Number of Canes 2 + 2-6 4 +
Var.
4-8
NS
Right of Way Width (feet)
Cane Width (feet)
Var.
10-12
60 a 100 + 60 @
12 12 12 12
10 NS
NS
Shoulder Width (feet) Var.
4 +
a
NS
2-10 J a
Var. 1 NS Median Width (feet)
30-46 NS
papacity — Cevel of Service
... » vpcpd
• •* * VPCPH
NS
700-300
£000
600
Var.

Var.
5000
600
Var.
1400-1800
12£00
1400
+ Indicates minimum size
* American Association of State Highway and Transoortation Officials 0 2-lane roadways (72' 3-lane, 84' 4-lanes)
Var. = Variable
NS * Not Stated
•Vehicles per lane per day
•• Vehicles per lane per hour
Sources: Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Sonoma County General Plan
AASHTO — A Policy on Geometric Desicrn
of Streets and Highways
Conventional highways are those with no control of access which may or may not be divided or have grade separations at intersections. Freeways are highways in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect of which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access.

This statutory definition also includes expressways. ( Hi ah wa y ——Manual, 4th Edition, California Department of Transporta¬ tion) .

Arterial roadways (secondary) are "highway routes that are intended to carry volumes of traffic that may be slightly less jj than Primarv arterials or over distances which are shorter. I Within urban areas, these highways may interconnect locations t
\ ' Wlth larSe-scale traffic generators and carry somewhat higher j proportions of local traffic. Although access to abutting land i 1
IS permitted, priority is given to the traffic function of the roadway." Llano Road and Occidental Road are both classified as secondary arterials. (Sonoma Countv General Plan Circulation and ;i T.£..ansi.t_Element/Publ ic Hearing Draft. January 1987).

I
Appendix B
November 1958
Pre-1975
December 1974
February 1975
March 1975
April 1975
May 1975
Timeline
Sebastopol Bypass Project
The Trafficwavs Plan for Sonoma County, Cali¬
fornia proposes a sophisticated freeway and
expressway system for the County by 1980.

Included is the Guerneville/Gravenstein Ex¬
pressway, a 4-lane divided highway between
Cotati and Guerneville. The alignment is
shown easterly of Sebastopol. Also included
is the Sebastopol Freeway, which follows the
alignment of Rte. 12 and connects Rte. 101
with the Bodega Expressway in Sebastopol.

The State of California Needs Study shows
that a 4/8-lane freeway bypassing the down¬
town area of Sebastopol on a new alignment to
the east is needed.

The City of Sebastopol Traffic Committee dis¬
cusses various alternatives to alleviate
traffic in the central business district by
means of various bypass roads. These alter¬
natives are labeled A through E. Of all the
preliminary proposals, Rte. E appears to pro¬
duce the best results at lowest cost and
least impact to developed property. Route E
is proposed as a north/south connector be¬
tween Sebastopol Avenue (Rte. 12) on the
north and the Gravenstein Highway (Rte. 116)
on the south.

The route proposal and explanatory letters
are sent to the Sonoma County Water Agency,
the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railroad, and the
California Department of Transportation for
review and comment.

The route proposal and explanatory letters
are sent to the Sonoma County Department of
Public Works and the Sonoma County Planning
Department for review and comments.

The California Department of Transportation
responds that it has no major objections to a
proposed Route E and its possible integration
into the State Highway System.

The Sonoma County Department of Public Works
indicates support for proposed Route E.
1975
June 1975
November 1975
November 1975
May 1976
May 1976
June 1976
June 1976
October 1976
March 1977
1977
The 4/8-lane freeway of the Needs Study is
downscoped to a $12 million, 2-lane bypass on
an expressway alignment.

The Sebastopol City Council initially reviews
various alternative alignments for Route E.

The initial engineering estimate for con¬
struction of Route E is prepared. The esti¬
mated cost in 1975 dollars is $446,400.

The City Council authorizes a planning and
environmental consultant to prepare a preli¬
minary environmental study for Route E.

The consultant submits a preliminary environ¬
mental investigation.

A real estate appraiser hired by the City
submits an estimated right-of-way cost for
alternate Route E-l. The report estimates
the cost at $252,000.

The City Council and Planning Commission con¬
duct a combined meeting at the Veteran's
Memorial Building to review the preliminary
environmental investigation. Both bodies
vote to continue with the Environmental Im¬
pact Report (EIR) and authorize the City
Manager to prepare a formal agreement for the
preparation of this document.

The City Council defeats a resolution to
enter into an agreement for preparing the EIR
for Route E.

The City Council, in a reply to a Planning
Commission letter regarding Route E, indi¬
cates that it has no intention of reopening
discussion on the matter.

The City of Sebastopol sends a letter to
County Supervisor Eric Koenigshofer indica¬
ting the need for alternate bypass routes for
the City.

The Section 188 State highway construction
ne_ed_s again sets the cost of the 2-lane
expressway bypass at $12 million.
1978
September 1978
October 1978
October 1978
October 1979
1979/80
August 1980
1980
1981
1981
The City of Sebastopol hires TJKM, traffic
consultants, to study existing traffic and
recommend alternative solutions to problems.

TJKM makes its report to the City in July. A
public hearing is held in September, after
which the City approves a one-way couplet
concept for both Routes 116 and 12.

A public hearing is held on the City of
Sebastopol Traffic System Study.

The Sebastopol City Council adopts the City
of Sebastopol Traffic System Study.

The City of Sebastopol, by letter, asks Caltrans to implement a one-way couplet system at the earliest possible date.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors ap¬
points the West Sebastopol Transportation
Committee.

A Caltrans' analysis shows that a north/south
one-way couplet should be implemented.

The West Sebastopol Transportation Committee
releases its report. Among other recommenda¬
tions, the Committee advises that the one-way
couplet system be instituted as quickly as
possible, with the understanding that it
would be more than a temporary traffic relief
measure. The couplet would be expected to
continue operation even after other improve¬
ments were made to the local transportation
system.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) authorizes the inclusion of the couplet
project into the Regional Transportation Im¬
provement Program (RTIP). for local funding
only in Fiscal Year 1980/81. The California
Transportation Commission (CTC) excludes the
project from the State Transportation im¬
provement Program (STIP). however.

The idea of a bypass is again considered,
with City staff developing alternative align¬
ments.

The estimated cost of an expressway bypass
rises to $15.3 million. The project is again
downscoped, this time to a north/south one¬
way couplet estimated to cost $600,000.

November 1981
May 1982
October 1982
October 1982
Spring 1983
November 1983
June 1984
December 1984
March 1985
April 1985
June 1985
Caltrans supports reviving the dormant
couplet project if the City of Sebastopol
will concur with upgrading and maintaining
proposals. Caltrans meets with the City and
reaches agreement on implementing a north/
south one-way couplet.

Two public hearings on the proposed couplet
are held, with no noticeable opposition
voiced.

Caltrans recommends the adoption of the city
streets for the one-way couplets.

The California Transportation Commission
passes a resolution adopting the location of
a section of Route 116 in Sebastopol on
McKinley Street from North Main Street to
Petaluma Avenue and on Petaluma Avenue from
McKinley Street to South Main Street. This
effectively permits work on the one-way coup¬
let system to proceed in the knowledge that
the State will be responsible for this re¬
routed segment of Route 116.

The City of Sebastopol commissions an En¬
vironmental Impact Report (EIR) for Route E.

The EIR for Route E is released.

An Advisory Measure to build the north/south
couplet in Sebastopol passes by a vote of
978 Yes to 926 No.

The Sebastopol City Council deletes all
Route E alternatives from the Sebastopol
General Plan.

The Route 116 Route Concept Report, issued
by Caltrans, notes that the one-way couplet
is the chosen alternative for north/south
traffic relief in Sebastopol. The report
warns, however, that if the Santa Rosa and
Rohnert Park/Cotati areas expand as expected
by 2005, it may be necessary to consider
additional alternatives,
A letter from the City of Sebastopol to Cal¬
trans reaffirms the deletion of Route E from
the Sebastopol General Plan and renews sup¬
port for an easterly bypass.

The north/south one-way couplet project is
completed.

August 1985
November 1985
January 1987
April 1987
June 1987
July 1987
The Sebastopol City Council supports a feasi¬
bility study of a north/south bypass route.

Caltrans' Route 12 Route Concept Report calls
o ^ldfnin9 to 4-lanes by the year 2005 in
the Sebastopol segment.

Thf gogpma County General Plan. Circulation
angi Transit Element (Public Hearing Draft)
calls for a north/south arterial bypass of
^ebastopol. Llano Road would be extended
northerly of Route 12 to intersect with Oc¬
cidental Road.

HR2r the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1987,
authorizes a feasibility study of a north/
south Sebastopol bypass.

Measure A, which would have removed the one¬
way couplets along Rte. 116, and which called
tor the immediate construction of a north/
south bypass, is defeated by the voters.

The City advocates that an eastern alignment
similar to that proposed in 1958, and three
other alternatives, all extensions of exis¬
ting Llano Road, be considered as viable op¬
tions for a future bypass.

APPENDIX C -
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Detailed Capacity Analysis of Downtown Sebastopol
I.ANALYSIS
Procedure
In order to evaluate the performance of the transportation network in downtown Sebastopol under existing and future traffic conditions as to assess the impact of any traffic diversion that may occur as a result of a bypass, a capacity analysis of the city's critical intersections was performed. The first step in this analysis was to inventory the available data pertaining to each of the four signalized intersections. These intersections are:

1. Petaluma Avenue/McKinley Street & Sebastopol Avenue

2. s Main Street & Bodega Avenue/Sebastopol Avenue

3. S Main Street & McKinley Street

4.N Main Street & Healdsburg Avenue
This data, provided by Caltrans, consisted of traffic volumes bv movement for current year and future year, intersection geometry, ^ roadway conditions (grades, heavy vehicles, parking.

Pedestrians, buses), and signal timing and
phasing. Traffic volumes by movement for current year were ata11 locations, however, the remaining information was provided onxy at certain intersections. The data used in the capacity analyses is documented in the Appendices to this report.

A summary of the data provided for each of the intersections ioiiows:

INTERSECTION ggHBITIQN

EXWO EXW FUTWO FUTW
1)Petaluma/McKinley & Sebastopol (88) X X X X
2)S Main & Bodega/Sebastopol (88) X X X X
3)Main & McKinley . (89) X
4)N Main & Healdsburg (86) X
EX * existing (base) data
FUT - future data
W « with bypass
WO » without bypass
X data provided for condition indicated
( ) year traffic volume data collected (represents base year) l
the procedure selected to analm^eftch^Qf hh^ Manual (HCM) was conditions identified above 4iS ffl/thJin?L^Hten intfrsection of servera nn<t\ 4-vwT * 1 11118 “etnodology addresses the level downtown in?e?sIctioLaffivWu«iJ.COnSidar “Ch °f the four It should be noted that the base vear for mart* „
varies as indicated in the p7”eding SbU *lL ?hi S!^tl0"S Sintersection*.?
ss5L£HS~ wasr-aus
Only partial data was provided for
Street and Healdsburg Avenue e
assumptions were made:
existing conditions
Accordingly the
at N Main
following
o 0% grade
o 2% heavy vehicles
o no parking
o peak hour factor is 0.90
o arrival type 3
o 0 buses
In °jj®r P«*for» « design year analysis at intersections 1. and

2., the following assumptions were made for the future year 2010:
° andrf»*respectively;VehiCl*B "1U reMln st 0%
n^r % t0r d8Slgn ye“!
^rk^9wUia^nsdd^;ln9 ’'iU re“in “d "° additional
c^nstantT faCt°r givon for current year will remain
intersection geometries will remain the same;*
o
o
o
o
o
* at thA«f f2».fhe'firdin98' in order to maintain existing LOS required intersections 3°me geometric improvements will be 2 VZK in£ormation pertaining to arrival typo,
analysestYP* ** (3) waB assu“«d *°* aU existing and future 2L5rt?r t®p4d^er“ifcn® what additional capacity could be exacted existing transportation system, the capacity analyses
conducted at the intersections of Petaluma/HcKinley & Sebastopol aJd at ?a*n 4 Bodega/Sebastopol were expanded to include analyses of the intersections under improved signal timing plans. Because f* what othor Ph«ai»9 plans might be acceptable, the
tiBin9a were derived using the existing phasing and
selecting a variety of alternative timings. Using these various timings and the corresponding data for existing conditions, a series of runs using the HCS were performed. These runs produced improved intersection operation by reducing average stopped delay per vehicle. It may be possible to further improve intersection operation by modifying the phasings as well as the signal timings. 3 /
II. RESULTS
The results of the capacity analyses at the
SSSSKSJr eum“>lUai bas»1 an lovel of
four signalizec
service and are
INTERflECTTOM

1.Petalutta/McKinley ft Sebastopol
2,8 Main ft Bodega/Sebastopol

3. Main 6 McKinley

4. M Main ft Healdsburg
LEVEL OP SEPyTflB

EXWO EXW FUTWO FUTW
C*0 B* P+ P+
B*o B* F+ F+
B
B
* improved signal timing and existing phasing
+ LOS P under all timing options and existing phasing
o LOS D for existing timing and phasing
fios these results the following findings are generated* at p«taluaa/McKinley &
st **in 6 Bodega/Sebastopol can be improved from
° tor intersections to LOS c and LOS B respectively
if trial and error optimization1' timings are implemented. ° ^a.8M5d "trial and error optimization" timings for 2^iU?*/,,cKlnley ? Sebastopol and S Main ft Bodega/Sebastopol cycl* inngth, volume/capacity (V/C) ratios are
bypass****1 1 f°r 0Xistin^ conditions both with and without a o Average stopped delay per vehicle also is reduced for all *** e"hanc«d operation of the intersection
resulting from the improved signal timings.
o Because there is no evidence of oversaturated conditions over an extended period of time (i.e. v/c greater than l) ?Sr existing conditions, microcomputer signal optimization
«* 88 SOAP84 nay be applied ind may result in
int«rsection operation and
progression both with and without the bypass.
4 tlSS^SSi^JSST * Sebast»P°l Avenue
r,1srrrtfcs,T^«j? I *ssi»?: 5S2\s
wira-sa^«fAr^
Bodega/Sebastopol Avenue forbott^xistina^, ^Streetw &
the southbound right turns and tX 1 future, both
remained the same with and without the bypass ^Thus^Jith^h3 proposed bypass there was no *-#naf <_ yPass* Thus, with the £rSt
conditions. * the bypass either
f«S»
in P"«««t or future
£: SiatTs, sjsts
tSS^pVoTe^o^1;^2SS“^hs*y i*/Hdo1
£!»Sn^C0rS«Bodega/Sebastopo^
SSH;^
SKKHrrS?““ P “”fir Se
the pro^ biass alUviat«<1 «* the implementation of
° order to maintain the levels of service identified in + ><* SSSSST?® inrro»o« a.yp vr^*1 f** area, 25 additional improvements3to will be remit?HS*CiTn! of ?** existin9 transportation network lanL^tu^in<r,h«vIheSe-i“Pr^Vel“nts “y include additional ««!*/' ^nrning bays, wider lanes, longer stackina area« enhanced signal timings. However, in view of 9the fact
^xtensiSi60?^^10" °f geometric improvements, regardless how le^i *<??' et0 i,ncreas® capacity does not guarantee improved level of service, alternative actions to imorove svstpm deduction ??* he considered, such actions nay fdus on demand dow^^om i^erslctio^ " °f tratfi° aWay fro" the ingested 5 network included c°nduoted ‘"sea
rspe^d°^L%ree^t*^; *J^^S5^S2?
Avenues, High Street Burnafi-0^^8^ Sebastopol/Bodega
included in the analvsl** a?£ Petaluma Avenue was not
street^ir?0 1978 CTOT01
SgSr??-..^
bypass does noi i*pl ot. «“ Proposed
intersections, further sei\v^ce °£ the downtown
second one-way oomlet inStho ««?/ut°Jll51le“9rltation of the in earlier rekrts'may £ appropriate dlrectio" "Messed
i
i
6 APPENDIX D THOMAS F. MILLER, MAYOR

COUNCILMEN
ask
Gity SeiaUofuU

CITY HALL
7120 BODEGA AVENUE
SEBASTOPOL, CALIFORNIA 95472
(707) 823-7853
RICHARD M. JOHNSON

ANNE MAGNIE
WILLIAM L. ROVENTINI
NICHOLS J. STEWART

CITY MANAGER
MELVIN K. DAVIS
December 18, 1989
Secretary of Transportation
c/o Federal Highway Administration
Washington, D.C.

Subject: Sebastopol Bypass Feasibility Study in
Compliance with HR2 (Surface Transportation &
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987)
Dear Secretary:

The Sebastopol City Council has held 2 hearings for
public input on the Study, on November 21, 1989 and
December 12, 1989. At the conclusion, the Sebastopol
City Council unanimously passed the following motion:
"To inform the Secretary of Transportation that
the Sebastopol City Council requests there be
further detailed studies of a Sebastopol NorthSouth Bypass, which is an upgrading of Llano Road with a Northwesterly extension to Occidental,Road".

We appreciate the Study and the steps taken to date.

We look forward to working with you further.

Very truly yours,
Thomas F. Miller
Mayor
TFM:rf
Prirmd On fttcy&rd Pfm
A/O///4/Pf^C
t c<A
laaoniTsa

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF November 21, 1989
REGULAR MEETING, Veterans1 Memorial Building, 282 High Street Agenda for the meeting was posted at the City Hall Bulletin Board on November 17, 1 989, 1 0:00 a.m., by the City Clerk.

Mayor Miller called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Present were Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, Roventini, Stewart & Mayor Miller
Staff Present: City Attorney McLaughlin
Fire Chief Shura
Planning Consultant Aspinall
City Manager Davis
PROPOSED 2-CLASSROOM ADDITION TO SEBASTOPOL COMMUNITY
CENTER BUILDING, 390 Morris St.-City-Owned Land & Council^ Action
Refdances: Fire Chief's Memo of November 20, 1989 ;/fjetter from Sebastopol Community Center dated November 9,/i989; Letter rxom Robert Anderson dated 27 Oct., 89; Letter from SebastopoTsCommunity Center dated October 10, >*i)89; Fire Chief's Letter of May 2, 1989; FEMA's Letteip/of July 5, 1 989; Letter tKom Robert Anderson dated T^iCug., 89; Letter from Polley, Policy & Madsen dated Sept^ner 25, 1989
Ms. Dawn Barrett, Exb^utive Directory; fSebastopol Community Center, reviewed the propob^d classropm addition. The Com¬ munity Center programs have g^own dj’astically and we're severely limited on space. We're booke&sspdid. After exploring a lot of options, we selected an addijrlb^n of 2 classrooms to the exist¬ ing building. We'd like permitsioh^from you to use City land for the addition. We have oney to finance the cost of con¬ struction.

Fire Chief Shura reviewed his memo of November 20th. The planner and I did meet with FEMA representatives in San Francisco on Friday, on this proposed addition in the flood zone. No variance is needed. He reviewed the memo:

To clarify our Memo of November 27, 1989, a varikhpe will not be required for the additions to the Center.

Mr/Eldridge did point out that because the buildinges^mount -w less than 50% of the total building value, they can
constructed as planned and will be considered one building and insured under the same rates as the existing building. ///4

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 2
COMMUNITY CENTER, Continued:

The FEMA limits of insurance on commercial buildings con¬ structed below the flood level is $200,000. The value of aise the building value over that lirn^
lared major disaster, other emergent
e available.
y want to consider requiring the,iddicted as Flood Resistant as possible to ing flooding.
and equipment to be removab^fe in the
ng.
alls below 76', to be of Reiter resistwhere possible.
flood requirements of all electric outes and any plumbing will be above the 76’ level.

The building is already valued at $263,O^O. It would be un¬ insured by FEMA above the $290,000 limit.

Ms. Pauline Polley, FeasibrSJ.ty/Committee, replied, we had reviewed with the Architect, BooSAnderson, for the flood-proofing needs. The floor will be cement/aJ^d the walls will be flood proof.

Councilman Johnson askejtf'f is the l^gk of FEMA flood insurance going to be a problem?
Mr. Bob Hirsch, Sebastopol Community CeHter Board, replied he felt the Sebastopo* Community Center coulaSylive with that.

The part we are adding would not have any damage from a flood.

Fire Chief Sjirfara pointed out that up to the vl^ue of $200,000 would be insured by FEMA.

City Manager Davis added, REMIF also insures the gilding.

Councilman Magnie asked how does this comply with the\new Wetland^r zoning?
.anning Consultant Aspinall replied, the Sebastopol
Community Center would need to apply for use permit under WS/zoning. They can't start that without property owners' per¬ mission (which is the City Council).
///#

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 3
COMMUNITY CENTER, Continued:

Councilman Stewart stated he hoped the main building woul< »day incorporate the same flood-proofing measures. I'm
;y:tive of the project.

Maj^^r Miller moved and Councilman Roventini seconded/the motion tb^grant approval of use of the City property, Object to:
a. All finishings and equipment to be remov^Sle in the
event of flooding.
b. FlooringV and walls below 76', to be of/water resist¬ ant materials, where possible.
c. Include normal flood requirements o^all electric out¬ lets and swicqhes and any plumbing/will be above the
76' level.

Voting Aye:

Voting No:

Councilme
& Mayor Ma
None
Johnson,
bler
fegnie Roventini, Stewart
Mayor Miller called a breay4n the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Mayor Miller called theideetinbsback to order at 7:12 p.m.

Salute to the Flag was led by City Atb^rney McLaughlin.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: jfayor Miller notedpage 16, 3rd para¬ graph, not Mrs. Chester Wika, should be Cnhxmaine Kulka, 7851 Brookside Ave.; Couiicilman Roventini noted on page 11, 1st para¬ graph, should be ^abridging anyone's developmental rights .

Mayor Miller moy^d and Councilman Roventini seconded the motion to approve Mimixes of November 7, 1989, with corrections.

Voting Xye:

Voting No:

Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, RoventJ
& Mayor Miller
None
Stewart
APPROVAL OF WARRANTS: Mayor Miller moved and Councilman ^ewart seconded the motion to approve warrant registry of November 1 lyf 1 989 in total amount of $221,320.02, and payroll list of November 14, 1989 in gross amount of $65,385.52, and change 'order for Sanitary Pipeline Replacement in amount of $3,168.90.

Motion carried unanimously.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November *?7 1989 page 4
2/

1. INTRODUCTION OF BUSINESS FROM CITIZENS IN THE AUDIENCE No one asked to speak.

2. SEBASTOPOL BY PASS
References: City Manager's Memo of November 10, 1989;
Consultant's Memo of April 29, 1988; Letter from Morrill Dunn III, Attorney, dated November 21, 1989; Notice of
Hearing; Letter from California Native Plant Society
dated November 21, 1989; Sebastopol Bypass Feasibility
Report (Draft) prepared by CalTrans, dated October- 1989; City Manager's Memo of November 15, 1989; Memo from De¬ partment of Transportation dated September 13, 1989;
Letter from Sebastopol Chamber of Commerce dated November 16, 1989; Letter from Sonoma County Water Agency dated
November 16, 1989 !
a. Review with Assistant County Engineer
Mr. Ron Nickel, Asst. County Engineer, explained the study and the alternatives. He pointed out it's a feasibility study.

It was done jointly by County, City of Sebastopol, and CalTrans.

Most of it was done by CalTrans. He reviewed the 4 alterna¬ tives:

1. Alternative 1: Modified Trafficways Plan Alignment

2. Alternative 2: Llano Road Northeast Extension

3. Alternative 3: Llano Road Northwest Extension

4. Alternative 4: Llano Road Northwest to Rte. 116
The County staff feels Alternative 2, (Llano Road to Occidental Road opposite Piezzi Lane) is the best. It's shown in the County General Plan. It doesn't cross any wetlands or endanger any endangered species. A similar alternative is #3. Either would be acceptable. The costs are:

State Standards
Alternative #1 $10M
Alternative #4 $10.1M
Alternative #2 $ 6.7M
Alternative §2 $ 6.8M
The Study is not a forerunner to funding. It has no legal stand¬ ing. The results would probably lead to further study of one alternative; and an initial study would need to be done. With

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989

2. BYPASS, Continued:
page 5
a. Review, Continued:
a pending traffic signal at
by County and 1/2 by State,
Road.

Occidental Road & 116, funded 1/2
traffic would double on Occidental
On the Todd Road extension, it may be with modern tec^noJ;°^' there may be a way to put a new crossing of the laguna, with less impact than widening Highway 12 across the -Laguna. It skirts a state biodic reserve; there is no funding for it now.

It’s not under serious consideration.

Mr. Walter Laabs, Traffic Consultant, stated a license plate survey was done, showing:
16% of traffic from South (Llano Road at 116) went East on 12; 33% of traffic from South went North;
5% of traffic went North;
10% of traffic returned South;
36% of traffic stayed within urban city area.

From that, we concluded, 7,200 vehicles per day *s®.

Alternative #1, and 10 to 12,000 vehicles would use the P^her 3 alternatives, of which 10,900 would be diverted from the main intersection.

Mr. Merle Johnson, CalTrans, pointed.out these are projec¬ tions to the year 2010.
b. Public Hearing
Mayor Miller opened the hearing.

Mr. Carlo Rossi, 4848 Pauline Ct., Santa Rosa *f^tion^’S the intent of the City Council to endorse*(°| °ime we’ve tonight? I represent Irwin Lane. This is the
had any information of a study or traffic patterns.

1. We’d like to know why City of Sebastopol proposes a
plan beginning & ending outside of City;

2. We’d like more information prior to your making any
endorsement;

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 6

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Hearing, Continued:

3. I question your appropriateness of going ahead within minutes of public's input. We'd like a 2nd input meet¬
ing.

Mr. Steve Howell, 869 Irwin Lane, stated I support prior speaker. This moves portion of Sebastopol's traffic problems out of city to west of Santa Rosa. It's increased traffic and noise for~us. We deserve a chance to be heard; we haven't had that opportunity.

Mr. Bill Allen, 4865 Occidental Rd., asked why wasn't there more notice? Occidental Road is very narrow and has more traffic than it can handle. There's no room for foot traffic. You're dumping it on unincorporated area. Where will people go once they get to Occidental Road?
Mr. Jim Searles, 5661 Verni Rd., stated there are a lot of people who'd be adversely affected by any of these alterna¬ tives. I agree with previous gentlemen to continue review to get public input before you decide.

Mrs. Betsy Timm, 975 Dorthel St., stated she favors a bypass.

There are a lot of traffic problems in Sebastopol. What of the truck traffic? It's totally intolerable now. I think trucks should be required to use the bypass and go around Sebastopol.

I recommend 2 lanes and not 4 lanes, to be consistent with agriculture and our rural atmosphere.

Mr. Martin Hamilton, 1991 Ludwig Ave., Santa Rosa, stated I'm enraged at dumping this traffic on Llano Road. You'd take out the oak trees. It's a speed lane now. I'm against it totally. Why dump Sebastopol's problems on us,out on the farms? Mr. Jim Gilkinson, 475 Duer Rd., stated I see an effort by CalTrans to move it West of Fulton Road. On Occidental Road, was the hew bridge pre-planned in support of all this?
Mr. Thomas Staggart, 5590 Verni Rd., stated on Alternative 2, people will still drive thru Sebastopol, and I don't think it will work.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -
OF November 21, 1989 P 9

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Hearing, Continued:

Mr. Richard Nichols, 1389 Cooper Rd., representing Sebastopol Tomorrow, stated on page 5, "road construction wiUimprove quality of life". I don't see how anyone can say that, it s qrowth inducing. It will help turn Santa Rosa plains into a new San Jose. ?The solution is moratorium: Moratorium on construction until open space, mass transit, and urban boundaries are set in concrete and people get out of their car .

Ms. Sandy Deshane, 1584 High School Rd., stated building a road isn't an answer. Just improve existing roads.

Mr Michael Black, 1405 Cooper Rd., stated I feel this road bypass‘is important. Traffic is choking downtown now with its traffic noise, & fumes. Highway downtown is an improper width. us whi hav^offices^and businesses downtown are hoping
that this City Council will back a route. Y
route that intrudes into the Laguna space. It * _ks
Sebastopol's traffic but we're talking of agricultural true , too.

Mr. John Souza, 527 Hart Lane, asked how the projections were arrived at?
Resident, 543 Hart Lane, asked will most of the traffic go down Highway 12 or 116? The County can t take care of its traffic now.

Ms Lolly Petroni, Country Home, 150 No. Main St., stated I'm for the bypass. I was on Downtown Study survey. The traffic, noised were the 3rd largest item that was responded to in the survey. Do something about the ^a^'icDOW?.d opt is a non-pedestrian friendly area due to 1thetraffic. I d opt for the one closest in to Sebastopol, not Piez
lem; we're tired of it.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 8

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Hearing, Continued:

Mr. Bill Kabage, 7866 Joyce Dr., stated our house is about 50' from Alternative #1. Over the last 20 years, we're still suffering from lack of some decision. But it should be one with least impact, at least on Joyce Drive.

Mrs. Harriet Kimes, Exec. Director, Chamber of Commerce, 265 So. Main, read a motion from Board of Directors: "The Board of Directors of the Sebastopol Area Chamber of Commerce and its Governmental Affairs Committee encourage support for the extension of Llano Road to Occidental Road in a curved route, connecting west of Piezzi Road (CalTrans Alternative #3) as the best solution presented currently for a by-pass route around Sebastopol".

Mr. Ralph Harper, 4400 Todd Rd., stated if they're widening my road, I'd like to know about it.

Mr. Norm Stupfel, 7508 E. Hurlbut, noted in the 1930's, the then City Council discussed a bypass. In my good conscience, I can't accept the Piezzi Road (Alternate #2). It's not a bypass. It would encroach on some homes unnecessarily. I favor Alternative #3. I favor it be a mandatory truck route. They now shake the buildings and cause fumes in the downtown. I don't think it's growth inducing, w
Mrs. Gail Payette, 550 Hart, stated her house is under
Alternative #3. How long before this will be done? I don't want to live by or near a by pass. I'm totally outraged.

Mr. John Pulley, 1834 High School Rd., stated I favor a by pass. But it won't eliminate all truck traffic. A lot of traffic is generated within Sebastopol. I favor Alternative #3.

Mr. Ron Rolleri, 549 Hart, stated on the truck traffic, I don't know if you've checked how much truck traffic goes to points inside Sebastopol. I question statement of no environ— mental issues. There are vernal pools and nesting sites; there s a micro environmental site there, which is very significant.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 9

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Hearing, Continued:

Mr. James Neider, 542 Hart Lane, stated Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 impact some 50 homes out there. It will destroy a nice, quiet area. I'm enranged. I'm not going to shop in this town any more. You've got an opportunity to turn Laguna into a parkway. You could incorporate a road into that to one side.

I resent the earlier approach.

Ms. Eleanor Kotay, 357 Piezzi Lane, stated we're already a by pass with cars and truck traffic. I resent this. You 11 turn Piezzi Lane into a highway.

Ms. Gerri Buckley, 543 Hart Lane, we bought our house with a green belt, and now we hear there's to be a by pass. I work in Sebastopol. How would these downtown merchants like this traffic 24 hours a day? I resent that City Council of Sebastopol is making the decision.

Mr. Mel Sanchietti, 1115 Irwin Lane, Santa Rosa, asked how does this affect intersections?
Mrs. Janice Atkinson, 5569 Verni Rd., stated this is
Sebastopol's problem. The population is in Sebastopol, not out where we are. Granted some are going to Bodega Bay. I see no benefit unless it diverts truck traffic. Yes, I already use Occidental Road.

Mr. Bob Mitchell, 1660 Cooper Rd., stated he's not in favor of Todd Road as a bypass. But you need a N-S & E-W bypass.

Put in a route that doesn't go over the roofs of people s homes.

You could move the line West of Hart Lane. It's a West County road; get a plan, and go with it, quickly.

Mayor Miller called a break at 8:30 p.m.

Mayor Miller reconvened meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Mr. Ron Nickel responded to some of the questions raised.

This feasibility study was requested by Sebastopol City Council to Congressman Bosco, who had the Federal Government fund the study. We can't show so precisely as to what house or yard it would impact. It would not hit Irwin Lane. Nearest point

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 10

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Hearing, Continued:
would be at Highway 12 & Llano Road. The map printed in the Press Democrat is in error. More careful study will need to be done in the vicinity of Irwin Lane. Lines could shift as much as 500 feet. The testimony“given tonight will go back to Washington, D.C. We've learned we need to be concerned with how this affects people on Hart Lane.

Mr. Neider stated I think you've done very poor homework.

You've impacted our lives and our homes. •
In answer to a question, Mr. Nickel stated most likely
funding would be by Federal Government, in their road appropri¬ ation of 1996. Any environmental document on Alternatives 2 & 3 would be just on Llano Road widening & its extension.

Unidentified speaker asked how can City Council recommend one route or another, if it's only conceptual? What's the deadline?
In answer to a question, Mr. Merle Johnson, CalTrans replied we're mandated by FHWA to have it back in Washington, D.C., by January 1st.

Mr. Jim Searles asked for a postponement. It's not right it be ramrodded.

In answer to question, Mr. Nickel reported it would be 44' wide under State standards; 40' wide under County standards, (present width of High School Rd.). There'd be limited access.

Access rights would be purchased as well as the right of way.

Mr. Laabs added, if nothing is done, traffic on Highway 12 will go from 20,000 to 40,000 cars/day. If nothing is done, motorists will seek out other roads not designed for the traffic They'll use N-S bypass, even tho its longer, if they'll save time vs route thru the city. Same for trucks. The E-W bypass isn't included in this study. The N-S will provide some relief.

In the future, there'll be need to look at routes West of town.

Since it is the Sebastopol City Council who asked Mr. Bosco to put in the feasibility study funding, it's the Sebastopol City Council who's holding this public review for input. !
i

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
i OF November 21, 1989 page 11

2. BYPASS, Continued:

I b. Public Hearing, Continued:

No one else asking to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public 5 hearing.
c. Council Action
Mayor Miller stated he'd like it held over 2-3 weeks. The Press Democrat map was inaccurate.

Councilman Magnie stated she's not adverse to continuing the hearing. But I'm ready tonight to recommend one of the alternatives. This is not the only opportunity to speak.

I
Councilman Stewart stated he agrees. I can act tonight, or continue. A "no project" alternative is not satisfactory.

We're not trying "to put something over".

Councilman Roventini stated, he's not adverse to a
continuance. It's not fair to say it's Sebastopol's problem.

It's a West County problem. It's also a safety problem. We have a volume of traffic moving thru and something needs to be done.

Councilman Johnson stated he's not adverse to continuance.

Mayor Miller stated Sebastopol needs a Bypass.

City Council consensus was:

Alternative §2 - Llano Rd. NE
" #3 - Llano Rd. NW
Mayor Miller continued item to December 12, *1989, 7:00 p.m., for public input.

Councilman Roventini moved and Councilman Johnson seconded the motion to leave all alternatives open to the December 12th meeting for further public review.

Voting Aye: Councilmen Johnson, Roventini,
& Mayor Miller
Voting No: councilmen Magi*ie & Stewart

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF November 21, 1989 page 12
*
Mayor Miller called a break at 9:50 p.m.

Mayor Miller reconvened meeting at 10:15 p.m.

3. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF MR. JIM COCONAS, ELLIS COURT (& Resolution Approving Minor Subdivision) (Cont. / from Nov. 7th) (For Adoption) — /
References: Alternate Resolutions "A" & "B"; Planning/^ Comihission Resolution No. 16-89 adopted October 10, L9o9; Traffic Engineer's Memo of November 15, 1989; Fire Chief's Memo of\November 1 5, 1989; Letter from Mr. & Mrsy/Nick Franceshrne dated November 20, 1989; Letter fropr A.F.

Wilcox dat^d November 20, 1989 / /
Mayor Miller opened the hearing. /
Mr. Larry Tyrie, o^5 Ellis Ct.., noted Dr. Salomon had
dedicated a portion of old railroad tracks (No. Gravenstein Highway to Hhrlbut) to public use. In >the City's General Plan, you show it all as open spahe and lin^iar park. I hope you will see you cannot have a linear park apra then agree to build a road across it. Why not buildNaroad to the North? I don t see how you can put 100 new car^cips on DuFranc. It would be beautiful to retain that tratek Bor walkers and joggers.

They shouldn't have to confront vehrfcle traffic.

Mr. Martin Petersen, >^86 DuFranc, sb^ted we had a neigh¬ borhood meeting in ourJtfome. Our neighbobs on DuFranc request a public street thru Jto Ellis Ct., and sharb^the traffic. There won't be any more vehicles crossing the railrbad track, if there are 3 crossings o^2. \
Mr. Dennis/Cole, 614 DuFranc, stated there seehvs to be a lot of momentum to developing this land at any cost^S^The impact on DuFranc/os tremendous. The access is already inadetguate.

I'm in the middle here. The density of 13 houses on 10>cres is high/? compared to large parcels there now. \
yto. N. Franceschine, 550 DuFranc, stated the quality of o^rr life is really going to be impacted. We already have a \ /traffic problem on our street.
snoK

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -,
OF November 21, 1989__P ° _

3. ELLIS COURT, Continued: /
\ Planning Consultant Aspinall pointed out City Council hajj/ metaos from Traffic Consultant Laabs and Fire Chief Shura, pn the'crossing of the railroad track, I talked to County Park Department, Mr. Ralph Sales, and he saw no problem. BuV*r grant funds'are used for the right of way purchase, we Jtiay not be able to get a new road across there. He showed an/B^xi » map of howvthe 2 subdivisions interface. The City Engineer has asked tSt I point out, if it's to be a
should proviofei curb, gutter & 22 wide asphalt roadway.

Fire Chief Shura reviewed his memo on Emergency Vehicle Access! DuFranc r! a real terror now. ItIfesn't take much to block it. The icleal way is another thrtf public r0^T can't have a fire trS*k and make a 45 rSfiius ute fo^a
road. Emergency Vehicle Accesses are not a substitute for public road. \. /
Mayor Miller asked, doehCity Council have any liability if we don't follow his recommendation.

City Attorney McLaughlin *&ied, No, you would not have
any liability as result ofJ^ferovhl of Coconas subdivision.

In answer to Councilman Johnson/Ntar. Laabs replied any approval of Green Meadows or other subdivision off endrailroad ' DuFranc, would have t/be improving DuFfsmc, South of railr tracks to Healdsburcj/Avenue. Nt
Mr. Jim Coconas, Applicant, stated FuFrahc, at its «a^°west now, is 16’. X?could be expanded to 22 ,
people's homee< I have some real concerns aboue\Mr. Laabs traffic memo/ He's got 20 trips a day for otA
On the Firy Chief’s memo, I agree there needs to bd\an
Mr. Steve/sheldon put in 3 lots at end of DuFranc una^r the County,/and I don't understand why City didn t requireSh help y?th improvements on DuFranc. On Mrs. Petersen's ^jtition, I th^nk the Petersens are concerned about Partially ^N^igh5 yots On the drainage, we want to keep it natural. jjvl&s on Ellis Court don'i want the traffic from DuFranc. Whht /happens on the Garman proposed 13 lots if we don t deve op ' all? __
/J/$
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES *,
OF November 21, 1989 P ”

3. ELLIS COURT, Continued:

Planning Consultant Aspinall replied, on the Sheldon /
referral, we did ask the County to require right of way aeaiy catioJK Apparently, the County didn't require it. I need check ohe file. /
Mrs .Franceschine stated it's terribly important that there be a thru rhad. We don't walk to the store. I don t/chmk Mr. Coconas 'Arguments "hold any water". /
Mr. Laabs s^ted his traffic memo is a resuU/of actual
traffic count for^llis Court. /
No one else aski>to to speak, Mayor Miller:losed the hearing, Mayor Miller statedNae's not in favor/of long cul-de-sac nor a private street. IfVe had just o*e accident, we 11 rue the day. I'll support the planning Commission.

Mayor Miller read title oKsesc/Uition: "Resolution Condi¬ tionally Approving a Minor SubdWsion and Lot Line Adjustment and Adopting a Mitigated NegatiyeSLeclaration (AP No. 04-30 37, -15, and -16)". / N,
Mayor Miller moved and/^ouncilman^oventini seconded the motion to waive the readilig of the Resolution.

Voting Aye:

Voting No:

Counoalmen Johnson, Magnit
& Maiyor Miller
None S Roventini, Stewart
loved and Councilman Magnie seceded the motion
>ng of the Resolution, having bee^read by
ipt Resolution No. 4185, upholding \}ie Planning
amendation.
awart stated his concern is to protect tlje
(. I think DuFranc will need improvements,
other development in this area will n®®“ 7H.
sut for access. I think the 3-unit subdivis^n
Lmal impact on Ellis Court. I also like to . \
spment. I’ll vote against the Resolution.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15
OF November 21, 1989 __________
\3. ELLIS COURT, Continued: /
\Voting Aye: Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, & Mayor Miller / voting No: Councilmen Roventini & Stewart /
Coalman Roventini stated my negative vote on this Pg^Posal was basedNon an inadequacy and in the inequity of our zoning ordinance ahd the violation of the amhieHce arid envxrorient of this areaSs The staff proposal simply doesn t fit!/Tn judgement call\is clearly in the 3_loty^ubdivision
Lastly, to strap\the cost of mitigation o ^8+ future
to ultimately serW future development of a of portion,
homes without a refolding agreement, smacks of^xtorrio
Mayor Miller note^r. Cooonae hada^nUeman?‘
I think he got some bad press. He treat y
even tho I didn't support\is developing.

Mayor Miller called a br^k at Vl/50 p.m.

Mayor Miller reconvened meetWf at 12:05 a.m.

4. ORDINANCE AMENDING °“ "&f^8F RTSECi??TOFTIOt‘
OF THE MASTER STREET S H^GHWAT FOR THE CITY
SEBASTOPOL, TO ADOPT THE OFFICIAL P^<AN LINE FOR
EXTENSION OF JEWELL A/ENUE (For Adoph^on)
Reference: Planning Commission Resolu^n No. 11-89
adopted August If, 1989
Mayor Millerifead title ^Talter
“nln?H= PUnloi III City of Sebaatopol^o Adopt
?he oiftciajpflan Line for the Extension of Jewell AvW .

Mayo/Miller moved and councilman Magnie seconded th\motion to waive reading of the Ordinance.

Noting Aye: Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, Roventini, Stewart / & Mayor Miller N
/ Voting No: None
tf/ft

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989 page 16
k4. JEWELL, Continued:

Mayor Miller moved and Councilman Magnie seconded the motioj to 'Drlopt Ordinance No. 858.

Voting Aye: Councilmen Magnie, Stewart & Mayor Miller
Votrtjg No: Councilmen Johnson & Roventini
Councilman Johnson noted Mrs. Charmaine Kulka has pointed out in a similar situation in San Anselmo, that city Jz&ocked off a road at>epecific high hours of traffic.

6. ACCEPTANCE ok RESIGNATION FROM PARK & RECREA^ON COMMISSION Reference: LetD^r from Karen Christensen^Knowles dated
November 8, 1989
Mayor Miller moved si^d Councilman Roventini seconded the motion to accept resignation of Karen C}*ristensen-Knowles from Park & Recreation Commission. Motion ye^arried unanimously.

7. ORDINANCE PROHIBITING EMISSION J$R CREATION OF NOISE BEYOND CERTAIN AS SPECIFIED LEVELSN&vOURING CERTAIN HOURS (Con¬ struction Noise) (For Adoption)
Mayor Miller read title oZ the Ordinance: "An Ordinance of the City of Sebastopol PnohibitingSEmission or Creation of Noise Beyond Certain as S^cified Levels and During Certain Hours".

Mayor Miller moved^and Councilman RovenKini seconded the motion to waive reading of the Ordinance, having been read by title only, and adopt Ordinance No. 859.

Voting Aye:/Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, RoveD^ini, Stewart & Mayor Miller
Voting 5l6: None

8. ACCEP^NCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, BLOSSOM HILL SUBDIVISION Reference: Letter from City Engineer Mitchell dated ND^ember 1 989
Mayor Miller moved and Councilman Roventini seconded the )tion to accept public improvements in the Blossom Hill Subdi¬ vision and to file Notice of Completion.
a//W

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989

8. ACCEPTANCE, Continued:
page 17
\ Voting Aye: Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, Roventini, Stewart & Mayor Miller /
^foting No: None /

5. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SbLES TAX MEASURE (Cont. from Nov. 7th) /
Councilman Stewart reported on Growth Management Plan being proposed. Subdivisions would only be approved they fall under acceptect\L.O.S. standards; but there's no/enforcement mechanism yet. N^n the Transportation Expenditure Plan, local transit expenditures have been increased. Vi* sales tax plan is coming up. It wy^ll probably focus on U/S. 101 expenditures only. /

9. REPLY TO GRAND JUrXoN INTERIM REB<5rT ON COUNTY-WIDE DRUG

ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE /
References: Mayor Miller's letter of November 17, 1989; Sonoma County Grand Jury vnjzerim Report dated October 1989 Councilman Magnie stated/sh^Vs opposed to any new enforce¬ ment program without first^ddress^ng the demand for drugs (educational). /
Councilman Magnie nfoved and Councilman Roventini seconded the motion to authorize Mayor to sign tne letter. Motion carried unanimously. /
REPORTS FROM Cipr COUNCIL
Mayor MiLXer noted letter from Chairman Dooie asking City Council member to represent Mayors' & Councilmen’'s Association on the Coujtty Open Space Committee. City Council agreed to nominate/councilman Stewart. \
M/yor Miller reported he and Vice Mayor Roventini attended a function to select Honorary Mayor by Middle Way.
/ Councilman Roventini reported meeting on Library Advisory /Committee. Reference desk will shortly go to a computer sys-^v tern. \
V//4

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF November 21, 1989
'r^SPCIJTS, Continued:
page 18
CouncilltremStewart reported on upcoming Housing & Homeless luncheon. He iifvi^ed Sebastopol City Council memljer'Sto also attend, Tuesday, 11?U^a.m., November 28th.

Councilman Johnson noted <
city-wide traffic impact fee.
l6il needs to look at a
Councilman Johns^^-St-ated he has a proJaTbim^ith a Planning Commission raembep-^riting an article in a newspa^&s^on issues that havenj^t^ygt been settled by the City Council. ^Wliat^would happen^J^we referred it back to the Planning Commission/^Sbe J^ianrfing Commission member would need to have abstain.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Miller adjourned meeting at 12:55 a.m.

Respectfully submitted.

Melvin K. Davis
City Clerk

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF December 12. 1989
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING, Veterans1 Memorial Building, 282 High Street
Agenda for the meeting was posted at the City Hall Bulletin Board on December 8, 1989, 8:00 a.ra., by the City Clerk.

Mayor Miller called the Regular Adjourned Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

Salute to the Flag was led by City Manager Davis.

ROLL CALL: Present were Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, Stewart & Mayor Miller

Absent: Councilman Roventini (ill)
Staff Present: Traffic Consultant Laabs
City Manager Davis
Merle Johnson, Sr. Trans. Planner,
CalTrans
Tim Mayer, County Public Works
Rich Dobble, County Public Works
1 . INTRODUCTION OF BUSINESS FROM CITIZENS IN THE AUDIENCE No one asked to speak.

2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, SEBASTOPOL BYPASS STUDY
References: Letter from Julie Buckley dated December 8, 1989; Notice of Continued Hearing; Cost Estimates; Feasi¬ bility Report; Letter from Sonoma County Water Agency dated November 16, 1989; Letter from Chamber of Commerce dated November 16, 1989; Letter from California Native Plant
Society dated November 21, 1989; Memo from City Manager dated November 11, 1989; Memo from Walter Laabs dated
April 29, 1988
a. Review with Traffic Consultant
Mayor Miller noted there had been no City Council meeting held on this since November 21st. This is a continuation of that hearing of November 21st.

Mr. Walter Laabs, Traffic Engineer for City of Sebastopol, reviewed prior history of by-pass efforts: In 1958, there was a plan adopted by the County of Sonoma and included a 4 lane expressway, roughly following this green route (near the Laguna) on the map. Obviously, that was never built. But it was official County policy at that time. In the early '70's, the State of California prepared a new study for Highway 116 and they identified a 4 lane freeway bypass for downtown Sebastopol.

That was never built. In 1976, the Sonoma County Transportation

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 2

2. BYPASS, Continued:
a. Review, Continued:

Study was completed and they did not include a freeway bypass for downtown Sebastopol. They did include a route, called Route "E", just to the East of the downtown, partly in the city limits and partly out. In 1978, that was adopted as part of the County General Plan. In 1984, after some environmental work on that route, the City dropped Route "E" out of its General Plan, due to protests, so at that time there was no planned bypass for North-South traffic around Sebastopol. In 1987, the County published a public hearing draft on circulation and transit of the County General Plan. That included a road generally from Highway 12 to Occidental Road, extending North from Llano Road.

That was circulated for review for 2 years and finally adopted in the County General Plan, which was adopted this year, so this red route (Alternative #1) is not new. In April of 1987, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1987 was passed. At the request of the City of Sebastopol, a measure was included in that Act, which authorized a Feasibility Study of a bypass around Sebastopol, and because it was placed at the request of the City, the City Council is holding this public hearing. What the Study does, is try to answer some questions:
1 . How much would it cost to build?

2. Would there be a benefit, if the route was built?
He noted the costs in the Study do not include any costs for extending a new extension/improvement of Todd Road to Highway 116.
b. Mayor Miller opened the meeting to public comments.

Mrs. Jessie Karr, 600 Duer Rd., stated she owns the land where the Cotati Aquaduct goes. No one else can come onto our property. I don't see how you could put the road there.

Mayor Miller noted she'd be contacted later.

Mr. John Marrow, 580 Piezzi Lane, stated if this is intended to cut traffic away from Sebastopol, Alternatives 2 & 3 will take traffic from U.S. 101. I'll leave 101 North-bound, and take Todd Road to Llano Road North. You're going to get traffic all mixed up. I don't feel Piezzi Road will accommodate this traffic. It will be detrimental to us, to the kids and to livestock along Piezzi Lane.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 3

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Comments, Continued:

Mr. Dan Carlson, Utilities Dept., City of Santa Rosa, stated we had previously reviewed the earlier alternatives, and they had some impact and we felt they could be mitigated. But with this new Alternative #3, we have some concerns. The impact is significant. It affects Brown irrigation field. You'll affect Kelly field. These lands were purchased with Federal Clean Water Act funds and would need to be refunded. The agencies affected, have not had an opportunity to be consulted.

We'll lose irrigation capacity. You'll impact a proposed added pond on the Kelly field. We're also concerned with the impact on the Laguna de Santa Rosa, and plans for wildlife enhancement.

We request you take a closer look before endorsing it tonight.

Mr. Jim Searles, 5666 Verni Rd., objected to use of a 1980 aerial. It's irresponsible to use such an old map. On the new alternative, why did you remove Alternative #4 from the last meeting? That's not right. I believe you have a much more serious problem going East-West than North-South. A lot of truck traffic emanates from right in town (2 truckers) plus Sebastopol Ready Mix. I think you'll have to elevate this new road. I don't agree with statement in the Study that a NorthSouth alternate is needed. I don't agree with statement in the Study that the quality of life will deteriorate. What about our quality of life on Verni Road? I don't agree with statement that funding be sought for the purposes of conducting detailed studies, obtaining clearances and right of way. If a bill is taken to Washington by Bosco to get funding, the thing is under way. It's automatic; it's not going to get stopped once that happens. I'm going to fight you tooth and nail.

Mr. Frank Baumgardner, 2575 Blucher Valley Rd., stated Sonoma County needs to come to grips with the future and with growth.

I prefer Alternative #1, near the Laguna. You don't displace that many people. You're better off environmental-wise and cost-wise with that Alternative. The City of Sebastopol is being engulfed by regional traffic. The time to move on this, is now. Come to a reasonable agreement and get started.

Ms. Helen Cousier, 440 Sanford Rd., Santa Rosa, asked what will be the impact of any of these alternatives on Sanford Road?

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 Pa9e 4

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Comments, Continued:

Mr. William Haigwood, 7090 Fircrest Ave., member of Planning Commission, stated traffic congestion is not from the City, but from others going thru Sebastopol. It's from new residents to East, West, North & South of Sebastopol. Yes, the downtown would benefit from less traffic, less noise and less dust & exhaust. Getting the heavy trucks out of town would help.

The real question is the traffic going to be on new roads that are safer, or existing roads thru Sebastopol not designed for this traffic?
Ms. Charmaine Kulka, 7851 Brookside Ave., stated we already have bypasses with existing routes like Occidental Road. Why not have an ordinance re-routing truck traffic out of downtown, under an agreement with the State?
Mr. Norm Stupfel, 7508 E. Hurlbut, stated he felt most of the objections can be mitigated. I don't see diversion of traffic away from downtown will adversely affect downtown businesses. I think it will become more viable if serious shoppers can get around.

Mrs. Harriet Rimes, Chamber of Commerce, noted Chamber's support of a bypass. We encourage you to select route that s the less disruptive.

Julie Jaffe, 6555 Duer Rd., spoke in favor of a no action alternative. What do you plan to do with the pollution? Loss of green land? You must have the imagination other than constructing a new route. Have public transportation that really works.

Mr. Lionel Campbell, 7925 Coleman Valley Rd., Occidental, spoke in favor of not laying more asphalt. You may need to look at a combination of small steps. What about express buses? Relay the railroad tracks? Merge the East-West traffic on Occi¬ dental Road with Sebastopol Road (in Roseland). Create a citi¬ zens' committee with a time schedule. Let it come from the grass roots.

Ms. Janice Atkinson, 5569 Verni Rd., stated there is an East-West traffic problem. But despite that, there s a NorthSouth traffic problem. We want to preserve our neighborhood too. I'm not that concerned about the shoppers. I think you

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 5

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Comments, Continued:
need a 4-lane highway going thru Sebastopol. Sebastopol is not blameless. You've doubled the number of voters inside your city, in 10 years. Draw a 4-lane alternate route thru down¬ town Sebastopol.

Mr. Paul Thielen, 466 Pleasant Hill Ave. No., stated people are already using his road as a bypass. That trend will continue. If you don't deal with it, people will use roads not designed for heavy traffic. I encourage you to act
responsibly on it.

Mr. Daryl Davis, 5239 Douglas Lane, Forestville, stated he's member of Sebastopol Downtown Task Force. We heard frequently in our study that the #1 problem is traffic.

Mr. Steve Anton, 125 So. Main St., read a "position paper" from the Sebastopol Downtown Association: "The obvious conclu¬ sion would be that the Sebastopol Downtown Association endorses a bypass purely for economic reasons, even tho the endorsement of a vehicular bypass is a key element of the Sebastopol Downtown Study; the consentual plan was sponsored by Sebastopol Tomorrow, the Chamber of Commerce 4 the Sebastopol Downtown Association.

As early as 1985, Sebastopol Downtown Association has appeared before the City Council voicing our concerns for pedestrian safety. We've conducted an independent meeting with CalTrans 4 Sebastopol Police Department in this regard and embarked on a study of our downtown, and with the assistance of a consultant, we conducted an in-depth analysis of traffic in our city and the outlying areas. We live with the traffic on the two state Highways 12 4 116 every day, and constantly hear from our senior population, 1/4 of our city's residents, who are fearful of our streets due to the volume of traffic in our downtown. To simply redesignate an existing road as alternative truck route, without the construction of a bypass, would do more harm to the outlying residential areas than good. As business owners we know where our customers travel from to Sebastopol, the Graton-Forestville areas as well as Bay-Occidental-Freestone areas. Thus any solution is not an easy one. So you must have the courage as well as our support, in developing an alternative that looks beyond our "own neighborhood" approach and maintains the vision to look into the future.

CITY COyNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 6
• 2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Comments, Continued:

We are aware that the development of a by-pass alone can be viewed as growth-inducing. The need for a bypass was perceived as early as 1958 and it takes only a single visit to our downtown at any time of the day, any day of the week to recognize that traffic is at a critical stage now and that we must begin work on a solution now, if we are only to play catch-up to meet the growth that has already passed us by.

Our concern is not only the number of cars and trucks or the speed that they travel through these two state highways, but also the environmental impact of the fumes and noise this volume of traffic creates through a densely populated residentialcommercial area, estimated to be 40,000 cars and trucks per day.

We are not suggesting that our problem revert to someone else.

Instead, we recognize that traffic is a regional problem - 100 downtown businesses and 6,500 people, one quarter of which are elderly could not possibly be responsible for this volume of traffic. Thus, any solution must be regional in response, striking a balance between respecting the Laguna, a precious environmental resource and most importantly preserving the integrity of outlying residential areas.

The decision you are about to make is difficult and complex and those who have participated in the Sebastopol Downtown Plan understand that developing a consensus does not mean he who speaks the loudest or the most wins, instead that all opinions are voiced and deliberated equally and that sometimes you must compromise a staunch position to the benefit of something greater.

It is the Sebastopol Downtown Association's hope that you can develop a safe and efficient solution to all of our traffic problems, a solution that best addresses the various concerns voiced here tonight and outlined in your October 1989 Bypass Feasibility Report and that work begin on a bypass while it still has a chance to be of help to our ever-growing traffic problem and that Sebastopol can become that safe, friendly town that we are all working hard to preserve and our downtown can remain the civic and cultural center of our fine city".

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 7
* 2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Comments, Continued:

Mr. Ron Rolleri, 549 Hart Lane, stated the problem is EastWest. Building more highways isn't the solution. I see these alternatives as inviting motorists from U.S. 101. Your truck traffic won't be changed.' Yes, 116 is crowded. The trucks are coming here. Put another lane on U.S. 101.

Mr. James Neider, 542 Hart Lane, stated Sebastopol is cre¬ ating its own problems. You've allowed new developments along Highway 116, North & South. Alternate #1 (red line) would go thru a virgin stand of oak trees & vernal ponds. I think you should be looking at the East-West problem, not North-South.

I suggest as another alternative, extend Morris St. North, and likewise extend it to South, all on West side of the Laguna, on your own side. On Alternative #3, you could move it closer to the 80' contour. This study is using maps that are out of date. They don't show our neighborhoods.

Mr. Jim Gilkinson, 475 Duer Rd., stated he saw this driven by need, money & politics. Wisdom is lacking. Form a democratic committee of reasonable people with a fixed schedule. You ought to look at other considerations. The East-West should be your emphasis, not North-South. (Todd, Occidental & Guerneville Roads are the obvious). Run a Southerly lane rough thru Sebastopol, and eliminate parking on the streets. Build a downtown garage. Why not link in Todd to Stony Point Road, and project Wright Road Southerly to Todd. Appoint a committee.

Mr. Tim Garrett, resident of Irwin Lane, Santa Rosa,
pointed out cost, public safety and effect on the environment.

I'd like to offer my land to get something done, with Alternative #1 (red line) if you shift it slightly.

Mr. Jeff Atkinson, 5569 Verni Rd., stated he felt downtown merchants are trying to move traffic. If you pick Alternative #1, it will shift commercial development out there. It'll pro¬ mote growth and break down open space between Sebastopol & Santa Rosa.

Mrs. Gerri Buckley, 543 Hart Ln., stated she didn't feel the best solution has been found. There have been new solutions offered tonight. She urged City Council to continue to look for alternatives.

CITY COPNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 8

2. BYPASS, Continued:
b. Public Comments, Continued:

Mr. Thomas Staggart, 5591 Verni Rd., asked where is the traffic going North? A lot of traffic is from North end of Sebastopol to Redwood Marketplace. That's where the trucks are going. Most traffic is East-West.

Mrs. Lolly Petroni, Country Home, 150 No. Main St., stated we do have a definite traffic problem. I believe Occidental Road is also an East-West alternative, as well as a North-South route.

No one else asking to speak. Mayor Miller closed the public comments.

Mayor Miller called a break at 9:00 p.m.

Mayor Miller reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
c. Council Action
At the request of. the Mayor, Traffic Consultant Laabs
answered the questions raised. On the grant deed of Mrs. Jessie Karr, that will have to be considered. The fact that part of the route floods, will be looked at. The impact on Sanford Road was not studied. On a truck traffic ordinance, City Council would need to get concurrence with CalTrans and new truck route would need to be able to handle trucks. Trucks destined for Sebastopol and coming from, would still have right of access.

Slower moving traffic causes more pollution. Bus traffic have to use roads too. Rail transit would need new right of way and need feeder buses. Transit is heavily subsidized. People don't use transit unless there's heavy congestion. Yes, there's an East-West traffic problem. It was decided early not to try both at the same time. If North-South bypass goes forward, we'll next move on East-West. We didn't look at Wright Road going South. Stony Point Road widening/realigning is still going thru environmental study. On use of Morris Street North & South, that's the former Route E, taken out of Sebastopol General Plan of 1984. On growth, it could be that access routes would be purchased at same time as right of way is acquired.

At request of Councilman Magnie, Mr. Laabs reviewed traffic license plate survey that was taken:. A preliminary review showed

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 9

2. BYPASS, Continued:
c. Action, Continued:
that a bypass would divert 40% of the peak hour traffic on Highway 116 at Llano Road and 37% of the peak hour traffic on Highway 116 at Occidental Road. There would be a 20% reduction of peak hour traffic on Highway 12.

Mr. Merle Johnson, CalTrans, reported the report will next go to Washington, D.C. We must get it there by the end of January. This is still a feasibility study. They are only conceptual routes. The problems of East-West traffic should have a separate feasibility study too. It will be a county route; funded by the county and possibility of grant funds.

The problems cited will lead to further studies. There'll be EIR's, EIS's, and further hearings.

Mr. Tim Mayer, Environmental Director of County Public Works Department, described what detail goes into an Environmental Report: Initial Study; Ecologic Surveys; Botanical Surveys; Biotic Surveys; Noise Studies; an endless amount of studies goes into the Environmental Report. There are many opportunities for the public to comment on the studies and the process.

Traffic Consultant Laabs added, individuals could write direct to their Congressman or to the Secretary of Transporta¬ tion.

In answer to Councilman Johnson, Traffic Consultant Laabs stated Board of Supervisors would act later, if funds become available for further studies.

In reply to Councilman Stewart, Mr. Merle Johnson replied that any recommendation from City Council would be taken seriously. If it's planned to ultimately turn it over to the State, then it would need to be built at State standards.

Existing improvements on Llano Road are not at State standards, and it would be costly to change that over to State standards.

Councilman Magnie stated, I conclude having a bypass has certain impacts; and not having a bypass has certain impacts.

We feel it's important to enhance our downtown as part of our community. The traffic also impacts other streets outside of the downtown, such as Pleasant Hill Avenue North. There's no

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 10

2. BYPASS, Continued:
c. Action, Continued:
ideal solution. This process has been 30 years in the making.

I have concerns on all the alignments. Any of the routes could be 1,000 feet in any direction. I'm in favor of going ahead with additional studies. I feel Alternative #3 as proposed, is worthy of further study. It would be irresponsible for us to turn our back on it.

Councilman Stewart stated I too feel need to maintain a sense of community and how to create a more desirable downtown and get away from strip commercial. Solution is not simply of construction of new roads. It has to be part of a coordinated policy on land use. We need a new pattern that can be served by transit, with higher densities along urban corridors. We've had a bucolic land use development permitted, that's caused these traffic problems. It's all of West County. We need restrictive zoning to protect any development along any new route. I'm pleased with the demonstration of public interest.

I'm pleased with the new Alternative #3 as result of public comments from the first hearing. I'd like to see it relabeled as Alternative #6, and-that- be our proforrod—alternative-. Yes, ft I see a number of issues that need more study under the new alternative: the impact on the Laguna; and the impact of a new intersection crossing Highway 12. I therefore prefer the old Route #3, and there be further studies on both Alternatives #3 & 6.

Councilman Johnson stated he too, felt the public process is working. We've responded to the concerns of residents of Duer Road, Hart Lane, and Verni Road. I don't think this is just a downtown Sebastopol issue. It's a regional issue. I think our town has done its share. We took one step with a 1-way street system. It's time to move on. My preferred route is the modified Alternative #3 (which Councilman Stewart calls #6). Yes, there are environmental issues to be resolved. I think we need to move forward.

Mayor Miller stated I support moving ahead on an alternative.

I favor a relief from traffic. Yes, I agree we also ought to label the new alternative as §6. He read a proposed letter to U.S. Secretary of Transportation: "The Sebastopol City Council heard public input on the Study on November 21, 1989 and December 12, 1989. After reviewing the Study and hearing

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1969 page 11

2. BYPASS, Continued:
c.Action, Continued:
the public comments, the City Council takes the following actions:

1. We endorse Alternative #3, as modified (Llano Road
Northwest);

2. We urge that an initial environmental study be made, on Alternative #3 (as modified), to address the fol¬
lowing needed mitigations:
a. Effects on the Laguna de Santa Rosa;
b. Effects on the waste irrigation system of the City
of Santa Rosa;
c. That the Todd Road extension to the West be ex¬
cluded;
d. That the County and City work to assure that no
strip commercial or isolated new private commer¬
cial development shall take place or be allowed
because of the new route;
e. Investigate staging the construction, in order to
bring traffic relief as soon as possible;
f. That the route be 2.lanes, with shoulders constructed to County standards;
g. That traffic, noise & air pollution in any neighbor¬ hoods be investigated.

3. The Sebastopol City Council stands ready to help expedite the above and pledges its support and cooperation."
Mayor Miller moved and Councilman Johnson seconded the motion to approve sending the letter.

Councilman Johnson objected to deleting Todd Road. It's in the County General Plan.

Councilman Stewart objected to (f). I prefer construction to State standards. I don't know if I have enough information to exclude Alternative #1 at this point. I don't feel I can endorse #3(6) without further environmental information. I have concerns on Todd Road but I agree to deleting Todd Road for now.

Councilman Magnie proposed on (f) - there be further study of being construction at either State or County standards.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 12
‘ 2. BYPASS, Continued
c. Action, Continued:

I object to Todd Road, but I see merit at this point, of keeping options open.

In answer to question, Mr. Merle Johnson stated it would be better to leave a broader recommendation at this time.

Councilman Stewart moved to add an Alternative if 6, which would be #3 as modified, and Mayor Miller seconded the motion.

In answer to Councilman Johnson, Mr. Merle Johnson answered he didn't think there was time to modify the whole report.

Councilman Stewart withdrew his motion and Mayor Miller withdrew his second.

Councilman Stewart stated he regrets the loss of the original Alternative #3. I'd like to maintain it for additional analysis.

Mr. Johnson suggested you could mention your concerns without changing your report.

Councilman Stewart agreed with that.

City Council agreed to delete reference to Todd Road.

City Council agreed to delete reference to State or County construction standards
Councilman Stewart noted City Council doesn't want to endorse Alternative if 1 (the Laguna) nor Alternative if2 (Llano Road Northerly to Piezzi Lane).

Councilman Johnson moved and Mayor Miller seconded the motion to inform Secretary of Transportation that the Sebastopol City Council requests there be further detailed studies of a Sebastopol North-South Bypass, which is an upgrading of Llano Road with a Northwesterly extension to Occidental Road.

CITY COWNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989 page 13

2. BYPASS, Continued:
c. Action, Continued:

Councilman Magnie stated the motion is satisfactory to her.

Voting Aye: Councilmen Johnson, Magnie, Stewart & Mayor Miller
Voting No: None
Absent : Councilman Roventini
Mayor Miller called a break at 10:36 p.m. SMayor Miller reconvened meeting at 10:50 p.m. ’REET (Southpoint Avenue)
imes Costello dated Novembpr'27,
the Resolution: lIResolution
: Avenue".
icilman Jphfison seconded the motion
:ion, hfftfing been read by title
418>frenaming Finnilla Avenue
Voting Aye
Voting No
Absent
Councilmep^johnsolv. Stewart & Mayor Miller
Councilman Magnie N.

CourKfilman Roventini
REPORTS FROM C£PY COUNCIL \
Mayor^M^ller read letter from City of Sonoma oh\earthquake relief„0T $1,000 to Santa Cruz, and asking other cities to do the sdme. \
City Council decided not to take any action.

X///7

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF December 12, 1989
^REPORTS, Continued:
page 14
Councilman Johnson noted he's looking forward to CDBG^afti plicati^v^review by the City Council. I think we've accom¬ plished a ibt^^under this program.

Councilman Jomtsqn noted hearing to beheld by Assemblyman Hauser on December 1 3th^A 14th. Counci^m^n Stewart noted he'd be speaking at the hearin^v^
Councilman Stewart repor^cdohv^teps toward railroad right of way acquisition (Northjws^t Railro^dl Larkspur to Novato) by the Golden Gate Brjj4^e District.

Councilmanj4£fgnie stated she's concerned th^re^s a lack of communication between different City bodies in otK^City governm^jyC;
^^^^councilman Stewart reported on homeless meeting with othe^v.

City representatives. Turnout was not good.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Miller adjourned meeting at 11:00 p.m. He noted City Council will not meet on December 19thf due to holiday. Next meeting is January 2, 1990.

Respectfully submitted,
1 ,.**/• X--
Melvin K. Davis
City Clerk
SONOMA
COUNTY

LIBRARY I
fo renew* para renovar !
707.566.028t
sonomalibrary.org