Alignments C and G have a very poor exit onto hwy 101, with a rail crossing and necessity of a stopsign or light. Alignment H does not have the rail crossing, but still has a poor connection to 101. These three go a lot further than alignment I, and cost more. Alignment B offers almost NO advantage since it starts several thousand feet South of Brooktrails, and offers no traffic relief. The exit at 101 is also suspect.

Alignment I serves as a great exit for the residents of Brooktrails North of its intersection with Sherwood at Primrose, and exits at the traffic circle part of the new 101 Bypass Alignment. This leaves Sherwood open for emergency vehicle traffic coming into Brooktrails while residents leave via I. I is also a great bypass of Willits for traffic going North or South. The needs of Brooktrails are best served at a reasonable cost with alignment I.

Robert Terry

Alignment I is the only one worth doing and makes the most practical sense. The others are too costly, poorly placed in regards to 101 and do not serve as a good alternate exit route in emergencies. The grade seems best on I. Go with Alignment I.

Alignment I will work the best.

5. Discussion of comments by Board members for Second Access Road Feasibility Study.

The Board of Directors unanimously favored Alignment I. Director Horrick said he favored Alignment I; President Skezas commented that he also favored Alignment I.

Director Orth commented he agreed with Alignment I. He then passed out a comment sheet to the directors made by his wife. Her letter said she favored Alignment I; Director Ziady asked why the Board was getting this letter and Director Orth said she works in the Transportation Office and wanted the Board to know her feelings. General Manager Chapman commented he needed a copy of the letter for the record.

He said that under the contract with KOA (engineer consultants), a provision within the agreement said if they didn't see any already-determined alignment as best suited for our needs, they could come up with their own engineer's alignment, and that's how Alignment I came to fruition. Director Orth said Alignments C & G did not intersect the 101 Willits Bypass project at a point, as designed by CalTrans, to accommodate a second access road. This was because it required a crossing of a railroad, and a road segment that is not part of the bypass would require a lighted intersection. He further added C & G are the most expensive roads to build. He said our comments should say Alignments C & G are not appropriate as the preferred alignments because he felt the State would not give us a permit to enter the 101 corridor for either of them. Mr. Orth commented that Bob Parker (DOT Engineer) had said at the previous meeting he didn't think Alignment H was buildable. Alignment H also needed to be corrected as its lower portion lands on a mobile home park, which CalTrans would never do, and which would hugely add to the expense.

Director Orth then commented on a crossover point between Alignment I and the Brooktrails Drive intersection. Regarding that kind of intersection we are not meeting those kinds of road standards. He commented that Mr. Parker in the previous meeting had said we need to build a road that meets all federal and state standards to get federal and state dollars. Director Orth concluded that the Primrose and Alignment I were appropriate and would be safe and usable for the majority of residents. He said he thought the third access road (KOA Campground entry point on Highway 20) should be discussed as well, with the third road happening 10-20 years after the second access. This was important because he anticipated Brooktrails having to enact a development charge which would put money into a pot for the third access road, and that way the EIR would show a total circulation plan via the 1997 Specific Plan. Lastly, he mentioned that the Willits City Council would have this on their agenda tomorrow (July 23, 2008) and he would attend. He felt Alignment B was probably useless.

Director Ziady said she would favor Alignment I. She said she was responsible for the residents who live here now. Besides fiscal responsibility, she said she represented all the property owners who are trying to obtain water one day. Weighing those three things, she said, she would take Alignment I as well.

Director Williams favored Alignment I. It seemed to him that we need a natural logical split, where one section of Brooktrails goes one way and the other section goes the current way (i.e., Sherwood Road). The problem he had with C & H was that taking the longer routes possible to Highway 101 made little sense. Alignment I seemed to be a very direct route and came out closest to the traffic interchange circle on Highway 101 of all of them. The others seemed to have tremendous grade and cut problems, and that Alignment I seemed to follow the natural grade more than the others, although there was a fairly precipitous drop right at the end. He said he assumed the grades were fire truck safe, because if you're trying to get fire equipment into Brooktrails, H, G and C increasingly made no sense.

Brief discussion followed about private property owner reaction around that alignment. President Skezas said he felt direction had been given on the issue. Mr. Chapman said no one had posted any comments on the website and we have received one letter from a citizen favoring Alignment I.

E. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
2. KOA Corp. and Mendocino County Dept. of Transportation - Brooktrails Second Access Road. General Manager Chapman introduced Bob Parker of the Mendocino County Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Parker said he was impressed with KOA Corporation's preparation of exhibits for this meeting, and in particular the map showing the alternate routes along with the fill and cut required for each. This data is important because we will have to meet federal and state funding standards. This is the feasibility study and eventually we will have a recommended route to present to the County Supervisors and the District Board. Mr. Parker reported two major objectives to balance: egress, and improving traffic circulation in the vicinity. Partners in this effort are MCOG, the County Supervisors, and the Brooktrails Board. The feasibility study should be completed by August 2008.

Farhad Iranitalab of KOA Corporation, the road consultants, said they were looking at some (although not all) of the actual issues in building this road. They looked at factors such as traffic, accidents on Sherwood, traffic counts and where vehicles were coming from; they found that at least 85% of people like to go south, and 40% would like to bypass and go to Highway 101. KOA looked at how to get people from the southwest and northwest corners to the bypass interchange. There were impacts on aesthetics, slope and drainage that had to be included; the goal is to move the most people for the least cost. They had developed five alternatives, adding a new Alignment I. Today''s meeting was just to gather information. Therefore, he could not go too deeply into each alignment; however, they did have a range of cost for each. Mr. Iranitalab said the County has their own road standards which they will follow.

Director Orth noted that all the alternatives cross at one point and it was possible to use either intersection alignment at Primrose and Brooktrails Drive. Alignments C and G would have to have a rail crossing as well as a light to have access to a state highway. He felt we should study a combination of I and H. Mr. Iranitalab said that any combination of these was possible. Mr. Parker said they would like to receive comments and recommendations in writing; this could be done to him or to the Brooktrails website.

He felt it was very appropriate to consider a combination of some of these.

Director Williams asked about having an access route coming in higher up on Sherwood Road due to the population in that area. Mr. Iranitalab said the count showed that fewer people were coming in from that area, and commented if people had to go north and then east and then south, a lot of people would simply not use it. Director Williams asked where, if we get more water, most of the growth in Brooktrails will likely be. Mr. Chapman said it would be the airport side; that's why our capital improvement plans include putting a one-half million gallon tank over there. Mr. Iranitalab said there were a total of 8,000 - 10,000 vehicle trips south of there today. If you placed another 2,000 houses you're talking about 15,000 - 20,000 vehicles in circulation. Director Williams said we cannot do the growth unless we have the second access, so that kind of traffic should be anticipated.

Director Orth said we first petitioned the County for the second access road in 1985 for the safety issues, so it has never been considered a need to accommodate growth until now. We do recognize that putting in additional water facilities requires this project, to accommodate further growth.

Mr. Parker asked for questions. Richard Estabrook asked what level of CEQA documentation they anticipated. The response was the maximum. Mr. Estabrook asked if the Brooktrails Fire Department or CDF had been involved in this; Mr. Parker said they haven't formally been involved yet but they wanted input from all types of residents and stakeholders.

Mark Edwards said he worked for the North Coast Resource Management and had been involved in the project for quite a few years, and they were willing to support Alignment C. He said some of these roads couldn't be built. He said they believed the study had an artificially narrow analysis of alternatives and excluded the full extent of feasible alternatives and several alignments north of Sherwood Drive or the KOA Highway 20. He supported the airport corridor connected to the northwest and he thought this was primarily for emergency access. He pointed to a road B and said he didn't think it was buildable. He asked what the merit was in having everyone rush down Sherwood Road all trying to get on a connector road that was low on the hill; he would say a higher access would be safer although it might not be the shortest route. He said he could only imagine the protestations from everyone that would come from a proposal to build a road through pristine agricultu!ral pro!
perty [Padula Ranch]; all the properties along this road enjoyed looking out across the valley. Now, he said, you'd spend $20 million for a growth-induced road. He said you should look at Alignment C, and they are on record saying they would give the County the right-of-way; you wouldn't be subject to condemnation and eminent domain costs. He said it's not simply engineering costs, but what does it do to the environment and your neighbors, and what is the true cost as there are a lot of hidden costs.

A Ms. Wellman said her driveway connected with a higher alignment and she said a high percentage of the accidents on Sherwood are from icy conditions. She said the costs of maintaining a longer and higher road would be expensive; she said it was about more than just an emergency, it was about going to work. She said any road would affect somebody, and nobody wanted traffic going by so the choice is tough. And it will have to go through somebody's property.

Mr. Iranitalab said just building a road by itself doesn't do anything. He said cost is very heavy no matter how you look at it and Alignment C is one of the most expensive on their preliminary cost estimates. You're talking about $16 - $19 million on that alignment. C and H are the most expensive, because of the airport and a lot more environmental impacts than the others. Cost on I is between $8 - $12 million. Alignment B is $5.5 million; D is $16 - $19 million; G is $13 - $16 million; H is $14 - $18 million. He added that Alignment C wouldn't be the best alignment to relieve congestion on Sherwood. He said you have to look at slope and drainage too. He wanted to try to avoid adding more traffic going down Sherwood Road.

Director Williams said he drives Sherwood from Primrose and while there was traffic there, there's never really enough to be a bother. Director Orth said none of these routes are going to be non-problematic, whether it's eminent domain and private property issues or who''s going to use the road, when and why. Due to CEQA processes, none of these lines might be the final project, but we have to listen to the experts.

President Skezas noted for the audience that the consultants would like to have comments in writing. Mr. Parker said they could be sent to him at DOT or electronically to the Brooktrails website.
An audience member said C, G and H are all counterproductive; they all go through mountainous areas and out to 101. He felt Alternative I was the best route because it drops off at the Highway 101 off-ramp. He said he lived off Lupine. All these roads, he said, seem to come into the same spot in the heart of Brooktrails and you needed to get into a more populous area because no one's going to drive through this mountainous pass just to relieve traffic; drivers are going to take the quickest, straightest route. He asked if anyone had ever looked at doing something with Highway 20. Director Orth responded that this had been done in the past but there wasn't enough population; he said we do have an emergency access dirt road down to KOA Campground today (Highway 20).

Director Orth commented on the frontage road design that was obtained as part of the CalTrans bypass design; the purpose of the bypass was to eliminate stoplights, and therefore you couldn't have a stoplight at the interchange with a second access road. You also had to accommodate the railroad, and these are some of the problems in the process.

Director Williams asked where the ranch (Padula) was in relation to Alignment I. He said what he didn't like about it was the riparian issues. Changing subjects, Mr. Parker said he wasn't sure H was actually buildable because there was a big cliff. Director Williams said he would never think of putting an access road on a 12% grade. Comments were made about the short steep incline at the entrance to Brooktrails, Sherwood, Goose, and other roads with steep inclines.

An audience member asked, if any alternatives went through private property, would that leave them free to subdivide. Director Orth said there would be a mitigation plan which would have to address those kinds of issues. But the airport area itself restricted development because of the airport emergency zone. An audience member asked if anyone had an estimate of the time it would take to take these routes. Mr. Estabrook said there was a study posted on the website he did in the late '90s on the question of time savings of various alternatives.

President Skezas thanked the public for attending and the presenters.

Alignment I will work the best

Alignment I is the best way

I feel that Alignment I will be the best choice for me. The other choices are poorly placed in my opion.